Basic Logic III: absence of evidence

[cidcadcas]

God is immune to logic? That's not being undefined.

WOAH!

When did I say logic?

I didn't, I said "such logical syllogisms as in the OP."

Zhavric's syllogism depended on set values for "god" and "universe" - values which can't be inferred from what we know about the two.

When you take that into account, his syllogism collapses.


You grossly mischaracterized my argument. I'd appreciate it if you gave it a little more thought than this last one-liner.

[Lullaby Chainer]

WOAH!

When did I say logic?

I didn't, I said "such logical syllogisms as in the OP."

Zhavric's syllogism depended on set values for "god" and "universe" - values which can't be inferred from what we know about the two.

When you take that into account, his syllogism collapses.


You grossly mischaracterized my argument. I'd appreciate it if you gave it a little more thought than this last one-liner.

First off, a logical syllogism (which is redundant) is in fact logic. It follows premises and conclusions. You ask if it meant God is immune to the logic in the OP. My answer is very simple. If God is really undefined, it would not be immune to that logic.

There's absolutely no reason to be rude. You'll find your stay here will be much nicer if you leave out the attitude.

[ZNFYRH]

Lullaby

cidcadcas basically said it.

You can't use the logic of the OP in reference to God.

What parts of your post do you want me to address?

[cidcadcas]

My answer is very simple. If God is really undefined, it would not be immune to that logic.

This doesn't make a lot of sense.

First of all, you said that I claimed god was immune to logic. That's not equal to saying he's immune to a certain syllogism. You messed up, at least semantically - move on.

Second of all, god being undefined (or more properly, not sufficiently defined for the logic in the OP) does make it outside the OP's syllogism.


Zhavric claims that creation of the universe violates the law of conservation of energy.

How is any "natural" explanation for the universe any different? He's poking holes in the fact that energy was seemingly created at the beginning of the universe.

Even if our laws of physics held true outside of our universe, the energy had to come from somewhere, correct? Why is saying that the energy collecting in our universe is the result of a god's influence any more fallacious than saying that it is the result of two membranes colliding in the bulk?

Seems like special pleading to me.

[Lullaby Chainer]

This doesn't make a lot of sense.

First of all, you said that I claimed god was immune to logic. That's not equal to saying he's immune to a certain syllogism. You messed up, at least semantically - move on.

Most logic is based off the same thing syllogism is based off of. Premises and conclusions. And really.. it's kind of weird to declare victories in a debate cid.

Second of all, god being undefined (or more properly, not sufficiently defined for the logic in the OP) does make it outside the OP's syllogism.

Actually, it was said that God is undefined. Not that it's immune to the logic in the OP, which, begins to define God. Subtle differences are important.

Zhavric claims that creation of the universe violates the law of conservation of energy.

How is any "natural" explanation for the universe any different? He's poking holes in the fact that energy was seemingly created at the beginning of the universe.

Even if our laws of physics held true outside of our universe, the energy had to come from somewhere, correct? Why is saying that the energy collecting in our universe is the result of a god's influence any more fallacious than saying that it is the result of two membranes colliding in the bulk?

Seems like special pleading to me.

I've never even begun to defend Zhavric. I'm not Zhavric.

[Athena]

If by "reason" you are appealing to reason, then you might agree with us who maintain that reasoning about existence does not necessitate gods. There is no reason to suppose that gods exist. Gods, by most common definitions, are both illogical and unreasonable. That's why faith is required.

Do you realize you are working with a definition of gods, that not everyone shares?

[Athena]

This doesn't make a lot of sense.

First of all, you said that I claimed god was immune to logic. That's not equal to saying he's immune to a certain syllogism. You messed up, at least semantically - move on.

Second of all, god being undefined (or more properly, not sufficiently defined for the logic in the OP) does make it outside the OP's syllogism.


Zhavric claims that creation of the universe violates the law of conservation of energy.

How is any "natural" explanation for the universe any different? He's poking holes in the fact that energy was seemingly created at the beginning of the universe.

Even if our laws of physics held true outside of our universe, the energy had to come from somewhere, correct? Why is saying that the energy collecting in our universe is the result of a god's influence any more fallacious than saying that it is the result of two membranes colliding in the bulk?

Seems like special pleading to me.

How about, that energy and all manifestations of it, are God?

[cidcadcas]

Most logic is based off the same thing syllogism is based off of. Premises and conclusions.

Did I say that god was immune to all premises and conclusions?

No, I said that he was immune to the syllogism, because it depended on a fallacious premise.

And really.. it's kind of weird to declare victories in a debate cid.

There's a difference between declaring victory and voicing your concerns about ceasing the discussion of a topic that shouldn't even have surfaced.

Actually, it was said that God is undefined. Not that it's immune to the logic in the OP, which, begins to define God. Subtle differences are important.

First of all, a syllogism can only define a conclusion. It asserted an unnecessarily specific definition for "god", which was a premise.

God is defined by the definition that's been attached to it. That definition is too vague for Zhavric's syllogism to be accurate.

I've never even begun to defend Zhavric. I'm not Zhavric.

I'm showing you how the logic in the OP doesn't apply to a god - which you objected to. It's a counterargument.

[Jack]

Do you realize you are working with a definition of gods, that not everyone shares?

I did specify "by most common definitions". I'm refering to definitions put forth by believers in those gods, not my own. Obviously not everyone shares definitions of gods. If they did, there would be no factions within the theistic community.

[cidcadcas]

I did specify "by most common definitions". I'm refering to definitions put forth by believers in those gods, not my own. Obviously not everyone shares definitions of gods. If they did, there would be no factions within the theistic community.

Those definitions are put forward for their gods, not for gods in general.

If I may conceptualize:

Someone may say that they have a blue chair. Does this mean that they have their own special definition for "chair" that includes blue?

No, it's an independent property.

Just as properties projected on to the "gods" of each religion are just those - independent of the word "god".

[Lullaby Chainer]

Did I say that god was immune to all premises and conclusions?

No, I said that he was immune to the syllogism, because it depended on a fallacious premise.

Right, which begins to define it.

There's a difference between declaring victory and voicing your concerns about ceasing the discussion of a topic that shouldn't even have surfaced.

That's also really weird to say.. especially in the context you used.

First of all, a syllogism can only define a conclusion. It asserted an unnecessarily specific definition for "god", which was a premise.

God is defined by the definition that's been attached to it. That definition is too vague for Zhavric's syllogism to be accurate.

Right, which brings me back to my point. "It has to at least be a theory for me to consider it. Do you have a theory? I don't fancy wild ideas."

A being that created the universe is not a theory. By itself, it is laughable.

I'm showing you how the logic in the OP doesn't apply to a god - which you objected to. It's a counterargument.

Actually, no. I said saying what God isn't.. is beginning to define God which is in reply to ZYN.

[ZNFYRH]

Lullaby

And to correct you, I never said what God is or isn't.

I said that in order to prove something doesn't exist, you need to know its characteristics. Those characteristics are derived from repeated observation and study. Since God doesn't have repeated and persistent observed characteristics, then any characteristics used to define God are fallacious.

Again... I'm not defining God. I'm pointing out that God is still undefined.

If something is undefined, you can't really cite logic in an argument about its existence.