| Subject: Like This |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04/15/02 3:58pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "How so?" on 04/15/02 2:15pm
I've read your post thoroughly Wade, but I feel it doesn't really address the central issue that is most important to your argument and for the sake of brevity I'm going to post what I feel is the main point you are overlooking, which ties into the rest.
There are things in logic sometimes referred to as "primitive concepts". These things are to be accepted as is, without question for the sake of the logical argument at stake.
For example, I'll use your sentence of "If I jump off a cliff, I'll be dead." I've assumed several primitive concepts here. First of all, I've assumed that there is such a thing as a cliff, and such a thing as death. I don't define them nor do I prove them logically. I just present them and leave them up to interpretation of the reader in question.
Notice that I don't presume that there isn't such a thing as a cliff in my above sentence. If that were the case, it would be impertinent to center a conditional statement around something that doesn't exist in the first place. Simply put, if cliffs don't exist, why am I wasting time and mental energy by coming up with conditionals to things that aren't real?
In the same vein, your first statement of "If there is a God he exists necessarily" assumes that God exists. If he doesn't exist, why bother making a conditional about him in the first place? That is the very question being asked, "What evidence is there of the Christian God existing?" Not if, or what if, or if then. None of those matter if he doesn't exist in the first place.
So, the "proof" you put forward is only proof granting the first premise, if. We could construct a similar argument for the negative if God doesn't exist.
You seem to treat logic as though it is decisive in matters such as these, but in actuality logic is only as useful as the primitive concepts it rests upon. We could argue that if the Easter Eunny exists then this this and that, and logically have a valid argument, even though we know that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. However, it doesn't matter to logic if the Easter Bunny exists or not. As a primitive concept, we don't worry ourselves with that. What we do learn is that if our premises are true, the conclusion must necessarily follow.
As it is impossible to show that the conditional If God exists is false just as it is impossible to show that If God doesn't exist is false, this argument would be valid, but not necessarily applicable to life, just as our Easter Bunny wouldn't be.
Hence, though the logic may be valid, that doesn't mean it is applicable, or a true observation that somehow proves the existance of God. Validity and application are not one in the same.
Damoclese
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 