RE: A good argument for God's existence (long but worth it)
October 24, 2017 at 9:01 am
(This post was last modified: October 24, 2017 at 9:16 am by The Grand Nudger.)
The bit about there being no connection is a problem of condition. MP/MT are conditional statements that rely on relationships between the propositions themselves.
To use the easy wiki example, being a male sibling is necessary and sufficient condition of being a brother. It's necessary to be male to be a brother, however, being a male is not sufficient to be a brother. You must also be a sibling.
Using the second argument as an example of how a failure of implicational relationship renders a conditional statement invalid....is it necessary for something to exist for you to have reason to believe in it? Is belief sufficient to reach a conclusion regarding it's existence? Do I have to shit on your pillow for you to believe that I did? If I manage to convince you that I shit on your pillow...does that actually mean that I did?
An easy way of demonstrating to the afflicted that they have failed, is to remind them that any necessary and sufficient relationship must hold in both directions. So, for example, if there were no reason to believe that god exists, then it must mean that god does not exist. At least, if they wish to maintain the fundamental validity of their premise in a conditional statement.
-That- claim can be similarly addressed (and rejected) by stating that I have no reason to believe that a pink butterfly is sitting on a windowsill this very moment in china...but that doesn't mean that there isn't one. The classic black swan example.
The premise is utterly worthless, as it fails to identify or comment on an adequate relationship between the propositions.
This leaves us with nothing more than the assertion that:
There's reason to believe in revelation from god.
-AKA; "I have a magic book!".
This, and not a fundamentally useless premise, is what their conclusion arises from. It's unsurprising that a person who believes in revelations from a god also "concludes" that a god exists. It's similarly unsurprising to find that people who do not find the assertion credible will not find the malformed argument or it's misbegotten conclusion to be compelling. A, no they don't have a magic book..and B, if they did have a magic book all the work to establish that it's from a god would still be ahead of them.
(I had this conversation /w mystic years ago.....I'm kind of disappointed to see that he;s still screwing the pooch in the same way)
To use the easy wiki example, being a male sibling is necessary and sufficient condition of being a brother. It's necessary to be male to be a brother, however, being a male is not sufficient to be a brother. You must also be a sibling.
Using the second argument as an example of how a failure of implicational relationship renders a conditional statement invalid....is it necessary for something to exist for you to have reason to believe in it? Is belief sufficient to reach a conclusion regarding it's existence? Do I have to shit on your pillow for you to believe that I did? If I manage to convince you that I shit on your pillow...does that actually mean that I did?
An easy way of demonstrating to the afflicted that they have failed, is to remind them that any necessary and sufficient relationship must hold in both directions. So, for example, if there were no reason to believe that god exists, then it must mean that god does not exist. At least, if they wish to maintain the fundamental validity of their premise in a conditional statement.
-That- claim can be similarly addressed (and rejected) by stating that I have no reason to believe that a pink butterfly is sitting on a windowsill this very moment in china...but that doesn't mean that there isn't one. The classic black swan example.
The premise is utterly worthless, as it fails to identify or comment on an adequate relationship between the propositions.
This leaves us with nothing more than the assertion that:
There's reason to believe in revelation from god.
-AKA; "I have a magic book!".
This, and not a fundamentally useless premise, is what their conclusion arises from. It's unsurprising that a person who believes in revelations from a god also "concludes" that a god exists. It's similarly unsurprising to find that people who do not find the assertion credible will not find the malformed argument or it's misbegotten conclusion to be compelling. A, no they don't have a magic book..and B, if they did have a magic book all the work to establish that it's from a god would still be ahead of them.
(I had this conversation /w mystic years ago.....I'm kind of disappointed to see that he;s still screwing the pooch in the same way)
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
