NationStates Jolt Archive

Statement:
If something exists, then it's existance is provable.
God's existance is not provable, therefore God does not exist.


Also, I need help with refining my logical reasoning. Anyone willing to help?

Statement:
If something exists, then it's existance is provable.
God's existance is not provable, therefore God does not exist.


Also, I need help with refining my logical reasoning. Anyone willing to help?

You might want to start by showing how you got to your first statement. How is it that something existing makes its existence provable? To be honest I don't think that's true.

As for disproving God by logic, it is possible to do so, in my opinion - just don't expect any theists to become atheists from reading it.

EDIT: I should add that I am an atheist myself.

Statement:
If something exists, then it's existance is provable.
God's existance is not provable, therefore God does not exist.


Also, I need help with refining my logical reasoning. Anyone willing to help?Really? So does this mean that bacteria didn't exist before the invention of microscopes?

You're making a very common mistake.

You say if A then B.

And you that B is not correct so A is not correct as well. This is a logical fallacy :)

Look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent for more information about it :)

You're making a very common mistake.

You say if A then B.

And you that B is not correct so A is not correct as well. This is a logical fallacy :)

Look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent for more information about it :)

You're getting mixed up.

A => B
B
therefore A

is a logical fallacy

A=>B
NOT B
therefore NOT B

is correct

You might want to start by showing how you got to your first statement. How is it that something existing makes its existence provable? To be honest I don't think that's true.
So should I need some postulates? Yeah, I should have formed the statement better... The proving of something shows that it exists not vice versa...

As for disproving God by logic, it is possible to do so, in my opinion - just don't expect any theists to become atheists from reading it.
Most theists ignore anything that disagrees with their perspectives, especially logic. So unfortunately you're right.

EDIT: I should add that I am an atheist myself.
As am I.

Which part did I mix up? Maybe the wikipedia page? :p

Not B(the provability of god's existance) is correct, however, you cannot say anything about A(god's existance itself).

Most theists ignore anything that disagrees with their perspectives, especially logic. So unfortunately you're right.

because logic has no place in faith, logic is ill prepared to deal with supernatural things because it is an observation of the natural world.

faith is illogical or it wouldn't be faith.

I'm pretty sure I used
if a => b,
not b
therefore not a.

Indeed, I think I also need some help in my logical reasoning then :p

Indeed, I think I also need some help in my logical reasoning then :p

WE CAN LEARN TOGETHER!!!! :D :D :D :D

Yay! :D

Again, I ask, does this mean that bacteria didn't exist before the invention of microscopes?

/impatient

Statement:
If something exists, then it's existance is provable.
God's existance is not provable, therefore God does not exist.


Also, I need help with refining my logical reasoning. Anyone willing to help?

*cough* Dark Energy. *cough*

Statement:
If something exists, then it's existance is provable.
God's existance is not provable, therefore God does not exist.


Also, I need help with refining my logical reasoning. Anyone willing to help?

Prove you exist and are not simply a figment of my imagination.

Again, I ask, does this mean that bacteria didn't exist before the invention of microscopes?

/impatient

Since your so bent on getting a reply I already acknowledged that my statement was inherently false and needed to be reversed.

Prove you exist and are not simply a figment of my imagination.

Are you sir implying that I am god?

Statement:
If something exists, then it's existance is provable.
God's existance is not provable, therefore God does not exist.


The problem with a modus tollens argument is that it is only true if all of its premises are true. As already mentioned, until certain measurement devices were developed certain concepts were "unprovable", e.g. germ theory of disease.

I don't take offense to people who accept their religious inclinations on faith alone, who are willing to say, "It's totally illogical and unscientific - but that's why faith is required."

Of course, as Sartre said, "To believe is to know you believe, and to know you believe is not to believe."

J.

Since your so bent on getting a reply I already acknowledged that my statement was inherently false and needed to be reversed.Oh. I interpreted it as you meant to keep your statement, just refine it so it was more clear. My mistake.

If something exists, then it's existance is provable.

There is a difference between an entity which is observable and one which exists. For example, the existence of quarks has been hypothesized and there are mathematical formulas detailing their properties. However, they have not been physically seen. This can also apply to entities which are composed of a force which is not known to man. Dark energy may somewhat fit into this category. We are restricted by our five senses; who's to say that every possible thing which can be detected must be detected by those five senses?

God's existance is not provable, therefore God does not exist.

Who's to say that God's existence is not provable? Just because something is not provable based on our own restricted state of knowledge does not mean that it is not absolutely provable. God, if he exists, would be able to prove his existence.

Existence exists!

*cough* Dark Energy. *cough*

It's proof is that the universe is expanding faster than it should be if the universe were composed of only regular matter, and that the assumed amount of dark matter present doesn't have the mass needed to fullfill the requirements. The existing mass has been attributed to dark energy. I'm pretty sure thats the proof for the existance of dark energy however I could be wrong.

Who's to say that God's existence is not provable? Just because something is not provable based on our own restricted state of knowledge does not mean that it is not absolutely provable. God, if he exists, would be able to prove his existence.
Prove your existance.

It's proof is that the universe is expanding faster than it should be if the universe were composed of only regular matter, and that the assumed amount of dark matter present doesn't have the mass needed to fullfill the requirements. The existing mass has been attributed to dark energy. I'm pretty sure thats the proof for the existance of dark energy however I could be wrong.

Yes, but until it is directly measurable it exists only in principle. You could argue circumstantially and say, the universe exists and someone must have made it so god exists. That doesn't amount to proof, just postulation.

J.

Prove your existance.

It's impossible for me to do so. What's your point? If you're going with such a strict definition of "proof," we don't know that anything exists.

Statement:
If something exists, then it's existance is provable.
God's existance is not provable, therefore God does not exist.


Also, I need help with refining my logical reasoning. Anyone willing to help?
My counter argument is you're a Douche!

we don't know that anything exists.

You fair nailed it on the head there.

It's proof is that the universe is expanding faster than it should be if the universe were composed of only regular matter, and that the assumed amount of dark matter present doesn't have the mass needed to fullfill the requirements. The existing mass has been attributed to dark energy. I'm pretty sure thats the proof for the existance of dark energy however I could be wrong.


Nevertheless, while I agree that the theory is sound, "the numbers don't add up, so there must be dark energy" hardly constitutes proof. *nod*

Statement:
If something exists, then it's existance is provable.
God's existance is not provable, therefore God does not exist.


Also, I need help with refining my logical reasoning. Anyone willing to help?

as soon as you can find a premise about god that is undisputably true you will be able to logically disprove his existance... if you ever do manage to do that please do inform me... ill take care of the logical details:p

Are you sir implying that I am god?

Not at all.

I'm simply wondering how you would propose to prove that you exist and are not a figment of my imagination.

If you exist, then such is proveable.

So, I'm curious as to how you would go about it.

You do exist, don't you?

And, don't call me "sir." I work for a living.

Yes, but until it is directly measurable it exists only in principle. You could argue circumstantially and say, the universe exists and someone must have made it so god exists. That doesn't amount to proof, just postulation.

J.

I believe it's density is something like 10^29 grams per cubic centimeter. Atleast according to wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

I'm pretty sure I used
if a => b,
not b
therefore not a.

using the example from the wikipedia page about Anna, you would be saying:
Anna is not mortal (b)
therefore:
Anna is not human (a)
which is correct. Your logic is infallible, however, your original statements are not. Can you prove to me the existance of the "color" "blue"? You cannot, but that does not mean that blue does not exist.

Prove your existance.

Hey!

That's the Reader's Digest version of my schtick.

as soon as you can find a premise about god that is undisputably true you will be able to logically disprove his existance... if you ever do manage to do that please do inform me... ill take care of the logical details:p

hm... something about supernatural explainations and god being one?

I believe it's density is something like 10^29 grams per cubic centimeter. Atleast according to wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

A figure determined by mathematical calculations. Purely theoretical.

J.

Not at all.

I'm simply wondering how you would propose to prove that you exist and are not a figment of my imagination.

If you exist, then such is proveable.

So, I'm curious as to how you would go about it.

You do exist, don't you?

And, don't call me "sir." I work for a living.
I have a measurable presence and can be physically observed. How can I prove my existance to you over the internet? I don't know. I'm sorry about calling you "sir" I didn't mean anything by it other than respect. I'm used to the American context of the word.

A figure determined by mathematical calculations. Purely theoretical.

J.

By logical deduction...

Hey!

That's the Reader's Digest version of my schtick.

:p

hm... something about supernatural explainations and god being one?

eh... i somehow doubt logical statements will ever contain "something about"... and besides your idea leads to an open question argument i.e. what is the nature of the supernatural? or furthermore can anything be undoubtebly true when considering the supernatural? does it even exist beyond mental conceptualisation? :)

what i'm getting at is that i cannot personally think of any premise to apply, therefore god is not provable/disprovable by logic... if you however take a concretely defined god like jehova/alah you can shred them to pieces... but that isnt to say that no god(s) exists ;)

By logical deduction...

Bah. I don't know why I'm arguing this with you.

Your argument for the non-existence of god is inherently faulty. Take some ritalin and get back to me. ;)

J.

eh... i somehow doubt logical statements will ever contain "something about"... and besides your idea leads to an open question argument i.e. what is the nature of the supernatural? or furthermore can anything be undoubtebly true when considering the supernatural? does it even exist beyond mental conceptualisation? :)

what i'm getting at is that i cannot personally think of any premise to apply, therefore god is not provable/disprovable by logic... if you however take a concretely defined god like jehova/alah you can shred them to pieces... but that isnt to say that no god(s) exists ;)

I'll think of one... eventually...

Bah. I don't know why I'm arguing this with you.

Your argument for the non-existence of god is inherently faulty. Take some ritalin and get back to me. ;)

J.

lol does 72mg of concerta count?

lol does 72mg of concerta count?

Jesus Christ on a Cracker! I didn't say off yourself!

J.

Well, here's one of many problems: axioms. Axioms are impossible to prove, and have to be taken as true without any knowable prior justification. By your logic, axioms are not provable, and cannot be proven to exist. Therefore, axioms do not exist, and the universe ceases to exist, which means that we would not be here discussing anything. Reductio ad absurdum.

Other examples include qualia, subjective experience, and the hundreds of skeptical thought experiments that demonstrate the limits of provable knowledge. I know what it's like to feel pain or love, but I cannot describe what it is like to experience those feelings in measurable physical terms.

Even science would be nonexistent with this logic; a scientific theory is not "proven" in the sense that it is absolutely true. The scientific method verifies theories according to evidence and experimentation, but they do not declare anything as "proven" because there is the possibility of new evidence or theories that will challenge or even totally disprove accepted ideas.

Jesus Christ on a Cracker! I didn't say off yourself!

J.

Oh... should I delete that peice of information then? Or did you mean that as don't make yourself high... cause my friends do wonder why my pupils always appear abnormally large...

Well, here's one of many problems: axioms. Axioms are impossible to prove, and have to be taken as true without any knowable prior justification. By your logic, axioms are not provable, and cannot be proven to exist. Therefore, axioms do not exist, and the universe ceases to exist, which means that we would not be here discussing anything. Reductio ad absurdum.
I've admitted that my arguement is faulty already...

Other examples include qualia, subjective experience, and the hundreds of skeptical thought experiments that demonstrate the limits of provable knowledge. I know what it's like to feel pain or love, but I cannot describe what it is like to experience those feelings in measurable physical terms.
emotions can be measured by hormone levels...

Even science would be nonexistent with this logic; a scientific theory is not "proven" in the sense that it is absolutely true. The scientific method verifies theories according to evidence and experimentation, but they do not declare anything as "proven" because there is the possibility of new evidence or theories that will challenge or even totally disprove accepted ideas.

As I said... I've admitted that my arguement is faulty already...

.
emotions can be measured by hormone levels...

That tells me nothing about what it's like to feel emotion.

You're getting mixed up.

A => B
B
therefore A

is a logical fallacy

A=>B
NOT B
therefore NOT B

is correct

http://usera.imagecave.com/Kormanthor/bizarre_math.jpg http://usera.imagecave.com/Kormanthor/headspinguy.gif

That tells me nothing about what it's like to feel emotion.

What you feel is your brain's interpretation of those chemical levels and the balace or imbalace of them. If you have high levels of hormones like seratonin and dopamine than you'll feel happy... and if you have low levels you'll feel like shit.

What you feel is your brain's interpretation of those chemical levels and the balace or imbalace of them. If you have high levels of hormones like seratonin and dopamine than you'll feel happy... and if you have low levels you'll feel like shit.

And what does it feel like to feel happy or like shit?

And what does it feel like to feel happy or like shit?

Its an interpretation of chemicals by chemicals. It "feels" good to "feel" happy. and bad to "feel" bad.

Its an interpretation of chemicals by chemicals. It "feels" good to "feel" happy. and bad to "feel" bad.

That still doesn't tell me what good and bad feel like.

That still doesn't tell me what good and bad feel like.

Interpretation is based on experience. Each person's experiences are different, and as such so is each person's interpretation.

Interpretation is based on experience. Each person's experiences are different, and as such so is each person's interpretation.

Exactly. Those feelings are irreducible subjective experiences that cannot be explained in strictly physical terms; their physical origins can be explained, but physical terms do not explain what it is like to experience them.

It's primarily a strong argument against eliminative materialism and physicalism.

That still doesn't tell me what good and bad feel like.

because it is impossible to ascertain how each brain interprets those chemical signals... as far as we know you and i may have very different feelings of happyness but we can both identify the linguistic concept based on those high levels of certain chemicals by the common exterior (physical/social) reactions they produce... so your argument doesn't stand.

oh and since we meet again: hello :D

http://usera.imagecave.com/Kormanthor/bizarre_math.jpg

that results in a = b = 0, not 2 = 1. :p

If something exists, then it's existance is provable.
God's existance is not provable, therefore God's existance is not provable.

You can't say anything more than that with that argument.

because it is impossible to ascertain how each brain interprets those chemical signals... as far as we know you and i may have very different feelings of happyness but we can both identify the linguistic concept based on those high levels of certain chemicals by the common exterior (physical/social) reactions they produce... so your argument doesn't stand.[/QUOTE

It doesn't tell me what that sensation feels like, yet if I say "I'm happy" you will know what I mean even though your own perception may be different. That means that there are subjective experiences that cannot be explained in objective terms; the importance of this is that it is not possible to reduce the function of the mind to the brain.

Non-reducible subjective experience suggests there is something more that makes these experiences what they are, and it is not just a function of the physical brain.

[QUOTE]oh and since we meet again: hello :D

Who were you before? :)

Exactly. Those feelings are irreducible subjective experiences that cannot be explained in strictly physical terms; their physical origins can be explained, but physical terms do not explain what it is like to experience them.

It's primarily a strong argument against eliminative materialism and physicalism.

You asked what does it feel like to feel... It is a positive, or negative experience. Feeling is just an interpretation of these experiences based on how they affect your hormone levels. Feeling is simply that.

If something exists, then it's existance is provable.
God's existance is not provable, therefore God's existance is not provable.

You can't say anything more than that with that argument.

If you had read the thread, you would have realized that my argument is fallacious, and as such doesn't prove anything. ;)

It doesn't tell me what that sensation feels like, yet if I say "I'm happy" you will know what I mean even though your own perception may be different. That means that there are subjective experiences that cannot be explained in objective terms; the importance of this is that it is not possible to reduce the function of the mind to the brain.

Non-reducible subjective experience suggests there is something more that makes these experiences what they are, and it is not just a function of the physical brain.

Who were you before? :)

that looks awfully like a leap in logic for me... the subjectivity of feeling can be attributed to individual biological differences of the physical brain and the endocrine system so there is no need for anything more than the physical brain (as far as your argument goes).

oh... and same id before... the only other thread i bothered arguing extensively (something with creationist arguments)... but you are way more active than me and seem wahahay too active to remeber particular threads :p

that results in a = b = 0, not 2 = 1. :p

Well math isn't her forte' I guess

What if I made it so it was impossible to prove you exist?

that results in a = b = 0, not 2 = 1. :p

No it doesn't....that results in dividing by zero{a-b} and achieving nothing.

that looks awfully like a leap in logic for me... the subjectivity of feeling can be attributed to individual biological differences of the physical brain and the endocrine system so there is no need for anything more than the physical brain (as far as your argument goes).

I'm not arguing about the brain producing these sensations, but that the interpretation and "feelingness" of these sensations are more than their underlying physical causes. The point isn't that these things have physical origins; it's been established that emotions exist and have biochemical causes, but the actual "feeling" itself is subjective and cannot be described in words. It's something unique to each person that can't be reduced to biochemical reactions in the brain.

I'm not saying that it isn't physical, but that it does not support physicalism or eliminative materialism which require everything to be reduced to more basic sources. These things can't be reduced, so even if they are physical in origin the positions of eliminative materialism and physicalism are not tenable in their current forms.

The purpose is to argue against those positions, not to support Cartesian dualism.

oh... and same id before... the only other thread i bothered arguing extensively (something with creationist arguments)... but you are way more active than me and seem wahahay too active to remeber particular threads :p

Oh, sorry. It's been a loooooonnnnnggg time since I argued about creationism.

No it doesn't....that results in dividing by zero{a-b} and achieving nothing.

No, they just can't do math...
2a=a the only way that this is possible is if you set a equal to 0, otherwise you're solving for 2, not a.

I'm not arguing about the brain producing these sensations, but that the interpretation and "feelingness" of these sensations are more than their underlying physical causes. The point isn't that these things have physical origins; it's been established that emotions exist and have biochemical causes, but the actual "feeling" itself is subjective and cannot be described in words. It's something unique to each person that can't be reduced to biochemical reactions in the brain.

I'm not saying that it isn't physical, but that it does not support physicalism or eliminative materialism which require everything to be reduced to more basic sources. These things can't be reduced, so even if they are physical in origin the positions of eliminative materialism and physicalism are not tenable in their current forms.

The interpretation is the direct result of the physical origin.

The interpretation is the direct result of the physical origin.

But that still doesn't say what it feels like. I already know that.

But that still doesn't say what it feels like. I already know that.

You're implying that there is a difference between what the brain interprets from the hormone levels, and what you feel. In reality there is none because what you feel IS what the brain interprets from the hormone levels.