Doubting your disbelief?

[PixyMisa]

You've got it mixed up. If the premise is false the argument isn't necessarily invalid.

Try reading what I said, Dustin.

If the premise is false, or the argument is invalid, then any conclusion you might reach is worthless.

You have to have a true premise and a valid argument to reach a valid conclusion.

If the premise is false, any conclusion you reach is invalid. It might be coincidentally true, but that would have to be determined by some other means. The false premise rendered the argument futile.

And the point remains that arguments are not evidence.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Try reading what I said, Dustin.

If the premise is false, or the argument is invalid, then any conclusion you might reach is worthless.

You have to have a true premise and a valid argument to reach a valid conclusion.

If the premise is false, any conclusion you reach is invalid. It might be coincidentally true, but that would have to be determined by some other means. The false premise rendered the argument futile.

And the point remains that arguments are not evidence.

If a premise is false the conclusion isn't necessarily logically invalid. The example I provided previously is a valid logical argument with a false premise.

Premise 1--All rabbits are birds.

Premise 2--I am holding a Rabbit.

Conclusion--I am holding a bird.


Premise 1 is false. How is the argument invalid logically? What rules of logic has it broken?

Here's another logically valid argument with false premise.

Premise 1--All rabbits are dinosaurs.

Premise 2--I am holding a Rabbit.

Premise 3--All Rabbits bite.

Conclusion--I am holding a dinosaur that will bite.

 

[Taffer]

Can you admit that something you have no evidence of can exist? That is not saying that it does exist, only that it can exist. Do you have such blind faith into the human machine to go as far as saying that what is not perceived by us does not exist?

Of course. I would never presume to know everything about the universe because of a lack of evidence. What my argument is based around, however, is the ability to gain knowledge. X may exist even if there is no evidence for it, but if there is no evidence for it, what point is there in believing in X?

 

[PixyMisa]

If a premise is false the conclusion isn't necessarily logically invalid.

Yes it is.

The example I provided previously is a valid logical argument with a false premise.

The argument may be valid, but since the premise is false, the conclusion is invalid.

That's why arguments aren't evidence of anything. That an argument is validly constructed means nothing unless the premise is true.

 

[Taffer]

But you said you could explain everything naturally.

Everything which is explainable, Dustin. What came before the Big Bang is not a meaningful question.

Obviously.

Do you have a point?

How would this prove a "God" and not just be an example of some random event that breaks known natural laws?

Because it can only be explained through a god-hypothesis. Do try to keep up, Dustin.

How's that?

Do you really wish to argue epistemology with me, Dustin?

 

[Taffer]

Logically valid arguments aren't just evidence, they are "Proof" of a contention. For instance my previous argument PROVED I was petting a mammal.

Having a valid argument provides no actual knowledge about the universe unless it is also sound.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

Probably. However you need to realize that I'm not endorsing any specific God right now.

All of these things are in game things that wouldn't correspond to our world. How can we verify "Commune" for example? Maybe they're contacting some "deity" opposed to "God"? As far is a "miracle" goes, How can one verify if they miracle is being performed by "God" or not?

Why must it absolutely be "God" who does these things and not some powerful 'deity' who has powers simply to do such things? This wouldn't necessarily prove God either.

A deity is a god. Remember, you're not endorsing any particular god at this point, as you say in your first paragraph. So contacting a deity proves that a god of some sort exists.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[The Great Hairy One]

No. The premise was that I was petting a Dog which may or may not have been true but was an assumed premise for arguments sake. IF I were petting a Dog I would have been petting a mammal and that's what was proven.

As long as you realise we're talking about abstract proof here. Do not confuse the proof of an argument with the proof of a physical event or act.

Showing that an argument is logically true (i.e. proven) does not mean that that argument is fully proven in the physical world.

To prove you were actually petting a dog, you need to provide physical evidence, such as a photo or video, of you actually petting a dog.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Yes it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise

The argument may be valid, but since the premise is false, the conclusion is invalid.

The conclusion could also be valid just by coincidence. Here...

Premise 1--All mammals are Dogs.

Premise 2--I am holding a mammal.

Conclusion--I am holding a dog.


Logically valid argument. True conclusion. False premise.

That's why arguments aren't evidence of anything. That an argument is validly constructed means nothing unless the premise is true.

Arguments who's premises are true are indeed proof.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Everything which is explainable, Dustin. What came before the Big Bang is not a meaningful question.

You can explain everything that is explainable? How isn't this tautology?

Do you have a point?

Just stating a fact.

Because it can only be explained through a god-hypothesis. Do try to keep up, Dustin.

How? Please elaborate. How would random events that break down natural laws prove a God?

Do you really wish to argue epistemology with me, Dustin?

If you want. Can you answer the question though?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

As long as you realise we're talking about abstract proof here. Do not confuse the proof of an argument with the proof of a physical event or act.

Showing that an argument is logically true (i.e. proven) does not mean that that argument is fully proven in the physical world.

To prove you were actually petting a dog, you need to provide physical evidence, such as a photo or video, of you actually petting a dog.

Cheers,
TGHO

Well the premise was supposed to be a given. It was a hypothetical showing how a logical argument works and doesn't work. If you saw me "petting something" that was identified as a rabbit and it was a fact that all rabbits were dogs then I would logically be petting a Dog.

 

[Taffer]

You can explain everything that is explainable? How isn't this tautology?

No. Everything which is explainable is naturalistically explainable. This is not a tautology.

How? Please elaborate. How would random events that break down natural laws prove a God?

Random events do not necessarily break natural laws. I said "If there was something which breaks natural laws, and cannot be explained using naturalistic science, then it would prove the existance of God". It needn't be a random event. A real miracle, for example, would satisfy this definition.

If you want. Can you answer the question though?

What basis could you have for believing in something without evidence? If you can believe in one thing without evidence, there is no reason to not believe in all other possible things.

 

[PixyMisa]

The conclusion could also be valid just by coincidence.

The conclusion can be true by coincidence. It is not a valid conclusion; it just happens to be true.

Logically valid argument. True conclusion. False premise.

Right.

Arguments who's premises are true are indeed proof.

A valid argument based on true premises proves its conclusion. The argument is not evidence; the argument is merely a logical connection between the premises and the conclusion. The premises are evidence; the conclusion may also be evidence. Arguments by themselves are evidence of nothing at all.

Premise -> Argument -> Conclusion

The reason I keep coming back to this is that this is very common flaw in apologetics, Christian or otherwise. Even if the argument is airtight (unlikely), if it is not founded on an empirically observable premise, the conclusion has no empirical value.

 

[PixyMisa]

No. Everything which is explainable is naturalistically explainable. This is not a tautology.

It is an axiom, though. It's not something provable or observable... Though inductively it certainly seems to be correct.

Dustin, the reason Taffer is saying that "What caused the Big Bang?" is a meaningless question goes directly to the fundamental underpinnings of science. Science is an exercise in explaining the universe in terms of the universe. To do so, certain assumptions must be made: That the universe is causally closed, or to put it another way, that the universe is what is; and that the universe follows a single, consistent set of rules.

Now, those are assumptions; they could be wrong. On a purely metaphysical basis, they are no more supportable than any others. On a practical basis, though, they are in a completely different class to any other philosophy ever devised. Science works.

But since science is an explanation of a causally closed universe in terms of itself, it must logically exclude anything outside the universe, outside in terms of either space or time. So "What caused the Big Bang?" is not a meaningful scientific question... Or, if one day we discover an answer, it will mean that what we presently think of as the universe was not causally closed after all, and we will have discovered a larger universe that encloses our universe and is in turn causally closed, so the problem will merely have been push up a level.

This is why an interventionist God is incompatible with science, by the way. You can believe in the God of the Bible - or Buddha, or Krishna - and still do good and valid science, but that means you are practising two mutually exclusive belief sets.

 

[PixyMisa]

Or to put it yet another way, science itself is the theory that there is no (interventionist) God, and every success of science is additional evidence of this. Science can never prove that there is no God; he may merely be hiding, and in any case, science doesn't prove things. But from the facts to hand, that's certainly the way to bet.

 

[Taffer]

It is an axiom, though. It's not something provable or observable... Though inductively it certainly seems to be correct.

Very true.

Dustin, the reason Taffer is saying that "What caused the Big Bang?" is a meaningless question goes directly to the fundamental underpinnings of science. Science is an exercise in explaining the universe in terms of the universe. To do so, certain assumptions must be made: That the universe is causally closed, or to put it another way, that the universe is what is; and that the universe follows a single, consistent set of rules.

Now, those are assumptions; they could be wrong. On a purely metaphysical basis, they are no more supportable than any others. On a practical basis, though, they are in a completely different class to any other philosophy ever devised. Science works.

But since science is an explanation of a causally closed universe in terms of itself, it must logically exclude anything outside the universe, outside in terms of either space or time. So "What caused the Big Bang?" is not a meaningful scientific question... Or, if one day we discover an answer, it will mean that what we presently think of as the universe was not causally closed after all, and we will have discovered a larger universe that encloses our universe and is in turn causally closed, so the problem will merely have been push up a level.

This is why an interventionist God is incompatible with science, by the way. You can believe in the God of the Bible - or Buddha, or Krishna - and still do good and valid science, but that means you are practising two mutually exclusive belief sets.

Yup.

 

[largeprimenumber]

Actually it's just a euphemism for not being able to see the big picture because you're focusing on tiny individual aspects of it. For the sake of the point the picture and seeing the picture is a given.

You miss my point: if you fail to demonstrate the forest, then the one who sees only a tree isn't missing anything, and you're only imagining the forest.

That just proves 2 trees.

I said "at least".

They could demonstrate it to normal people? I don't recall any normal people being convinced they were living inside of a fake world simply because they saw some of the super feats of Neo or the Agents. They probably just interpreted it in their context of the world and believed they didn't see what they thought they saw or it was some sort of illusion or they were just too tired.

The point is that there is no "red pill" for "God"--in the context of the JREF, I am saying that Neo & Co. could win the Challenge.

 

[D'rok]

Yes it is.

The argument may be valid, but since the premise is false, the conclusion is invalid.

That's why arguments aren't evidence of anything. That an argument is validly constructed means nothing unless the premise is true.

You're mixing up the concepts of validity and soundness. The conclusions of Dustin's arguments with false premises are perfectly valid. They are, however, unsound. Validity is formal only; soundness reflects truth/untruth.

The mistake that Dustin makes is in assuming that the conclusion to an argument that is both valid and sound proves anything other than that a closed system of syllogistic logic has a good set of rules in at least the instance of this argument. You are correct: arguments are not evidence.

 

[D'rok]

Dustin, the reason Taffer is saying that "What caused the Big Bang?" is a meaningless question goes directly to the fundamental underpinnings of science. Science is an exercise in explaining the universe in terms of the universe. To do so, certain assumptions must be made: That the universe is causally closed, or to put it another way, that the universe is what is; and that the universe follows a single, consistent set of rules.

Now, those are assumptions; they could be wrong. On a purely metaphysical basis, they are no more supportable than any others. On a practical basis, though, they are in a completely different class to any other philosophy ever devised. Science works.

But since science is an explanation of a causally closed universe in terms of itself, it must logically exclude anything outside the universe, outside in terms of either space or time. So "What caused the Big Bang?" is not a meaningful scientific question... Or, if one day we discover an answer, it will mean that what we presently think of as the universe was not causally closed after all, and we will have discovered a larger universe that encloses our universe and is in turn causally closed, so the problem will merely have been push up a level.

Well said.

 

[logical muse]

I probably have more I.E. bookmarks set to Pro god sites than I do skeptic/atheist sites.

Ah, I see the problem. You should be using Firefox.