Welcome to strongatheism.net readers

[Hierophant]

Because of a temporary loss of readers due to the move to strongatheism.net, the Strong Atheism site forum has become very quiet. I have therefore moved it to this section of my forum. Welcome to the Atheology section !

Please note that only members can post here, so if you want to post, you'll have to register. Enjoy your stay.

[Hierophant]

Posting on this section is now open to guests. You don't need to register anymore (although it would still be appreciated).

[Ratter]

Whoops.

[Hierophant]

I guess there isn't much to say on the topic huh? Seriously though, it must be broken. I'm afraid I don't have any of the original data any more, but I remember that was a long argument. Maybe ed has the archives.

[daedy]

I'm trying to become a member - I've enjoyed your stuff.

I thought you might like to know that I used this argument:

Posit X is a feature of human understanding.

1. X is necessary or has a necessary part.
2. If theism is true, then divine creation obtains.
3. If divine creation is true, then all in the universe is contingent to God’s act of creation, and nothing in the universe is necessary.
4. If theism is true, then no X can be necessary or have a necessary part. (from 2 and 3)
5. Theism is false. (from 1 and 4)


The guy I was debating questioned #1. He said, well, I'll let him speak:

[quote author=Reasoned Faith link=topic=1186.msg31280#msg31280 date=1198511721]
[quote author=daedalus 2.0 link=topic=1186.msg31273#msg31273 date=1198509239]
RF, you don't use terms properly so I am having trouble understanind what you mean.

Do you mean Necessary (in the logical sense) or necessary (in the vernacular)?

If you are trying to challange the premiss, I have to assume you mean in the logical sense.

If you are asking me to show that logic is true and can be relied on (Necessary), and you are using logic, or asking me to use logic, then you are showing me that it is Necessary.[/quote]

Nonsense. X may be contingent on something else, Y that is necessary. In this case it would not be free standing, rather dependent on something that is necessary. Even in this case contingency can be consistent if this contingent X is a fundamental characteristic of Y and Y it would be a violation of Y's nature to provide for a variable X.[/quote]

http://www.itsallpolitics.com/component ... ic,1186.0/

Basically, he is saying that logic seems Necessary because makes it that way. That it is Contingent but God's character makes it Necessary ( and he adds the crazy kicker) that God's character can't allow it to be anything but.

Here is a Theist willing to throw logic away to argue for God... or, as we call them, "Theists"

[Hierophant]

Yea, too bad for him that I already address that objection in my article! And thus you know exactly what to say.

[Thank You]

He's right to question premise 1 -- it isn't true. Consider "charlesfahringer is the GOTG user name of Charles Fahringer". This is a part of human understanding, yet it is not logically necessary or dependent on anything logically necessary. In fact, logic doesn't even have the language to discuss the claim. I dare you to try defining "user name" with just the words "and", "not", "exists", "X", and " ' " (X, X', X'', etc. are variables). Since you can't do it, the claim above isn't logically necessary or logically dependent on something logically necessary -- the axioms and inference rules of logic can't achieve the statement because it is outside the entire language of logic.

Thus, the fact that god isn't "necessary" isn't a big deal for theists. Most notably, the conclusion of the implication in claim 4 is true regardless of the truth of the implication because the logic doesn't talk about anything meaningful -- so all claims based in experience of the universe are not logically necessary.

However, theism does fail to be based on experience of the universe, so it isn't a meaningful claim. That's the actual difference between "God exists" and claims like the one above (about my username). The theists' claim doesn't have anything to do with anything we've experienced, my claim does.

[Hierophant]

Um, Charles? Are you saying that the concept of a user name cannot be reduced to first-level, directly-perceived concepts? How would that possibly work?

[Thank You]

Are you saying that the concept of a user name cannot be reduced to first-level, directly-perceived concepts?

No, I'm saying that first level, directly-perceived concepts can't be expressed with logic. I gave you all the words in the language of second order logic, which is a very generous definition of the domain of logic, and there's nothing there with which you could make the idea of a username.

[Hierophant]

I don't really understand what you're trying to say here.

[Thank You]

The basic symbols of the language of second order logic are: "and", "not", "exists", "X", and " ' ". Daedy was trying to posit "x is a feature of human understanding implies X is necessary or has a necessary part." He clarified that he meant the "logical" necessary. However, experienced phenomena are not logically necessary, since logic usually doesn't have the language to talk about them. Yet they are elements of human understanding. Thus, it's some other thing that makes them necessary, not logic. So Daedy was wrong to claim that "x is a feature of human understanding implies that X is necessary or has a necessary part". If he had meant logical in the "vernacular" sense, he might have gotten somewhere, because the vernacular does have the language to discuss experienced phenomena.

[Hierophant]

I still don't understand. He's talking about features of human understanding (like logic, conceptual understanding, morality, etc) as defined in my materialist argument, not about "experienced phenomena" specifically.

[Thank You]

Yes, he's talking about human understanding, but he's not including anything other than logic under that name, which is his fallacy. The first premise he draws from "X is a feature of human understanding" is "X is [logically] necessary or has a [logically] necessary part:

Posit X is a feature of human understanding.

1. X is necessary or has a necessary part.
...
Do you mean Necessary (in the logical sense) or necessary (in the vernacular)?

If you are trying to challange the premiss, I have to assume you mean in the logical sense.

The inference from "x is a feature of human understanding" to "x is logically necessary" is invalid, however, because humans understand things that aren't logically necessary. That my username is charlesfahringer, for instance, is a feature of human understanding. But logic doesn't even have the language to address that issue, much less prove its necessity. Therefore, deriving "x is necessary or has a necessary part" from "x is a feature of human understanding" is invalid.

[Hierophant]

No, that's not... your username has nothing to do with it. Your username is not a feature of human understanding. It's a result of their use.

[Thank You]

Your username is not a feature of human understanding. It's a result of their use.

Fine, but if you're going to make that distinction, then the fact that "God created the universe" isn't a feature of human understanding (which is what his argument proves, if you use that definition of human understanding) isn't a very good reason to disbelieve that God created the universe. Instead of being a feature of human understanding, it could be a result of the use of other features of human understanding, just like that my username is charlesfahringer.