RE: Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic
March 21, 2018 at 5:11 pm
(March 21, 2018 at 3:44 pm)SteveII Wrote:(March 21, 2018 at 2:15 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:
If your set of exclusions (things that do not begin to exist) does not contain anything but your god, then you are smuggling the conclusion into the first premise.
A couple of things. One, an inductive argument is going to have, within its premises, mention of the subject (or in this case, it's negation) it is arguing for. There is no inherent logical problem nor is there a fallacy in this fact alone. I am not sure if you have a logical reason for thinking this important in this case or that you just think it should not happen in general. I would point you back to the All Men are Mortal...Socrates is Mortal argument.
Two, not that it matters for the argument but a Platonist would say that a number of abstract objects would be included in the set of things that do not being to exists. Many mathematicians are Platonists. Another is people like Polymath and Grandizer think the universe exists infinitely in the past so did not begin to exist. It could also be another argument that there is nothing in that set. It's really not the question the argument was designed to analyze.
Syllogisms cannot be used to prove the existence of things. There's nothing wrong with the Socrates is mortal syllogism because it does not attempt to prove the existence of immortals.
All men born of women are mortal
Socrates was not born of a women
Therefore Socrates is immortal
Anytime a syllogism provides new facts about the world instead of sorting out the facts we have, it involves a fallacy of some kind.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.