Livingstone22 wrote:JAK wrote:
There is a kind of logic in that. Of course it’s flawed in that the various assumptions made prior to the because statement were not logical. They were not derived from observation of evidence.
The various God claims were not made from rational exploration (logical study) of anything. Rather, they were invented. So causal links in theology are flawed in that they come from assertions which are not established.
When someone argues that logic is essential to theology, they short-circuit the logical process which we use in analysis and study today.
Yes, one can argue that logic is essential to theology.
However, if we press those who argue that, soon we find they are making claims which were not arrived at by rational investigation.
Many places in religion, theologians argue because for something.
Only if theologians are permitted all the claims and assumptions they want can they say they use logic.
Sorry you don’t have time to discuss presently, but it’s quite understandable.
JAK
Perhaps you misunderstand what logic really is. Logic doesn't come from observations or even true premises--a statement can be logically valid and have false premises. If the premises are true, and the argument is logically valid, the conclusion has also to be true. If the premises are false, and the argument is logically valid, then the conclusion is probably also false. If the premises are true, and the argument is
not logically valid, then the conclusion may or may not be true--but by no virtue of the argumantal structure....the same if the premises are false and the argument is
not logically valid. A logically valid argument is one that convinces people of the truth of a conclusion based on their accepted premises--but that doesn't have any bearing on what is actually true. A good argument, on the other hand, does have true premises (and is logically valid) and therefore necessarily leads to a true conclusion.
"Rational investigations," on the other hand, you may have a point about.
Logic does not begin with the syllogism.
A faulty major premise contaminates logic. A “valid form” does not make for a reliable conclusion.
Example:
All women are stupid.
marg is a woman.
marg is stupid
The “valid form” does not make for a
logically sound argument.
It is not established that
All women are stupid.
Failure to establish the major premise makes anything which follows unreliable as my example illustrates.
Livingstone22 stated:
Logic doesn't come from observations or even true premises--a statement can be logically valid and have false premises.
Incorrect. You write as if
logic (or logical thinking)
begins with a
major premise. Logic is comprehensive. Logic includes the
inductive process which leads to a conclusion used as a
major premise.
A
major premise which is flawed or wrong was not constructed by use of
logic.
Livingstone22 stated:
A logically valid argument is one that convinces people of the truth of a conclusion based on their accepted premises--but that doesn't have any bearing on what is actually true.
The statement is a very narrow application of “valid.” The most important part of your statement is the last:
“but that doesn't have any bearing on what is actually true.”
Hence in totality, we don’t have
logic by your own admission in this statement.
Livingstone22 stated:
A good argument, on the other hand, does have true premises (and is logically valid) and therefore necessarily leads to a true conclusion.
No parenthetical relevance here. “Good” is subjective more than is
accurate,
correct, or
established through evidence.
Rational investigation begins at the start. It’s pajorative to suggest that
logic begins with a {major premise}. And, it’s false.
It appears to me that
you fail to appreciate what “logic” is as I have detailed here.
On a previous post of yours, you purport: “Gödel defines a God-like being, sets forth some axioms, then proceeds to prove such a being exists.”
The problem is a clear absence of objectivity.
“...such a being exists” is
not established by Gödel.
Gödel “defines”
Gödel “sets forth some axioms”
Gödel “proceeds to prove such a being (
God) exists”
No objective, transparent, peer reviewed, testing here by other philosophers.
No evidence has been established “to prove (
God) exists.
It’s a word-game which you apparently fail to recoginze.
Livingstone22 stated:
I accept Gödel's Ontological Argument as valid and work from there.
Your acceptance is fallacious. The very entity to be established by proof is actually
assumed.
God this, God that -- If God this, then God that, etc. There is no genuine proof here. There is a single and biased source.
It argues
God by default. That’s a fundamental flaw. And you accept it.
The problem is that the
argument makes
assumption. It assumes that it is
possible for an omniscient rational individual to exist. That’s a leap to conclusion
not established. It's assumed.
As you stated previously and I confirmed: Gödel “defines”
God. His definition is
not established in objective, logical fashion. To continue is pointless having failed objective, rational conclusion.
Gödel makes multiple assumptions which further errode his credibility with regard to
proof for God.
His “if/then” construction is flawed as well.
To accept the ontological arguments of Gödel, requires an irrational leap. His ontological argument has often been said
to ascertain God's existence by a philosophical sleight of hand or a ruse of words. Gödel’s arguments are flawed, if by nothing else, his
assumptions absent evidence. The minutia of his arguments tends to be intimidating. In any case, they are not transparent and philosophers today do not accept (universally) his assumptions and application of those assumptions to agree with Gödel’s conclusion.
You are incorrect to: “accept Gödel's Ontological Argument as valid...”
JAK