If god then ...

Originally posted by DeepThought
Classical logic's applicability is disputed in some fields, if you are interested type "paraconsistent logic" into Wikipedia's search thing. I'm standing by my claim that the concept of God is not consistent with classical logic, I can spend all day creating paradoxes based on the concept.

I fail to see that you have created a paradox at all - or given any valid reason as to why you think logic cannot be applied.
I think all you have done is attempted to create confusion by overly complicating the matter.
The way I see it, you have three assumptions which clearly cannot all be true. Logic will tell us the cannot all be true.

Either you have to assume that God doesn't exist or accept that the normal rules of logic don't apply.
I am quite happy assuming God doesn't exist. I could also throw out one of the other two assumptions. I see no reason to throw out the rules of logic.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I said, "everything that came to exist has a cause."

Isn't that the same idea?

Yes. I think so.

Originally posted by sonship

At least Sprout's formulation is grammatically forced, but there's no absolute reason to think that things that begin must have a reason for their beginning.

Are you suggesting that Christian philosophers do not have a right to refine and re-tool philosophical arguments ? That would be strange because atheist philosophers are afforded th ...[text shortened]... always be searched out for the beginning of things. I think that is a major activity of science.

Are you suggesting that Christian philosophers do not have a right to refine and re-tool philosophical arguments ? That would be strange because atheist philosophers are afforded this right.

You seem to be reading more into my post than I wrote. I was arguing with the two formulations. Sproul's formulation is virtually a tautology, but lets acausal phenomena through. The more recent formulation suffers the same problem in that more than one thing can have no beginning, but also suffers from the problem that you need an extra axiom to ensure that a beginning implies a cause. So in each case you have hidden premises.

I don't see any reason to call a fowl based on a charge of making a formula "grammatically forced."

You can't use a tautology as a premise to a syllogism and hope to find a conclusion, so I'm right to call foul.

I think your whole mathematical style of argument is "grammatically forced" to squeeze out God's existence.

I gave four alternative conclusions, only one of which was God does not exist. I'm an agnostic and don't think it's possible to prove anything very much.

I think you have done science no favors by suggesting that causes should not always be searched out for the beginning of things. I think that is a major activity of science.

I wasn't talking about Science, this kind of argument has to be robust . First off it's not clear what causation is as some other people were discussing earlier in the thread. Second the major scientific theory as to why the universe started is that it did due to a quantum fluctuation, quantum fluctuations just happen, in a way we can explain, but there's no cause as such.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I fail to see that you have created a paradox at all - or given any valid reason as to why you think logic cannot be applied.
I think all you have done is attempted to create confusion by overly complicating the matter.
The way I see it, you have three assumptions which clearly cannot all be true. Logic will tell us the cannot all be true.

[b]Either ...[text shortened]... lso throw out one of the other two assumptions. I see no reason to throw out the rules of logic.

I didn't claim a paradox there particularly, I just claimed to be able to generate them. If God is omnipotent then can he create a stone he cannot lift? If one insists on classical logic then omnipotence is restricted. So which is pre-eminent God or Logic?

Originally posted by DeepThought

You seem to be reading more into my post than I wrote.

You are right. I did not grasp a sentence well there.

I'll comment latter. But for now the way it is phrased is "categorically" true. By definition, an effect is something that has a cause.

Ie. "All bachelors are single" is given as a parallel statement. By definition a bachelor is single. And by definition an effect has a cause.

The statement is still useful if someone can just negate the first premise by identifying an effect that does NOT have a cause. Am I right ?

I will give more attention to your last post latter.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I didn't claim a paradox there particularly, I just claimed to be able to generate them. If God is omnipotent then can he create a stone he cannot lift? If one insists on classical logic then omnipotence is restricted.

No, omnipotence is not restricted, it is just not logical if defined that way - essentially your definition is incoherent.

So which is pre-eminent God or Logic?
Logic of course. And you cannot rationally claim otherwise without creating for yourself a paradox ie your claim will either not be logical, or you will have to support it with logic (not with God).

Originally posted by sonship
But for now the way it is phrased is "categorically" true. By definition, an effect is something that has a cause.

A better way of saying it would be that it is a tautology, or that it is not a claim, but a definition. As such it cannot be used as a premise in an argument.

Originally posted by sonship

You seem to be reading more into my post than I wrote.

You are right. I did not grasp a sentence well there.

I'll comment latter. But for now the way it is phrased is "categorically" true. By definition, an effect is something that has a cause.

Ie. "All bachelors are single" is given as a parallel statement. By definition ...[text shortened]... does NOT have a cause. Am I right ?

I will give more attention to your last post latter.

My mistake. The word I was looking for was either "formal" or "analytical".

"All bachelors are single" is a "formal" truth or an "analytical" truth. It is true by definition.

Originally posted by RJHinds
This is the OP version by wolfgang:

1. Everything that exists has a cause
2. God exists
3. Therefore God has a cause

Unless "cause" means"purpose" then the conclusion #3 is wrong because God is "not caused" by anything.

#1 is only wrong if "everything" includes God. However, in Christian theology God is usually not included in "everything" bec ...[text shortened]... ter way of restating the three statements than I did, so that it is also logical, then go ahead.

RJ,

This again is not a problem with the logic, but with premise 1. This form of a logical argument does not need to be 'true', it just needs to be internally consistent and for the conclusions to be derivable from the premises.

For example, the logical sequence:
1. All red cars can fly
2. My car is red
3. Therefore my car can fly

has perfectly valid logic because if all red cars can fly and my car is red then it logically must be the case that my car can fly. Now I do have a red car but it cannot fly so something is wrong with the above argument; but it is not the logic that is wrong. What is wrong with it is that premise 1 is false (although premise 2 is true) and therefore the conclusion cannot be said to be true.

In the OP, the logic is similarly valid but again at least one of the premises can be argued to be false in which case the conclusion would not follow. But again ifall things that exist have a cause and God exists then it would logically follow that god has a cause. The fact that one or more premises is false and therefore the conclusion cannot be inferred does not invalidate the logic of the argument.

As I said, your argument is not with the logic, but with premise 1. Your argument should be: God exists but has no cause and therefore Premise 1 is false. Simples.

--- Penguin

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, omnipotence is not restricted, it is just not logical if defined that way - essentially your definition is incoherent.

[b]So which is pre-eminent God or Logic?
Logic of course. And you cannot rationally claim otherwise without creating for yourself a paradox ie your claim will either not be logical, or you will have to support it with logic (not with God).[/b]

God created all things. Logic is a thing. Therefore God created logic. So logically there is a problem with giving logic pre-eminence if God is a universal creator. Classical logic is a formal language with syntactic rules. Once you've translated your statements into the language the conclusions follow from the rules of the formal grammar. One can choose the grammar up to internal consistency; so denying the law of incomplete middle restricts the language but can allow analysis of problems where information is incomplete. Kurt Godel showed that any form of logic with second order predicates has to be incomplete (or inconsistent) so that not all tautologies are provable in classical logic. Some languages express some concepts better than others.

Originally posted by DeepThought
[b]Logic is a thing. /b]

This statement is open to interpretation.
Is logic a "thing" in the way you mean?
Is it, can it, be created - or does it just exist without creation?

Was the number 7 created?
Was pi?
Was the commutative law of addition?

Surely these things must be and therefore were not created but just "are".

????????????

Originally posted by DeepThought
God created all things. Logic is a thing. Therefore God created logic. So logically there is a problem with giving logic pre-eminence if God is a universal creator.

Well obviously God could not create logic, therefore either your God as defined as a universal creator could not exist - in fact, I would again say your definition is incoherent. What would it even mean to 'create logic'? If you talk nonsense you will get nonsense, but this in no way means that logic cannot be applied, it only means you are talking nonsense.

Classical logic is a formal language with syntactic rules. Once you've translated your statements into the language the conclusions follow from the rules of the formal grammar.
And from the premises.

One can choose the grammar up to internal consistency; so denying the law of incomplete middle restricts the language but can allow analysis of problems where information is incomplete. Kurt Godel showed that any form of logic with second order predicates has to be incomplete (or inconsistent) so that not all tautologies are provable in classical logic. Some languages express some concepts better than others
Nevertheless, you have totally failed to show that logic does not apply to God or to the arguments in question in this thread.

Originally posted by Penguin
RJ,

This again is not a problem with the logic, but with premise 1. This form of a logical argument does not need to be 'true', it just needs to be internally consistent and for the conclusions to be derivable from the premises.

For example, the logical sequence:
1. All red cars can fly
2. My car is red
3. Therefore my car can fly

has perf ...[text shortened]... be: God exists but has no cause and therefore Premise 1 is false. Simples.

--- Penguin

It doesn't matter. If anything is wrong with it, the logic fails. Truth is a requirement, otherwise there is no need for logic at all.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It doesn't matter. If anything is wrong with it, the logic fails. Truth is a requirement, otherwise there is no need for logic at all.

statement1: All X are Y
staement2: A is an X

conclusion: A is a Y

Is that TRUE RJ?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
1. Everything that exists has a cause
2. God exists
3. Therefore God has a cause

What's wrong with this argument?

"What's wrong with this argument?" (OP) The argument's assumption of the presence of time. The nature, essence or essential being of God includes the attribute of eternal life: His absolute existence outside the boundaries of time.