Does science prove the existence of god? (Jesus, ritual, beliefs)

[painted wolf]

once again I'm not shure that this argument realy has any bearing on wether or not you should or shouldn't believe in god. Abio doesn't say anything about a presance or lack of a Diety. Like all scientific theories it is neutral on the subject of theology. People read into it what they hope/fear is there.

wa:do

[Master Vigil]

I think it was a valid syllogism. AAA-1, isn't that one of the valid forms? But still, I think design is a bit ambiguous taken in the context that the syllogism is using it. I do not think that the design of lets say, a carpet, or a clock, can be compared at all to the design of the universe. I'm not sure if it is a circular argument, but it definitely falls into the fallacy of ambiguity. And yes, you are assuming that the universe is a highly complicated design. This could not be true, therefore your premise is based on an assumption. And if your premise is based on assumption, no matter the validity, the conclusion is still based on assumption. And only proves that the logic is valid, not true. Man I hope that made sense. Its 1:46 in the morning.

[linwood]

Originally Posted by Orthodox

1. An infinite number of days will have no end.
2. However, today is the end of history (history being a collection of all days).
3. Therefore, there were not an infinite number of days before today (ie. time had a beginning).

#1.Correct
#2. Today is the end of nothing but mans concept of history, on a cosmological scale nothing has ended today.There will always be another tomorrow whether we are here or not.
#3. You first must prove that time is anything other than a manmade concept befoe you can come to this conclusion.

1. Anything that is not eternal must have a cause.
2. The universe is running out of useable energy (meaning it had a finite quantity in the past).
3. It is a fallacy to suppose that the universe could have existed forever due to the absurdity of an infinite series of events.

#1.Sounds good to me.
#2. Doesn`t sound too good to me.
#3 .Really not good, the universe in one form or another, with or without matter must have always existed because it could have been no other way.
#4.Why do I have to read this stuff at least once a week?

The universe cannot be eternal and must therefore have had a beginning and a cause.

Wrong AND Illogical .
If the universe is defined as "space and everything within it" then it isn`t possible that it never existed.
It has always existed if defined in this way.

How do you define the universe Orthadox?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Orthodox

Do you know what 'valid' means in terms of logic?

Actually, yes, I do. And, in fact, your syllogism becomes formally valid if, indeed, your 2nd premise intended 'design=plan'. I should have said (and meant to imply) that you draw a baseless (invalid) conclusion from your syllogism because you use as a premise that which is at issue. I stand corrected.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Master Vigil

I think it was a valid syllogism. ... And if your premise is based on assumption, no matter the validity, the conclusion is still based on assumption. And only proves that the logic is valid, not true.

Good post. Thanks.

[meogi]

I just wanna back you guys up and say that indeed, that statement is logically valid. What it isn't is a logically sound argument.

Originally Posted by othodox

1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Logically sound. It's valid and it's premises are not under question.

Originally Posted by orthodox

1. Every Design has a designer.
2. The universe has a highly complicated design.
3. Therefore, the universe had a designer.

Not logically sound. It's valid, but the premises/intermediate steps are under question.

[Orthodox]

Duet,

Ok, it seems many of your objections to my syllogism come from the assertion that premise two is an un-evidenced assumption I would disagree with you. However, I acknowledge that it would be an unfounded assumption if I hadn’t provided some evidence. Re-read the Cosmological and Teleological parts of my argument and then decides if premise two is an assumption. To prove it an assumption you will have to come up with some form of scientific evidence that casts doubt over the idea that it’s incredible complexity is designed.

It is all very well to fault my logic (which so far has emerged unscathed) but what about my science and philosophy? The purpose of a syllogism is to order the evidence for something and draw a conclusion from it. I say that the universe is too complex to not be designed. Prove me wrong. Show me that there is a reasonable chance that chance could have been responsible for the complex specification of the universe.

orthodox

[Orthodox]

Master Vigil,

I think design is a bit ambiguous taken in the context that the syllogism is using it.

When I said ‘the universe has a design’ I meant it in the sense of plan/blueprint, not simply a pattern. Is that less ambiguous now? Is that what you meant?

I do not think that the design of lets say, a carpet, or a clock, can be compared at all to the design of the universe.

Why not? Is that an assumption MV………..

I'm not sure if it is a circular argument, but it definitely falls into the fallacy of ambiguity

It is not a circular argument. Check it out with some reference site. Which particular fallacy of Ambiguity were you referring to? I checked them all out and none of them fits my argument. I think you made a mistake on this one.

And yes, you are assuming that the universe is a highly complicated design.

I only believe it on the basis of evidence (some of which I stated earlier on this thread). Why do you disbelieve it? Is that an assumption of yours?

This could not be true, therefore your premise is based on an assumption.

I had trouble figuring this one out. Did you mean,

This isn’t true; therefore your premise is based on an assumption.

Or,

This could possibly be untrue; therefore your premise is based on an assumption

Check out my evidence from earlier. If you find fault with it demonstrate your point scientifically or philosophically.

And if your premise is based on assumption, no matter the validity, the conclusion is still based on assumption

I totally agree. How does your argument shape up against your own standard above.

So far this is what I have heard from you.

1. Premises that are pure assumption cannot form a sound argument.
2. Orthodox’s premises are assumptions (meaning they are bereft of supporting evidence)
3. Therefore, Orthodox’s syllogism is not sound.

I am challenging your assumption that I am making an assumption in my premises!!!!!!!!!!!

Show me how.

Orthodox

[Orthodox]

Meogi,

Thankyou for verifying my arguments validity. I think you yourself have put forward an unsound argument (similar to that made by Master Vigil). You have effectively said,

1. Premises that are pure assumption cannot form a sound argument.
2. Orthodox’s premises are assumptions (meaning they are bereft of supporting evidence)
3. Therefore, Orthodox’s syllogism is not sound.

#1. Very true

#2. So far as I know an assumption. Where is the proof (scientific or philosophical) of this.

#3 your conclusion is valid but untrue.

You quoted my Socrates syllogism as an example of a valid and sound argument.

You said

1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.



Logically sound. It's valid and it's premises are not under question

What exempts the premises of this argument from question? How do we arrive at the truth that ‘all men are mortal’. The answer, of course, is through inductive logic (as opposed to the deductive, syllogistic logic). Deductive logic argues from causes to effects, while inductive logic argues from effects to causes. How do we know that "all men are mortal"? Well we induce that because we have never heard of immortal men none have ever, or will ever, exist. A similar process is gone through to arrive at the truth that Socrates is a man.

My point is that we must use inductive logic to test the premises of any syllogism before we accept or reject it. Because inductive logic is an argument from effects back to causes in order to fault my premise you must show effects (scientific data) that could not be caused by(or at least could reasonably be believed independent from) my proposed cause, namely a designer.

Quite simply you have admitted the validity of my argument but denied that it is sound and now you must show why. You weren’t just assuming so were you?……..

Orthodox