Is logical support of theism possible?

I freely admitted that I was having trouble understanding your argument, and proceeded on the condition that I may well have been wrong in my rebuttal. I also invited a correction on your part, which you have kindly provided.On to the argument itself. You are correct. Your argument is: This is a completely valid syllogism and the only way to attack it is by questioning it's premises. Of course, I don't think either of your premises are factual, but that is not the topic here.The topic here is to see if anyone can propose an argument that is valid within the rules of logic for the existence of a deity. Your argument, while properly constructed and quite valid, does not concern the actual question at hand.This message has been edited by mikehager, 10-22-2004 12:04 PM

Debating about whether the Bible likely containts infallible truth or not is for another thread, I think. Very, very interesting point, but I disagree with your conclusion. The Bible can be interpreted endlessly, but so can the Constitution of the United States of America. Both can be interpreted to contain numerical codes revealing knowledge about alien civilizations, etc. The interpretation of any document of size is unrestrained by anything but reasonability.For example, it would be a stretch to interpret the Bible as not claiming the existence of a God. It would not be much of a stretch to interpret the Bible to claim the existence of multiple gods, and even less of a stretch to read some moral lesson into a fragment of scripture - even if that particular verse doesn't really lend itself to that.The existence of a supernatural diety is one of the fundamental claims of the Bible.
The claim that there is only one God is still an important tenet, but is open to some interpretation.
Ephesians 4:18 can be interpreted to mean that instead of getting drunk on wine, we should get drunk on alchoholic spirits.As the truth being searched for in the Bible gets more esoteric, and the fewer times it is mentioned, the less we are able to confidently ascertain it's meaning - but the bigger the tenet, like the existence of God, the fewer possibilities for interpreting the Bible there are. If one of your teachers in college said something you didn't understand, does that mean they didn't know what they were saying? Our fallability restricts our ability to know the true meaning of the Bible, but doesn't affect the Bible's infallability at all. (Assuming it to be infallable)JT

JT,A statement you make here: Exactly. Even if the Bible is 'true' (despite the inconsistencies and various versions) - it's truth is sullied by our falliability.Therefore, we can't infalliably use it as an infalliable source to argue for definitive truth.

Thanks Mike, I'm sorry about the confusion, thanks for being reasonable concerning this.Ofcourse - you'd be quite right to maybe look at my premises to see if they have problems, and I have already found a couple of possible flaws after thinking some more.Maybe my argument is very "limited" and not fully conclusive enough to be what you are looking for. I guess my conclusion isn't as full or very specific as maybe the other theistic arguments are, as it only concludes consciousness being connected to systems. Ho hum. Okay - supports the idea of God but isn't as thorough as it should be. Unfortunately though - I was sincere when I said that consciousness was as far as I could go logically- so I hereby volunteer Phatboy to give his attempt at a theistiv argument. Quite true - forgive my cranky behaviour.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-22-2004 04:02 PM

Your crankiness was understandable and I think you said nothing that required an apology, but it was decent of you to offer one.Now, are their any other replies to my challenge?

Reasonable. I was almost finished typing up post rebutting that, but then I realized that you are right. The only way to establish the premise "the Bible is the infallible word of God" is to use an appeal to authority to Jesus, which is a fallacy. I am not sure why I didn't see that earlier - it is very obvious.Another thing I didn't see is the tautology contained in my argument: Jesus is God, and says the Bible is reliable, so it is. The Bible says God exists, so he does. The conclusion is contained in the premise.I still think that appealing to an infallible authority isn't a fallacy, but that has no practical application, because it is impossible to prove an authority to be infallible.I now agree with you that it is impossible, using pure logic, to show the existence of God. I think it is possible to show that the odds are highly in favor of God existing, but his existence cannot be proven. Actually, I've acknowledged that before in other debates - I'm not sure why I was arguing about for it here. Arghhh. I hate realizing I've been being inane.I'm going to go get some sleep...
JT

Do you want to switch sides and play the opposite belief than you believe in? Let me know. I may start a new thread.

Hi MTW:Although both MikeHager and PaulK have touched on the major problem with your syllogism, neither have developed or expanded the disagreement very far. Before doing so, I would like a "read" from the others participating in the thread as to whether such rebuttal is appropriate and on topic. If you are simply seeking to develop a logical syllogism - where your conclusion flows from the premises - then I think you have succeeded. OTOH, if you are attempting to actually put forward a specific, logically sound and valid argument for the existence of God in this thread, then your premises need to be re-examined. Let me know if such a rebuttal is appropriate for this thread, or if we need to open a new one.

In my opinion:1) The valid syllogism identified by Mike Hager does not fully sum up MtW's argument (most clearly it has no place for MtW's P1).2) MtW's argument has not been presented with sufficient clarity or detail to conclude if it is logical or not.3) IMHO - and this is what my questions were meant to investigate - the likely meaning of P1 is vacuous and does not support MtW's claims. Since MtW has failed to clarify his meaning as I requested we are left with no way to judge even that issue.Even if this thread is only concerned with validity then clarifying the argument is an important issue. Personally I would accept that showing that the universe was created to the plan of a conscious being would at least be a good argument for the existence of God and therefore further discussion is warranted.

This would be a fascinating topic to pursue.--Percy

Hi Quetzal, my input may not be consistent as I am ill, and feel not too motivated to type. First of all - although my argument is supposed to support theism - in all honesty it doesn't do that. It simply isn't sufficient. And so my argument is a subtle attempt to say that the universe needed some kind of conscious input to begin it's systems.Notice however that "consciousness" as a conclusion doesn't support nor cancel out any specific religious deity. Therefore - yes, it favours God - we all know this, but I would not like to go further than "consciousness" as that is all I concluded. Hope you know what I mean. The meaning was to show a valid argument - a syllogism, that shows that logic can be used in favour of an argument for God. In that - at the outset - I said that I "thought logic was used to make a cohesive argument"/(similar words)......And so I thought that if my argument was logical then it would be okay.However, it would have interested me if PaulK could have expanded on his reasons for disagreeing with my premise, as I thought he had a valid point.It would be on topic if you you to rebutt this - yet take it in the spirit it was intended for - objective discussion. Don't forget that I "assumed" evolution and abiogenesis in my argument. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-26-2004 10:01 AM

Mike, I don't disagree with your Premise 1 - in fact I am not certain what it means and I agree with what I think it means. But if it means what I think it means then it can't play any useful role in your argument.My first post to this thread suggested that you explained your argument more and asked two specific questions intended to clarify your P1.You answer my questions and help me to understand what you mean and I'll tell you where I think the problems are.

I think the problem is that I "typed" the original premises as a subtle guide to my reasoning, but after writing and reading my argument, in it's true form it is more adequately explained in this form, yet the former premises are similar,; The universe is a system - and also there are objects with possible purposeful uses for future or past placement, which agrees with the former version P1.So those former premises are summed up in the above.So when you ask; Pluto might seem to have no purpose in the solar system, but that doesn't mean it never had or never will have. This is what I meant by "possible purposeful use". However - I must show that it is a necessity in former, present or future events. Since debri is collected in formation of solar systems, maybe we couldn't have pluto striding around the quadrant in pieces. Erm......you have the upper hand - about a trillion galaxies which don't have life - However, that doesn't remove their possible purposeful use - it just means they haven't one for the moment - or that they are part of a bigger picture - like cells.Something without use? Well, I still suggest that everything has possible use, which is a reasonable premise in my view. We can see that everything can be used for something possibly - fuel etc, crops, fruit - nature uses what is to survive - nature of life is a system. We surely agree that sytems, (self-sufficient) - - have a purposeful endeavour.Example; My heart pumps blood throughout my body - does it do this purposefully? - For further reading between the relation of natural systems and human-made systems, my previous posts talk about this.

Sorry Mike you define "systems" as things which are purposeful and therefore consciously made. (Why isn't at all clear)Then you say the universe is a "system". That is you define the Universe as something which is purposeful and therefore consciously made.Then you conclude that the universe is purposefully made. You defined it that way.There is no logical support for that at all, not here anyway.

This seems to be heading in the direction I thought but let's clarify the second question because it is very important.What I'm trying to find out is if there is anything imaginable that is both likely to exist and doesn't have a "possible purposeful use".The real issue is whether the idea of "possible purposeful use" represents something basic about those things which do exist or simply demonstrates our ability to imagine possible purposes.Then we can get onto the rest of your argument for which I need your definition of "system" and your justification of the claim that all systems are purposefully made.