• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Please critique this argument against miracles

psionl0 said:
No, a circular argument is, by definition, not logical. But a circular argument (or begging the question if there are only two statements) depends on the two-way conditional being true.
Click to expand...
I'm not interested in pursuing this line of thought, as I think is irrelevant for the actual purpose to which I put my argument about the circular argument. If you think that line of thought *is* relevant to my actual purpose, that's fine, but I'm not interested in discussing it.

Cheers.
 
arthwollipot said:
Oh, you mean

IF ( IF x THEN y ) THEN y
AND
IF ( IF y THEN x ) THEN x
THEREFORE
x is true only IF ( IF x THEN y ) is true, and
y is true only IF ( IF x THEN y ) is true.

And you get the same circularity.
Click to expand...
I didnt't mean anything of the sort! What strawman crap are you trying to create?
 
Paul2 said:
I'm not interested in pursuing this line of thought, as I think is irrelevant for the actual purpose to which I put my argument about the circular argument. If you think that line of thought *is* relevant to my actual purpose, that's fine, but I'm not interested in discussing it.

Cheers.
Click to expand...
I thought your original argument was if x => y then you can establish that y is true by establishing that x is true but you can't establish that x is true by establishing that y is true.
Conversely, if y => x then you can establish that x is true by establishing that y is true but you can't establish that y is true by establishing that x is true.
I pointed out that if both conditionals are true (x <=> y) then you can establish that either one is true by establishing that the other is true.

I have since added that if x <=> y then you can't establish that either is true by ASSUMING that the other is true (circular argument). I don't know why you think that is is irrelevant.

It would appear that we have got to the stage of deciding that neither conditional is true so the whole argument becomes moot.
 
arthwollipot said:
This can be rendered as:

IF ( IF x THEN y ) THEN...

It appears to be not me who misunderstands logic.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
It's quite funny when religious apologists think they understand logic. Throughout my entire life, I have yet to read or hear a syllogism arguing for the existence of God that is valid and sound. Not a one.
 
arthwollipot said:
This can be rendered as:

IF ( IF x THEN y ) THEN...
Click to expand...
Conditional logic is one of the most misunderstood aspects of logic and you are a prime example.

FYI you have 3 statements: x, y and x=>y any of which could be true or false.

x=>y does not imply that y is true as you incorrectly ascribe to me.
 
acbytesla said:
It's quite funny when religious apologists haters think they understand logic.
Click to expand...
You seem to think that an argument is only logical if it is against any gods. One that does not make any claims about the existence of a god is illogical in your book.
 
psionl0 said:
You seem to think that an argument is only logical if it is against any gods. One that does not make any claims about the existence of a god is illogical in your book.
Click to expand...
False. I have heard logical arguments for many things. Feel free to present a syllogism that is both valid and sound supporting the existence of a god and you will be right and I will be wrong. I will have no choice, but to concede.

Good luck.
 
acbytesla said:
False. I have heard logical arguments for many things. Feel free to present a syllogism that is both valid and sound supporting the existence of a god and you will be right and I will be wrong. I will have no choice, but to concede.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to do that. I'm not interested in trying to prove that a God exists or doesn't exist. I am only interested in the logic behind the arguments already given and I must say, it's not very good on either side.
 
psionl0 said:
I'm not going to do that. I'm not interested in trying to prove that a God exists or doesn't exist. I am only interested in the logic behind the arguments already given and I must say, it's not very good on either side.
Click to expand...
Sure it is. One side pushes a fairy tale with imaginary beings with zero evidence supporting their claims and the other side doesn't accept those claims. I can most definitely write valid and sound syllogisms on the absence of evidence supporting God claims.
 
acbytesla said:
Sure it is. One side pushes a fairy tale with imaginary beings with zero evidence supporting their claims and the other side doesn't accept those claims. I can most definitely write valid and sound syllogisms on the absence of evidence supporting God claims.
Click to expand...
That is what I mean about the logic not being very good on either side. I post about proving gods don't exist and you post about "absence of evidence" as if it were the same thing.
 
psionl0 said:
That is what I mean about the logic not being very good on either side. I post about proving gods don't exist and you post about "absence of evidence" as if it were the same thing.
Click to expand...
No, that isn't remotely identical tasks. One cannot prove non-existence. On anything. Particularly unfalsifiable claims. I can not prove that the Loch Ness Monster, Homer's cyclops or sirens don't exist. There's a very good reason that anyone making a positive claim has the burden of proof.
 
acbytesla said:
No, that isn't remotely identical tasks. One cannot prove non-existence. On anything. Particularly unfalsifiable claims. I can not prove that the Loch Ness Monster, Homer's cyclops or sirens don't exist. There's a very good reason that anyone making a positive claim has the burden of proof.
Click to expand...
And now we can add shifting the goal posts to your list of fallacies. The unfalsifiability of an argument doesn't mean that you can change the argument to something else and hope nobody notices.
 
psionl0 said:
And now we can add shifting the goal posts to your list of fallacies. The unfalsifiability of an argument doesn't mean that you can change the argument to something else and hope nobody notices.
Click to expand...
Huh? That makes as much sense as Depok Chopra or Jordan Peterson.
 
psionl0 said:
Conditional logic is one of the most misunderstood aspects of logic and you are a prime example.

FYI you have 3 statements: x, y and x=>y any of which could be true or false.

x=>y does not imply that y is true as you incorrectly ascribe to me.
Click to expand...
I don't know what you mean by "=>" as it is not a symbol in any system of propositional calculus that I'm familiar with. Could you explain please? I always like my propositional connectives to be clear and unambiguous.
 
arthwollipot said:
I don't know what you mean by "=>" as it is not a symbol in any system of propositional calculus that I'm familiar with.
Click to expand...
Wow. You are trying to pretend that your knowledge of logic is superior to mine but you not only don't know what "=>" means, you can't infer its meaning from the context in which it has been used.

FYI x => y is equivalent to any of the following:
"x implies y"
"if x then y"
"x only if y"
"y is necessary for x"
"x is sufficient for y"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom