[Isabella White]

Originally Posted by The_Power_of_Logic

Yes and no.

Your Logic, supposedly based on mine:
Premise 1: If God exists, his creation (the world) exists
Premise 2: The world exists, because we can measure it
Conclusion: God exists

The Argument is flawed because it commits the Post hoc fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc). Basically, Premise 2 has other potential explanations.

Measuring the world to prove God may be based on the following syllogism:
Premise 1: x thing has been measured
Premise 2: The only explanation, or by far the most likely explanation for x thing being measured in this way is God
Conclusion: God exists

Hope this helps

My goodness, isn't that impressive, Miss Logic? I do so hope that you will be able to impress Almighty with it when you stand before him on Judgment Day.

Hebrews 9:27 "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment".

Matthew 10:28 "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."
And, instead of wasting your time over on Wikipedia, might I suggest this instead:

Sincerely, Isabella W.

[Brother Gonzalez]

Originally Posted by The_Power_of_Logic

Yes and no.


Your Logic, supposedly based on mine:
Premise 1: If God exists, his creation (the world) exists
Premise 2: The world exists, because we can measure it
Conclusion: God exists


The Argument is flawed because it commits the Post hoc fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc). Basically, Premise 2 has other potential explanations.


Measuring the world to prove God may be based on the following syllogism:
Premise 1: x thing has been measured
Premise 2: The only explanation, or by far the most likely explanation for x thing being measured in this way is God
Conclusion: God exists


Hope this helps

I love how you point towards Premise 2 being the flawed one in Sister Bas' post. So premise one {Premise 1: If God exists, his creation (the world) exists} is true.


Psychologist would say that was your subconcious. We know otherwise: is the way the Holy Ghost is leading you to be a True Christian. Embrace it, don't be a fool. You could end up in Heaven with all of us!

[The_Power_of_Logic]

Originally Posted by Brother Gonzalez

I love how you point towards Premise 2 being the flawed one in Sister Bas' post. So premise one {Premise 1: If God exists, his creation (the world) exists} is true.


Psychologist would say that was your subconcious. We know otherwise: is the way the Holy Ghost is leading you to be a True Christian. Embrace it, don't be a fool. You could end up in Heaven with all of us!

No, no, no, you've got it wrong.


The problem with the argument is the logic behind it - it is fallacious. Neither of the premises are false. It would be madness to state otherwise. IF God exists, the world would exist, obviously. But it's an IF. The world could exist without God, or, if it couldn't, this argument in no way supports that.

[Brother Gonzalez]

Originally Posted by The_Power_of_Logic

No, no, no, you've got it wrong.


The problem with the argument is the logic behind it - it is fallacious. Neither of the premises are false. It would be madness to state otherwise. IF God exists, the world would exist, obviously. But it's an IF. The world could exist without God, or, if it couldn't, this argument in no way supports that.

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.


There is no flawed logic there. Unless, of course, you can prove the world was not created by God. Or that the world does not exist.


Please go ahead and prove it, without any doubt.


I am grabbing popcorn.

[Basilissa]

Originally Posted by The_Power_of_Logic

Yes and no.

Your Logic, supposedly based on mine:
Premise 1: If God exists, his creation (the world) exists
Premise 2: The world exists, because we can measure it
Conclusion: God exists

The Argument is flawed because it commits the Post hoc fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc). Basically, Premise 2 has other potential explanations.

Brother Gonz has addressed that perfectly:

Originally Posted by Brother Gonzalez

I love how you point towards Premise 2 being the flawed one in Sister Bas' post. So premise one {Premise 1: If God exists, his creation (the world) exists} is true.

Psychologist would say that was your subconcious. We know otherwise: is the way the Holy Ghost is leading you to be a True Christian. Embrace it, don't be a fool. You could end up in Heaven with all of us!

Amen, Brother!

Originally Posted by The_Power_of_Logic

Neither of the premises are false. It would be madness to state otherwise. IF God exists, the world would exist, obviously.

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.

[DolliMoans]

Originally Posted by Basilissa

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.

It's the sheer Godness of the pre-Genesis epoch I am imagining now. How amazing it could have been, to exist in absolute theostasis? Our Lord is so perfect, He knew the splendorous pressure of us living in Him would be too much to handle, and so He created a tangible universe for us, His children, to live and worship Him, so that He would live in each of us instead (1 Corinthians 3:16). Isn't our God amazing?

[The_Power_of_Logic]

Originally Posted by Basilissa

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]

Originally Posted by The_Power_of_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]

Originally Posted by Brother Gonzalez

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]

Originally Posted by The_Power_of_Logic

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

Thank you. I stopped reading after that part.

[The_Power_of_Logic]

Originally Posted by Brother Gonzalez

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]

Originally Posted by Basilissa

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]

Originally Posted by The_Power_of_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]

Originally Posted by Basilissa

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]

Originally Posted by The_Power_of_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]

Originally Posted by Basilissa

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]

Originally Posted by The_Power_of_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]

Originally Posted by Basilissa

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]

Originally Posted by The_Power_of_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]

Originally Posted by Basilissa

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.