Who throws the dice for you?

[Heywood]

Don't be silly. The "only" doesn't negate the "if". It negates the possibility of an explanation other than God.

... thus negating the 'if'! If there's no 'else' there's no reason for an 'if'!! Don't ever try to program an IF statement, you'll probably end the universe.

You can take the "only" out if you like.

How about I re-write the 'hypothesis' properly for you:

1. Problem: We see events which cannot be explained by local physical causes
2. Hypothesis: There is a 'control method' for 'events which cannot be explained by local physical causes'
3. Null-hypothesis: there is no 'control method' for 'events which cannot be explained by local physical causes'
4. Definition: <insert definition of 'events'>
5. Experiment: Observe and recreate 'events' in order to create definitions of possible 'control methods'
6. Result: Factually demonstrate the existence of God
7. Holy shit!

I predict that you will fail at 6.

Should you, somehow, fulfill the above requirements, you might then posit:

Premise 1: God is demonstrably existent
Premise 2: God interacts with quantum events in measurable ways
Premise 3: God-controlled quantum events have an appearance of randomness
Conclusion: God is the control mechanism behind the appearance of randomness in quantum events

Ahh...I see how you are misunderstanding now.

You are conflating premise 1 and premise 2.

If you take premise 1 by itself you should see the "if" isn't magically negated by the "only"

Premise 1: A is true only if B is true.
Premise 2: B is true.
Conclusion: A is true.

You see the condition in premise 1 is this.....either B is true or it isn't.

Premise 1: God exists only if events happen which cannot be explained by local physical causes.
Premise 2: Events happen which cannot be explained by local physical causes.
Conclusion: Therefore God exists.

Again....no begging the question.

If you do not get this...I'm afraid you are just a lost cause. This is my last response on this tangent.

[LostLocke]

Premise 1: God exists only if events happen which cannot be explained by local physical causes.
Premise 2: Events happen which cannot be explained by local physical causes.
Conclusion: Therefore God exists.

Premise 1: Sauron exists only if events happen which cannot be explained by local physical causes.
Premise 2: Events happen which cannot be explained by local physical causes.
Conclusion: Therefore Sauron exists.

See.....the issue is that you need to show that God exists before you make any premise that he does exist.
See how that works?

[Rampant.A.I.]

Actually, all you showed is that you either don't realise when you're begging the question or that you'll deliberately lie in order to defend your faith.

The 'only' was crucial because it negates the 'if': there is no alternative to the 'condition' therefore it's not a condition, it's an assumption. The construction of an IF statement is IF, THEN, ELSE. If there's no ELSE, the IF is irrelevant.
Quite the contrary. I wonder if you'll ever learn to live with that?

Don't be silly. The "only" doesn't negate the "if". It negates the possibility of an explanation other than God.

The argument is valid. There is no begging the question.

For the record, the point of the argument was not to summarize my position. The point of the argument was to show you there is no begging the question. You can take the "only" out if you like.

"I've presented you a question with only one answer, based on an assumption. How dare you accuse me of begging the question!"

... thus negating the 'if'! If there's no 'else' there's no reason for an 'if'!! Don't ever try to program an IF statement, you'll probably end the universe.
How about I re-write the 'hypothesis' properly for you:

1. Problem: We see events which cannot be explained by local physical causes
2. Hypothesis: There is a 'control method' for 'events which cannot be explained by local physical causes'
3. Null-hypothesis: there is no 'control method' for 'events which cannot be explained by local physical causes'
4. Definition: <insert definition of 'events'>
5. Experiment: Observe and recreate 'events' in order to create definitions of possible 'control methods'
6. Result: Factually demonstrate the existence of God
7. Holy shit!

I predict that you will fail at 6.

Should you, somehow, fulfill the above requirements, you might then posit:

Premise 1: God is demonstrably existent
Premise 2: God interacts with quantum events in measurable ways
Premise 3: God-controlled quantum events have an appearance of randomness
Conclusion: God is the control mechanism behind the appearance of randomness in quantum events

Ahh...I see how you are misunderstanding now.

You are conflating premise 1 and premise 2.

If you take premise 1 by itself you should see the "if" isn't magically negated by the "only"

Premise 1: A is true only if B is true.
Premise 2: B is true.
Conclusion: A is true.

You see the condition in premise 1 is this.....either B is true or it isn't.

Premise 1: God exists only if events happen which cannot be explained by local physical causes.
Premise 2: Events happen which cannot be explained by local physical causes.
Conclusion: Therefore God exists.

Premise 1: Thunder and lightning exist only if they are caused.
Premise 2: Thunder and lighting exist.
Conclusion: Therefore Thor exists.

Premise 1: Loki exists only if events happen which cannot be explained by local physical causes.
Premise 2: Events happen which cannot be explained by local physical causes.
Conclusion: Therefore Loki exists.

[quote='Ben Davis' pid='651914' dateline='1397639952']Again....no begging the question.

If you do not get this...I'm afraid you are just a lost cause. This is my last response on this tangent.

[Heywood]

Premise 1: God exists only if events happen which cannot be explained by local physical causes.
Premise 2: Events happen which cannot be explained by local physical causes.
Conclusion: Therefore God exists.

Premise 1: Sauron exists only if events happen which cannot be explained by local physical causes.
Premise 2: Events happen which cannot be explained by local physical causes.
Conclusion: Therefore Sauron exists.

See.....the issue is that you need to show that God exists before you make any premise that he does exist.
See how that works?

I've never said I have proved God's existence. In fact I gave different possibilities to explain the observations. The argument that I laid out in premises and conclusions was meant to demonstrate that such a possibility as an explanation for observations is not begging the question(I even said premise 1 was not true).

BTW....your argument about Sauron, while not sound(because the premises are wrong)....is still a valid argument(meaning it logically follows if the premises are true). There is no begging the question fallacy committed.

---

Don't be silly. The "only" doesn't negate the "if". It negates the possibility of an explanation other than God.

The argument is valid. There is no begging the question.

For the record, the point of the argument was not to summarize my position. The point of the argument was to show you there is no begging the question. You can take the "only" out if you like.

"I've presented you a question with only one answer, based on an assumption. How dare you accuse me of begging the question!"

Negative Rampant.

1 answer based on 2 premises.

If you only consider 1 premise you cannot reach a conclusion. That is exactly why it is not begging the question.

The critical thinking fails in this thread is absolutely amazing.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Yes it is, and the only reason it is not apparent to you is you have assumed the validity of Premise 1 to be true, and can't see the forest because there are trees in the way.

[Heywood]

Yes it is, and the only reason it is not apparent to you is you have assumed the validity of Premise 1 to be true, and can't see the forest because there are trees in the way.

Except I said when I presented the argument that premise 1 was not true.

Go back and re-read the thread.

I gave several possibilities on what could be true and only one of those possibilities had anything to do with God.

The argument laid out as premises and conclusion was just a demonstration that if you only considered the God possibility....it isn't begging the question.

You have much to learn about logic and reason Rampant. I can point you toward some fine and free resources if you wish to improve yourself in this area.

[Angrboda]

I honestly don't see where he begged the question.

One could rephrase the syllogism as:

1. If God exists, there will be unexplained behavior.
2. If God does not exist, there will not be unexplained behavior.
3. There is unexplained behavior.
C. Therefore God exists.

This seems an equivalent formulation with no question begging. Am I missing something?

[Rampant.A.I.]

The premise assumes God's existence based on something irrelevant. It's a god of the gaps argument, not unlike Russell's teapot. It's an unfalsifiable, unsupportable and untestable premise, presented as valid.

Begging the question is also known as petitio principii, or assuming the initial point.

It's no more a valid assumption than "If the sky is blue, God exists: the sky is blue, therefore God exists."

[RobbyPants]

1. If God exists, there will be unexplained behavior.
2. If God does not exist, there will not be unexplained behavior.
3. There is unexplained behavior.
C. Therefore God exists.

This seems an equivalent formulation with no question begging. Am I missing something?

You have to assume 1 and 2 in order for C to be true. There's no proof stating that "God" is the only explanation for unexplained behavior, or that unexplained behavior can't happen without God.

Picture it this way: you live in an ancient culture that doesn't know that the earth spins, which causes the sun to "rise" and "set", making this behavior unexplained:
1. If Apollo exists, he will ferry the sun across the sky in his chariot.
2. If Apollo does not exist, the sun will not move across the sky.
3. The sun moves across the sky.
C. Therefore, Apollo exists.

Do you see the problem there?

[FallentoReason]

I honestly don't see where he begged the question.

One could rephrase the syllogism as:

1. If God exists, there will be unexplained behavior.
2. If God does not exist, there will not be unexplained behavior.
3. There is unexplained behavior.
C. Therefore God exists.

This seems an equivalent formulation with no question begging. Am I missing something?

If by "unexplained" you mean "random" (because that's the only way I can relate your post to the OP) then I think there is question begging: premise 3. What's to say that there isn't a deeper explanation for the apparent randomness of quantum physics?

It's still a god-of-the-gaps argument.