Posted: May 18, 2012 5:46 am
Again, listen. It's glaringly necessary that I keep repeating the same shit over and over. While shrunks argument has fuck-all to do with anything I have said, his argument remains (as has always been the case) invalid.
1. If god exists then God is a square circle.
2. Square circles can't exist.
What do you think are valid conclusions based on these premises?
Answer: none
The only things that can be deduced given these premises is that either:
A. Premise 1 is false, OR
B. Premise 2 is false
Neither of these conclusions follows from the premises. The argument is not valid.
This should not be surprising considering that in classical logic each term (in this case "God" and "square circle" MUST denote at least one existing object.
That @Thommo believes (or maybe more correctly has decided to adopt the position in order to extend a deeply flawed line of reasoning and is unwilling to concede anything, which is not an uncommon occurrence here on RatSkep) "God" and "square circle" are not "terms," but "formulae" is of no avail. It is simply a tautology that "if god exists, he is NOT a non-existent object/formula. As I have repeatedly said, this is not hard. If square circles cannot exist, then, "if God exists, then he is a square circle" IS FALSE. It is an internally flawed statement because it is, in and of itself, a logical impossibility.
If birds fly, then birds are things that can't fly.
Things that can't fly, can't fly.
THEREFORE: wait... for... it... Birds can't fly.
Ta-fucking-da.
This is the type of "logic" that is being spouted. No amour of wiki-links is going to change the fact that it isn't valid, sound, or should be considered "logic" at all.
@shrunk
Yes. I agree that the two previous arguments you posted were valid, as is god is consciousness/consciousness exists/god exists.
What many still seem to be failing to grasp is that I have not made any argument for the existence of god. Instead of attacking straw-men by claiming that my definition of "God" as "subject-independent consciousness" (an lable that I have admitted was superfluous) why don't one of you attack one of the premises or conclusions in my actual argument? I have labeled everything out in the initial post (if you don't understand what one of the words means in the argument just ask and I will operationalize it for you) and each premise/conclusion is no more complex them a simple sentence, so it shouldn't be difficult (unless, of course, the argument is sound, as I believe it to be). The only thing I ask you to keep in mind is that this is not the science forum but the philosophy forum. I neither will nor can operationalize any of the terms in the language of physics. If you are uncomfortable dealing with terms in the English language I suggest you remove yourself to a subforum with a bent you find more conducive to your mode of thought or personal preference. You certainly won't find me in the science forums talking about metaphysical or epistemological positions (unless of course it was on topic-there was an interesting thread started in the physics forum about empirical observations in quantum physics and the need to give up realism: the position that things exist independently of observation which I found quite interesting, though I have not yet contributed) and I respectfully would appreciate the same courtesy to be shown here.
Cheers,
AMK
1. If god exists then God is a square circle.
2. Square circles can't exist.
What do you think are valid conclusions based on these premises?
Answer: none
The only things that can be deduced given these premises is that either:
A. Premise 1 is false, OR
B. Premise 2 is false
Neither of these conclusions follows from the premises. The argument is not valid.
This should not be surprising considering that in classical logic each term (in this case "God" and "square circle" MUST denote at least one existing object.
That @Thommo believes (or maybe more correctly has decided to adopt the position in order to extend a deeply flawed line of reasoning and is unwilling to concede anything, which is not an uncommon occurrence here on RatSkep) "God" and "square circle" are not "terms," but "formulae" is of no avail. It is simply a tautology that "if god exists, he is NOT a non-existent object/formula. As I have repeatedly said, this is not hard. If square circles cannot exist, then, "if God exists, then he is a square circle" IS FALSE. It is an internally flawed statement because it is, in and of itself, a logical impossibility.
If birds fly, then birds are things that can't fly.
Things that can't fly, can't fly.
THEREFORE: wait... for... it... Birds can't fly.
Ta-fucking-da.
This is the type of "logic" that is being spouted. No amour of wiki-links is going to change the fact that it isn't valid, sound, or should be considered "logic" at all.
@shrunk
Yes. I agree that the two previous arguments you posted were valid, as is god is consciousness/consciousness exists/god exists.
What many still seem to be failing to grasp is that I have not made any argument for the existence of god. Instead of attacking straw-men by claiming that my definition of "God" as "subject-independent consciousness" (an lable that I have admitted was superfluous) why don't one of you attack one of the premises or conclusions in my actual argument? I have labeled everything out in the initial post (if you don't understand what one of the words means in the argument just ask and I will operationalize it for you) and each premise/conclusion is no more complex them a simple sentence, so it shouldn't be difficult (unless, of course, the argument is sound, as I believe it to be). The only thing I ask you to keep in mind is that this is not the science forum but the philosophy forum. I neither will nor can operationalize any of the terms in the language of physics. If you are uncomfortable dealing with terms in the English language I suggest you remove yourself to a subforum with a bent you find more conducive to your mode of thought or personal preference. You certainly won't find me in the science forums talking about metaphysical or epistemological positions (unless of course it was on topic-there was an interesting thread started in the physics forum about empirical observations in quantum physics and the need to give up realism: the position that things exist independently of observation which I found quite interesting, though I have not yet contributed) and I respectfully would appreciate the same courtesy to be shown here.
Cheers,
AMK