[The_Power_of_Logic]

Re: Even God has to obey Logic

Brother Gonz has addressed that perfectly:

Amen, Brother!

Why? I can easily imagine a reality of a god existing in a wordless void. That, in fact, was the reality before Genesis 1:1.

For your God's sake! Your premises are true, it's your logic that's flawed. Thus, your conclusion is invalid. If God exists as you claim he does, the universe would exist. I am not arguing with that, and Brother Gonzalez's point is moot, as it doesn't address my argument.

[Brother Gonzalez]

Re: Even God has to obey Logic

For your God's sake! Your premises are true, it's your logic that's flawed. Thus, your conclusion is invalid. If God exists as you claim he does, the universe would exist. I am not arguing with that, and Brother Gonzalez's point is moot, as it doesn't address my argument.

So let's be clear: are you saying that both premises are true, but the conclusion does not follow from those premises?
Are you sure you understand logic? I mean, it must be the case that you had your first logic class in school, and come here to try to debate with graduates in Bible Studies about it.
Nevertheless, you haven't addressed any of my points, you have just taken a detour, thrown a red herring, and started talking to a straw man.

[The_Power_of_Logic]

Re: Even God has to obey Logic

So let's be clear: are you saying that both premises are true, but the conclusion does not follow from those premises?

Yes, That is what I am saying. And the reason that the conclusion does not follow the premises is because the logic showcases a version of the the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy, which makes the argument fallacious and invalid.


May I also add that your continued use of the Ad Hominem fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) is far from helpful to the discussion.

[Basilissa]

Re: Even God has to obey Logic

For your God's sake! Your premises are true,

Thank you. I stopped reading after that part.

[The_Power_of_Logic]

Re: Even God has to obey Logic

Premise 2 is ok then. The world exists, we can measure it, it exists. There is no need for cause here.
Premise 1 is If God's creation exists, then God exists.
So the conclusion is obviously true.

No. Premise 1 is
If God exists, then God's Creation exists.
Not the other way around. I see how you could get it mixed up, but this is a very important distinction to make.

[The_Power_of_Logic]

Re: Even God has to obey Logic

Thank you. I stopped reading after that part.

Please stop deluding yourself. The premises of an argument being true do not make the conclusion true. Consider the following argument:


Premise 1: Some cars have wheels
Premise 2: Some cars are red
Conclusion: All red things have wheels


Do you see how the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises?

[Basilissa]

Re: Even God has to obey Logic

Please stop deluding yourself. The premises of an argument being true do not make the conclusion true. Consider the following argument:

Premise 1: Some cars have wheels
Premise 2: Some cars are red
Conclusion: All red things have wheels

Do you see how the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises?

Don't you?

Premise 1 and 2 talks about "some cars" - that is, from all things which can be named cars, these premises select only some.

The conclusion does not relate to neither one of the premises (very different from the God premises as discussed), as it does not talk about "some stuff," but rather about all things red. So it happens that I'm drinking Peruvian chocolate from a red cup right now, and let me reassure you: it does not have wheels!

[The_Power_of_Logic]

Re: Even God has to obey Logic

Don't you?

Premise 1 and 2 talks about "some cars" - that is, from all things which can be named cars, these premises select only some.

The conclusion does not relate to neither one of the premises

The point here is that just because the premises of an argument are true, the conclusion has to logically follow the premises to be valid.


Agreed?

[Basilissa]

Re: Even God has to obey Logic

The point here is that just because the premises of an argument are true, the conclusion has to logically follow the premises to be valid.

Agreed?

I agree that the conclusion has to be logically related to the two premises. Such as in my original statement, that we can know God through His creation.

[The_Power_of_Logic]

Re: Even God has to obey Logic

I agree that the conclusion has to be logically related to the two premises. Such as in my original statement, that we can know God through His creation.

But that's the problem. Let us examine your argument again - it looks something like this, right?


Premise 1: If God existed, the world would exist
Premise 2: The world exists
Conclusion: God exists

[Basilissa]

Re: Even God has to obey Logic

But that's the problem. Let us examine your argument again - it looks something like this, right?

Premise 1: If God existed, the world would exist

Like I said previously, God can exist without a world (and in fact He did, before the event described in Genesis 1:1), so no, that is not my premise.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Even God has to obey Logic

Like I said previously, God can exist without a world (and in fact He did, before the event described in Genesis 1:1), so no, that is not my premise.

Indeed, Sister, this person is using strawman argumentation, making a twisted case of your argument and then attacking this twisted, weaker form. Unsurprisigly, it is fallacy.

Isaiah 25:10
For in this mountain shall the hand of the LORD rest, and Moab shall be trodden down under him, even as straw is trodden down for the dunghill.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: Even God has to obey Logic

The point here is that just because the premises of an argument are true, the conclusion has to logically follow the premises to be valid. Agreed?

"The Power of Logic", let's activate one of your unused organs: your brain.

You are visiting a Christian forum trying to use logic to prove to Christians that God does not exist. Apparently you're unaware that it is impossible to prove a negative. Even if God would not exist, there is no way you could ever prove with logic or any other means that God does not exist.

Yet here you are, trying to prove over and over again that God does not exist. Albert Einstein (a very smart person, Google him) said that the definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".

So, as you can see, I have just proven with both logic and evidence that you are insane.

You're welcome!

[The_Power_of_Logic]

Re: Even God has to obey Logic

Like I said previously, God can exist without a world (and in fact He did, before the event described in Genesis 1:1), so no, that is not my premise.

Very well, looks like I was slightly off. Does this seem more like your argument?


Premise 1: If the Bible were true (Particularly the bit where God exists and creates the universe) the universe would exist.
Premise 2: The universe exists
Conclusion: The Bible (at the very least, that bit of it) is true and God does exist.


If it is I will go on to argue against it but not before you confirm that it is, because I do not want to argue against a straw man, Mr White.


Mr Old Man, I am not trying to disprove God. I am merely trying to break down this argument;

By the same logic, we cannot measure God but we can measure His creation. So following your logic, you have just proven that God exists, because His creation (everything we see) exists. Good job!

And explain why it is invalid.

[Brother Gonzalez]

Re: Even God has to obey Logic

Yes, That is what I am saying. And the reason that the conclusion does not follow the premises is because the logic showcases a version of the the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy, which makes the argument fallacious and invalid.


May I also add that your continued use of the Ad Hominem fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) is far from helpful to the discussion.

No it doesn't. You did not understand the premises. You are using your own version (a straw man, you know?)
Bas said

By the same logic, we cannot measure God but we can measure His creation. So following your logic, you have just proven that God exists, because His creation (everything we see) exists. Good job!

Following this, there are 2 separate sets of premises:


1) If we can measure something, it exists
2) We can measure the world
3) The world exists


Second,


1) God created the world
2) The world exists
3) God, the creator, exists


See? In the first case, we can discuss the accuracy of premise one. Because we can assert something exists without measuring it. For example, I can be sure my love for God exists, but I cannot measure it.
Nevertheless, if we accept the premises are right, then the conclusion is right.
The second premise is the same. We know the second premise to be 100% right. If the first premise is right, the logic is right.


You created your own version and called the logic flawed. That is a REALLY stupid thing to do.


I am not attacking you in any way. I am going against your reasoning, or lack of it. At least, of a right reasoning. Please show me where did I used the Ad Hominem.


And no, when I say:

You created your own version and called the logic flawed. That is a REALLY stupid thing to do.

I am not calling you stupid. I call your actions stupid, then not ad hominem at all.


Please study and come back, child.


Regards,