Is logical support of theism possible?

In another thread, while ably pointing out a lack of clarity on my part, JT wrote:

quote:

---

Logic is rational thinking, and science is a method for discovering things about the natural world. Science cannot lead to believing in a supernatural entity, but logical examination of non-scientific evidence can. Non-scientific evidence can range from psuedo-scientific evidence (evidence based in part on science, but unable to be examined completely by pure science) to evidence based heavily on logic (i.e. textual criticism of the Bible).

​

In summary, in my opinion, science cannot directly support creation, but there are rational arguments to support creation, and blind faith is not needed.

---

With all due respect, I would assert that any argument positing the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent deity is flawed. The most common formulations (and I put these forth at the great risk of being accurately charged with strawman argument, but I offer them as a starting place) seem to me to be either arguments from personal credulity (i.e. I believe it strongly so it must be true), arguments from authority (i.e. the bible or my culture or my church tells me so), or special pleadings (i.e. the unmoved mover or the argument from design).I would like to hear from JT or any other interested parties, what purely logical arguments they have for the existence of a deity. I will, in my small way, try to point out the flaws. I realize that this may be too broad. I will think of a way to limit it, if the admins wish.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-20-2004 08:27 PMThis message has been edited by mikehager, 10-20-2004 08:46 PM

MikeTo make is easier to read can you highlight the parts you're quoting.Example: To see how I did that, click on the raw text button at the bottom.If approved, where do you want this placed?

---

How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.At some risk of stepping on toes I edited the quotes in.I've picked Is it Science? (which we have agreed it isn't) because the topic is to talk about logical (but not evidence based I presume) discussion and that isn't something that I see as Faith and Belief.If you don't like that Mike I will move it.I like the OP so with Jar's recommended clean up and the Wiz's request that it be hurried I have done so.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-20-2004 08:30 PM

The placement of this in any forum the admins feel correct is fine with me.Also, in the future, I will put quotes in blocks as suggested. I have no problem with the admins editing my posts if the see the need, as long as content is retained and it is done publicly.

I would be enormously reluctant to change content even if I thought I was maintaining what the author meant.I will suggest rewording which the author then might choose to incorporate.

First of all - isn't logic needed for a cohesive argument? Does logic inherently have a bias towards atheism/theism, or isn't it neutral? Personally - I would have thought that if the argument is sound, true and valid - then there isn't a problem. Ho hum. The following - I personally, don't think fits your criteria for common argument. Well, atleast I think that it is established through reasoning, and not credulity, as I am not relying on any feeling - just observations based on common knowledge.P 1. Everything in existence has a possible purposeful use.
P 2. The nature of the universe is diverse and there are recognized systems in place.Now, while I think it might be fair for you to say " Yes, but the universe is all we know of existence, and there could be more" - if you apply that logic, then you must also apply it concerning there being more to reality than you might know.My premises indicate that everything in nature seems to be purposefully made, with intent for purpose and with recognized detailed and seperate systems - ongoing and prevailent.This is true and valid through observing the nature of nature. Take a random homosapien - and look at the possibilities that person has in front of him/her. Through matter alone s/ he has options, and can mould the earth around him into systems similar to that which can be observed in nature. Since s/he is natural, then this is inherently the nature of the universes cause. While watching the pumping of the blood around the body, I can see the similarities in an engine. So if we take our bodies alone - working in a system are all our cells, replicating and working together to help the self exist. Systems have a purpose. Calm working systems are best. Families work best together - working together in harmony is always going to work, as can be seen in species.So, we have systems - purposeful use - and diversity.Now - you can say that " Yes, but the universe is all we know of existence, and there could be more....For example - there could be chaotic universes - with no apparent purposeful characteristics, " But even logic has a barrier according to your implication, - in that it might not be able to support a theistic notion. Therefore - I think my premises are acceptable, because the universe - is all we can speculate on. So we shall agree that there is possibly more than the universe - but you must also allow for other possibilities beyond it.And so, we create systems - and we are nature at it's best - the top of evolution etc..We are consciousness embodied. And so, the universe is non-life, - that is the difference. So the consciousness must then be the added mechanism necessary for system placement. Only consciousness can consistently and purposefully attatch all the necessaries to make a system. We live in a solar system - there is nothing wrong with admitting that systems are in place. Even evolution is a system in which life can adapt to meet the requirements through mechanisms of natural selection and mutation. Now all these things are explained naturally - but their first cause is conscious purposefulness. Random nothingness breeds random nothingness.So, with everything holding together - working together - and physically purposefully acting out through the course of time, there is a common consensus of a unified structure of all things. We can I think - logically, deduce that it is reasonable to suggest - at the least, that a consciousness can exist which made the universe. This is as far as I can go logically. This is my reasoning for my premises. With these two premises, as basic guidelines to the gist of my argument, I think that the universe itself as my example - makes a conclusion of consciousness to the argument. Furthermore - we have a real example of consciousness and what it is capable of. We ourselves - show that consciousness is the cause of any proper system, through innovative endeavours - working out of our God -created selves. I seen a man, who could control a PC with his min, having been in an accident, and losing the use of his body, so the power of the mind has been proven - and it's tools don't have to be flesh.PS> Now I think I have been terribly reasonable, and found it hard to be so objective. In this post alone I have taken abiogenesis and evolution as granted in your favour - for the argument, and have basically therefore - went into a sword fight without a shield. So for me to deduce these conclusions is objective in my view, and so without hesitation, I can decidedly say - that even if I went FURTHER, and suggested all these systems (of this universe) - being self-sufficient and naturalistic, --> It is terrifyingly fair for me to notion that despite these systems being self-sufficient, their cause was infact consciousness. This - again, can be observed in nature - we can make machines/systems, where conscious beings must get involved, but after these systems are made - they are self-sufficient. This alone speaks volumes to myself, but take no offense as this is a personal post, not designed to offend. Thus I find that the most conscious species, and the most intelligent, are able to produce systems of design. I am aware that you might say that evolution has endowed us with opposable thumbs, but it strikes me as another fascinating coincidence, that not only are we in ownership of the physical attributes needed for design - but also, we have that crucial bigger brain. And if we do all this in the beginning of ability - how much more could we expect from a consciousness that is not limited? If we can expect all these things from a limited consciousness, then I think we have reasoned in a fair way.These are my personal reasons for believing in basic form if you will, I've only mentioned the basic factors involved, and find it hard to succinctly provide a post that would completely satisfy or compliment my true and complete position. And so I find that atleast - if the common arguments do derive from credulity of the believer, I have atleast shown reasons for why I believe - in part, that deserve the same respect as any other reasoning thoughts.The syllogism has been updated to proper, more accurate position;1. Universe is a system
2. All systems are purposefully and therefore consciously madeConclusion; The universe is a system and therefore consciously made.A is B, all B's are C, A is B therefore C.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-05-2004 08:42 PM

Do you say that because you have never seen one you think isn't flawed, or because there is a reason you think there couldn't be one? I am not satisfied with any purely logical, philosophical arguments - my experience has shown them to be at best mediocre, and at worst seriously flawed. I should have been more clear in the other thread when I said "rational arguments." What I meant was an argument based on real world facts, but which cannot be examined scientifically. The best example of that, and the overiding reason I believe God exists, is the "appeal to authority" of the Bible. The validity of the Bible cannot be determined scientifically, but can be determined with some degree of certainty by pseudo-scientific methods, such as textual criticism. (That is an assertion - if you disagree, we can talk about it).Anyway, in the opening post, you write off using the Bible to support the existence of God because doing so would be an "appeal to authority." I do not think that fallacy applies to the Bible.The reason appeal to authority is a fallacy is because it can lead to a conclusion which is false. Example: there exist atheist authorities and thiest authorities - authorities can disagree. If two authorities disagree, at least one of them is wrong, which proves that an authority can be wrong, which proves that an "appeal to authority" can lead to an erroneous conclusion, and thus is a fallacy.The exception to this fallacy is when the authority being appealed to cannot be wrong. When the "authority" being appealed to is omniscient (and tells the truth) then the conclusion will always be correct, so there is no fallacy. If writing ability and degree of politeness are indicative of intelligence, you underestimate yourself.JT[added in edit]
NosyNed,
Thanks for the compliment in the other thread! This message has been edited by JT, 10-20-2004 10:24 PM

Hey JT, While I respect your belief that the Bible contains infalliable truth, I cannot except it rationally or logically, since the Bible fails in these ways on a number of points:- different versions of the Bible contradict each other
- there are contradictions within the Bible
- parts of the Bible are in code (as popularly accepted for Revelations)How can a source (really sources) containing so many possibilities contain a single infalliable truth?The Bible allows for endless interpretation, and is thus only as infalliable as those interpreting it, who we know are definitely falliable.

You are correct when you say that logic is what determines if an argument is correct, and it has no bias at all. It is a set of rules to be applied, and if properly applied it ensures that if the premises of an argument are true, then the conclusion is true.Now, if I may, I would like to address your argument, but I must admit to being a bit mystified. Are you giving reasons why you choose to believe that the universe is designed? This is a perfectly fine religious idea, but as an argument for the existence of a deity, it fails. If I am misinterpreting your intent, please let me know, but I gather that your assumption is that a designed universe directly implies a creator, and that creator is the god you believe in.There are several fallacies in such a construction. One is that it is a special pleading, that the universe requires a designer but god does not. It also commits the fallacy of composition, which is the idea that the whole of a thing must share the qualities of it's parts. An example of the fallacy of composition would be to say that five pounds is easy to lift, so a collection of one thousand five-pound weights is easy to lift. Your argument (if I correctly follow it) commits this fallacy by assuming that since complexity sometimes implies design, a complex universe is by implication designed.Logic is by no means the final arbiter of human knowledge. It is just a tool for determining valid arguments. Logic does not dictate what is real and what is not, so do not take it as an indictment of you and your beliefs when I point out that they do not follow the rules of logic.This message has been edited by mikehager, 10-21-2004 01:19 PM

In response to your first question, I cannot say that there can be no logically valid argument in favor of a deity, as it is impossible to prove a negative. I am of the opinion that there may not be such a formulation and the reason I think so is that I have never heard one. I made that claim merely to start debate and see if anyone could offer one.You state: With all due respect, I must take issue with this. A flawed argument can still be factually true. For instance, consider the following.1. Virtually all people agree that 1+1=2
2. Therefore, 1+1=2.In this case the premise is correct and so is the conclusion, but the argument is still invalid. It is called argumentum ad numerum, which is that the number of people who believe a thing proves the thing. I am not saying you engaged in this, it is merely an example of a flawed argument still being factual.In your example, without comment on whether it is factually true that the Bible is inerrant, the structure of the argument is still flawed because it is an appeal to authority, as well as a special pleading. My purpose in starting this thread was to address and discuss logic, so that is the level on which I am responding.

I think that your argumnet needs more explanation.Take your premise P1

quote:

---

P 1. Everything in existence has a possible purposeful use.

---

Can you explain how it applies to the planet Pluto ?Can you offer an example of something that might possibly exist but would not have a "possible purposeful use" ?

After reading your post, Mike--I remembered this article...very inciteful.... I have often been ridiculed for using the argument of changed lives and persons as evidence of the possibility of God. I suppose that in a strict and logical sense my argument cannot be proof, but in a jury trial it may sway the jury if my witnesses were credible.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 10-21-2004 03:37 PM

Phatboy,I would certainly not ridicule you for trying to use any argument you choose in any context, but I would also tell you if I thought you had gone wrong.Here I am afraid I believe you have. You are correct about personal evidence being invalid. Eyewitness or personal accounts, no matter how many or how fervent, are never evidence, either logical (as pertains to the discussion here) or scientific (which is a slightly off-topic observation).As to the article you cite, it is not an argument at all. It is more of a sermon, designed to appeal emotionally. If one were to construct that article as an argument (which is appropriate, as it makes two propositions and then draws conclusions from them.) it would look like this:1. It would take a long time for the human arm to generate kinetic energy equal to ten cents worth of electricity.2. It would take a very, very long time for the human arm to generate kinetic energy equal to the combustion of one gallon of gasoline.3. Therefore, there is a lot of energy in gasoline and electricity.4. Therefore, there is a lot of energy if prayer.Accepting the two propositions are valid, the final conclusion is engaging in the fallacy of non sequitur. That is an argument where the conclusion is drawn from premises which aren't logically connected with it. The two premises discuss gasoline and electricity as it relates to the ability of the human muscles to generate energy and has nothing to do with prayer.

Mike I respect your opinion, and I agree that an emotional appeal based on "changed lives" is not logical. If a life can be "proven" to have been improved in quality and function by something as simple as a prescription of Paxil, for example, a life could certainly be "proven" to have been influenced by a belief. The defense would of course attribute the improvement as purely power of suggestion. Theism has never been able to be a logically proven effect, but the Theist would assert that humans do not want such a revelation to upset their ego-centric world view. I conclude that logical support of theism is only possible were a jury to buy the honesty behind stories of the character witnesses who have had quantifiable lifestyle changes. The jury itself would have to experience God in order to conclude His reality. Such are the diametrics of two opposite world views. To a theist, God is like oxygen. We "know" that He is real and then gather supporting evidence. Unlike oxygen, His presence can only be measured by the effects that are caused.
Many argue that the I.P.U. could be proven by a deluded mind who saw the I.P.U. Millions have experienced God, however, so mental illness is out. As to "which spirit or which god" this opens a whole nother can o worms. Ned called it in a much earlier post. Belief and Faith cannot be quantified.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 10-21-2004 06:31 PM

All those fallacies from my post?.....Unlikely. You didn't quote me because I didn't even mention complexity - or God needing a designer.Showing how a fallacy happens is fair enough, but you haven't shown how I actually am guilty of using them. You've looked "too much" into the information provided - if you like, you've "over-concluded" what I said. I didn't even mention God not needing design - that is literally not included in my argument. So I guess we can tick "several fallacies" off the list.I gave my premises - and gave a full reasoning and then had my conclusion based on true and valid points. To assert something like this without showing how my premises or reasoning or conclusion is wrong isn't valid - your post was very short - and you simply gave your own interpretations of what I am saying, but maybe my post was too long - I apologize for rambling on...I will attempt to clarify things in this post. (For Paul and Phatboy also) This "construction" is a generalization concerning all theistic arguments - but can we deal with the information I provided only?Are you adopting your own view of what I said, and then refuting your version? Because I thought what I was saying was clear - and how I came to my conclusion based on facts and truth. Again - I ONLY concluded consciousness as the responsible cause. No - I didn't assume complexity = design, I infact only looked at systems - and shown that the systems made in nature - by homosapiens - are designed, I therefore - have argued that all systems made on earth are made by "intelligent minds". Also - I only used facts about the universal systems in place - which are similar to that made by humans. I concluded that consciousness is the cause of systems BECAUSE they are purposeful - I deduced this from a real true and factually correct example - us. If our heart pumps blood around our body - is that a purposeful thing? Or shall it just aswell pump it out of my body?We surely all agree that systems exist, and also with my premises?
So complexity isn't relevant - I mentioned the facts about systems (they can be simple not complex), and fully shown why they are by nature, purposeful and - the result of consciousness. And so we can tick "complexity fallacy" off the list - as I didn't deal with it. Here is clarification, and I have shown the progression in simple form;In simpler form my post might look like this; (Though a lot of B I have included my reasoning) 1. Universe is a system
2. All systems are purposefully and therefore consciously made

​

Conclusion; The universe is a system and therefore consciously made.

​

A is B, all B's are C, A is B therefore C.I can only think you haven't understood my argument.. Sorry if I seemed cranky in this post - I was just a little shocked out how you simply dismissed the whole thing.(Maybe my original post was too lengthy - sorry about that).This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-22-2004 08:19 AM