A Philosophical Argument for the Existence of God

[TheChristianEgoist]

This argument is different from many others (including the Kalam argument on this forum) in that it does not require (or really tolerate) the minutia of various theories of the special Sciences (like physics). It thoroughly anticipates and dismisses most major objections in the structure of the argument, itself.
You can find a full post of my argument, along with many clarifying comments and objections answered here: http://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com ... ble-mover/

1) Things can only act according to their natures. This is the law of causality.

2) Regarding action, the nature of a thing is either purposeful or accidental – meaning that an action is either purposeful or un-purposeful, intentional or unintentional. This is the law of the excluded middle applied to the nature of action.

3) Accidental actions are necessarily the result of some sort of interaction – which means that every accidental action necessitates a prior action of some kind.

4) There cannot be an infinite regress of accidental actions. An infinite regress of a series cannot exist because a series must have a beginning in order to exist.

5) There must have been an action which triggered the beginning of accidental action (3 & 4), and this ‘trigger’ action could not, itself, have been accidental (3).

6) If the beginning to accidental action could not have been accidental, then it must have been purposeful (2).

7) A purposeful action is a volitional action and volition presupposes a mind and values.

8) An actor with mind, values, and volition is a person.

9) A personal actor began all accidental action in the universe.

[thepandemicson]

[Replying to post 248 by JohnA]

The word 'Law' does not really have an acceptable definition. But is is probably a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior.

Here's an example of a law which does not fit this definition you've provided.
The Law of Gravity. It is a scientific theory made fact by our observations, a rule by which all matter must abide. This is not a system of rules and guidelines enforced by social institutions to govern our behavior, nor does it have penalties put in place should you break the law.

Laws, rules, and principles all have more than one individual meaning. And they are most often interchangeable when it comes to the English language. You will find this to be accurate here:
http://thesaurus.com/browse/principle


And now, I shall address your questions appropriately, as you seem to be asking them from every responder to this thread. This, you should enjoy, because I'm going to show you the fallacies you're so very fond of in the questions you ask, and I'm going to use my Rhetoric book for this.

How do you want me to answer your question when your premise of your question is wrong?

This is a Complex Question fallacy. You are making the assumption that the premise of his question is wrong in the first place, then you mislead us by making it look as if you want to know how we would like you to answer. No matter how we'd answer this one as directly as we can, it would make us look bad because it places an undesirable precondition upon us. Therefore, it is unanswerable.

I can guess what you are trying to do. You are trying to straw man me. Keep trying please. My prediction is that you will revert to slander similar to what instantc does when he can not meet his burden or you will go away and practice your fallacies on someone else. Are you happy with that?

This one falls between both Complex Question fallacy and Begging the Question fallacy. I'd like to call this Begging the Complex Question. You're doing the same thing as with the previous question, where you reinsert the assumption of an undesirable precondition into the question. But you are also assuming beforehand the premise to be established.

"I can guess what you are trying to do"

"My prediction..."

The actual question itself, asking about the emotional happiness of the individual addressed, is an attack in itself, and is based completely on the assumption made by your "prediction". This is therefore an insult, and cannot be answered correctly.

Why do you need instantc to assert again that there are laws of logic, for you to accept it, if he already asserted it?

Again, we have a Begging the Question fallacy. You are assuming that instantc has asserted that there are laws of logic, or that such an assertion was easy to understand for everyone. It shouldn't matter that someone was asked to restate their point. Perhaps the second time around would be clearer.

Do you agree that instantc is missing the boat?

This is the Ad Hominem Appeal fallacy. It attacks instantc's character, his ability to grasp the concept you're trying to push, and sways us from the issue at hand, being the possibility or impossibility of God's existence.

If you'd like to know where I scrounged up the definitions of the fallacies I've attributed, it's all here in:
A Rhetoric of Argument (3rd Edition)
Jeanne Fahnestock
Marie Secor
McGraw Hill Higher Education

[olavisjo]

.

Once again, you did not answer any of my questions.

I am trying, please be patient, we will get there.

Clearly, Instantc is confused between the rules of thought and Discrete Mathematics.

Where did he bring up "rules of thought" and "Discrete Mathematics".

The word 'Law' does not really have one acceptable definition. But is is probably a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social or government institutions to govern behavior and penalized when not. or you could say it is a the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.
Once definition of 'Rule' would be one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity.
A definition of 'Principle' could be: a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.
A definition of an 'Axiom': a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.

Here you define a law as a rule, and a rule as a principle.

Laws are i) enforced by an institution and ii) can have penalties associated if you break them. Rules, principles or axiom do not have these two things (i.e. i) and ii) as mentioned). Also, rules, law , principles, and axioms are all spelled different, so they can not be the exact same thing.

Would this apply to the laws of logic, the rules of logic and the principles of logic?

An automobile and a car are spelled different, and yet they mean the same thing, they are synonyms of each other.

When will you answer my QUESTIONS?
I can list them again:
How do you want me to answer your question when your premise of your question is wrong?

What was wrong with my premise?

[JohnA]

.

Once again, you did not answer any of my questions.

I am trying, please be patient, we will get there.

Clearly, Instantc is confused between the rules of thought and Discrete Mathematics.

Where did he bring up "rules of thought" and "Discrete Mathematics".

The word 'Law' does not really have one acceptable definition. But is is probably a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social or government institutions to govern behavior and penalized when not. or you could say it is a the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.
Once definition of 'Rule' would be one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity.
A definition of 'Principle' could be: a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.
A definition of an 'Axiom': a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.

Here you define a law as a rule, and a rule as a principle.

Laws are i) enforced by an institution and ii) can have penalties associated if you break them. Rules, principles or axiom do not have these two things (i.e. i) and ii) as mentioned). Also, rules, law , principles, and axioms are all spelled different, so they can not be the exact same thing.

Would this apply to the laws of logic, the rules of logic and the principles of logic?

An automobile and a car are spelled different, and yet they mean the same thing, they are synonyms of each other.

When will you answer my QUESTIONS?
I can list them again:
How do you want me to answer your question when your premise of your question is wrong?

What was wrong with my premise?

He brought up rules of thought (calling it laws of logic) and Discrete Math here:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 581#605581
and here (click on his link it actually says DiscreteMath in the link url itself)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 135#606135

One definition of law is a SYSTEM of rules AND X (institution) AND Y (penalties).
So, law (L) = System of R + X + Y.
Where did I say R = L? How do you get that?

Btw Newton's universal law of universal gravity is a SCIENTIFIC LAW. A SCIENTIFIC LAW is a not a LAW as I used in the definition of LAW. A Scientific Law it is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspect of the world. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements according to Wikipedia. Notince to say Sceincetific Law = law is wrong. That is as wrong to say a System of Rules = a Law = a Rule.

A quick search on automotive says:
A self-propelled passenger vehicle that usually has four wheels and an internal-combustion engine, used for land transport. Also called motorcar.
The same dictionary defines car as:
1. An automobile.
2. A vehicle, such as a streetcar, that runs on rails: a railroad car.
3. A boxlike enclosure for passengers and freight on a conveyance: an elevator car.
4. The part of a balloon or airship that carries people and cargo.
5. Archaic A chariot, carriage, or cart.

So, a car can be an automobile OR other things. That does not mean an automobile is these other things as well. Do you call a the part of a balloon or airship that carries people and cargo an automobile? Is a railroad car = automobile?

Your premise of your question is wrong because you are assuming 'Laws of Logic' exist, and hence asking me to define 'Laws of logic' is wrong. I can not define "Laws of Logic" since I would never say it exists, you need to convince me it exists, remember.

If I do not follow "your an instantc's laws of logic" does this mean some authority (institution, government, religious denomination, etc.) would come after me and penalize me (make me pay a fine, or put me in jail, or make me do hard labour, etc.)?


You are still avoiding my questions. You seem to ask the same questions and I am getting tired of repeating the same answer.

[thepandemicson]

[Replying to post 252 by JohnA]

Btw Newton's universal law of universal gravity is a SCIENTIFIC LAW. A SCIENTIFIC LAW is a not a LAW as I used in the definition of LAW.

I was giving an example of a Law to demonstrate that there are multiple definitions that the word Law can cover. We are not confined to using the word only in the manner in which you think it must be used. We have several different applications of the word at our disposal by which we CAN use this, so it's best to try to grasp how these words are synonymous. By the thesaurus link I provided, we can see that in the list of words that are synonyms to Principle (meaning that these words share a definition so that they can be interchangeable) are the words Rule, Law, and Axiom, among many others. This was specifically in response to your claim:

Also, rules, law , principles, and axioms are all spelled different, so they can not be the exact same thing.

If you can't find Law in that list, it's because it's in the definition directly below the word Principle. It reads thusly:
Principle
n law, standard

A quick search on automotive says:
A self-propelled passenger vehicle that usually has four wheels and an internal-combustion engine, used for land transport. Also called motorcar.
The same dictionary defines car as:
1. An automobile.
2. A vehicle, such as a streetcar, that runs on rails: a railroad car.
3. A boxlike enclosure for passengers and freight on a conveyance: an elevator car.
4. The part of a balloon or airship that carries people and cargo.
5. Archaic A chariot, carriage, or cart.

So, a car can be an automobile OR other things. That does not mean an automobile is these other things as well. Do you call a the part of a balloon or airship that carries people and cargo an automobile? Is a railroad car = automobile?

This argument against us using the words interchangeably is, I think, an example of the False Dilemma fallacy. This fallacy is suggesting that there are only two choices in the situation, and that yours must be correct because the other is clearly incorrect. The problem here is that when we use the term Law, you argue that it's wrong because Law could mean something other than Principle or Rule, so if we use it, we must clearly be in the wrong because the definition you would use for it is in legal terminology and wouldn't apply here. However, this disregards the notion that the rest of us know what we mean by using the word, that we use it synonymously with Rule and Principle and wouldn't confuse it with the version you've provided.

Your premise of your question is wrong because you are assuming 'Laws of Logic' exist, and hence asking me to define 'Laws of logic' is wrong. I can not define "Laws of Logic" since I would never say it exists, you need to convince me it exists, remember.

If I do not follow "your an instantc's laws of logic" does this mean some authority (institution, government, religious denomination, etc.) would come after me and penalize me (make me pay a fine, or put me in jail, or make me do hard labour, etc.)?

We're back to square one here. This is still based on the idea that your definitions of Law and Rule are different, whereas we see the words as synonyms. His Laws of Logic are the same as your Rules of Logic. We already know not to confuse our definition of Law with your definition of Law as a legality.

You are still avoiding my questions. You seem to ask the same questions and I am getting tired of repeating the same answer.

I have addressed your questions already, and shown why they are fallacious. If you disagree with my response, please demonstrate to me how they are not fallacies, and if I find that demonstration reasonable, I will happily retract my statement.

[olavisjo]

.

He brought up rules of thought (calling it laws of logic) and Discrete Math here:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 581#605581
and here (click on his link it actually says DiscreteMath in the link url itself)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 135#606135

Okay, what he calls the "laws of logic" is actually the "rules of thought".

I missed the DiscreteMath because I clicked on the link, but I did not read the link itself. Good catch on your part.

Then DiscreteMath is...

• Laws of Propositional Logic
  Laws of Predicate Logic
  Laws of Set Operators
  Laws of Relation and Function Operators

A quick search on automotive says:
A self-propelled passenger vehicle that usually has four wheels and an internal-combustion engine, used for land transport. Also called motorcar.
The same dictionary defines car as:
1. An automobile.
2. A vehicle, such as a streetcar, that runs on rails: a railroad car.
3. A boxlike enclosure for passengers and freight on a conveyance: an elevator car.
4. The part of a balloon or airship that carries people and cargo.
5. Archaic A chariot, carriage, or cart.

So, a car can be an automobile OR other things. That does not mean an automobile is these other things as well. Do you call a the part of a balloon or airship that carries people and cargo an automobile? Is a railroad car = automobile?

Okay an automobile is a car but a car is not necessarily an automobile. Again good catch.

Your premise of your question is wrong because you are assuming 'Laws of Logic' exist, and hence asking me to define 'Laws of logic' is wrong. I can not define "Laws of Logic" since I would never say it exists, you need to convince me it exists, remember.

The "Laws of Logic" are the "laws of thought", see here...

• In informal logic, people use three basic, logical principles which are regarded as the three basic "laws of logic" or "laws of thought":

You are still avoiding my questions. You seem to ask the same questions and I am getting tired of repeating the same answer.

I apologize for that, I am still trying to understand the language that we are using to convey the concepts that are in question. Please note that you are not dealing with the sharpest tool in the shed, see how I completely missed the "DiscreteMath".

Here is a recap of what I understand so far...

The "laws of logic" are the "laws of thought".
Laws are a system of rules.
The "laws of logic" are a system of the rules of logic.
A rule would be one of a set of explicit principles.
The rules of logic would be one set of logical principles.

DiscreteMath is...

• Laws of Propositional Logic
  Laws of Predicate Logic
  Laws of Set Operators
  Laws of Relation and Function Operators

If we are in agreement on this we can move on, if we are not in agreement then let us settle any disagreement before we move on.

[JohnA]

.

He brought up rules of thought (calling it laws of logic) and Discrete Math here:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 581#605581
and here (click on his link it actually says DiscreteMath in the link url itself)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 135#606135

Okay, what he calls the "laws of logic" is actually the "rules of thought".

I missed the DiscreteMath because I clicked on the link, but I did not read the link itself. Good catch on your part.

Then DiscreteMath is...

• Laws of Propositional Logic
  Laws of Predicate Logic
  Laws of Set Operators
  Laws of Relation and Function Operators

A quick search on automotive says:
A self-propelled passenger vehicle that usually has four wheels and an internal-combustion engine, used for land transport. Also called motorcar.
The same dictionary defines car as:
1. An automobile.
2. A vehicle, such as a streetcar, that runs on rails: a railroad car.
3. A boxlike enclosure for passengers and freight on a conveyance: an elevator car.
4. The part of a balloon or airship that carries people and cargo.
5. Archaic A chariot, carriage, or cart.

So, a car can be an automobile OR other things. That does not mean an automobile is these other things as well. Do you call a the part of a balloon or airship that carries people and cargo an automobile? Is a railroad car = automobile?

Okay an automobile is a car but a car is not necessarily an automobile. Again good catch.

Your premise of your question is wrong because you are assuming 'Laws of Logic' exist, and hence asking me to define 'Laws of logic' is wrong. I can not define "Laws of Logic" since I would never say it exists, you need to convince me it exists, remember.

The "Laws of Logic" are the "laws of thought", see here...

• In informal logic, people use three basic, logical principles which are regarded as the three basic "laws of logic" or "laws of thought":

You are still avoiding my questions. You seem to ask the same questions and I am getting tired of repeating the same answer.

I apologize for that, I am still trying to understand the language that we are using to convey the concepts that are in question. Please note that you are not dealing with the sharpest tool in the shed, see how I completely missed the "DiscreteMath".

Here is a recap of what I understand so far...

The "laws of logic" are the "laws of thought".
Laws are a system of rules.
The "laws of logic" are a system of the rules of logic.
A rule would be one of a set of explicit principles.
The rules of logic would be one set of logical principles.

DiscreteMath is...

• Laws of Propositional Logic
  Laws of Predicate Logic
  Laws of Set Operators
  Laws of Relation and Function Operators

If we are in agreement on this we can move on, if we are not in agreement then let us settle any disagreement before we move on.

There are no laws of logic.

The only time you can say there are laws of logic is when you say law = rule or law = principles.

The above is clearly false. Only people that want to reject logic and / or is a philosorcerer would think there are laws of logic.

Am done now with this.

[olavisjo]

.

Only people that want to reject logic and / or is a philosorcerer would think there are laws of logic.

Do I understand you? Are you saying...

Only people that want to reject logic would think there are laws of logic.

It seems to me that if a person thinks that there are laws of logic, she would be affirming logic rather than rejecting logic?

[JohnA]

.

Only people that want to reject logic and / or is a philosorcerer would think there are laws of logic.

Do I understand you? Are you saying...

Only people that want to reject logic would think there are laws of logic.

It seems to me that if a person thinks that there are laws of logic, she would be affirming logic rather than rejecting logic?

So, if she breaks/violates a 'law' of logic, who will come after her, and what penalty will they impose on her?

[olavisjo]

.

So, if she breaks/violates a 'law' of logic, who will come after her, and what penalty will they impose on her?

That would be a valid point it we define "law" as...

1

• a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3) : common law
  b (1) : the control brought about by the existence or enforcement of such law (2) : the action of laws considered as a means of redressing wrongs; also : litigation (3) : the agency of or an agent of established law
  c : a rule or order that it is advisable or obligatory to observe
  d : something compatible with or enforceable by established law
  e : control, authority

But if we define "law" as...

6

• a : a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions
  b : a general relation proved or assumed to hold between mathematical or logical expressions

Would it then be true that...

• Only people that want to reject logic would think there are laws of logic.

[JohnA]

.

So, if she breaks/violates a 'law' of logic, who will come after her, and what penalty will they impose on her?

That would be a valid point it we define "law" as...

1

• a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3) : common law
  b (1) : the control brought about by the existence or enforcement of such law (2) : the action of laws considered as a means of redressing wrongs; also : litigation (3) : the agency of or an agent of established law
  c : a rule or order that it is advisable or obligatory to observe
  d : something compatible with or enforceable by established law
  e : control, authority

But if we define "law" as...

6

• a : a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions
  b : a general relation proved or assumed to hold between mathematical or logical expressions

Would it then be true that...

• Only people that want to reject logic would think there are laws of logic.

Once again, you did not answer my question.
Why not call it what it is, rules of thought. Why invent confusion where none is needed.
There are no laws of logic. Period. Similar to a gods, there is none.