Logic lessons for Jak and Marg

[_JAK]

See below the review of exact words.

This is a misunderstanding of logic. Not establishing truth in a major premise has nothing to do with validity, because validity is about an argument's form; your problem is with soundness. If you would have accused my argument of not demonstrating anything true, because the soundness cannot be know with ill defined terms, I would conceed that you are right. By saying the premises are nonsense, or false, you imply that you know the meaning of the terms already, and the burden of proving this accusation lies on you. Marg accused the premises as being nonsense many times. She has yet to demonstrate why. She also accused the argument as not being logical, but the valid form of the argument is what makes it deductive logic, it does not depend on whether the premises are true.

Aquinas, you have the faulty understanding here as evidenced by Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus.

Validity is not so constrained or marginalized as you claim. It is not about “argument’s form” alone. It is inclusive of terms here represented.

In the thesaurus mentioned above are some definitions for the word valid. Among the definitions are genuine, correct, examining.

Your narrow use (understanding) of the word valid could be ameliorated by looking through the results in the website I cited above.

Indeed, there is more than one sense of the word "valid" or "logic." So also with other words, like "love," agreed? But when I am talking about my wife and I say "I love my wife" it is easily understood as the sense of commitment, romance, etc, etc. If I say "I love steak" it can only be properly understood in the sense of the pleasure of tasting and satisfying my hunger. I wouldn't say "I love steak" and expect someone to understand that I meant I took vows at the altar with a sirloin.

This is because using language properly involves knowing what words to use in the context of conversation, discussion, debate, etc. Forgive me for being blunt, but you should have learned this at a very young age JAK. When you or Marg attack my deductive argument by saying the conclusion is "invalid" or that it is not "logical," you either 1) don't understand what these terms mean in the context of deductive logic or 2) are using the terms improperly in the context of this debate. I will try to give you both the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't trying to back-peddle, now that it may have just recently occured to you that you used these terms improperly, but let's not rule that out as a possibility.

He who asserts has the responsibility to prove or offer compelling evidence.

Nice assertion, now where's your evidence?

Now, you demonstrate misunderstanding of deductive reasoning. You also appear to misunderstand how a valid, trustworthy Major Premise can be established.

What a ridiculous accusation. Anyone reading my responses can see why. Not to mention neither one of you has yet to address the context of the original post I made, clearly indicating I was never out to prove anything. And I am the one accused of being decietful!

You titled a post: “Logic Lessons for JAK and Marg.” She took you up on that topic as did I.

Now, lets get some terms straight... in what sense do you mean the words "took," "you," "up," "on," "that," "topic," "as," "did," and "I"? I wouldn't want to "misunderstand" you again....

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

Your post is no response to the particulars of my analysis.

Previously I posted response with direct quotes from you:

JAK to Aquinas,

You make many “if” statements in your writing. A central dilemma is with the establishment of the “if” construction. Another problem is assertion as substitute for transparent evidence of support.

Doing this is what we call truth by assertion.

Example Aquinas:
Quote:
If in God, all goodness resides (thus to say of an object "A" that it is good, means that it participates in God's goodness in some way) and truth is good, then truth necessarily leads to God, since in God all goodness resides. The goodness of truth itself is found by following true things. Thus, given these explainations (explanations), here is an argument:

1. In God all goodness resides
2. all truth is good and
3. Therefore, truth leads to God
This is valid and logical, even if you don't find it at all compelling. The problem now is, that you Jak, charged the conclusion in this argument as being invalid, and Marg later patted you on the back for it:

JAK:
You have neither established “valid” or “logical” by merely asserting such. What do we need for reliable conclusion? We need clear, transparent evidence. You fail to offer any.

Quote Aquinas:
Right. And Aquinas established nothing. Superb analysis -- that if the major premise is not established, the conclusion is invalid. And, your correct “(Aquinas’) conclusion can not be relied upon.”


This is a misunderstanding of logic. Not establishing truth in a major premise has nothing to do with validity, because validity is about an argument's form; your problem is with soundness. If you would have accused my argument of not demonstrating anything true, because the soundness cannot be know with ill defined terms, I would conceed (concede) that you are right. By saying the premises are nonsense, or false, you imply that you know the meaning of the terms already, and the burden of proving this accusation lies on you. Marg accused the premises as being nonsense many times. She has yet to demonstrate why. She also accused the argument as not being logical, but the valid form of the argument is what makes it deductive logic, it does not depend on whether the premises are true.

What I want to know is this: why am I not allowed to write assertions in deductive order, when Marg is allowed to make comments like this (this was taken from a different thread than the one already cited):

JAK:
Aquinas,
you have the faulty understanding here as evidenced by Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus.

Validity is not so constrained or marginalized as you claim. It is not about “argument’s form” alone. It is inclusive of terms here represented.

In the thesaurus mentioned above are some definitions for the word valid. Among the definitions are genuine, correct, examining.

Your narrow use (understanding) of the word valid could be ameliorated by looking through the results in the website I cited above.

See these references to valid:

accurate, attested, authentic, authoritative, binding, bona fide, cogent, compelling, conclusive, confirmed, convincing, credible, determinative, efficacious, efficient, good, in force, irrefutable, just, legitimate, logical, original, persuasive, potent, powerful, proven, right, solid, sound, stringent, strong, substantial, telling, tested, true, trustworthy, ultimate, unadulterated, unanswerable, uncorrupted, weighty, well-founded, well-grounded

He who asserts has the responsibility to prove or offer compelling evidence. The definitions above from this on-line dictionary clearly demonstrate your notion of “valid” is faulty.

marg speaks well for herself. You can quote her and address her remarks. I have so done with your remarks (several posts) and see no refutation.

Now, you demonstrate misunderstanding of deductive reasoning. You also appear to misunderstand how a valid, trustworthy Major Premise can be established. I’ll not repeat what I previously posted to you regarding that, but I addressed it. You have not responded (that I can find). It seems this bb is tedious to navigate, and I may not have seen a direct response from you in which you quote in context what I stated and respond.

If you want to discuss forms only for deductive reasoning, using words like “God,” “truth,” and “good” are very poor. Why? They are poor because there is serious lack of consensus on what any of those words mean in the context of religious reference. And as you have use them, they are words out of the language of religious dogma.

So, you need words which have some universal understanding.
-------------------
JAK to Aquinas,

While there is more to your post and since you do not respond to my rejoinders, I’ll end quotations here.

Attacking marg (ad hominem) in no way benefits any position you may take. Namecalling only diverts attention from issues which might be addressed.

How is evidence established? What are reliable methods for establishing evidence? How can we assemble numerous pieces of evidence to draw conclusions which are reliable?

If that was your intended focus, much better illustrations could have been used to keep the focus on that. I’m skeptical that it was your intention to focus only on rational thinking.

marg referred to a website, <A HREF="http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e08a.htm">this one</A> which has multiple internal links addressing language and logic.

You titled a post: “Logic Lessons for JAK and Marg.” She took you up on that topic as did I.
-----------------------
JAK:
He who asserts has the responsibility to prove or offer compelling evidence.

Acquinas responded:
Nice assertion, now where's your evidence?

JAK:
A fundamental principle of establishing anything is the principle of the burden of proof. That is not an “assertion” as you claim, it’s a fundamental principle of science.

See how reliable results are obtained.

Centuries ago, those who claimed the earth was a sphere had the burden of proof. They made a claim which went against the prevailing perception. That burden of proof was met. Today, nearly everyone in the educated world recognizes the earth is a sphere.

Any claim or assertion made carries with it the burden of proof for that claim. It is not up to skeptics to offer anything unless and until those who make a claim offer clear, transparent evidence for their claims. Hence, the burden of proof is on the affirmative.

JAK wrote:
He who asserts has the responsibility to prove or offer compelling evidence.

Aquinas stated:
Nice assertion, now where's your evidence?

JAK:
I’ve explained the standard principle not an “assertion” as you state.

If I say to you: Little green men live on the moon, you should say: What is your evidence for your claim?

When Jonas Salk claimed he had a vaccine against polio, he had the burden of proof to establish the reliability of that vaccine. He did that in a series of tests which ultimately used humans. The humans who received his vaccine against polio did not get polio. In a relatively short time, medical science accepted that vaccine and polio was virtually eliminated where the vaccine was used.

Acauinas, that is meeting the burden of proof.

The principle is not a “nice assertion” absent evidence. Evidence supports the principle regarding how we humans establish valid conclusion which is reliable.

Burden of proof has long been established and places the responsibility on those who make claims.

In my previous example (green men on moon), I am unable to present transparent, clear evidence for my claim. Rational people should reject the claim about green men on the moon.

I failed to meet the burden of proof.
----------------
JAK wrote:
Now, you demonstrate misunderstanding of deductive reasoning. You also appear to misunderstand how a valid, trustworthy Major Premise can be established.

Acquinas’ response:
What a ridiculous accusation. Anyone reading my responses can see why. Not to mention neither one of you has yet to address the context of the original post I made, clearly indicating I was never out to prove anything. And I am the one accused of being decietful (deceitful)!


JAK:
I am someone, and your responses are unclear and fail transparancy test. If you are not “out to prove anything,” why are you making claims?

Thus far, you fail to establish any of the claims you have made. both marg and I have pointed to your flawed thinking.

You have not addressed the analysis which has been made regarding your statements.

I quoted above the complete text from which you lifted a few lines.. You did not address the analysis nor did you respond to the critique of your flawed thinking.

JAK

[_JAK]

See response below.

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,

Claims absent evidence to support the claims do not benefit your position(s).

In this post, you do nothing but make claims. You make one after another with no evidence to support any.

More importantly, deductive form does not make for reliable conclusion as you imply.

You have not established a prime assertion. You have not established God. You have presented no evidence for God.

Absent transparent, subject to skeptical review evidence for your implied and stated claim, you lack relevancy.

It is typical of religion(s) to pile on assertions while establishing none of them.

A syllogism does not stand on its own (which you seem to think). You never responded to my example:

All women are stupid.
marg is a woman.
marg is stupid.

Why is that wrong? The form is correct, but the thinking is flawed. It has not been established that “all women are stupid.”

Failure to establish the Major Premise renders all of it unreliable.

You have not established God. You assume. Absent clear, transparent, straightforward definition/understanding, you fail in the establishment of a reliable Major Premise.

My example above (and previously which you did not address) demonstrates the inherent problem of form over substance. Above we have form (syllogism). The Major Premise is flawed. That makes the rest flawed.
-------------------------------------------
You are just making up stuff here. I understand that marg asked you for definitions. The problem with what you have written is failed agreement on the statements and the meaning of words within those statements.

It is not clear, transparent, explicit.

Further: you are making claims.

You have the burden of proof for the claims you make.

You cannot and have not established any entity as “first mover.”

You cannot and have not established any entity as “necessary being.”

You cannot and have not established any entity as “governing intelligence of the universe.”

Religious dogma does not establish reliable conclusion.

Why?

Religious dogmas vary. They do not agree. They shift. They are revised. We can establish with evidence that religious dogmas vary, do not agree, and have evolved within cultures. Different cultures produce different religious dogma. Hinduism, a world religion, is different from Islam, a world religion. Proving that is a matter of examination of history. We know these religious dogmas are different. They do not agree.

The invention of gods can be historically documented. The emergence of notions of one God can be documented. In doing that, no credibility is established for any of the religious claims. Rather, we establish that religious claims differ.

You are making religious claims -- assertions here. You are not establishing them.

I previously introduced you to the concept truth by assertion. You did not respond (that I have seen). Religion relies on truth by assertion. That is precisely what you are doing in this post.

You establish nothing. I understand you are trying to meet marg’s challenge that you supply definitions. But, you are not really doing that.

Instead, you are making claims. As you continue, you assume the truth of previous claims and go on to make more claims. All of that produces unreliable “truth by assertion”.
------------------------------------
Aquinas stated:
Marg stated that truth that hurts isn’t good, let’s see why she’s wrong:

JAK:
Your list of 10 is not a refutation of marg’s principle.

Would you say to a badly crippled child of 8 years: You are a cripple!? It would be truth and it would hurt.

Would you tell an obviously ugly teenage girl: You are an ugly girl!?

I would argue that social lies are part of the glue which holds a society together. I would argue that all of us misrepresent our true thoughts often. We say: How are you? when we really don’t care or want to know. Greeters at stores give customers coming in a hearty, friendly greeting. They do this when they feel sick. They do this because they are paid to do this. They do this when they have serious personal problems which are pressing on them.

We don’t and shouldn’t act on the truth or speak the truth in many situations. We don’t cut to the head of a long waiting line. The truth: we want to cut to the head of the line. Courtesy requires that we misrepresent our true thought.

Recently I went to the visitation for a friend who had died. I didn’t want to go. I didn’t want to see others whom I knew. But, It would have been inappropriate and have broken that glue in our society for me to have spoken the truth. It would have been harmful and morally wrong. So, I went. I conducted myself in harmony with the conventions of our society (my society). I spoke some truth. I was genuinely sorry my friend died. I was genuinely in sympathy with the family and expressed that truth.

Only some truths “are good” as my examples demonstrate.

But, Your statement:
“Given these examples, it seems clear that all truths are good” -- is incorrect.

In these examples, I am not making the case that people should misrepresent the truth in every situation. The truth has a place and we use it, tell it, and act upon it.

However, your argument against “truth that hurts isn’t good” is faulty.

You can construct (and did) examples in which truth is beneficial.

You cannot construct a case for all truth all the time without destroying a cement which is critical to the functioning of people.

Your conclusion based on 10 examples:
Given these examples, it seems clear that all truths are good.

JAK:
The inherent problem with your conclusion is that you lack sufficient examples to establish the exclusive principle (excluding misrepresentation or lie).

Suppose we have an 85 year-old person who is dying. (Medically doctors agree death is not long away). And further suppose the person is still alert and happy to see family and friends. And further suppose you are the son of the person.

What do you say when you go to see your father/mother? What is in your mind? You know he/she is dying soon.

So, truth: Hi mom/dad, you are going to die in the next few days. That would be “truth that hurts.” I am skeptical that you would speak it even if it were strongly on your mind.

You would likely talk about as many pleasant things you could think of. You would not speak “truth that hurts.”

If you think about your statement, you surely can recognize that the statement is wrong.

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

But your 10 examples do not cover the breadth of human encounters. There are others which call for misrepresentation and not for “all truths” as you argue.

JAK

[_Aquinas]

Aquinas,

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

This is a non-issue JAK. you made several assertions, absent evidence, the very criticism you keep appealing to against my claims. If you are going to hold a "standard" or whatever you want to call it (ultimately, in your skeptical thinking, it still fits the definition of an assertion absent evidence) it would be nice if you actually stuck to it yourself.

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

Assertion number one JAK. I can just as easily assert "In debate, we need to support "garuantee" statements with solid reasoning backed by solid evidence."

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

Assertion number two, let's try mine "For people who study philosophy, we can see how God's existence has already been sufficiently proven by philosophers like Aristotle, St. Anslem and Thomas Aquinas. Newspapers do not write about philosophy, because the common person doesn't take interest in these things."

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

.

Wow, three in a row. Here's my rebuttle: "It's also ridiculous Marg, that you think we all use no news (your illustration) as a basis for conclusion." Wow JAK, brilliant! teach us more!

It’s also entirely unclear what you classify as “nonsense.”

hmm... let me clear that up for you:

marg: "I haven't been following this discussion, nor seen your sound argument for the oneness of God."
"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."

That is what I mean by "nonsense."

You have made no refutation that common denominator is useful in argumentation

Strawman. It's obvious when something is understood by both parties as being true, then an argument can be compelling. Newspapers do not always print truth, especially truths that do not appeal to the common person (the market for the news). It would be like saying "I never read anything in the newspaper about two hydrogen atoms bonding to a sulfur and four oxygen atoms to make sulfiric acid, so it must not be true. I'm going to keep believing that sulfiric acid is made from two parts water, one part fire." This class of knowledge doesn't appeal to news readers/watchers, neither does proof for God's existence. News seems to be the only source of truth you two base your belief system on, since you keep defending such a nonsensical claim so vigorously.

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

LOL. I guess that is your definition of a "valid" argument JAK? nice to know where you are coming from...

Muslims (in general) do not construct God myths as Christians do. Furthermore, Christians do not agree on God myths.

I see you are above personal attacks JAK. You only attack large belief systems, that include billions of believers, all of whom must buy on to these God "myths" without reason. Not to mention, you've postulated yet another assertion absence any evidence or definition of what you mean. Hypocrisy at its finest ladies and gentlemen.

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.

Ohh... you've discovered that different groups who all call themselves Christian don't agree on who God is?Ground-breaking observation JAK. Clearly, another strawman... now do you have anything with substance to show that the God Aquinas proves doesn't exist? Clearly you don't, and prefer your strawman:

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.

Very little refutation is needed JAK, you both do most of the digging of your own graves.

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

Hmm... namecalling... like this?:

But you are too dense it seems to realize this, and appreciate (as you should have) the context in which JAK used the word.

I view [the real Aquinas] as intelligent and you as a moron.

Please, enlighten me with your logic and save Marg from these comments JAK.

[_Aquinas]

First off, are you Marg?

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

I guess you don't believe what you wrote and prefer to play the savior role yet again:

marg speaks well for herself.

In this post, you do nothing but make claims. You make one after another with no evidence to support any.

What qualifies as evidence JAK? My 10 examples were evidential, in that we can easily see the truth of them. If you are going to argue the truth of any of them, please do so. If it isn't evidence, then what is JAK? Please, enlighten me.

deductive form does not make for reliable conclusion as you imply.

Wrong. Deductive 'form' (the correct term is validity) makes for a reliable conclusion, if the premises are true. Deductive validity alone doesn't make for a reliable conclusion, maybe that's what you mean. At any rate, the truth of the premises don't depend on if someone believes them or not, if the premises are true, then the argument is sound, inasmuch as it is valid.

You have not established a prime assertion. You have not established God. You have presented no evidence for God.

Wrong, I mentioned Aquinas' five proofs for the existence of God, here is where you can look them up:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm (scroll down to article 3, but if you also want the proof that we can know God exists, read article 2 as well).

God's existence has already been successfully demonstrated, I need not, nor can not make a better argument(s) for God's existence of my own. The real Aquinas has established God's existence, and I made reference to it, you are welcome to read it if you doubt the truth of God's existence, and give us a critique of your own.

By the way, Islam, REAL Christianity (Protestant and Catholic chruches) and Judaism all accept the classifications (first mover, first cause, necessary being, infinite in perfection, governing intelligence of the universe) of God that Aquinas argues for here, so that is quite a few faiths (three) and people (billions) you are charging for believing in a "myth."

It is typical of religion(s) to pile on assertions while establishing none of them.

Again, clearly you are above personal attacks, but don't hesitate to insult billions of people (not just alive, but those who have gone on) by displaying your ignorance and asserting this drivel. Again, I've pointed out numerous assertions you've made absent evidence to demonstrate your hypocrisy. Would you like me to continue? I can if you want...

A syllogism does not stand on its own (which you seem to think). You never responded to my example:

All women are stupid.
marg is a woman.
marg is stupid.

Why is that wrong? The form is correct, but the thinking is flawed. It has not been established that “all women are stupid.”

Failure to establish the Major Premise renders all of it unreliable.

1) The major premises were established, through the real T. Aquinas' proof for the existence of God, one argument of which he demonstrates that God is necessarily the supreme good and the cause of all good things. Read Aquinas when you have time

2) The argument you made above is wrong, not based on validity, but based on soundness. The premises are clearly untrue, so the truth of the conclusion cannot be known. Deductive logic 101 JAK. If the premises of an argument are ambigous, the most you can say of the argument is that the truth of the conclusion cannot be known, because the truth of the premises are unknown. You cannot say the conclusion is false, likewise you can't even say the premises are false.

You have not established God. You assume. Absent clear, transparent, straightforward definition/understanding, you fail in the establishment of a reliable Major Premise.

Wrong JAK. God's existence and some of His charateristics (source of all good things) are established by Aquinas' arguments that I cited earlier in this post. I referenced Aquinas' proofs in my argument, that was the establishment of the major premise. Read my argument again.

You are just making up stuff here. I understand that marg asked you for definitions. The problem with what you have written is failed agreement on the statements and the meaning of words within those statements.

Read my posts more carefully JAK. the goodness definition is derrived from one of Aquinas' five proofs, and God's existence is derrived from all of Aquinas' five proofs. As far as the truth definition, are you saying we don't agree on this? It is irrelevant if you accept my definitions or not, if the definitions are accurate, then the argument is good. If someone doesn't accept them based on their own ignorance, that is that person's fault. If we are going to say this discussion (or any use of language) is meaningful at all (which you clearly believe since you continue engaging me) then we must accept that words have real meanings, not just whatever you decide you want them to mean. If you are going to remain skeptical and doubt that words have any meaning at all, do us all a favor and stop posting, because what is the point JAK? No one could know what you mean anyway. We rely on language to communicate meaning, especially in a discussion form, where words and language are the only things seen from each of us.

Further: you are making claims.

You have the burden of proof for the claims you make.

You cannot and have not established any entity as “first mover.”

You cannot and have not established any entity as “necessary being.”

You cannot and have not established any entity as “governing intelligence of the universe.”

Religious dogma does not establish reliable conclusion.

This is the same criticism for the one hundreth time JAK. Aquinas is not giving dogma, he has five proofs for God's existence, each one he demonstrates these characteristics. Read Aquinas.

Religious dogma does not establish reliable conclusion.
Why?
Religious dogmas vary. They do not agree. They shift. They are revised. We can establish with evidence that religious dogmas vary, do not agree, and have evolved within cultures. Different cultures produce different religious dogma. Hinduism, a world religion, is different from Islam, a world religion. Proving that is a matter of examination of history. We know these religious dogmas are different. They do not agree.

Putting aside for a moment your shallow understanding of world religion(s), here you are displaying yet another strawman. Show me where I argue religous dogma establishes reliable conclusions? I have been talking philosophy the entire time. You most likely don't like the idea of God being the subject of anything but faith or religion, or doctrine; modernity has lead you to believe God is not a subject of reason or logic. You are wrong, read Aquinas.

The invention of gods can be historically documented. The emergence of notions of one God can be documented. In doing that, no credibility is established for any of the religious claims. Rather, we establish that religious claims differ.

You are making religious claims -- assertions here. You are not establishing them.

Let me sum up what you just wrote: You make religous claims, you don't establish them. This is obvious because you make religous claims without establishing them. We can see this because you make religous claims without establishing them.

Give me a break. The emergence of notions of one God, and the inventions of gods is historically documented eh? Let's see your compelling historical evidence for this assertion, absence transparent evidence.

I previously introduced you to the concept truth by assertion. You did not respond (that I have seen). Religion relies on truth by assertion. That is precisely what you are doing in this post.

You clearly rely on your notion of 'truth by assertion' more than you would care to realize. Again, if you would like me to present a list of your assertions absent transparent evidence thus far in our discussion, I can...

Would you say to a badly crippled child of 8 years: You are a cripple!? It would be truth and it would hurt.

Finally engaging my evidence. First off, a disabled child being told he is disabled is an act of human will, not a truth. The definition of truth I gave was "to say of anything that is, that it is and of anything that is not, that it is not." This does not mean we must actively use truth (a good thing) for harmful purposes. We are not forced to say anything at all with the case of the disabled child. If the child were to ask me "am I disabled?" and I were to answer "yes, dear, you are. But you are worth just as much to God as anyone else." This would be truthful and loving, they are not mutually exclusive. The act is in the telling, not in the content of what is told. It is the act of telling the child he is disabled, that would be in some circumstances a bad thing. It would also be a bad thing to tell the child that he is not disabled (a lie), because the child's acceptance and integration of his disability is what he/she would need to live happily.

It is clear to see that good things can be used for bad purposes, but the "bad" is in the human intention, not in the thing. For example, con artists use kindness for thier own bad intentions, to rob those they are conning. Kindness is obviously not a bad thing, the badness is found in the con artist. Another example is science. Science is a good thing, but it can be used for bad intentions. The Natsees (wouldn't let me spell the real word) used science for terrible ends. They conducted inhuman experiments, created baumbs and even executed people using advanced science of the time. Einstien's theory of relativity was used for creation of the Atomic .

Would you tell an obviously ugly teenage : You are an ugly !?

This criticism falls in light of the rebuttal above.

I would argue that social lies are part of the glue which holds a society together.

Wrong. A lie, in reference to these examples, would be telling the disabled child that he is not disabled, or the that she is not ugly. It would not be choosing to not use truth inappropriately.

I would argue that all of us misrepresent our true thoughts often. We say: How are you? when we really don’t care or want to know. Greeters at stores give customers coming in a hearty, friendly greeting. They do this when they feel sick. They do this because they are paid to do this. They do this when they have serious personal problems which are pressing on them.

You would argue, but your argument falls on the fact that feelings are not truths and thoughts aren't always either. A friendly greeting, whether you think someone is a jackass or not, does not mean you are lying to the person. It is called kindness JAK, you display it to people whether you feel like it or not. Withholding the truth "I feel crappy and I don't want to talk to you" is not a denial of truth, it is just an act of human will to not use truth for bad intentions.

We don’t and shouldn’t act on the truth or speak the truth in many situations. We don’t cut to the head of a long waiting line. The truth: we want to cut to the head of the line. Courtesy requires that we misrepresent our true thought.

Recently I went to the visitation for a friend who had died. I didn’t want to go. I didn’t want to see others whom I knew. But, It would have been inappropriate and have broken that glue in our society for me to have spoken the truth. It would have been harmful and morally wrong. So, I went. I conducted myself in harmony with the conventions of our society (my society). I spoke some truth. I was genuinely sorry my friend died. I was genuinely in sympathy with the family and expressed that truth.

Again, this all falls in light of the above. Also, a side point, what basis do you judge speaking the truth morally wrong? You must have some standard of goodness to be able to say that...

Only some truths “are good” as my examples demonstrate. [/color]

Wrong, all truth is good, only some circumstances is it good to use truth.

You cannot construct a case for all truth all the time without destroying a cement which is critical to the functioning of people.

Wrong, in light of the above (this is your only objection by the way, over and over again).

The inherent problem with your conclusion is that you lack sufficient examples to establish the exclusive principle (excluding misrepresentation or lie).

You are the one who claims to love inductive reasoning. What constitutes "sufficient examples" JAK? Is any amount sufficient? If not, why do you appeal to evidence so much, if an unlimited amount wouldn't even prove anything?

Suppose we have an 85 year-old person who is dying. (Medically doctors agree is not long away). And further suppose the person is still alert and happy to see family and friends. And further suppose you are the son of the person.

What do you say when you go to see your father/mother? What is in your mind? You know he/she is dying soon.

I, my mother and my father all happen to believe in Jesus, so deafth would be a primary focus of my conversation with my mother or father, since he/she would be going to be with Him. I would enjoy being reminded of that and reminding him/her as well. To be a Christian, you have to fall in love with deafth. We are different on this point, so I could see why you would avoid the truth, but I would not.

[_marg]

I hope you don't intend to skip this Aquinas,

Remember the thread is titled "Logic lessons" and you've been promising us these lessons.

Aquinas wrote his argument in 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

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.



by the way you just wrote a response to JAK:

JAK wrote: Namecalling (ad hominem) in no way supports your (Aquinas)claims.


Aquinas: Hmm... namecalling... like this?: Marg wrote:
"But you are too dense it seems to realize this, and appreciate (as you should have) the context in which JAK used the word."


I guess you missed my recent post in which I explain that because you've degenerated the thread into verbal rude remarks, I don't care about this thread degenerating further. You brought it to quite a low level and I think you deserve no respect and I will treat you the same as you treat others. JAK's remark came before I started liberally attacking you personally.

Quit stalling Aquinas, and keeping us in suspence, gives us a lesson which demonstrates (and teaches) your superior knowledge on logic.

And one another point Aquinas, I've read JAK's post for years. Anytime he wants to respond on my behalf, I welcome and appreciate it. The point of message boards is communication. The point of this thread in particular is supposed to be to learn. You could learn a lot from JAK.

[_Aquinas]

I hope you don't intend to skip this Aquinas,

Remember the thread is titled "Logic lessons" and you've been promising us these lessons.

Aquinas wrote his argument in 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

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.

I'll respond to this soon Marg.

"But you are too dense it seems to realize this, and appreciate (as you should have) the context in which JAK used the word."


I guess you missed my recent post in which I explain that because you've degenerated the thread into verbal rude remarks, I don't care about this thread degenerating further. You brought it to quite a low level and I think you deserve no respect and I will treat you the same as you treat others. JAK's remark came before I started liberally attacking you personally.

So I guess this justifies you for attacking me personally? So in some circumstances it is ok to attack personally then, is that what you are saying? I have already demonstrated your and Jack's ignorant attacks against my religion, as well as Jack's attacks against religion itself believing in a "myth." Also, you pursued my posts from the beginning, ridiculing the oneness of God argument without even reading it. Jack later ganged up with you on my posts and joined in your bashing, that is the reason I started this thread. Again Marg, don't pick fights if you don't want them.

And one another point Aquinas, I've read JAK's post for years. Anytime he wants to respond on my behalf, I welcome and appreciate it. The point of message boards is communication. The point of this thread in particular is supposed to be to learn. You could learn a lot from JAK.

Of course you welcome it, he never disagrees with or corrects you. Who wouldn't welcome that? Doesn't change the fact that he has swooped in numerous times to play the role of your hero. You both are clearly not interested in truth, you are interested in being right; that is why you don't notice the flaws even in the others criticisms/arguments. Maybe I can learn from JAK, but thus far he has displayed mostly lofty assertions and bias' against my arguments, and bias' in defense of all of yours. Sorry, don't need any lessons on assertion and bias.

[_marg]

"But you are too dense it seems to realize this, and appreciate (as you should have) the context in which JAK used the word."


I guess you missed my recent post in which I explain that because you've degenerated the thread into verbal rude remarks, I don't care about this thread degenerating further. You brought it to quite a low level and I think you deserve no respect and I will treat you the same as you treat others. JAK's remark came before I started liberally attacking you personally.

Aquinas:

So I guess this justifies you for attacking me personally?

Well JAK is not me, so while he doesn't resort to personal attacks I will, once I lose respect for an individual. And I think it's justified, if someone dishes it out, they should be able to take it. You and JAK are having a different discussion than you and myself.

So in some circumstances it is ok to attack personally then, is that what you are saying?

Sure I think so,

I have already demonstrated your and Jack's ignorant attacks against my religion, as well as Jack's attacks against religion itself believing in a "myth."

Well Aquinas, this is a discussion board and if you are unable to discuss religion including your own without taking offence and it bothering you, then you shouldn't be on here discussing it.

Also, you pursued my posts from the beginning, ridiculing the oneness of God argument without even reading it. Jack later ganged up with you on my posts and joined in your bashing, that is the reason I started this thread. Again Marg, don't pick fights if you don't want them.

Let's look at your post and mine in response, when I began first addressing you:

You wrote to Vegas: Logical conversation? Are you kidding me? There hasn't been a hint of logic prior to or after my post of Aquinas' argument. I suggest you reopen your logic textbook and bone up on what logic is, since you appear not to know.

I don't care that my argument didn't show that two Mormon doctrines contradicted each other, but it did show that a Mormon doctrine contradicted a sound argument about the oneness of God. Thus, it is a logical argument, which is what Asbestosman originally said would take for him to leave the Mormon church. Here is another logical argument for you, so you can practice:

1) All people who post on a message board of the religion they left are pathetic
2) Vegas Refugee posts on a message board of the religion he left
3) Therefore, Vegas Refugee is pathetic

I responded I haven't been following this discussion, nor seen your sound argument for the oneness of God.

But deductive reasoning which you are illustrating here is only as good as the truth of the premises relied upon.

I can guarantee you have presented no sound argument for the oneness of God in the sense of a reality of a God. What you may have presented is an argument which uses the Bible as authority and the premise that a god exists as well as particulars for that god, is assumed true based upon the claims within the Bible. That doesn't mean the premises which you supplied are really true, in the sense of being a reflection of the world we all experience and observe.

So Aquinas, you made a claim that you had presented a sound argument. It's irrelevant that you think this is a religious board and everyone is going to agree with you on God's existence. That's your error in presumption.

You only think you have proved God's existence with T Aquinas's argument.

A sound argument can only exist, if the premises are true. You have presented no transparent evidence for the claim God exists. Those who assert a claim of something existing, have the burden of proof. Contrary to what you think, a thing existing can not be brought into being by reason alone..absent evidence. The claim or theory must have some predictive value which can be verifiable. Your "God exists" claim is an assertion absent transparent evidence. How can we test that this God exists? What sort of predictive value do you offer in which it can be verified that God exists?

Nothing I said was a personal attack on you, but in your next reply to me you began attacking me personally. So I see a pattern here Aquinas, that if you can't argue using reason, you resort to personal attacks on others.

And one another point Aquinas, I've read JAK's post for years. Anytime he wants to respond on my behalf, I welcome and appreciate it. The point of message boards is communication. The point of this thread in particular is supposed to be to learn. You could learn a lot from JAK.

Of course you welcome it, he never disagrees with or corrects you. Who wouldn't welcome that? Doesn't change the fact that he has swooped in numerous times to play the role of your hero. You both are clearly not interested in truth, you are interested in being right; that is why you don't notice the flaws even in the others criticisms/arguments. Maybe I can learn from JAK, but thus far he has displayed mostly lofty assertions and bias' against my arguments, and bias' in defense of all of yours. Sorry, don't need any lessons on assertion and bias.

I'm simply letting you know Aquinas, that I sanction JAK responding to you on my behalf should you post to me. I think he has much more patience and tolerance than I do, a better command of the english language, and he's much more thorough in his responses to others than I am. The critical thinking concepts he presents I agree with, having read his posts for years. And I am appreciative of JAK's post, I'm still learning from him.

[_Aquinas]

Aquinas wrote his argument in 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

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.

This is a categorical syllogism, introduced originally by Aristotle. Here is the argument in symbolic form:

God= P
good things= Q
truths= R

1. P is the source of all Q
2. All R are Q
3. Therefore, P is the source of all R

Premise 2 puts all "R" into category "Q," thereby making "P" the source of all "R," assuming the truth of both premises. By the way, I in no way claim supiriority in logic over anyone, I am an ametuer logician, as is plainly obvious to anyone who knows about logic. I studied logic at university, I took special interest in deductive logic. But, I believe Marg, JAK, or anyone with comparable intelligence are clearly capable of the level of education/understanding I have, since it is very minimal. However, you both have made mistakes in your responses, and your incorrect use of terms ("valid" "logical") is one of the primary reasons I started this thread. As it turns out, JAK is the one who is using these terms most incorrectly, your mistake Marg has been in defending the incorrect usages. I know you are probably most likely going to respond "JAK said the conclusion was invalid, making it clear he was using another sense of the word valid." Wrong... all that makes clear is that he not only misunderstands the term "valid" in context of deductive logic, but he misunderstands deductive logic! If it is not a misunderstanding, it is clearly an improper use of the term, since we have been dealing with deductive logic in our debate. If he JUST said "unreliable" I wouldn't complain, that would have been a decent criticism. Learn your logic terms and use them correctly, or just don't use them at all.

[Guest]

JAK:
Let's examine some of your statements.

First off, are you Marg?

JAK:
I am not marg.

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

Aquinas
I guess you don't believe what you wrote and prefer to play the savior role yet again:[/quote]

JAK:
Irrelevant side track.

marg speaks well for herself.

In this post, you do nothing but make claims. You make one after another with no evidence to support any.

Aquinas:
What qualifies as evidence JAK? My 10 examples were evidential, in that we can easily see the truth of them. If you are going to argue the truth of any of them, please do so. If it isn't evidence, then what is JAK? Please, enlighten me.

JAK:
That which is transparent, objective, tested, and has impartial concensus qualifies as evidence in the context of my remarks.

deductive form does not make for reliable conclusion as you imply.

[/color]

Aquinas stated:
Wrong. Deductive 'form' (the correct term is validity) makes for a reliable conclusion, if the premises are true. Deductive validity alone doesn't make for a reliable conclusion, maybe that's what you mean. At any rate, the truth of the premises don't depend on if someone believes them or not, if the premises are true, then the argument is sound, inasmuch as it is valid. [/quote]

JAK:
Apparently you disagree with the dictionary/thesaurus which you don’t address.

In review:

See these references to valid:

accurate, attested, authentic, authoritative, binding, bona fide, cogent, compelling, conclusive, confirmed, convincing, credible, determinative, efficacious, efficient, good, in force, irrefutable, just, legitimate, logical, original, persuasive, potent, powerful, proven, right, solid, sound, stringent, strong, substantial, telling, tested, true, trustworthy, ultimate, unadulterated, unanswerable, uncorrupted, weighty, well-founded, well-grounded

Your assertion that these definitions are “wrong” absent any authorative reference does not stand. The term “valid” has wider application than merely form as my source established. You had no source. Nor can you produce a comprehensive (unabridged) dictionary which will so limit "valid" to mean form alone.

However, I have no objection to using the word reliable which is a synonym (among several). As my illustration with a conclusion marg is stupid demonstrated, a correct syllogism form does not make for valid/reliable/accurate conclusion.

Reliable evidence meets the criteria which I described.

You have not established a prime assertion. You have not established God. You have presented no evidence for God.

Aquinas stated:
Wrong, I mentioned Aquinas' five proofs for the existence of God, here is where you can look them up:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm (scroll down to article 3, but if you also want the proof that we can know God exists, read article 2 as well).

[color=blue]JAK:
Continued error. Aquinas (circa 1225-1274) was a medieval philosopher. His assertions do not constitute proofs as you falsely believe. While influential in Christian mythology, his views were based on mystical experience. He combined his views with Christianity of his day and argued that no conflict exists between reason and faith. Keep in mind that was nearly 800 years in the past.

Of course we know today (most of us) that there is significant conflict between “reason and faith.”

You have no support in your reference to an ancient philosopher here. His assertions/claims are not established as you wish.

There is no “proof” in your web reference. Information and reason in the 1200s is unreliable in the light of information which we can access today.

Aquinas stated:
God's existence has already been successfully demonstrated, I need not, nor can not make a better argument(s) for God's existence of my own. The real Aquinas has established God's existence, and I made reference to it, you are welcome to read it if you doubt the truth of God's existence, and give us a critique of your own.

JAK:
Incorrect. No evidence has established the various claims for gods and later for God.

Thomas Aquinas established nothing by assertion. In the 1200s most believe the earth was flat. That view (belief) was challenged later. Your reliance on a philosopher from the 1200s is misplaced. And you continue to confuse a claim/assertion with reliable evidence.

Acquinas stated:
By the way, Islam, REAL Christianity (Protestant and Catholic chruches) and Judaism all accept the classifications (first mover, first cause, necessary being, infinite in perfection, governing intelligence of the universe) of God that Aquinas argues for here, so that is quite a few faiths (three) and people (billions) you are charging for believing in a "myth."

JAK:
Religious dogma/doctrine is unreliable. Lack of agreement and various religious claims which are contradictory has been well documented.

If one view were correct (reliable), all other views would be false. None has been established as correct.

You have yet to address the faulty mentality of truth by assertion. Pundits do not establish God (nor did they establish gods) by assertion. Truth by assertion FAILS.

Please review how credible evidence is applied toward consensus conclusion. There are many religions today. Within some of those religions (Christianity is one), there is wide disagreement on claims.

A study at a state university in the area of comparative religions would be a place to begin an understanding of different religious claims.

It is typical of religion(s) to pile on assertions while establishing none of them.

Aquinas stated:
Again, clearly you are above personal attacks, but don't hesitate to insult billions of people (not just alive, but those who have gone on) by displaying your ignorance and asserting this drivel. Again, I've pointed out numerous assertions you've made absent evidence to demonstrate your hypocrisy. Would you like me to continue? I can if you want...

JAK:
Irrelevant and a dodge of what I stated and your burden of proof. The claims/assertions for religious dogma have been made by you. You have offered no evidence to support them. Your reference to Thomas Aquinas (circa 1200) established no reliable evidence for your claims today. TA did not live in a time of reason and certainly not in a time of the wealth of information which we have today. That’s no insult, it’s a fact historically. 800 years ago, information was severely limited compared with what we know (or can know) today.

A syllogism does not stand on its own (which you seem to think). You never responded to my example:

All women are stupid.
marg is a woman.
marg is stupid.

Why is that wrong? The form is correct, but the thinking is flawed. It has not been established that “all women are stupid.”

Failure to establish the Major Premise renders all of it unreliable.

Aquinas stated:
1) The major premises were established, through the real T. Aquinas' proof for the existence of God, one argument of which he demonstrates that God is necessarily the supreme good and the cause of all good things. Read Aquinas when you have time

JAK:
TA merely made claims/assertions. He established no proofs in your reference. He made assumptions and built on those assumptions as if they were established. His assumptions were not established. Therein lies a major flaw in your thinking (or acceptance of religious dogma from cradle up). I have read TA. He engages in claims/assertions. While he and you (since you remain of the 1200 mentality) may regard there were “proofs,” there were/are no proofs in the TA assertions.

Aquinas stated:
2) The argument you made above is wrong, not based on validity, but based on soundness. The premises are clearly untrue, so the truth of the conclusion cannot be known. Deductive logic 101 JAK. If the premises of an argument are ambigous, the most you can say of the argument is that the truth of the conclusion cannot be known, because the truth of the premises are unknown. You cannot say the conclusion is false, likewise you can't even say the premises are false.

JAK:
When the Major Premise is false or is not established, further construction is pointless for purposes of reliable conclusion. I think you are saying that. If so, it’s correct. Both the Major Premise and the Minor Premise must be reliable/correct/without error in order that the conclusion is reliable/correct.

When the Major Premise is “ambiguous” the reliability of what follows is also “ambiguous” and is unreliable. One can find few terms more ambiguous than God. When people had beliefs in gods, that term was also ambiguous.

Evidence strongly supports that gods were human inventions in an attempt to explain what they did not understand. Likewise the invention of God was an attempt to explain. However, over many centuries, scientific evidence has exposed the contradictory claims for gods and for God.

Historically, we can document evolution of religious doctrines/dogmas. If you think otherwise, you need that course in Comparative Religions at a non-partisan university (one which is not funded by a religious group). Clearly, any religious study funded at a college which receives funding from believers in a particular religious myth lacks objectivity. That’s why I specify as I do here. There are many religious colleges which could not have courses that call into question the religious dogma of the parent group which supports them financially.

Keep in mind that deductive argument is a description of the form of the argument. It does not address issues of premise reliability. It is the particulars inductively established which are critical to the reliability of a Major Premise in a syllogism.

I clarified that in my All women are stupid syllogism. The Major Premise was flawed. As a result, no reliable conclusion.

Further, if the Major Premise is flawed, that’s sufficient justification to reject the conclusion.

You have not established God. You assume God. Absent clear, transparent, straightforward definition/understanding, you fail in the establishment of a reliable Major Premise.

Wrong JAK. God's existence and some of His charateristics (source of all good things) are established by Aquinas' arguments that I cited earlier in this post. I referenced Aquinas' proofs in my argument, that was the establishment of the major premise. Read my argument again. [/color]

JAK:
What’s your evidence that your God is male. “His” is a masculine pronoun. I submit you derive that conclusion from ancient religious myth, not from evidence. Can you demonstrate with modern scientific evidence that your God is male? Of course you cannot.

Thus far you have not established God. You rely on claims/assertions of your own and that of a philosopher from the 1200s. Neither makes for reliable, testable, transparent evidence.

Keep in mind that reliable evidence is testable, transparent (for all to skeptically review), is consistent, dependable, and predictable. You have not presented that.

I continue to address your query on evidence. Such evidence (as characterized here) avoids ambiguity, contradictory interpretation, and false claims.

You are just making up stuff here. I understand that marg asked you for definitions. The problem with what you have written is failed agreement on the statements and the meaning of words within those statements.

Aquinas stated:
Read my posts more carefully JAK. the goodness definition is derrived from one of Aquinas' five proofs, and God's existence is derrived from all of Aquinas' five proofs. As far as the truth definition, are you saying we don't agree on this? It is irrelevant if you accept my definitions or not, if the definitions are accurate, then the argument is good. If someone doesn't accept them based on their own ignorance, that is that person's fault. If we are going to say this discussion (or any use of language) is meaningful at all (which you clearly believe since you continue engaging me) then we must accept that words have real meanings, not just whatever you decide you want them to mean. If you are going to remain skeptical and doubt that words have any meaning at all, do us all a favor and stop posting, because what is the point JAK? No one could know what you mean anyway. We rely on language to communicate meaning, especially in a discussion form, where words and language are the only things seen from each of us.

JAK:
Religious dogma has previously been established to be unreliable. TA did not establish reliable evidence. Religious doctrine is a disconnect from reliable evidence. Why? Religious doctrines do not agree. Different claimants make different claims. TA did not prove existence of God as you claim. He made assertions and build further claims on unestablished assertions..

I’ve read your posts and responded directly to your words. You have not established your definitions. You have not given any clear, concise, transparent definitions. You merely claim you have.

More importantly, you have failed to establish your God. Since your God myth is different from other God myths, you have established nothing and have resorted to truth by assertion.

Religious propaganda/dogma/doctrine should be recognized as the invention of those who attempt to perpetuate it.

“Ignorance” is blind acceptance of religious dogma. You attempt to dodge responsibility here to meet the burden of proof for your claims. You imply that those who don’t accept your notions are “ignorant” and at “fault.”

Such construction is merely another of your unsupported claims.

You don’t give words clear, transparent, testable meaning. You make up what you like. When challenged for evidence, you dodge the burden of proof. It is you making the religious assertions. That makes you responsible for that clear, testable, skeptically reviewed evidence.

My skepticism is of your claims not of words. My skepticism is of your invention of definition to suit your claims.

You do not establish God claims by assertion.

Further: you are making claims.

You have the burden of proof for the claims you make.

You cannot and have not established any entity as “first mover.”

You cannot and have not established any entity as “necessary being.”

You cannot and have not established any entity as “governing intelligence of the universe.”

Religious dogma does not establish reliable conclusion.

Aquinas stated:
This is the same criticism for the one hundreth time JAK. Aquinas is not giving dogma, he has five proofs for God's existence, each one he demonstrates these characteristics. Read Aquinas.

JAK:
While you attempt to dodge the challenges of what I stated, you merely establish that you cannot address the issues raised. You don’t address any of them.

In no way can you establish TA as an objective observer. Historically, we can establish from any accurate historical documentation that TA was a product of the religious dogma of his time. There are no “proofs” as you wish to believe. He attempted to combine Aristotle’s teachings with his perception of Christian doctrine in TA’s time.

He declared that theology comes from faith in divine revelation. That is an assertion. He declared that any differences between divine revelation and the conclusions of philosophy result from faulty reasoning. That is an assertion. He declared that reason can support faith. That is an assertion.

And even more important, TA asserted that God exists. Those assertions are entirely lacking in evidence. TA and other philosophers of his time had no concept of evidence as we do today and as I have described in this and other posts.

The “five proofs” to which you refer are built on the assumptions I outlined here of TA. He did not begin by collecting evidence (inductive analysis).

Reasoning and logical analysis begin with specific evidence and observation. To have reliability, such evidence requires skeptical review. TA was not even close to that.

While TA claimed the “five proofs,” in fact, there were no proofs.

I do not think you, Aquinas, comprehend at all what was happening 800 years ago. You do not acknowledge that TA started with a conclusion of religious doctrine.

TA tried to combine science and religion (although in the 1200s concepts of science were often flawed and contaminated with religion).

I don’t think your religious blinders allow you to recognize that TA began with conclusions which were not established. God was not established then, nor is God established today. That people believe religious myths does not give them credibility. At one time, people believed the earth was flat. It was not flat then and is not flat today. Belief was irrelevant to fact.

In fact, god inventions moved from many to few to one. Many things once attributed to God are today understood by informed analysis. Blind claims have given way to rational, scientific evidence which can be tested and is skeptically reviewed.

As information has increased, God myths have been discredited.

TA began with assumptions that were not established then nor have they been established as his mentality of the 1200s configured them.

What we have today in religion is a multitude of weasel words (ambiguity) which allow for plug-in meaning. We have continuing re-invention of God in Christianity as well as in other religions which have constructed God inventions.

JAK:
You continue to substitute claims (TA) with authentic evidence which is as I have described. He wrote as one indoctrinated in the Christianity of his time. Surely, you would not attempt to refute that.

For you to establish TA’s views of the 1200s with “proof,” you need skeptical review which comes to the same conclusions as did TA. You need evidence independently established which supports TA’s views. You have none of that. Blind faith or wishful thinking does not establish your claims.

Religious dogma does not establish reliable conclusion.
Why?
Religious dogmas vary. They do not agree. They shift. They are revised. We can establish with evidence that religious dogmas vary, do not agree, and have evolved within cultures. Different cultures produce different religious dogma. Hinduism, a world religion, is different from Islam, a world religion. Proving that is a matter of examination of history. We know these religious dogmas are different. They do not agree.

Aquinas stated:
Putting aside for a moment your shallow understanding of world religion(s), here you are displaying yet another strawman. Show me where I argue religous dogma establishes reliable conclusions? I have been talking philosophy the entire time. You most likely don't like the idea of God being the subject of anything but faith or religion, or doctrine; modernity has lead you to believe God is not a subject of reason or logic. You are wrong, read Aquinas.

JAK:
Previously addressed. Religion begins with unreasoned claims. From those unreasoned claims, religion builds further claims upon those. Hence, religion is the antithesis of reason. It makes claims first and secondarily attempts to assimilate on-coming information.

God is a term of religion. It is a claim of religion. I have raid TA. He began with unreasoned beliefs religious doctrine. He accepted religious doctrine on faith. He did not construct science nor did he have access to science as we understand the principles of science today.

Then do you agree religious dogma is unreliable? God claims are not built on reason. TA did not build on reason because he began with unreasoned conclusions.

The invention of gods can be historically documented. The emergence of notions of one God can be documented. In doing that, no credibility is established for any of the religious claims. Rather, we establish that religious claims differ.

You are making religious claims -- assertions here. You are not establishing them.

Aquinas stated:
Let me sum up what you just wrote: You make religous claims, you don't establish them. This is obvious because you make religous claims without establishing them. We can see this because you make religous claims without establishing them.

JAK:
You fail to accurately paraphrase my comments. A direct quote of exactly what I stated and a rejoinder would assist you in accuracy.
-------------------------------------------------------
JAK: In order not to loose what I have written here, Aquinas, I will post and try to add through the edit option when I can. Having addressed your points for some time, other needs require me to stop for now. I have addressed directly each of your comments to this point. I intended to include every word each of us wrote to this point.

JAK
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
JAK:
Having read your non-responsive comments to the first part of my analysis posted Sat Apr 07, 2007 6:31 pm and marg’s analysis of you, I have much reservation about your capacity to respond and address issues raised with honesty.

It was my intention to continue taking your comments and respond directly. I can do that, but to no avail when ignorance Trump's information. On this form’s format, it appears difficult to continue in adding to a post and be sure it will be read.
----------------------------
Picking up where I stopped Sat Apr 07, 2007 6:31 pm

Aquinas stated:
Give me a break. The emergence of notions of one God, and the inventions of gods is historically documented eh? Let's see your compelling historical evidence for this assertion, absence transparent evidence.

JAK:
A university course in the history of human evolution is critical for you.

Prehistoric man -- the evolving of our species before the species had language recorded in any way or had symbols in sound with meaning -- that prehistoric man had no religion at all.

Only as the evolving species began to develop awareness of other than self were myths constructed to stand as attempts to explain. Prehistoric humans have been documented by science to have lived 2 1/2 million years ago. This is a matter of scientific record. But they did not begin to record history until they had invented language and writing. That is scientifically documented to be approximately 5 to 10 thousand years ago.

The point for you here is that perceptions in evolving humans were not recorded in language before the perceptions emerged. So, the term prehistoric man refers to that period prior to language and sufficient skill to make some record.

Prehistoric humans took the first steps in building civilizations. Within those civilizations, cultures emerged, early humans moved from hunters to planters of crops and they raised animals.

As they did these things they also constructed stories to satisfy their desire to explain what they observed.

To make a large leap with you because of space, inventions of myths which evolved into religious myths brought the invention of gods as a way to explain that which primitive humans did not understand. Primitive humans invented simple tools and discovered how to make fire.

They painted the first pictures and shaped the earliest record which we could consider language.

By 90,000 B.C.E., prehistoric people looked much like people today. It was not until the 1800s C.E. that science as we have see it evolve began to assemble historic documentation for the long prehistoric past for human evolution.

In that evolution were multiple cultures as peoples were separated by distance yet in locations which supported human life.

Within those cultures various religious myths (superstitions) evolved and the invention of gods was use to make up explanations. Eventually, the invention of God replaced many gods as attempt to explain.

So in answer to your question, “the compelling historical evidence” for the evolution of human culture and that which it contains is in what historical scientists of relatively recent time have discovered. Archeologists have done much work in this regard.

No forum such as this can be a substitute for academic university mastery of the history of human evolution.

That academic study is filled with evidence about the evolution of humans including their cultures (practices, superstitions).

In fact it was as late as 1879 C.E. that the first discovery of prehistoric art was made as a cave in Spain was being explored. )Pictures preserved in that cave of animals painted on the cave’s ceiling and fossils discovered earlier are evidence (transparent and open for all to study) for the evolution of human intellect and the construction of human inventions including the invention of gods and God.

This can be studied in depth at a well qualified school of science in universities throughout the United States, Europe, and other various countries.

These evidences are genuine and open to skeptical review.

God myths continue to evolve today as does the planet and life on the planet.

But 2 1/2 million years ago, survival precluded culture sufficient to have language and God inventions such as we can examine today.

Religion was/is an invention. While it purports to explain, in fact it is a masquerade. It does not explain. Truth by assertion -- the device of religious myth is the antithesis of evidence first, tentative conclusion last.

Truth by assertion is flawed and fails. What we do know we know by examination of evidence first. It is then and with skeptical review that we approach reliable conclusion.

I previously introduced you to the concept truth by assertion. You did not respond (that I have seen). Religion relies on truth by assertion. That is precisely what you are doing in this post.

Aquinas stated:
You clearly rely on your notion of 'truth by assertion' more than you would care to realize. Again, if you would like me to present a list of your assertions absent transparent evidence thus far in our discussion, I can...

JAK:
I have demonstrated for you the principle device in religion for perpetuating religious dogma. It is truth by assertion.

A statement: God exists is an example of truth by assertion. No evidence is established. Rather a claim is made. Then another and another and another. Thus religion piles one claim (not established) on top of another claim (not established).

That is the modus operindi of religion. It’s flawed and as a result, religion is constantly revising/modifying its claims in the light of science which finds evidence first before considering conclusion based on that evidence. Your computer works reliably because of discovered truth through research.

Would you say to a badly crippled child of 8 years: You are a cripple!? It would be truth and it would hurt.

Aquinas state:
Finally engaging my evidence. First off, a disabled child being told he is disabled is an act of human will, not a truth. The definition of truth I gave was "to say of anything that is, that it is and of anything that is not, that it is not." This does not mean we must actively use truth (a good thing) for harmful purposes. We are not forced to say anything at all with the case of the disabled child. If the child were to ask me "am I disabled?" and I were to answer "yes, dear, you are. But you are worth just as much to God as anyone else." This would be truthful and loving, they are not mutually exclusive. The act is in the telling, not in the content of what is told. It is the act of telling the child he is disabled, that would be in some circumstances a bad thing. It would also be a bad thing to tell the child that he is not disabled (a lie), because the child's acceptance and integration of his disability is what he/she would need to live happily.

JAK:
You’re weasel-wording your why along here not addressing the analysis. You also admit that telling a child the truth (as you claimed was always good) is not always good. It was an absurd position of yours and you would not carry it out. Totally irrelevant is your comment about telling a child he is disabled when he is not. You’re evasive and disingenuous in response.


Aquinas stated:
It is clear to see that good things can be used for bad purposes, but the "bad" is in the human intention, not in the thing. For example, con artists use kindness for thier own bad intentions, to rob those they are conning. Kindness is obviously not a bad thing, the badness is found in the con artist. Another example is science. Science is a good thing, but it can be used for bad intentions. The Natsees (wouldn't let me spell the real word) used science for terrible ends. They conducted inhuman experiments, created baumbs and even executed people using advanced science of the time. Einstien's theory of relativity was used for creation of the Atomic .

JAK:
Irrelevant to any issue I addressed and a diversion.

Would you tell an obviously ugly teenage: You are an ugly!?

I would argue that social lies are part of the glue which holds a society together.

[color=black] Aquinas stated:
Wrong. A lie, in reference to these examples, would be telling the disabled child that he is not disabled, or the that she is not ugly. It would not be choosing to not use truth inappropriately.

JAK:
Irrelevant and non-address of the illustration I gave demonstrating that speaking the truth can be harmful. It’s an evasion of the issue before you.

I would argue that all of us misrepresent our true thoughts often. We say: How are you? when we really don’t care or want to know. Greeters at stores give customers coming in a hearty, friendly greeting. They do this when they feel sick. They do this because they are paid to do this. They do this when they have serious personal problems which are pressing on them.

Aquinas stated:
You would argue, but your argument falls on the fact that feelings are not truths and thoughts aren't always either. A friendly greeting, whether you think someone is a jackass or not, does not mean you are lying to the person. It is called kindness JAK, you display it to people whether you feel like it or not. Withholding the truth "I feel crappy and I don't want to talk to you" is not a denial of truth, it is just an act of human will to not use truth for bad intentions.

JAK:
Disingenuous. You argued that all truth was good. If the truth is one thing and a person misrepresents himself, he is not giving “all truth.” In any case, you establish the very points I made with regard to society being held together in part because we conceal some truth and sometimes lie directly.

“Kindness” was not a stated factor in your all inclusive statement about truth. I refuted your assertion with evidence that sometimes we use lies even for “kindness” as you acknowledge here. Not only did you fail to establish your assertion regarding “all truth,” you admit it has been refuted as you try to slither away from the statement.

“Kindness” may well require lying in some way. Misrepresenting by design is not “all truth.”

We don’t and shouldn’t act on the truth or speak the truth in many situations. We don’t cut to the head of a long waiting line. The truth: we want to cut to the head of the line. Courtesy requires that we misrepresent our true thought.

Recently I went to the visitation for a friend who had died. I didn’t want to go. I didn’t want to see others whom I knew. But, It would have been inappropriate and have broken that glue in our society for me to have spoken the truth. It would have been harmful and morally wrong. So, I went. I conducted myself in harmony with the conventions of our society (my society). I spoke some truth. I was genuinely sorry my friend died. I was genuinely in sympathy with the family and expressed that truth.

Aquinas stated:
Again, this all falls in light of the above. Also, a side point, what basis do you judge speaking the truth morally wrong? You must have some standard of goodness to be able to say that...

JAK:
Of course, and I have described it and refuted your notion that “all truth” is “all good.” It is not and you recognize that. “Kindness” might be more important that “all truth.” But in your hasty generalization you failed to recognize relative harm to which marg referred. She established her position. By hasty generalization, you failed to consider all situations and that the situation may be critical.

Only some truths “are good” as my examples demonstrate.

Aquinas stated:
Wrong, all truth is good, only some circumstances is it good to use truth.[/color]

JAK:
You shift your previous position. And, you agree with me in the last part.
You made no such restrictions on “all truth” in your assertion.

You also have not demonstrated your claim "all truth is good." It begs the question on both terms. What is truth? What is good? Those generalizations are so broad and lack description/definition by you as to be entirely meaningless. However, it does again show your form truth by assertion.

I demonstrated how it was flawed analysis. Now you agree, it was flawed analysis.

You cannot construct a case for all truth all the time without destroying a cement which is critical to the functioning of people.

Aquinas stated:
Wrong, in light of the above (this is your only objection by the way, over and over again).

JAK:
No, it is only one of may objections to your multiplicity of flawed reasoning.

The inherent problem with your conclusion is that you lack sufficient examples to establish the exclusive principle (excluding misrepresentation or lie).

[color=black]Aquinas stated:
You are the one who claims to love inductive reasoning. What constitutes "sufficient examples" JAK? Is any amount sufficient? If not, why do you appeal to evidence so much, if an unlimited amount wouldn't even prove anything?

JAK:
I don’t think you know what inductive analysis is. You have not demonstrated it. You haven’t read or haven’t understood my extensive detailing of the inductive process. Recall my illustration of a claim for bats in my attic. In that case we don’t need many people to confirm whether my claim is valid. If no one who looks can find any bats and if I cannot point directly to a bat or multiple bats, my claim should be regarded as false. Evidence is that which can be agreed upon, observed, and skeptically reviewed.

You also appear to be unable to comprehend extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Pundits of religious dogma make extraordinary claims. They provide no evidence (as I have characterized as reliable, observable, and skeptically reviewed).

Suppose we have an 85 year-old person who is dying. (Medically doctors agree is not long away). And further suppose the person is still alert and happy to see family and friends. And further suppose you are the son of the person.

What do you say when you go to see your father/mother? What is in your mind? You know he/she is dying soon.

Aquinas stated:
I, my mother and my father all happen to believe in Jesus, so deafth would be a primary focus of my conversation with my mother or father, since he/she would be going to be with Him. I would enjoy being reminded of that and reminding him/her as well. To be a Christian, you have to fall in love with deafth. We are different on this point, so I could see why you would avoid the truth, but I would not.[/quote]

JAK:
No evidence has been presented for the extraordinary claim for any life after people die. It’s religious myth and is unsupported by any evidence meeting the qualifications for qualitative evidence.

The origins of myths which contend what you describe resulted from observation to the contrary. Death close up looks permanent which is sufficient to generate a myth of denial.

Not one word was written about Jesus until 30 to 110 years after his death. That strongly suggests such writings are myth -- made up long after the claimed events in Christian mythologies. Those stories lack credibility. They were contrived many years later. Reliability for their accuracy is not established.

No evidence for any experience for individuals following their death has been established. Absent credible, tested, skeptically reviewed evidence that claims of life beyond death have merit -- absent that, such claims should be disregarded.

Your religion like all religion is a make-believe fantasy. You can make up anything that pleases you. You believe what you do as a result of your environment which is inclusive of religious indoctrination.

If you had been born into a Muslim family, you would believe that Islam is the true religion. But you weren’t. And your last statement clearly indicates that you prefer fiction over fact.

You have not established your God claims by asserting them. You have not provided evidence for all the implications in your last paragraph here. And you demonstrate that you prefer religious myth over the transparency of discovery.

JAK

[_marg]

This is a categorical syllogism, introduced originally by Aristotle. Here is the argument in symbolic form:

God= P
good things= Q
truths= R

1. P is the source of all Q
2. All R are Q
3. Therefore, P is the source of all R

Premise 2 puts all "R" into category "Q," thereby making "P" the source of all "R," assuming the truth of both premises. By the way, I in no way claim supiriority in logic over anyone, I am an ametuer logician, as is plainly obvious to anyone who knows about logic. I studied logic at university, I took special interest in deductive logic.

You have presented a syllogism not a categorical syllogism. What you presented has nothing to do with Aristotilean categorical syllogisms. A categorical syllogism has 3 terms and the premises must be put in a particular order, and then a mood and figure is determined because of the particular order they are in which is based on the subject & predicate in the conclusion. There are only 15 valid mood and figure combinations. You basically have no clue what a categorical syllogism is.

If you look at your first premise, Q is a subset of P. So what you are saying is All of the class of Q is (of the class of ) P. You are not saying all P is (of the class of) Q. Second sentence is All R is Q and 3rd is All R is P..because you are not saying all P is a subset (of the class) of R.

Put into standard form:

All good things = M
God = P
Truths =S

1) All M is P
2) All S is M

Therefore all S is P

It's an AAA- 1.

I'm not sure what other ways there are to present it symbolically.

Since good things = truths. By substitution the statement "God is the source of all good things" or P is equivalent to the statement "God is the source of all truths" or S. ; P = S

There is really no formal proof reg'd.

There is no reasoning involved here. It's simply a matter of creating a definition, even though there is no evidence to warrant the claim God exists, nor that God is the source of all good things. Then make "truths" equivalent to "good things" and substitute in the original claimed definition.

Logic is about good reasoning. This is not good reasoning.

But, I believe Marg, JAK, or anyone with comparable intelligence are clearly capable of the level of education/understanding I have, since it is very minimal.

Well the bolded part you got right.

However, you both have made mistakes in your responses, and your incorrect use of terms ("valid" "logical") is one of the primary reasons I started this thread.

You were the one to claim you presented a sound argument, I explained to you why it wasn't. For an argument to be logical it takes more than presenting in valid format.

If Aquinas is an lfihoidshgn then Aquinas is laiuf
Aquinas is an lfihoidshgn

Therefore Aquinas is laiuf

That's in valid form modus ponens, but it's not logical. In order to be logical there has to be transparency in what is meant by lfihoidshgn and laiuf, otherwise the argument is meaningless. It is not a valid deductive argument. It is not a valid conclusion. It is presented in valid form only.

Please quote JAK or myself where we have used the term "valid" or "logical" incorrectly.

As it turns out, JAK is the one who is using these terms most incorrectly, your mistake Marg has been in defending the incorrect usages.

Please appreciate more fully that your understanding of logic is minimal.

I know you are probably most likely going to respond "JAK said the conclusion was invalid, making it clear he was using another sense of the word valid."

Trust me, Aquinas , Jak understands deductive valid (argument) forms. As I pointed out to you previously, when one say a conclusion is invalid they are not talking about forms. Only arguments have valid forms, not conclusions.

Wrong... all that makes clear is that he not only misunderstands the term "valid" in context of deductive logic, but he misunderstands deductive logic!

I'm very skeptical that you took a university course in logic. You demonstrated absolutely no appreciation of categorical syllogisms, which is in an introductory course. You are in no position to assume others don't understand logic.

If it is not a misunderstanding, it is clearly an improper use of the term, since we have been dealing with deductive logic in our debate. If he JUST said "unreliable" I wouldn't complain, that would have been a decent criticism. Learn your logic terms and use them correctly, or just don't use them at all.

Neither JAK nor myself used terms incorrectly. Quote to illustrate, if you are adament about it. You were the one to use the term "sound" incorrectly. You did not establish true premises. Logic is not about appealing to a select audience. For example you argued back to JAK that being told one is about to die, is a good thing for Christians who believe in heaven in an afterlife, therefore death was a "good thing." Well you are appealing to a very select audience. Do you think it likely that most people view death as a ood thing? If so why isn't everyone committing suicide? Why do hospitals and medicines exist. Why bother to prolong life? So while you might argue all truth is a good thing, being told to die is a good thing, it is not a transparent claim that all people would agree is true.

If your premises can not be established as true for whatever reason, your conclusion is unreliable, your argument is not sound, it is not logical, it is not valid. It may be valid in form only.