Posted: May 18, 2012 10:20 am
amkerman wrote: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.
Still struggling with the basics, I see.
Those are not conclusions. They are premises. How can a premise not follow from itself? That is what you are saying. IOW, you're saying from this:
Square circles can't exist.
we cannot conclude:
Therefore, square circles can't exist.
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.
Except it seems this is not the case, but rather a conclusion you have drawn based your complete ignorance of the field
That @[color=#CC0000][b]Thommo[/b][/color] 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.
A conditional statement cannot be true or false, And my statement is not logically impossible. "God exists and is a square circle" would be an impossible statement, (though not on the basis of classical logic). I would think the difference between that statement and my original one should be obvious to you, though that may be optimisitc of me.
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.
See, now that's an example of a premise that is internally contradictory. And does not resemble my premise at all. If I had said "If God is a square circle, God is not a square circle", then you'd have a point. But I didn't, not even close.
@[color=#CC0000][b]shrunk[/b][/color]
Yes. I agree that the two previous arguments you posted were valid, as is god is consciousness/consciousness exists/god exists.
Good lord! How can they be valid and my previous one not be? You've been ranting on and on about how my original argument was "invalid" becaue "square circles" are nonexistent and (according to your misunderstanding) nonexistent entities cannot be used in classical logic. And then you turn around and say that two other argument that also use "square circle" are valid, even though they state that square circles exist! So is this another rule of logic that you've made up: That it is permissable to use non-existent entities, but only if you falsely claim that they exist?
This really becoming embarassing for you....
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?
Umm. maybe because the fact that you have admitted that the key point of your argument is "suprefluous" renders the entire argument a steaming pile of nonsense.
And also because you said the fact that it was "valid" (though you don't actually understand the meaning of the term) was sufficient to demonstrate it was true.
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.
Your argument is no more philosophy than it is science. It's nonsense, pure and simple..