(February 3, 2022 at 6:21 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(February 2, 2022 at 6:10 pm)Nomad Wrote: All this is assertion.  To be able to do the P Q thing you are trying to do you require evidence.  You have none.  If you did you'd post evidence instead of this bullshit.

This is one of the things in logic that many theists seem not to notice.

A valid syllogism is only as good as the soundness of the evidence fed into it.

It is quite easy to create a valid logical argument, that does not demonstrate a thing.

Major Premise:  A bishop can only move diagonally.

Minor Premise:  The Pope is the Bishop of Rome.

Conclusion:  Therefore, the Pope can only move diagonally.

Maybe we should start a sticky thread on silly syllogisms?  (Some theists may try to "save" the above syllogism by invoking some sort of conformal geometry to say that the Pope does, in fact, move diagonally, if only by a "miracle.")

(February 3, 2022 at 6:58 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(February 3, 2022 at 6:21 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: This is one of the things in logic that many theists seem not to notice.

A valid syllogism is only as good as the soundness of the evidence fed into it.

It is quite easy to create a valid logical argument, that does not demonstrate a thing.

Major Premise:  A bishop can only move diagonally.

Minor Premise:  The Pope is the Bishop of Rome.

Conclusion:  Therefore, the Pope can only move diagonally.

Maybe we should start a sticky thread on silly syllogisms?  (Some theists may try to "save" the above syllogism by invoking some sort of conformal geometry to say that the Pope does, in fact, move diagonally, if only by a "miracle.")

Y'know, I've always felt that bishops only being only to move diagonally made them somewhat suspect.

Diagonal motion is how the common man kills. Yet, this is the only way the bishops can move at all. 

(February 4, 2022 at 12:12 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: Y'know, I've always felt that bishops only being only to move diagonally made them somewhat suspect.

Diagonal motion is how the common man kills. Yet, this is the only way the bishops can move at all. 

Don't even get me started about the horse thingy piece. It's movement is almost schizophrenic, but I'll just call it deranged.

Pawns move straight forward and move diagonally to kill.
Bishops are pure assassins because they only move diagonally.
Never trust a bishop.

(February 3, 2022 at 1:25 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote: In Quantum Mechanics, there is causality, but it doesn't mean what Kloro thinks it means.

Initial conditions determine the probabilities of "caused" events, but do not determine the actual events themselves.

This only means that we don't have access to enough information to pinpoint the causes of these events. Still, no good reason to reject causality. 

Merely assigning probabilities may be an expression of our limited knowledge. Only the all-knowing God determines the actual events, a theist can easily argue along these lines

(February 26, 2022 at 6:59 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(February 3, 2022 at 1:25 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote: In Quantum Mechanics, there is causality, but it doesn't mean what Kloro thinks it means.

Initial conditions determine the probabilities of "caused" events, but do not determine the actual events themselves.

This only means that we don't have access to enough information to pinpoint the causes of these events. Still, no good reason to reject causality. 

Merely assigning probabilities may be an expression of our limited knowledge. Only the all-knowing God determines the actual events, a theist can easily argue along these lines

Feel free to comment on my other thread of surviving a thermonuclear detonation in one's hometown.

In any case, I find it impossible to believe that there is a God who causes some U235 atoms to fission in an atomic blast (a necessary precursor to the hydrogen fussion bomb) while allowing other U235 atoms to turn into U236 atoms via neutron capture with a half-life of 1.5 billion years or so; these atoms, of course, do not contribute to the fission blast.

Arguing for a god whose existence is unproven is unreasonable.

(February 3, 2022 at 1:25 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote: Initial conditions determine the probabilities of "caused" events, but do not determine the actual events themselves.

This is a bit closer to the way theologians use the word "cause." 

Most people today use it to refer only to efficient cause. In theology, "causes" means something like "all those things that must be the case in order for X to be the case." In that sense, everything in physics has causes.

(February 26, 2022 at 7:25 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Feel free to comment on my other thread of surviving a thermonuclear detonation in one's hometown.

I will check it out. I hope the ongoing Russian agression won't come to that, though.

(February 26, 2022 at 7:25 pm)Jehanne Wrote: In any case, I find it impossible to believe that there is a God who causes some U235 atoms to fission in an atomic blast (a necessary precursor to the hydrogen fussion bomb) while allowing other U235 atoms to turn into U236 atoms via neutron capture with a half-life of 1.5 billion years or so; these atoms, of course, do not contribute to the fission blast.

If I understand you correctly, you think God isn't supposed to allow the making of atomic bombs, but the same can be said about any instance of evil. I think that Otto Hahn, the chemist who discovered nuclear fission, is the only person to blame. It can safely be said that his scientific contributions didn't really contribute to our well being in any way.

 Yes, an all-powerful deity could prevent all evil from happening, but it could have reasons that are unkown (unknowable?) to us for not doing so. In fact, theologians have managed to resolve the so-called problem of evil (in its logical form) quite convincingly, it's actually one of the very rare topics (if not the only one) in the philosophy of religion where one finds clear concessions by atheists that an objection to belief in God really was solved.

(February 26, 2022 at 7:27 pm)Foxaire Wrote: Arguing for a god whose existence is unproven is unreasonable.

This doesn't make sense. If one is arguing for a god, they're precisely trying to make his existence proven. There is nothing unreasonable with defending one's beliefs

By all empirical logic, god does not exist. First, prove the god exists. Otherwise, there is no reasonable point in any of the arguments.