Theism

[Andúril]

(1) I don't believe in myself.
(2) Therefore, I don't exist.

Unstated premise:

(a) If I don't believe in myself, then I don't exist.

Premise (a) is invalid. The premise can be true and the conclusion false at the same time, i.e. you exist, but you are insane^99, so you don't believe in yourself.

It is also weak, because it is not extremely likely that 1 and 2 are both true at the same time (which would make it a strong invalid argument), rather the likelihood is less than extreme.

You have a bad argument.

But ofcourse, you need to adequately define "me", and "exist"

Note: If anyone has completed any BA logic modules (or can point out the nonsense), please have a go at me. I've just started a BA, and I need all the practice I can get...

[Andúril]

Blackheart:
Sorry. I intend to begin interacting directly with my subjects, so we won't need a middleman anymore.

Apology accepted.

You say you are a prince. Is there a king?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Anduril
(1) I don't believe in myself.
(2) Therefore, I don't exist.

Unstated premise:

(a) If I don't believe in myself, then I don't exist.

Premise (a) is invalid. The premise can be true and the conclusion false at the same time, i.e. you exist, but you are insane^99, so you don't believe in yourself.

It is also weak, because it is not extremely likely that 1 and 2 are both true at the same time (which would make it a strong invalid argument), rather the likelihood is less than extreme.

You have a bad argument.

But ofcourse, you need to adequately define "me", and "exist"

Note: If anyone has completed any BA logic modules (or can point out the nonsense), please have a go at me. I've just started a BA, and I need all the practice I can get...

Is the unstated premise an inference? Then the analysis of the logical structure is speculative. Insanitity is subjective and not quantitative and cannot be exponential.

It can't be a bad arguement if I'm arguing with myself. The presumption in that case is to say that if I am wrong I must be right.

valid logic vs invalid logic
true logic vs false logic

It also depends on what your definition of "is is....

[Andúril]

Premise (a) is neither an inference, nor a deduction. It has not been inferred or deduced from any prior sub-argument.

It has to be inserted, unless you want your conclusion to remain non-sequitur.

(a) If I don't believe in myself, then I don't exist.
(1) I don't believe in myself.
(2) Therefore, I don't exist.

If you leave (a) out, you would be left asking yourself why (2) is necessarily true if (1) is true - whether it follows or not (because it is not self-evident). (a), the unstated premise, is the answer to that question, and it must be inserted.

The presumption in that case is to say that if I am wrong I must be right.

Take A = argument, and take B = analysis of argument A. Now, B can be correct and A can be incorrect at the same time. There is nothing wrong with being right about B and wrong about A at the same time. It's not about being right and wrong about B at the same time, or right and wrong about A at the same time, which are clearly impossible (since a declarative statement can contain only one truth-value).

According to my course material, an argument is either valid or invalid. If it is valid, then it may (or may not) be good. If it is invalid, then it is either strong or weak. If it is weak, then it is bad. If it is strong, then it may (or may not) be good. Therefore, a good argument is either valid or strong. Oh, and and argument is only valid if it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false (at the same time). You may, ofcourse, already know all that...

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan


*puts on hip waders*

I stink, therefore I am.

And does that define existence, or merely the cognizence of existence? Are you saying that rocks therefore do not exist, since they do not think?

Or perhaps they need ot be percieved by one of you stinkers... er thinkers... to exist?

Sorry, I'm going to have to reject your definition/usurpation of Descartes, and ask you to try again.

[Blackheart]

Silly disconnecting server

[Brokehorn4000]

Oh I'm glad no one else will help me out here, everyone is so friendly on Entmoot.

Isn't there anyone out of all the entmooters that believes in the same things I do??

And A.E , just because I'm not like eveyone else or don't believe what the evolutionists shove into the textbooks, doesn't mean I'm easy prey.

[Cirdan]

There are plenty, Brokenhorn, they are just tired of this moribund discussion. Everyone here is friendly, in a ascerbic kind of way. We do have lively and sometimes heated debates, but we try to confine our emotions on a topic to it's thread. Don't take it personally; I do reccommend you read this thread (and the Anti-Theist thread) before you attempt to debate any further. You will also find out who is sympathetic to your position. Try a less volatile topic and you'll find we are plenty friendly.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Brokehorn4000
...ust because I'm not like eveyone else or don't believe what the evolutionists shove into the textbooks, doesn't mean I'm easy prey.

Hey now, we don't "shove" it into textbooks - we insideously brainwash.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by BeardofPants


Hey now, we don't "shove" it into textbooks - we insideously brainwash.

mmmmm.... clean brains

Wasn't there several hundred posts already on the topic of evolution versus that other pseudo-science thing?

*listens to the sound of squeaky clean brain*

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Cirdan

Wasn't there several hundred posts already on the topic of evolution versus that other pseudo-science thing?

No comment.

*squeak*

[afro-elf]

Brokenhorn4000

we all engage in ribbing, taking the piss out of eacher, banter or whatever nouns or gerunds you wanna use.

Please feel free to retaliate in kind. Wayfayer and i disagree on a few threads and are banter can be quite rough but on other thread we're cool.


to the others here what are some counter examples to the intelligent design argument?

the things that pop in my head are

false anology

arguing from things clearing design by humans to things an unknown cause

or that it does not support a particular diety.

It could be a group of them, an impefrect one ect.


anything else?

i was watching BBC world here they are trying to attack evolution with this theory

[Blackheart]

Now.. do you REALLY want to get me started on ID?

Because we're going to have to agree on a few things first.

Like, what exactly constitutes a "direction" or trend versus non directional, and then discuss the semantic difference between direction and [i]directed/i].

I can make an empirical argument that evolution has a direction. In other words, a general trend.

(You can throw up objections that simple organisms can evolve from complex organisms, to which I shall reply, why are you limiting your discussion to organisms, when you should be looking at the ecosystems, since that's where evolution plays itself out- like any good cellular automata matrix the interactions grow more complex, not the piddling automata)

What I cannot do is make an empirical argument that evolution is or is not "directed".

Stating that evolution is either directed or non directed is a reference to a metaphysical abstract, and not sufficiently empirical for inclusion in the body of scientific literature. Philosophical implications yes, but that's a different matter.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart
Now.. do you REALLY want to get me started on ID?

Because we're going to have to agree on a few things first.

Like, what exactly constitutes a "direction" or trend versus non directional, and then discuss the semantic difference between direction and [i]directed/i].

I can make an empirical argument that evolution has a direction. In other words, a general trend.

Yes, by all means, do. I would like to know what "general direction" with regards to evolution even means.

(You can throw up objections that simple organisms can evolve from complex organisms, to which I shall reply, why are you limiting your discussion to organisms, when you should be looking at the ecosystems, since that's where evolution plays itself out- like any good cellular automata matrix the interactions grow more complex, not the piddling automata)

Can I ask that we target the discussion to the origin of life? Clearly micro-evolution demontrates non-directedness; this has been empirically shown. Your contention, altough not stated, appears to be with macro-evolution as directed or not directed. Ecosystems are a description of an environment, not just a collection of species.

If this question presupposes that an ecosystem is required for formal evolution a priori of the origin of life then it is just a semantic pitfall. There are many inorganic environments that are capable of hosting life. The only question that remains is can life arise from an inorganic environment.

What I cannot do is make an empirical argument that evolution is or is not "directed".

Stating that evolution is either directed or non directed is a reference to a metaphysical abstract, and not sufficiently empirical for inclusion in the body of scientific literature. Philosophical implications yes, but that's a different matter.

Since theism is the topic then I would say that the only point is whether evolution is valid, and if so, does it fit any set of documented theological doctrines which are practiced at any time in written human history.

If you want to create a new religion, then can we name the creator "Nature"?

[afro-elf]

all i was aiming for was a few more of the standard refutations of the telological argument.

[BeardofPants]

<groan>

Not this again.

Hmmmm... The good old directed/non directed argument. Probably pretty relevant to this thread, since it happens to be the "theism" thread (implying design vs non-design). But if we're gonna discuss semantics, then we may as well go the whole hog, and throw empiricism out the window.

[Blackheart]

Can I ask that we target the discussion to the origin of life?

Not yet. Later yes, but then we'll have to discuss matrix design.

Clearly micro-evolution demontrates non-directedness; this has been empirically shown. Your contention, altough not stated, appears to be with macro-evolution as directed or not directed. Ecosystems are a description of an environment, not just a collection of species.

Correct. I am not speaking to micro-evolution, nor to macro-evolution regarding a singular species. (which I didn't feel I had to state, as I supposed it was obvious to you- since you seem to have enough intelligence for me to bother messing with your head) Macro-evolution as regards an ecology, which can be argued to show a trend towards complexity of interaction between elements. And not just between species, but elements within the environment itself.

If this question presupposes that an ecosystem is required for formal evolution a priori of the origin of life then it is just a semantic pitfall. There are many inorganic environments that are capable of hosting life. The only question that remains is can life arise from an inorganic environment.

Err, I think you misunderstand. Where do I state that life must be limited to "organic" environments? Negative. Evolution and interaction can clearly be shown to occur between a single organism and it's environment. As a baterium, for example, alters the environment it lives in, it must adapt. Which can further alter the environemnt, which means it must adapt- etc. No where does it state that it must be an organic environment.

Evolution doesn't require life to occur, I think you read that in. All it requires is replication and selection. That can happen in an organic or inorganic environment, not to mention that "life" isn't necessarily limited to organic environments.

Now if you want to discuss origin, we can get jiggy. But origin of what? Life? or replication/selection process? (and therefore evolution) There is a difference you know.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by afro-elf
all i was aiming for was a few more of the standard refutations of the telological argument.

I think you missed.

*evil chuckle*

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart
Not yet. Later yes, but then we'll have to discuss matrix design.

OK coppertop, let's hear it.

I would think that a a directed eveloution would have to be able to pre-adapt to mass extinctions. I suppose a "creator" could have gotten tired of dinosaurs before creating them only to destroy them. What would be the purpose of intelligent design starting with simple organisms and have any dynamic flow when that omniscient being couls have just skipped to the end? Why not create an ecosystem where all creatures were at the peak of adaptability and the height of whatever could come from natural selection.The creation design seed would imply some asthetic desire to "observe" the process, further anthropomorphising the concept.

[afro-elf]

Originally posted by Blackheart


I think you missed.

*evil chuckle*

* groan*

I also think that there is a false assumptation of prefectly designed organisms