Logic lessons for Jak and Marg

[_marg]

Secondly, remember Marg is the one who sought out my posts and began criticizing me.

Grow up Aquinas, and learn how to argue without assuming it is you who is being criticized. Initially my criticisms were focused on substance, but they've recently shifted to criticisms of you.

[_Mr. Coffee]

Marq, I think the problem is that Aquinas doesn't understand that no matter how "logical" your argument is, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I could say "God is truth, truth is good, therefor God is truth", but the entire premise relies on a. defining, and also proving the existance of "God", and B. defining "truth". Hell, defining "good" for that matter. Anyone can make a claim, but it takes a bit more than simple logic to qualify them.

[_dartagnan]

I think some here may not be using the terminology correctly. They are mistakenly calling unsound arguments illogical

That would be using the term properly since unsound and illogical are in fact synonyms.

(For a more detailed explanation, see: Validity and Soundness )

That article says nothing about “illogical.” But it actually says, “In effect, an argument is valid if the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion.” Thus, this argument is as valid as guy’s alternative argument which uses George Bush as the source of all truth.

[_Aquinas]

So Aquinas, if you are so knowledgeable about deductive validity, why haven't you demonstrated your knowledge yet, and put your argument into a valid form?

1. God is the source of all good things
2. all truths are good things
3. Therefore, God is the source of all truths


God
• First mover of all things that move (change), umoving (unchanging) Himself
• First efficient cause of all things, uncaused Himself
• Necessary being, having His own necessity
• Cause and source of being itself, goodness itself and all other perfections; the Maximum of perfection
• Governing intelligence of the universe

Truth
-To say of anything that is, that it is, and anything that is not, that it is not

Goodness
- given Aquinas’ proofs for the existence of God, one of God’s proven characteristics is the maximum, or perfection of good. So things are good, inasmuch as they participate in God, the source of goodness itself. In order to keep my argument relevant, I will only use examples of goodness that can easily be agreed upon. However, if you want to call anything good, you are using a standard by which to measure things as “good” or “bad,” thus to say that child molestation is not “good,” you are appealing to some standard of goodness. So you would not be able to judge anything at all, if your claim is that there is no real standard of goodness, and it is relative.




1. If God exists, then he is the source of goodness itself (per definition above)
2. God’s existence has been proven in four other ways, per Thomas Aquinas’ arguments
3. Thus, God is the source of goodness
4. All truth is good
5. Therefore, God is the source of truth

Since you ask for inductive reasoning, and it appears some do not agree with truth always being a good thing, let me present ten examples for evidence. Marg stated that truth that hurts isn’t good, let’s see why she’s wrong:

1. A doctor telling a patient that has cancer, that he/she has cancer is truth that hurts, yet it is a good thing, because the truth brings with it the ability to know the problem, personal acceptance and treatment.

2. Likewise, the truth of the holocaust is a truth that hurts, yet it is good. To say the holocaust did not happen denies the condition of humanity, and the dangers of , hatred and abuse of power. To truthfully accept the holocaust gives validation to the victims who were d and killed.

3. Nuclear weapons exist, a true thing, also arguably hurtful. To say they do not exist (the opposite of the truth) denies the problem and such weapons could more likely be used for evil purposes, since they wouldn’t be monitored by those denying the truth.

4. A parent telling his/her child that he/she loves the child is representative of truth (inasmuch as the parent loves the child). This truth is a good thing.

5. Saying chocolate cake is sweet is a truth, and while the goodness of this truth is small, the truth gives some understanding to what it means to be sweet. Why is it good to know what is sweet? Ask someone without the sense of taste. We take for granted what is given to us in our nature, like taste.

6. A woman is married to a man who is abusive (truth that hurts). To deny that her husband is abusive, because the truth hurts, is to deny a good thing, because only with acceptance of this truth could the woman leave her husband. Also, denying the truth in this circumstance allows the man to continue patterns of abuse, rather than isolating him from society (corrective action) or helping him with his problem (through therapy, etc.).

7. A person is an alcoholic, a truth that hurts herself and others around her. The truth is a good thing, because only with accepting the truth is the person able to recover; step 1 of the 12 steps of AA is “Admitted we were powerless over alcohol, that our lives had become unmanageable.”

8. The earth revolves around the sun is a true statement; it is a good thing because it allows us to understand more about our universe, rather than mistakenly believing that the sun revolves around the earth.

9. Jewish people are human beings, this is a truth. It would have benefited our world more if the ’s never denied this truth, because it is good. The acted outside of goodness by denying this truth, plainly obvious given the holocaust.

10. Grass is green. Another truth that seems too insignificant to say that it is good, or bad. But again, ask someone who is blind why being able to know what green looks like is good.


Given these examples, it seems clear that all truths are good.

Marg, I took you up on your challenge, now I’d appreciate a decent argument of your own.

[_Aquinas]

Truth-To say of anything that is, that it is, and anything that is not, that it is not

By the way, I believe this definition of truth was Aristotle's, can't remember for sure, might have been Plato. In any case, I didn't define this myself.

[_asbestosman]

I would argue that we don't know better than them at all. Modern thinking is based on, among other things, materialism, the idea that nothing immaterial exists.

I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific. For example, in some sense light is immaterial since photons are bosons, not fermions. That means more than one can exist in the same spot simultaneously. Yet I wouldn't call photons immaterial because we can measure their effects. Likewise, if there are spirits (and I think there are), we should be able to observe some of their effects in principle. If spirits have no observable interaction with us, we can safely disregard them in science. Even though that doesn't prove they don't exist, if there is no observable effect of spirits then we gain nothing by considering them in scientific models.

Greek philosophers prior to Plato also argued materialism, Aquinas actually addressed this in one section of the summa (he says at one point they are limited to only their imagination).

I can imagine a great many things, but most of that will not help me better predict the weather or how people will react to what I say, or what the effect of smoking tobacco will be. The question is how does materialism limit us? If there is an interaction with the material world, then science will consider it if it can measure this interaction. If spirits interact, but not in any scientifically measurable way, then we may as well forget it. We gain no predictive power from considering them. If spirits tend to follow patterns in their interactions with us, then we can make it science in some respect.

If you are talking about platonic heaven where immaterial things such as Klein bottles and hypercubes exist, then that's something else. It really depends on what you mean by exists. As concepts they certainly do influence human beings and perhaps computers. But they are not objects and they don't exactly have consciousness or interact with people in a literal way--not in the way that God does by sending a flood and warning Noah.

Even scientists operate on theories (natural selection) and methods (the scientific method) to make determinations about the evidence they collect. They too, incorporate philosophy into their observations. There is a great book out there if you ever wanted to read it, Asbestos, called "In Defense of the Soul" by Ric Macuga. He is a modern day Aristotilian who has great arguments about modern scientific findings being consistent with Aristotilian metaphysics; no modern scientific findings contradicts Aristotle. He takes on issues such as evolution, A.I. and nominalism. Again, great book, I think you would probably appreciate it.

I have no doubt that the soul does exist and that such a concept is compatible with science. My only beef is with the idea that science and logic prove that souls do in fact exist. No, I think science is consistant with the idea of souls, but I think it is also consistent with the idea that there are no souls. The way to the truth is through personal revelation and personal experience in my opinion. I believe that personal knowledge is possible and that this personal knowledge is not mere feelings. I believe that personal knowledge can be as accurate as other scientific knowledge thus perhaps mistaken at times but also correctable. Furthermore I believe that the personal knowledge is not generally gained in groups or in the open the way that scientific research is.

[_guy sajer]

[ The way to the truth is through personal revelation and personal experience in my opinion. I believe that personal knowledge is possible and that this personal knowledge is not mere feelings. I believe that personal knowledge can be as accurate as other scientific knowledge thus perhaps mistaken at times but also correctable. Furthermore I believe that the personal knowledge is not generally gained in groups or in the open the way that scientific research is.

If it is not feelings, what is it?

If your personal revelation leads you to "truth," but this truth contradicts truth arrived at by someone else via personal revelation, how can one determne which version of truth is correct? Please articulate the relevant selection criteria.

Also, what kind of truth are you referring to? Objective truth (e.g., whether the Book of Mormon is actual history or whether Joseph Smith actually saw God) or subjective truth (some kind of mystical deeper insight into the cosmos)?

It would also be helpful if you could give examples in which personal revelation proved to be more effective than science in discovering truth.

[_marg]

1. God is the source of all good things
2. all truths are good things
3. Therefore, God is the source of all truths

Good, now you get a chance to demonstrate your knowledge on formal logic. I want you to put this into symbolic form, tell me what kind of syllogism/syllogisms you used and give the name of the valid argument form/forms used. After I'll address soundness of arguments and I'll look at the rest of your post.

[_JAK]

In communication, the more common the denominator (something understood by everyone) the better that denominator for conveying thought or information.

For people in close association with the United States, this [newpapers] is an excellent “example” of using the common denominator to make a point.

It’s excellent also in that we all use no news (your illustration) as a basis for conclusion.

Hmm.... interesting "observations" Jak... before I begin to calculate your well researched evidence for the assertions you've made, let me reread what Marg wrote:

marg: "I can guarantee you have presented no sound argument for the oneness of God in the sense of a reality of a God.

and then the evidence she presents to support her guarantee:

marg: "if a God could be proven, the newspapers around the world would be interested in the news. I haven’t heard anything recently."

Nonsense speaks for itself, as does hypocrisy, sorry Jak.

------------------------
Aquinas,

Your attempt to shift the subject to personal attacks is evidence that you cannot address the issues placed before you.

Your statement:
Nonsense speaks for itself, as does hypocrisy, sorry Jak.

It’s no refutation. It’s also entirely unclear what you classify as “nonsense.”

You have made no refutation that common denominator is useful in argumentation. Marg had stated that seeing no news anywhere that the President of the United States (President) was dead was evidence that the President was not dead or, if you will, President is alive. (No quotes because I paraphrase marg’s example for you.)

Her example is a valid example. Given the virtual instant communication today, no news that the President is dead is a rational conclusion. Her analysis is correct. Yours is not.

God is far more ambiguous term. Evidence is overwhelming that people do not agree on this term. Muslims (in general) do not construct God myths as Christians do. Furthermore, Christians do not agree on God myths.

Volumes can be produced on what various Christian groups regard as accurate characterization of God. The more than 1,000 denominations, sects, and cults of Christianity are clear and transparent evidence that Christians disagree.

If you intend to refute that, I am prepared to give you websites for at least a hundred Christian denominations which have different perceptions of God mythology. Space here as well as time constraints preclude presentation. BUT, you can enter into Google the official name of many Christian groups and find their views. I encourage you to do just that.

You quote marg, then generalize that she has spoken “nonsense.” You make no refutation for what she addressed. You have made no refutation for what I have addressed.

Namecalling (ad hominem) in no way supports your claims.

JAK

[_asbestosman]

If your personal revelation leads you to "truth," but this truth contradicts truth arrived at by someone else via personal revelation, how can one determne which version of truth is correct? Please articulate the relevant selection criteria.

To determine the truth you correlate the revelation with experience.

Also, what kind of truth are you referring to? Objective truth (e.g., whether the Book of Mormon is actual history or whether Joseph Smith actually saw God) or subjective truth (some kind of mystical deeper insight into the cosmos)?

Both although correlation with experience can only work for objective truths.

It would also be helpful if you could give examples in which personal revelation proved to be more effective than science in discovering truth.

President Monson gave an example last week. He told a story about when he was prompted to change his conference talk to be about baptism and to address it to a particular little girl. Later he learned that she wanted to get baptized and so did her grandparents who were taking care of her, but her mother wanted her to wait until she was 18. The decided to travel to SLC for conference and President Monson listened to the spirit. After the talk, she visited him in his office and he learned about her circumstances.

Now, is that anecdote scientific proof of anything? No, but I'm sure those involved knew something special was going on.

My point isn't that science can prove the church is true. I flatly deny that it can or does. My point is merely that science does not prove the church is false and that furthermore individuals may be justified in concluding that it is true, yes even in the face of those who have concluded differently.

I mean if I actually shook the FSM's noodly appendage, who are you to say otherwise? I grant that you're justified in not believing it, but you simply do no know whether I have justifiable reasons for concluding something, and I think part of it is that we have trouble articulating our reasons.