Logic lessons for Jak and Marg

[_Aquinas]

Aquinas is still studied in philosophy programs in acredited universities

Yes, but so is David Hume.

Hume is actually a very interesting philosopher. While noticing many weaknesses in the usual arguments for God, he also concluded that there was a governing intelligence most likely because his time was before Darwin. At least this is what I learned from Daniel Dennett in Darwin't Dangerous Idea. A very interesting book.

In any case we are arrogant when we proclaim ourselves smarter than the geniuses of the past. The only reason we know better than them is because we stand on the shoulders of other giants (such as Hume and Darwin). I think that was grayskull's point.

Indeed, I agree. I don't know if you are implying I don't take Hume seriously, (or Nietzsche for that matter) because I do. Of course they were much more educated and intelligent than I, or anyone else arguing here, will ever be. That is why I take offense when someone bashes on a great thinker, but presents much less compelling arguments, or criticisms of their own.

Jak and Marg are no David Hume. If Marg was, she would know her philosophy better, and not insult thinkers like Aquinas by implying he was trying to decieve people. Hume was an extreme skeptic, and denied basically any knowledge at all. I don't know where the person you read got the idea that Hume concluded there was a great intelligence, because he denied we could ever have any knowledge like that at all. He may have claimed he believed in a God, but he never argued for one, in fact, he argued against human knowledge itself. Marg and Jak keep asserting that to "prove" something, you need evidence and inductive reasoning, my question is what evidence do they rely on to make that claim? Show me what scientific evidence, Jak or Marg, that allows you to assert that inductive reasoning is the only way we know truth?

Hume didn't believe evidence was sufficient to prove anything at all, because he understood the consequences- if we are going to say causes can be known, then we must arrive at a First Cause, as Aquinas argued. You can damn well believe Hume took Aquinas seriously.

[Analytics]

Hume didn't believe evidence was sufficient to prove anything at all, because he understood the consequences- if we are going to say causes can be known, then we must arrive at a First Cause, as Aquinas argued. You can damn well believe Hume took Aquinas seriously.

Yes, I think Hume did (and I didn't mean to imply you don't). However, from my view of the giants, I do not think that all causes can be known although I believe some can. Indeed I think some things might be truly random and thus without a cause.

Also, while I take Dembski seriously, I think his framework for Intelligent Design is fatally flawed in the idea of a Universal Probability Bound. It's true that much of science uses arbitrary significance levels 1%, but there is a difference between science using Fisher's method to reject the null hypothesis and Dembski's method. Science actually has control groups (usually double-blind) instead of a mere mathematical model for to estimate the significance levels and reject the chance hypothesis.

I bring that up because I think Intelligent Design largely follows the same idea of First Cause, namely that intelligence doesn't come from nothing, therefore there must be a First Cause for intelligence. Just be sure not to mention His name or we'll be banned from teaching it in school ;)

Personally I think intelligence is eternal and uncreated. It's one of those weird Mormon things. I do belive that God organized the universe, but I don't believe that He designed anything new so much as copied what has been done forever in the past without beginning. Not all Mormons believe this, but our theology allows for it, and perhaps even encourages it.

Anyhow, I just don't think that logic or science could ever prove it either way and that it must be accepted on faith.

[Mayan Elephant]

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

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

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

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

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

and then the evidence she presents to support her guarantee:

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

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

[Mayan Elephant]

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

I doubt ganging up on me and painting Marg as a victim benefits your position either Jak. Let's first review some of the explicit personal attacks Marg has directed at me:

Your whole deductive argument is a pile of words saying and proving nothing. It's a pile of B.S. basically. (currently page 1 on the terrestrial forum, “I will try not to offend!” thread, 1st post on page 4)

No strawman Aquinas, I'm not into disingenuous game playing like you apparently are. (currently page 1 on the terrestrial forum, “I will try not to offend!” thread, 3rd post on page 4)

The sort of God you believe in is a man made construct, one you most likely inherited through early indoctrination by the Catholic church. Your beliefs are no more right than Mormons..since both systems make god claims absent transparent evidence. (currently page 2 on the terrestrial forum, “What would it take for you to leave Mormonism” thread, 7th post on page 13)

Wow, that last one she not only insulted me, but my parents (if we assume they are partly to blame for my "indocrtination") and the entire Catholic church (absent any evidence mind you...), I wouldn't be so quick to point the "personal attack" finger.

Secondly, remember Marg is the one who sought out my posts and began criticizing me. You, Jak, later joined in her criticisms in the "I will try not to offend" thread and very suspiciously painted all of her points in a positive light, while taking none of mine into consideration... seems like maybe you two know each other? If you don't want a fight, don't pick one.

Have the courage to direct your well structured criticisms at yourselves. I admit I am not always a nice person (although I try to be) and I have already owned up to at least one mistake during our discussions (earlier in this thread). If you and Marg are not able to see your mistakes, I pitty you.

[_Aquinas]

In any case we are arrogant when we proclaim ourselves smarter than the geniuses of the past. The only reason we know better than them is because we stand on the shoulders of other giants (such as Hume and Darwin). I think that was grayskull's point.

I would argue that we don't know better than them at all. Modern thinking is based on, among other things, materialism, the idea that nothing immaterial exists. Greek philosophers prior to Plato also argued materialism, Aquinas actually addressed this in one section of the summa (he says at one point they are limited to only their imagination). I can't produce a reference for this, but I remember reading it when I was studying the Summa. He also responds to the common modern proof against the existence of God, the problem of evil. This is in the Summa, Prima Pars, Question 2, Article 3, objection 1 and response to objection 1.

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

[_Aquinas]

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....

[_marg]

Aquinas you do a lot of typing filled with nothing more than nonsense and personal attacks. That's basically how I sum up all your posts. You've gone on ad nauseum about how you've put your argument into a valid form, knowing full well you had no intent to prove anything.

Youv'e accused Jak and I of not knowing what validity means in deductive logic.

Meanwhile, it was pointed out to you, you didn't put your argument into a deductive valid form, and I asked you to do so, and you've yet to do so.

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?

[_marg]

Aquinas:

Let's first review some of the explicit personal attacks Marg has directed at me:

I suppose I could go through all the posts and gather up the long list of personal attacks not just against me, but against anyone who disagrees with you, however you aren't worth the time.

Marg wrote:
Your whole deductive argument is a pile of words saying and proving nothing. It's a pile of B.S. basically. (currently page 1 on the terrestrial forum, “I will try not to offend!” thread, 1st post on page 4)

That's not a personal attack nor fallacious. I explained why your argument was B.S. Your minor premise for example was meaningless... "Truth is good" Give me a break, since when?

Marg: No strawman Aquinas, I'm not into disingenuous game playing like you apparently are. (currently page 1 on the terrestrial forum, “I will try not to offend!” thread, 3rd post on page 4)

The comment is not fallacious. Your modus operandi is to resort to rude personal attacks on those who disagree with you. Everyone else doesn't understand logic but you. This whole thread you started is meant as a personal attack. You aren't interested in discussion. Your ego has been damaged apparently and so you seek revenge in attacks.

Marg: The sort of God you believe in is a man made construct, one you most likely inherited through early indoctrination by the Catholic church. Your beliefs are no more right than Mormons..since both systems make god claims absent transparent evidence. (currently page 2 on the terrestrial forum, “What would it take for you to leave Mormonism” thread, 7th post on page 13)

Correct. That's not fallacious. The evidence is that the majority of people share the religious beliefs of their parents.


Aquinas:

Wow, that last one she not only insulted me, but my parents (if we assume they are partly to blame for my "indocrtination") and the entire Catholic church (absent any evidence mind you...), I wouldn't be so quick to point the "personal attack" finger.

I've noticed you get insulted very easily. No I didn't insult your parents and the facts are that religious groups [do indocrinate the young.

[_marg]

"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. "

Once again Aquinas, conclusions are not an argument.

Validity with regards to the form of an argument refers to the entire argument.

If JAK said your conclusion is invalid, he's not talking about the form of the entire argument.

But you are too dense it seems to realize this, and appreciate (as you should have) the context in which JAK used the word. JAK knows what he's talking about, you don't. If you did you'd appreciate the context.

I also didn't argue your argument was invalid, that is I did not critique the form. I didn't even bring up the word "invalid" you did. I said your argument was nonsense, that the words used were ambiguous.

In this thread at one point I said something along the lines of you did not present a "valid deductive argument". In this case the context is ambiguous, hence it can refer to the form of the deductive argument or to the argument itself, whether it is well grounded or fallacious or not. Because you didn't even present your argument in proper deductive form I meant both.

[_marg]

Aquinas is still studied in philosophy programs in acredited universities, 8 centuries later.

He was a Christian apologist and religious apologists are noted for disingenuous tactics. While I give him credit for intelligence and think he knew full well he wasn't proving a God existed, I think you Aquinas are logically impaired and actually do think T. Aquinas, your guru, proved God's existence. So I view him as intelligent and you as a moron.

And I'm not concerned about this discussion degenerating. You already brought it down so low with your persistent personal attacks, the whole reason for this thread charade you started, that you deserve no respect. You really seem to know virtually nothing about logic, except the basics, but even that you not demonstrated having a good understanding of.