Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic

[Jenny A]

---

---

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
HTherefore 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.

Are you getting this principle from somewhere else or is this something you came up with yourself.  I haven't seen this as a standard philosophical principle, I'm trying to understand it.  Do you know why this is.

The phrase, "it involves a fallacy of some kind" doesn't inspire confidence as a solid principle.

Fair enough. Look at how a syllogism works.  It takes two propositions that relate to each other in some way to make a conclusion about one of the subjects of the propositions based upon information stated in each  proposition.  What it does not do is produce new information not stated in the original propositions.

All  A are B
C is an A
Therefore C is an A

No new facts or entities are created.

No A are B
C is an A
Therefore C is not a B

No new facts or entities are created.

Illogical syllogisms often result in new facts or entities only implied by the propositions.

When one or both propositions are negative  but the result is positive (A common fallacy) a new fact or entity is often created.

All A's can't swim
B is not an A
Therefore B can swim

The conclusion is not proven.  But more than that the conclution asserts a catagory of this not actually stated in the premises, i.e, that somethings can swim.  Do you recognize it? It's how I smuggled the existence of immortals into my Socrates syllogism. 


Or a catagorical syllogism in which both propositions are negative.

No A is B
Some B are not C
Therefore, some C are not A

Whoops.  This is subtler but neither  proposition says anything about A's relationship to C.  It's a new and undemonstrated relationship.


Things that E  must have a C
B does E
Therefore B must have a C

No problem there.  You do recognize it? As long as both premises are true it works.  And if the words begin to exist and  cause have the same meaning in both propositions and both propositions are true and no new information is added.  

My contention is that the propositions do not carry the same meaning in both both propositions.  What is really being said is:

Things created out of preexisting matter must have a material cause
A is created without the use of preexisting matter
Therefore A must have an uncreated cause

Symobically stated:

All things that E must have a C
B does E1
Therefore B must have a E-less C

Whoops, where did that uncreated cause  E-less category slip in?  It's not in the propositions.

You can fix it by making all the causes and all the methods of coming into existence the same, and it will work logically.  Either

(A)
1 All things created out of matter have a material cause
2 B was created out of matter
3. Therefore B had a material cause

Or

(B) 
1 All things created out of nothing have an uncreated cause
2 B was created out of nothing
3  Therefore B had an uncreated cause.

Neither commit logical fallacy.  But demonstrating the propositions would be an uphill battle.