OK Christians. your chance. Convince me of God.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're mistaking me for the person proposing this argument, I agree, it's nonsense, I'm just trying to help you to understand the concepts of sufficient and necessary condition and how their absence can lead to an argument that is neither valid nor sound.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition_(logic)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens

[Mystic]

The argument is non sense in that the premises A -> B is not true and is false, and Not B, is not true either and is false...however if you accept the premises, they do lead to Not A, which is a valid conclusion then, but it's not a sound conclusion.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

...

again, If there were undenyable proof then people like you would have no choice but to believe. If for no other reason then self preservation.

So, apparently by that logic, one should love their spouse before they even meet for the first time? Most people meet their spouse before they're in love. Does that mean their relationships are a sham because of that?

And this whole thing about "undeniable" proof is a bit odd. What level of proof did God provide you? Was it semi-deniable? What percentage of it was deniable and undeniable? Was it 60 percent deniable, and 40 percent undeniable? If so, then you believe in God 40 percent of the time just for self preservation!

Is there a specific ratio of undeniable to deniable proof of God that results in belief? Maybe God is providing atheists with the wrong serving size of proof?

Of course I could ask, why decide people's salvation based on simple "belief"? Why not be based on an authentic love for God? And why is it that absolute proof of God existence necessarily entails a phony conversion? You haven't shown that to be the case.

And supposing phony conversions would be such a problem, maybe God should have never told us about the existence of hell in the first place! If nobody was aware of hell, then maybe everyone would freely love God because of how awesome he is?

I Never said these instances were universal proofs of God. These events (an many others) are the proofs that I needed in my own personal life to justify my faith in God. If I were one person out of the billions that have lived and are alive now, then I would dismiss my own accounts. But, as it is i am not. Billions more have similar experiences. Not anyone enough to force a non believer to believe, but enough to establish and maintain belief in one person's life.

This is just special pleading. And you are simply a crazy person, Drich, for excepting what you have told us as proof. UFO and bigfoot hunters are convinced on better evidence than you.

No one has ever been saved according to what he believes God has done for someone else. Salvation is a result of a direct relationship God has with you through the blood Christ offered on your behalf.

blah blah blah, heard it a million times.

If you want to know for yourself, then simply Ask, though prayer and petition. Seek in the bible, church and through your questions, and knock by repeating this process till you find what your heart is looking for. Let God Change your life and offer you a proof that will mean nothing to anyone else, but to you will be the like the key to faith you are looking for. All any of us needs is a mustard seed's worth of faith.

[The Grand Nudger]

Would you consider this argument equivalent?

If the book is from god, no contradictions will be found
No contradictions are found
Therefore the book is from god

[Mystic]

Rhythm,

A -> B

A is a sufficient condition for B to be true, but B doesn't need A to be true, but B is a necessary condition for A.

If something is both a sufficient and necessary condition, then it's a double implication.

All this is saying, B can true without A being true, but A cannot be true without B being true, but if A is true, then is enough to prove B is true.

---

Would you consider this argument equivalent?

If the book is from god, no contradictions will be found
No contradictions are found
Therefore the book is from god

This is an invalid argument.

A ->B
B
Therefore A.

is invalid.

If the book is from other then God (a), contradictions will be found (b).
Contradictions are not found (not b).
Therefore the book is from God (not a).

Would not be an equivalent argument to the one you showed.

What you showed is invalid, what I am showing is valid, but not sound. Both premises 1 and 2 are wrong. But you can't accept 1 and 2 as right, and then reject the conclusion 3 which means it's valid.

[The Grand Nudger]

Surely you mean "Not A" implies B. In which case you are drawing a positive conclusion from at least two negative premises. A no-no.

If you are hoping to call A a positive premise then you need to remove the "not" bit Mystic. However, if you remove the "not" bit you must then rework what follows (unless you want it to state something hilarious). As In "If the book is from god, no contradictions will be found......" unfortunately if you were to do so you would be left with,

If A, then B
B
Therefore A

Another textbook no-no

[Mystic]

Surely you mean "Not A" implies B. In which case you are drawing a positive conclusion from at least two negative premises. A no-no.

If you are hoping to call A a positive premise then you need to remove the "not" bit Mystic. However, if you remove the "not" bit you must then rework what follows. As In "If the book is from god......" unfortunately if you were to do so you would be left with,

If A, then B
B
Therefore A

Another textbook no-no

In logic, two not not is used. When you write in university, the step to cancel them out is called

(double negation) <-- you put that besides the step.

---

Hold on let me get that computer science text book out.

---

p -> q = not p or q
p -> q = not q -> not p

---

Rhythm...look up "Double negation".

[The Grand Nudger]

Agreed, the argument I offered is invalid, but in what way does it differ from your own? Why cant I leverage transposition and negate both of the parts in that conditional (which is what I did to your argument) without losing validity?

IOW, if I transpose them and the argument loses its validity wouldn't that be an example of other factors which were not accounted for in the original assessment of the relationship of those two parts? If I accepted that the book was not from god, and that contradictions would be found, in addition to accepting that no contradictions were found, I would still not be compelled to accept that the book was from god, because those other factors had been omitted (and you had not stated that there were no other factors which could account for this-that isnt something that's been accepted).

[Mystic]

Agreed, the argument I offered is invalid, but in what way does it differ from your own?

Ok the first argument I worded it like this.

Not A -> B
Not B
Therefore A.

Then I think you got confused with double negation,

So I re-wrote as

A -> B
Not B
Therefore Not A

Both of these are logically valid.

From other then God. The negation of that is "from God". The negation of "from God" is from "other then God".

Yours was written like this.

A -> B
B
Therefore A.

Which is invalid.

[Pokemon]

It seems to me that if one wishes to believe something, then it makes this thing much easier to believe however if one rejects the possibly of the belief without consideration of the evidence then one is hard-pressed to accept any evidence that contradicts his own preconceived notions. The presuppositions of the atheistic position is that it is at least empirically, impossible to prove god exists and if-so facto (given atheist tend to be strict empiricalists) then god must not exist however many atheist will apply genetic fallacy in order to justify those presuppositions on which their argument is based.
Now if one looks at the evidence objectively one can at least conclude that God exists if not a Monotheistic God.
Disregarding all preconcieved notions we can deductively prove God without Appealing to Biblical authority. Of course the analysis is required but truely if athiest abandons reason simply because that reason no longer supports reason then perhaps he ought to reconsider his worldview because I happen to know plenty of pseudo scientists who abandon reason to fit their needs: Young Earth Creationists.
1. (x) (Bx -> Cx)
2. Bu
3. Cu

Where B = begins to exist; c = cause, u = universe.
Premise one
Everything that begins to exist has a cause
Premise Two
The Universe began to exist
Therefore,
The Universe has a cause.
Regarding premise 1:
It seems rather intuitive. It is confirmed by virtually every area of our sense experience. It is a axiom at best.Even quantum fluctuations, which many suppose to be uncaused, are causally conditioned in that they depend on the existence of a pre-existing quantum vacuum.
David Oderberg argues:

We are asked to countenance the possibility of the following situation: the nonexistence of anything followed by the existence of something. The words “followed by” are crucial — how are they to be interpreted? What they cannot mean is that there is at one time nothing and at a subsequent time something, because the nonexistence of anything is supposed toinclude time: to say that at one time there is nothing whatsoever is self-defeating because it is to say that there is a time at which nothing exists — hence something did exist. But it is hard to see how else we are supposed to understand “followed by”; or when the denier of the causal principle says that it is possible for something to come from nothing what are we to understand by “from”? Again it cannot have a causal sense because something is supposed to have come into existence uncaused. All that appears to be left is a timeless contradiction — the existence of nothing and the existence of something. [1]

Regarding Premise two:
"An actual infinite cannot exist.
An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
Therefore an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist" WLC
If the Universe was infinite along with being temporal because it relates to causes within time, which likewise always existed, then is an infinite temporal regress because it goes into the past forever. The universe must be explained this way in order to avoid an absolute cosmic beginning to all of space-time reality. It requires there exist an actual infinite within natural reality, because past causes and events have to go on forever into the past by definition given an eternal universe. This perennial philosophical problem is not an issue under theistic accounts which produce arguments for transcendent being like a personal God because traditionally God is considered the only non-contingent or always existing, non-caused cause. The infinite regress is stopped by an ontological commitment to a supernatural personal agent that is the ultimate cause of the existence, and according to the kalam cosmological argument, the beginning of the universe.