Amkerman's Argument For God

Christianity, Islam, Other Religions & Belief Systems.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#141  Postby amkerman » May 17, 2012 8:39 pm

I hope you can understand why classical logic can not help with shrunks argument as he is using a term "square circle" which is an empty set.


Classical logic requires each singular term to denote an object in the domain of quantification—an “existing” object. Free logic does not. Free logic is therefore useful for analyzing discourse containing singular terms that either are empty (have no referent or refer to objects that do not exist) or might be.



http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-free/
Bring me gold and bring me wisdom- give me scars to bring me grace.

A wicked wit and when I use it I dash the hopes of those who hate me.

Give me love- big as a mountain.

Dave Matthews
amkerman
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1820
Age: 33
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#142  Postby Thommo » May 17, 2012 8:41 pm

amkerman wrote:I hope you can understand why classical logic can not help with shrunks argument as he is using a term "square circle" which is an empty set.


Why are you avoiding the question?

Can you agree that "existence is not a predicate" is categorically a true statement about classical logic then I assume, as that is definitively shown in them? What logic are you working from?

(and no, there's absolutely no problem with defining square circles in classical logic, they are defined in classical logic)
Last edited by Thommo on May 17, 2012 8:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 21860

Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#143  Postby amkerman » May 17, 2012 8:42 pm

See my previous post.
Bring me gold and bring me wisdom- give me scars to bring me grace.

A wicked wit and when I use it I dash the hopes of those who hate me.

Give me love- big as a mountain.

Dave Matthews
amkerman
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1820
Age: 33
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#144  Postby Thommo » May 17, 2012 8:43 pm

amkerman wrote:See my previous post.


It doesn't answer the question, do you even know how a "term" is defined in logic? (This is a specific logical word, not a loose English phrase).
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 21860

Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#145  Postby amkerman » May 17, 2012 8:48 pm

Because classical logic's singular terms must denote existing things (when, as usual, ‘∃’ is read as “there exists”), classical logic is unreliable in application to statements containing singular terms whose referents either do not exist or are not known to. Consider, for example, the true statement:

(S) We detect no motion of the earth relative to the ether,
using ‘the ether’ as a singular term for the light-bearing medium posited by nineteenth century physicists. The reason why (S) is true is that, as we now know, the ether does not exist. According to classical logic, however, (S) is false, because it implies the existence of the ether. Free logic allows such statements to be true despite the non-referring singular term. Indeed, it allows even statements of the form ~∃x x=t (e.g., “the ether does not exist”) to be true, though in classical logic, which presumes that t refers to an object in the quantificational domain, they are self-contradictory.


Which hopefully illucidates why shrunks premise 1 is self contradictory in terms of classical logic.
Bring me gold and bring me wisdom- give me scars to bring me grace.

A wicked wit and when I use it I dash the hopes of those who hate me.

Give me love- big as a mountain.

Dave Matthews
amkerman
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1820
Age: 33
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#146  Postby Thommo » May 17, 2012 8:54 pm

amkerman wrote:
Because classical logic's singular terms must denote existing things (when, as usual, ‘∃’ is read as “there exists”), classical logic is unreliable in application to statements containing singular terms whose referents either do not exist or are not known to. Consider, for example, the true statement:

(S) We detect no motion of the earth relative to the ether,
using ‘the ether’ as a singular term for the light-bearing medium posited by nineteenth century physicists. The reason why (S) is true is that, as we now know, the ether does not exist. According to classical logic, however, (S) is false, because it implies the existence of the ether. Free logic allows such statements to be true despite the non-referring singular term. Indeed, it allows even statements of the form ~∃x x=t (e.g., “the ether does not exist”) to be true, though in classical logic, which presumes that t refers to an object in the quantificational domain, they are self-contradictory.


Which hopefully illucidates why shrunks premise 1 is self contradictory in terms of classical logic.


No it doesn't, because it's not.

Simply explained, that example is unlike this example:-
"If God exists, he is a square circle."

Because there is no assumption of the existence of either god, or square circles.

Now, rather than editing in links to your earlier posts, can you please give a straightforward answer, what logic are you claiming your working from? Is it free logic as I see you've pasted that in to 2 of those posts?
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 21860

Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#147  Postby amkerman » May 17, 2012 8:57 pm

I think so.
Bring me gold and bring me wisdom- give me scars to bring me grace.

A wicked wit and when I use it I dash the hopes of those who hate me.

Give me love- big as a mountain.

Dave Matthews
amkerman
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1820
Age: 33
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#148  Postby Thommo » May 17, 2012 8:59 pm

:roll:
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 21860

Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#149  Postby amkerman » May 17, 2012 9:03 pm

Classical logic requires that each term denotes an existing object.

If square circles are defined as things which can't exist, the statement "if God(exists) then God is a square circle" is false, and the argument is invalid in classical logic from the start.
Bring me gold and bring me wisdom- give me scars to bring me grace.

A wicked wit and when I use it I dash the hopes of those who hate me.

Give me love- big as a mountain.

Dave Matthews
amkerman
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1820
Age: 33
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#150  Postby LucidFlight » May 17, 2012 9:09 pm

amkerman wrote:Classical logic requires that each term denotes an existing object.

You might want to stick with free logic, then, if you're dealing with god(s). :)
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
User avatar
LucidFlight
RS Donator
 
Name: Bob Bobson
Posts: 9078
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#151  Postby Thommo » May 17, 2012 9:15 pm

amkerman wrote:Classical logic requires that each term denotes an existing object.

If square circles are defined as things which can't exist, the statement "if God(exists) then God is a square circle" is false, and the argument is invalid in classical logic from the start.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_%28logic%29

The important thing to notice here is that "God" is not a constant symbol, variable or function symbol of the language and nor is "square circle", they are formulae. They would be constructed from terms which do not have empty domains. This is simply not a problem. You have just confused the technical meanings of "term" and "formula".
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 21860

Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#152  Postby amkerman » May 17, 2012 9:23 pm

There are two key types of legal expressions: terms, which intuitively represent objects, and formulas, which intuitively express predicates that can be true or false

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_(first-order_logic)#section_2

And you are trying to claim that "god" and "square circle" are not terms, but formulas?...

:popcorn:

My goodness.
Bring me gold and bring me wisdom- give me scars to bring me grace.

A wicked wit and when I use it I dash the hopes of those who hate me.

Give me love- big as a mountain.

Dave Matthews
amkerman
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1820
Age: 33
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#153  Postby Thommo » May 17, 2012 10:16 pm

amkerman wrote:
There are two key types of legal expressions: terms, which intuitively represent objects, and formulas, which intuitively express predicates that can be true or false

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_(first-order_logic)#section_2

And you are trying to claim that "god" and "square circle" are not terms, but formulas?...

:popcorn:

My goodness.


What's remotely strange about that? "x is a circle" and "x is a square" are defined by formulas, it's fairly obvious that the conjunction of those would be a formula denoting a square circle (in fact this is true even if they are defined by terms, so it would still be a correct objection).

God is a bit more hazardous, but god surely isn't a constant, variable or function so if we can discuss him at all, he has to be represented by a formula (further if I suffer from him being an empty referent due to his nonexistence that serves fairly well to undercut your entire position as well). I won't dwell on this as your argument is every bit as contingent on the ability for "god" to be meaningfully defined as any other argument is.

Perhaps if you disagree you'd care to define the domain you're discussing which has terms of "god" and "square circle" in it. Obviously the domain I was referring to for the square circle portion of the claim would be the set of ordered pairs of points denoting the real plane, as is standard in plane geometry where squares and circles are defined.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 21860

Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#154  Postby amkerman » May 17, 2012 10:26 pm

:shock:
Bring me gold and bring me wisdom- give me scars to bring me grace.

A wicked wit and when I use it I dash the hopes of those who hate me.

Give me love- big as a mountain.

Dave Matthews
amkerman
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1820
Age: 33
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#155  Postby Thommo » May 17, 2012 10:37 pm

amkerman wrote: :shock:


Very insightful. How about now you have a go and explain how "god" and "square circle" are terms as you claimed, since you dredged this tangent up with your googling of random things that might make what you said earlier less nonsensical.

I do feel compelled to ask, do you actually think you're convincing anyone (including yourself) that you are well versed in free logic and intended to imply that Shrunk's argument had to be represented in it to make sense? Do you really think that anyone will believe this expertise when you mistake logics not capable of discussing objects with an empty domain for logics which cannot assert that there are no objects matching some description?
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 21860

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#156  Postby josephchoi » May 17, 2012 11:59 pm

:coffee:
Donuts don't wear alligator shoes!
User avatar
josephchoi
 
Posts: 1094
Age: 26
Male

Country: Ca...na... d- Canada.
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#157  Postby Shrunk » May 18, 2012 12:00 am

Poor amkerman. I guess he didn't expect to run into people who actually know what the fuck they're talking about. (Not including myself among them, I hasten to add, at least not when it comes to the technicalities of formal logic.)

I wonder, amkerman, if you could tell me if either of these arguments are valid, in your opinion:

    If God exists, he is a square circle.
    Square circles exist.
    Therefore, God may exist (as a square circle)



    If God exists, he is a square circle.
    God exists.
    Therefore, a square circle exists.

(Hint: The correct answer is "Yes, they are valid.")
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26010
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#158  Postby jamest » May 18, 2012 1:17 am

Shrunk wrote:I guess he didn't expect to run into people who actually know what the fuck they're talking about. (Not including myself among them, I hasten to add, at least not when it comes to the technicalities of formal logic.)

Question:

How can an individual who lacks the capacity to know what the fuck they're talking about, be in a position to know someone who does? Clearly, they can't ever be, since they themselves would have to know what the fuck they are talking about in order to decide who else does. Obviously then, given your own admission, you haven't got a clue. So spare us the masterclass on who has. Just admit that your beliefs (play the woo tune, DJ) are as made-up as the ones you wish to undermine, here. Then, I'll let you go.
They came, they saw, they concurred.
User avatar
jamest
 
Posts: 16252
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#159  Postby Shrunk » May 18, 2012 1:39 am

jamest wrote:
Shrunk wrote:I guess he didn't expect to run into people who actually know what the fuck they're talking about. (Not including myself among them, I hasten to add, at least not when it comes to the technicalities of formal logic.)

Question:

How can an individual who lacks the capacity to know what the fuck they're talking about, be in a position to know someone who does? Clearly, they can't ever be, since they themselves would have to know what the fuck they are talking about in order to decide who else does. Obviously then, given your own admission, you haven't got a clue. So spare us the masterclass on who has. Just admit that your beliefs (play the woo tune, DJ) are as made-up as the ones you wish to undermine, here. Then, I'll let you go.


Note the qualifier. I know enough to know what constitutes a valid argument, and that amkerman's efforts to construct analogues of my argument have been abject failures. Someone who cannot understand such a simple concept is highly unlikely to understand the more esoteric and technical concepts which he is attempting to discuss.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26010
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Amkerman's Argument For God

#160  Postby Oldskeptic » May 18, 2012 1:51 am

Why is disembodied consciousness any more possible than a square circle? Consciousness without a brain is no more supportable than are square circles. It's like saying that there can be a heartbeat without a heart.

Here is a simple fact, it takes a brain to be aware/self aware/conscious. Some animals are aware of external stimuli, others are aware of their individuality, while others are aware of their individuality and internal physical and mental states. It all is brain dependent.

I know that people go on and on about how mysterious consciousness is, but it really is not. It's an evolved trait that works very well for some mammals and birds. We don't know exactly how the brain does it yet because it is very complicated, but we do know that the brain does it.

So how do you get consciousness without a brain?

Here is my take on it: This universe began with an expansion some 13.7 billion years ago and it was objective reality without consciousness being involved. On this planet what could be called awareness evolved 10 to 12 billion years later, with brains, and then self awareness sometime later, and consciousness after that. All that time there was objective reality without consciousness.

This universe has no mental capacity and neither does anything else lacking a brain. Consciousness is a product of this universe and not the other way around.

Amkerman's idea and arguments suck. There's hardly any other way to put it.

Oh! And he's not arguing for the existence of God only for the belief in the existence of God. Give me a fucking break. It's fucking nonsense.
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 7298
Age: 60
Male

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Theism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest