It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: earthblaze
I am also intrigued as to why you feel the need to annotate the brief sections in your writings and that they always amount to 4
originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: Kashai
In order to claim that the non-existence of God is real it must be deduced.
To do that you would have to know everything.
It is illogical for you or me to think you know everything.
Therefore you have not deduced your apparent conclusion.
I have deduced my conclusion long ago.
First of all, I think God does exist. It is impossible to discuss the nature of nothing. When we discuss God, we are not discussing nothing. I also think that the “non-existence” of something is a contradiction. Something cannot both be a something and at the same time not exist, or in other words, a something cannot be a nothing. What we must discover is what it is exactly we are talking about when we use the term God.
Let’s deduce. The english word “God” is a word that has been applied by theologians to all ideas of a monotheistic creator and supreme being, as found in various religious cannons. Zues is God, Allah is God, Yahweh is God, the trinity is God etc. etc. etc. The concept of God does exist, as does the concept of “democracy”, or “freedom”, and has simply been used haphazardly by westerners as an umbrella term to connote the general idea of a supreme being. This is what people talk about when they talk about God, and what they refer to is the only God they have ever “known”, and “loved” and believed in—that is, the words, art and scripture of the religions and their bibles.
What have you deduced?
You have to be more careful- the terms you are using here have very strict definitions in formal logic, and you are using them outside those definitions.
It is worth noting that logical "soundness" as you are referencing here only applies to arguments (namely those of a valid logical form, and with true premises), not premises, which are either true, false, or unknown (unknown is a placeholder, because ultimately the premise is true or false). The last bit is very important- premises are true or false regardless of whether they are known as such. Unknown premises do not default to being false.
Therefore, with your "Christian version" argument form, aside from the point that the logical form is invalid (God being a supreme being doesn't necessitate that God is the supreme being that created the earth, if you do not disprove the possibility of there being more than one supreme being, therefore the premises don't force the conclusion to be true in all possible situations).
The refutation should read, "Because the argument form is invalid, it is unsound" (again, worth noting that if it was a valid form, the soundness of the argument would not be known, because the truth of the premises is not yet known).
Your statement about induction though is on the money (outside of mathematical induction, which is actually a kind of deduction by exclusion).
Atleast this view I have brings people together, dare I say connects us. Yours in the narrow view that cant even get through itself, your generic depressive cynical view drowns itself. I don't know if I should even try to explain to your closed mind. But ponder this: The Fibonacci and golden ratio, can be found in plants, humans and up to universal scale. You can break everything down to the same basic atoms and neutrinos. The Fibonacci sequence seems pretty simple to me: 1,1,2,3,5,7. Guess that's just reality being 'simple and childish' though
An argument is sound if it is valid and the premises are true. All invalid arguments are unsound. Though some valid arguments are unsound. Although whether an argument is sound or not hinges on the veracity of the premises, it isn’t the premises themselves that are sound, but the entire argument. Does that sound correct?
You’re also right about the christian argument as well. I suppose I wrote it wrong. “A” supreme being is different than “the” supreme being. I left room for other supreme beings. Better logic would have been: God is the supreme being. The supreme being created the earth. Therefore, God created the earth.
So, tell me if I’ve got this right. A deductive conclusion is neither true nor false if the premises are unknown, because the “unknownness” (for lack of a better term) of the premise, follows necessarily to the conclusion, just as truth or falsity would. So though an argument with unknown premises may be completely valid in its logical form, it would be unsound because the truth value of the premises are unknown, and thus the conclusion is unknown?
In the late 12th century, Leonardo Fibonacci encountered the Hindu-Arabic numeral system and introduced it to Europe. In doing so, he discovered a sequence of numbers that occurs so frequently in nature that it is often referred to as a "law of nature.” We know it today as the Fibonacci Sequence.