marg wrote:I'ts been a long day for me and I don't have a heck of a lot of time,tonight.
Could you please tell me what the conclusion is in layman terms. Is the conclusion conclusive or a probability.
And most of all please answer this question...does the conclusion conclude that a God exists given your layman terms, as an actual entity, by actual I mean a thing which exists in reality.
marg,
See my responses currently on page 2. Some which were addressed to Livingstone 22
should have been addressed to Calculus Crusader. I apologize for the error (as I did to Livingstone 22).
At the heart of CC’s probem is that he fails to recognize
assumptions for what they are. Since I cannot link you directly to the posts, you will have to scan for them.
marg stated:
Could you (CC) please tell me what the conclusion is in layman terms. Is the conclusion conclusive or a probability.
And most of all please answer this question...does the conclusion conclude that a God exists given your layman terms, as an actual entity, by actual I mean a thing which exists in reality.
Some of the points I made were these:
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 (marg) don’t have time to discuss presently, but it’s quite understandable.
-----------------------------------------
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