Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[theVOID]

Ugh, I really need to head to bed. If you (theVOID) can clarify two issues for me, I will do the "God proof" in the morning.

1. How do you know the pyramids require a builder and did not arise by naturalistic processes?
2. Just the point about how you know it was the Egyptian empire that claimed to build the pyramids.

1. Firstly, I can't require that, to require something is to necessitate or prove it, proof is mathematical and is a certain and objective truth. We could use a line of reasoning such as: no known mechanism for the formation of stone building-like structures of particular symmetry and utility == No reason to have positive belief in such a mechanism. If you can demonstrate a natural process that creates buildings with pictorial language depicting humans performing rituals then I'll reconsider, but the pyramids no doubt best represent analogous human building projects. We have never seen any analogous structures form from mechanism or self-replication either.

2. What do you mean by 2? How do I know all of the evidence from Egyptian antiquity isn't forged? It's extremely unlikely, so we can have an argument to best explanation as a minimum. Beyond that there are likely many clues from the style and structure of the symbols to decay dating methods to the paper used to the current state of the papyrus etc. I could quite easily find this I suspect, a quick search confirms it, but i've not got the time (or interest) to sort out every detail, so the argument from best explanation would suffice, it necessarily makes it more likely than the other completely unsupported possible explanations such as forgery or trickster aliens.

Wait wait, I was heading to bed until I saw this. Are you saying you can't prove the Egyptians built the pyramids but you believe they did anyways? Are you also saying that the reason you believe this is because of evidnece against anyone else building them? So you are using disjunctive reasoning? Evidence against A equals B when A and B are the only two options. The same reasoning everyone else flamed me for using? Somehow I doubt you will get flamed for using it though.

No, I can't necessitate that the Egyptians built the pyramids. Also, something does not need to be shown to be necessary for belief in that proposition to be justified, you need to show that the belief is permitted by an epistemology that is both sound and valid. Something that is necessarily true is always justified, something that is justified is not necessarily true.

No it is not a disjunctive syllogism as I am not proposing any other possible explanations other than A or stating that there are B or C or D possible explanations total and then ruling them out which is required - You need to establish B, C, D are the only possible values for A, and then establish that A =/= C or D making B the only possible and thus the necessary value.

What I am saying is that based on any sound and valid epistemology the only belief that is justified is the one that the Egyptians were responsible. There may be another logically possible explanation or many logically possible explanations, but there is no way of establishing belief in any other logically possible position as valid.

I have no problem with disjunctive syllogisms, if the premises are true the conclusion is necessarily true. Establishing a finite set of possible values for A and then ruling out all but B can be very tricky, you don't see them used too often for that reason.

---

---

This is not a case of special pleading, for starters I prefer the logical form even if it exposes the flaws in my own arguments more clearly it helps to learn how to form a good argument. You and the other members can discuss in whatever form you like, and usually I wouldn't request a formal argument, I've just got an inclination towards it making your own fallacies more obvious.

If your argument is sound and valid in it's normal context then the formal argument will be more of a restructuring than a formulation.

Aside form that there are a few obvious advantages to a formal argument:

1. It is easier to evaluate in it's full context (coherency, efficiency)
2. Premises that might go unnoticed as assertions are picked up on (soundness)
3. Fallacies and false premises are more easily spotted (soundness)
4. it is much easier to determine if the conclusion follows from the premises. (validity)

Given your confidence that you're correct I'd assumed that you already have something like a mental map augment in your head, this is a good way to examine it.

---

Ok, I actually agree with you on this. I do have several syllogisms, but I first want to see if you agree with the premises. Hence why we are talking about pyramids, because they require the same premises that go into demonstrating the pyramids were built and didn't arise from natural means.

You have one problem to overcome that i'll point out straight away:

Disproving a natural mechanism for evolution does not necessitate that a God exists. You need to then establish that it is a God and not spontaneous formation (or any logically possible explanation), thus you need argument or evidence that indicates the presence of a deity where none can be found for spontaneity (or any other logically possible yet unknown explanation). You could use an epistemology that is sound and valid and permits theism but cannot be used to lend credence to another explanation

If you want to use a disjunctive syllogism you'd have to necessitate that the options you presented are the only logically possible ones - If you can do that i'd be really impressed, like I said before it's extremely difficult to do any doesn't really arise in many non-hypothetical or controlled situations.

You could have a totally different strategy though, so i'll wait and see.