An endless feud?

[Kael]

Except that it won't.

[kowalskil]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Well for starters the religious could stop claiming they are better than everyone that does not share their religion.

That one thing alone would be a very good start, but it would be the downfall of that religion. In order to convert people to their religion they have to get people to believe that their religion is better.

Are you Ludwik Kowalski?

1) Yes, I am 80 year old Ludwik Kowalski.

2) Why did I not use the word "religion"? The use of the word theology, instead of religion, is deliberate. To discuss religion one would have to address differences between theologies, political exploitation of theism, political exploitation of atheism, etc. Such topics are also worth addressing. But my purpose was to focus on conflicts between theologians and scientists.

[Doctor X]

But you cannot make a simple choice.

Nor can you make a sound argument.

--J.D.

[kowalskil]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It is quite possible, though maybe not common, for one to believe that one's religion is better than all others without also believing that one is better because one believes in that religion.

I already explained, several minutes ago, why using the term "thology" is more appropriate in this thread than the word "religion."

[kowalskil]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

How do you know that there is a spiritual world, or a God?

This is a theological axiom, like in mathematics. Axioms do not have to be proved; they are accepted as starting points.

[Doctor X]

My employment by Mila Kunis as a personal masseuse is an axiom. It does not have to be proved.

--J.D.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by kowalskil

1) Yes, I am 80 year old Ludwik Kowalski.

2) Why did I not use the word "religion"? The use of the word theology, instead of religion, is deliberate. To discuss religion one would have to address differences between theologies, political exploitation of theism, political exploitation of atheism, etc. Such topics are also worth addressing. But my purpose was to focus on conflicts between theologians and scientists.

It's nice to meet you Ludwik. How long have you been in the US?

I think it is a bit of a dodge to speak of theology in a general way as if they were all uniform in some way. Theologies are not plucked from trees when they are ripe. They represent the history and trajectory of a religion. You can't understand the theology of a particular religion unless you view it in that context. Within the the sphere of so-called Christian religions there are two major groups and within those two groups there are several major groups. In particular the Protestant variant has many, many groups with all sorts of theologies. Then there are Muslim theologies, Hindu, Buddhist and so on.

You seem to be talking a very simplistic approach.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Kael

Except that it won't.

And much like a gift, it's the thought that counts, or lack of.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And much like a gift, it's the thought that counts, or lack of.

And foxes don't really talk to grapes they can't reach. I wasn't really trying to mock you, we all repeat things like that from time to time, honestly believing them to be true. How many of us have actually attempted to slow-boil a live frog, after all? I just happen to think that moral ideas can be communicated without perpetuating actual falsehoods.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Kael

And foxes don't really talk to grapes they can't reach. I wasn't really trying to mock you, we all repeat things like that from time to time, honestly believing them to be true. How many of us have actually attempted to slow-boil a live frog, after all? I just happen to think that moral ideas can be communicated without perpetuating actual falsehoods.

Agreed, it was just the first thing that came to mind and conveyed the thought. And that is the point of many of these fables, to express a message. Sometimes saying something in plane language is not as memorable as dressing it up a bit. My favorite falsehood to rant about is the 'Chicken and Egg' question, that one really bothers me.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by kowalskil

This is a theological axiom, like in mathematics. Axioms do not have to be proved; they are accepted as starting points.

I think I was the one who asked this question, but no matter. So you accept it as a starting point, whether it's true or not?

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by kowalskil

This is a theological axiom, like in mathematics. Axioms do not have to be proved; they are accepted as starting points.

So we are free to choose a different Axiom:

There is no God.

And we can use that as a starting point too.

Of course, if the system we build on our axioms is not logically consistent then we've chosen one or more bad axioms.

But if we can't find any inconsistencies does that mean that our chosen axioms actually reflect reality?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

So we are free to choose a different Axiom:

There is no God.

And we can use that as a starting point too.

Of course, if the system we build on our axioms is not logically consistent then we've chosen one or more bad axioms.

But if we can't find any inconsistencies does that mean that our chosen axioms actually reflect reality?

No, the truth of the axiom has no effect on the logic of the system but it does effect the truth of the conclusions. A logicaly consistant argument can be built from any premise or axiom, logic only dictates that the conclusions follow from the premises.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

No, the truth of the axiom has no effect on the logic of the system but it does effect the truth of the conclusions. A logicaly consistant argument can be built from any premise or axiom, logic only dictates that the conclusions follow from the premises.

Yes, but if the conclusion follows from the premises then the argument is valid. That's not the big test. The test is whether the argument is sound. For that to happen, the conclusion must follow from the premises and the premises must all be true.

So an argument can be valid but unsound. In the case posted here valid concusions can be drawn from the starting point, "God exists," but whether the argument is actually sound (i.e., true in reality) depends on whether the "God exists" premise is true.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yes, but if the conclusion follows from the premises then the argument is valid. That's not the big test. The test is whether the argument is sound. For that to happen, the conclusion must follow from the premises and the premises must all be true.

So an argument can be valid but unsound. In the case posted here valid concusions can be drawn from the starting point, "God exists," but whether the argument is actually sound (i.e., true in reality) depends on whether the "God exists" premise is true.

I'm not sure the argument can be valid. Introducing god is like dividing by zero.

[davidm]

Valid but unsound arguments can trivially be made. They don't have to have anything to do with reality.

1. All men are also logs.

2. Socrates was a man.

3. Threfore, Socrates was also a log.

Perfectly valid argument, but unsound.

Doc X's house of cards thing rather captures this nicely, you can build a whole edifice of elaborate arguments, like theology, but if a premise is false it's like pulling out a card and the whole thing crashes to the earth.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yes, but if the conclusion follows from the premises then the argument is valid. That's not the big test. The test is whether the argument is sound. For that to happen, the conclusion must follow from the premises and the premises must all be true.

So an argument can be valid but unsound. In the case posted here valid concusions can be drawn from the starting point, "God exists," but whether the argument is actually sound (i.e., true in reality) depends on whether the "God exists" premise is true.

Ok, then a valid argument is where the conclusions follow from the premisis, and a sound argument is one where the premises and the conclusions are true as well. Sound argument equals a true argument, that is good to know, since it seems I have not had as much practice with formal logic.

Actually the test depends on the purpose of the argument. If it is just to produce a valid conclusion from a given set of premises, that is one thing. If the goal is to find truth, that is a different problem.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I'm not sure the argument can be valid. Introducing god is like dividing by zero.

The argument can be logically valid, the truth is what is in question.

Given a = b, and b = c, then a = c. the argument is valid, but if, in fact, a does not = b then the argument is untrue, but still valid.

Truth is irrevelant to logic, it is only relavent to the truth.

[davidm]

Validity and soundness

[naturalist.atheist]

What I mean is something more like this:

Step 1: Let a=b.
Step 2: Then a^2=ab,
Step 3: a^2 + a^2 = a^2 + ab,
Step 4: 2a^2 = a^2 + ab,
Step 5: 2a^2 - 2ab = a^2 + ab -2ab,
Step 6: and 2a^2 -2ab = a^2 - ab.
Step 7: This can be written as 2(a^2 - ab) = a^2 - ab,
Step 8: and cancelling the a^2 - ab from both sides gives 1=2.

This is what you get when you allow division by zero. Anything goes. Throw logic and mathematics out the door. Validity and soundness don't matter either.

[davidm]

I don't think that the validity and soundness ideas can apply to mathematical arguments like that, which are examples of mathematical induction. They only apply to deductive arguments that cannot be proved or disproved mathematically to begin with.

[naturalist.atheist]

There is a somewhat equivalent example in symbolic logic that kinda works backwards. Given A and ~A then B. Something that is all powerful can be A and ~A by definition. It is the equivalent of dividing by zero.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Validity and soundness

Isn't that what I said?

[Doctor X]

I do find the arguments attributed to Socrates rather wooden.

--J.D.