Asimov Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Fear, There are certain illogical things that cannot exist, for example, God can't make a round square, or a 2 sided triangle. Why? Because it's logically impossible and it can never exist by definition and practality. Take, for example, a very simple bit of logic, "A=A". Is God above this? Can God=God be false? I can't even imagine the implications of logical equalities being false, is God bounded by equalities and therefore logic? Although I understand the example that you are trying to make, it is a poor example. The two examples that are logically impossible and practically impossible as well that I provided are a much better example at illustrating your point. How can God = God? Do you mean that can God not be God? The answer is simply "no". Logic also points to God's existence by implication: Design in nature -> Designer (i.e. God). For example, IF there is no God, then there should be no design in nature. But since we observe incredible evidence of design, then this implies that there should be a Designer or God. So to answer your original question: "Is God Bounded By Logic?" I would argue that He cannot do the logically impossible and theoretically impossible, because, by definition they cannot be done and are impossible to achieve (such as a two sided triangle or a round square). It certainly is an interesting question to bring up - well done. The bolded part is confusing me....is he affirming the consequent?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 The fallacy of affirming the consequent is to argue: If P then Q Q Therefore P (If it's raining, then there are clouds. There are clouds. Therefore it's raining.) This person avoids that: viz. If not P (no design) then not Q (no designer) But Q (i.e. not not Q) Therefore P (not not P) It's valid to negate the antecedent when the consequent is falsified. I think the fallacy instead here is petitio principii. The argument slips in some hidden premise like "if there is a universe, then it must be the product of design." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Carrion Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 TRANSLATION: "I want there to be a God, therefore it is logical that there must be a God, for why would I believe in him if there were not a God?" Witless self-fulfilment and circular logic at its very finest, ladies and gentleman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpooky Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 I really gotta work more on my logic. You talkin about Modus Tollens, Ficino? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Yes, in fact, I was going to come back on here and add the name of the form of the syllogism, just for fun. Modus Tollens is If P then Q not Q Therefore not P The most common form is Modus Ponens: If P then Q P Therefore Q Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eponymic Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Yes, in fact, I was going to come back on here and add the name of the form of the syllogism, just for fun. Modus Tollens isIf P then Q not Q Therefore not P The most common form is Modus Ponens: If P then Q P Therefore Q Cheers If you P on the Q then M will X your A. So mind your P & Q's so M won't your Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
- AUB - Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 1st. Ad hoc, a design doesnt need a designer. (see Dawkings) 2nd. Semantics, "design" is a loaded term, missleading, unprecise and relative. 3rd. Another ad hoc, "god" (either the arguer's or any other faith's) is not the only possible type of designer, aliens, super computer, a great cosmic worm, all could in theory be the identity of this "designer”. Xtains shouldn’t try to use logic, They’ll only embarrass themselves. This recent trend for arrogant claims of scientific, objective and logical support are even worse than when they just used the "faith" cop out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynical Realist Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 FUCK! My brain hurts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caretaker Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 FUCK! My brain hurts. Damn you sir! You WILL try! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted May 11, 2005 Author Share Posted May 11, 2005 1st. Ad hoc, a design doesnt need a designer. (see Dawkings) 2nd. Semantics, "design" is a loaded term, missleading, unprecise and relative. 3rd. Another ad hoc, "god" (either the arguer's or any other faith's) is not the only possible type of designer, aliens, super computer, a great cosmic worm, all could in theory be the identity of this "designer”. Xtains shouldn’t try to use logic, They’ll only embarrass themselves. This recent trend for arrogant claims of scientific, objective and logical support are even worse than when they just used the "faith" cop out. AUB, I hope you don't mind that I used your explanation in addressing this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
- AUB - Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 No prob, I'd to a more detailed dissection but I've got lots of jobs on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts