Would you peel the skin off of a newborn baby?

[Enmos]

if you are asking about logical arguments for God, yes there are many - but before we move on to them I think we should clear up the argument at hand


if you rejected it by irrational means, perhaps


given that the topic under discussion is whether objective reality has intrinsic ethics or not, that's kind of begging the question by just slapping a conclusion down bereft of premises.

However a good way to establish your conclusion would be to determine logical faults in my argument

I see one major logical fault in your argument.. it is the assumption of God.
No offense meant.

 

[lightgigantic]

I see one major logical fault in your argument.. it is the assumption of God.
No offense meant.

then that is not an issue of logic but truth - logic only examines the relationship between premises and a conclusion and not the validity/invalidity of the premises

 

[Enmos]

then that is not an issue of logic but truth - logic only examines the relationship between premises and a conclusion and not the validity/invalidity of the premises

No, if one of the premises cannot be said to be either true or false (truth), then a logical conclusion cannot be made based upon the premises (logic).

 

[superluminal]

No, if one of the premises cannot be said to be either true or false (truth), then a logical conclusion cannot be made based upon the premises (logic).

Unfortunately I must agree with LG here. The truth or falsity of premises has nothing to do with the logical progression from premise to conclusion.

Of course, if one knows that a premise is false (like god) and proceeds to conclusions based on the known false premise, then the conclusions will certainly be incorrect and illogical in a global perspective.

 

[Enmos]

Unfortunately I must agree with LG here. The truth or falsity of premises has nothing to do with the logical progression from premise to conclusion.

Of course, if one knows that a premise is false (like god) and proceeds to conclusions based on the known false premise, then the conclusions will certainly be incorrect and illogical in a global perspective.

OR when it cannot be said whether the premise is false or not.

God seems to be LG's solution for everything.

 

[superluminal]

God seems to be LG's solution for everything.

Well of course it is. It makes for bullet-proof argumentation. It's like trying to beat back the wind with your fists in an effort to stop a hurricane.

 

[Enmos]

Well of course it is. It makes for bullet-proof argumentation. It's like trying to beat back the wind with your fists in an effort to stop a hurricane.

Can you please agree or disagree with this:

OR when it cannot be said whether the premise is false or not.

I want to know whether I have become completely delusional now or not..

 

[lightgigantic]

No, if one of the premises cannot be said to be either true or false (truth), then a logical conclusion cannot be made based upon the premises (logic).

yes but you haven't actually established the truth of your premise yet .... and even then determining truth with logic is not going to help you

 

[superluminal]

Can you please agree or disagree with this:

OR when it cannot be said whether the premise is false or not.

I want to know whether I have become completely delusional now or not..

I would say this.

If the "validity" of the premises are unknown (god and "his" attributes?) you can still make very logical statements based on them. As in "If god is made of plasma, he must be affected by magnetic fields. Therefore, god can be manipulated by magnetic fields". Right?

But if you admit that you don't know the validity of the premise, then the conclusions you draw are invalid.

Therefore, the statement "My conclusions based on these premises are valid" becomes highly illogical, not the internal logic of the statements themselves. See?

 

[lightgigantic]

Can you please agree or disagree with this:

OR when it cannot be said whether the premise is false or not.

I want to know whether I have become completely delusional now or not..

How do you propose to determine truth?
consensus?

 

[Enmos]

I would say this.

If the "validity" of the premises are unknown (god and "his" attributes?) you can still make very logical statements based on them. As in "If god is made of plasma, he must be affected by magnetic fields. Therefore, god can be manipulated by magnetic fields". Right?

But if you admit that you don't know the validity of the premise, then the conclusions you draw are invalid.

Therefore, the statement "My conclusions based on these premises are valid" becomes highly illogical, not the internal logic of the statements themselves. See?

Based on the fact that God is unfalsifiable and unknowable and thus cannot objectively be said to exist, what do you say about below conclusion ?

P1 - justice is relative to power
P2 - there exists an absolute power in the universe (God)
conclusion - therefore there exists an absolute justice

 

[Enmos]

How do you propose to determine truth?
consensus?

Does the scientific method ring a bell ?

 

[lightgigantic]

Unfortunately I must agree with LG here. The truth or falsity of premises has nothing to do with the logical progression from premise to conclusion.

Of course, if one knows that a premise is false (like god) and proceeds to conclusions based on the known false premise, then the conclusions will certainly be incorrect and illogical in a global perspective.

so how do you propose to establish the truth of your claim?

 

[lightgigantic]

Does the scientific method ring a bell ?

you mean falsifiability?

 

[lightgigantic]

Based on the fact that God is unfalsifiable and unknowable

how do you propose to establish the truth of your claim?

 

[Enmos]

you mean falsifiability?

Well yeah.. and God isn't. So there
lol
LG, Super, I have to quit for today.. I'm tired.

 

[Enmos]

how do you propose to establish the truth of your claim?

Are you denying that is God unfalsifiable ? That would be a good one..

 

[superluminal]

Based on the fact that God is unfalsifiable and unknowable and thus cannot objectively be said to exist, what do you say about below conclusion ?

P1 - justice is relative to power
P2 - there exists an absolute power in the universe (God)
conclusion - therefore there exists an absolute justice

I say, yes. IF you rephrase your statements with the fact that they are hypothetical, e.g.

IF justice is relative to power
AND there exists an absolute power in the universe (God)
conclusion - therefore there WOULD exist an absolute justice.

Concluding in a absolute way (your first phrasing) fits my criteria for invalidity otherwise. In order to come to a VALID conclusion, your premises must be known and valid. The internal logic of the conclusion is inescapable.

I think the problem is this. If the logic of your statements is unassailable, no matter what the premises, then your conclusion will be perfectly logical. The VALIDITY of your conclusion is however very subject to the validity of the premises.

See?

 

[lightgigantic]

Are you denying that is God unfalsifiable ? That would be a good one..

falsifiable claims only work in the realm of the empiricism
if you want to argue that this spells the limits for truth, you are left with a world view that doesn't include consciousness, the mind, and a host of other states of being - eg wrath, envy, love etc - what to speak of god

 

[superluminal]

so how do you propose to establish the truth of your claim?

I don't. You well know that as an atheist I make no claims for or against god(s). I only ask you to support your claims FOR a god with a modicum of scientific evidence and not delve into purely subjective rambling.