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

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

First, I agree with Quetzal that MtW's argument is a bit weak based on dubious premises, but I think we would still be on-topic if such premises were to be defended only on logical grounds. I am not well versed in science (at best a well informed layman) but I am good at logic, which is why I started this thread.Second, to Phatboy, I would be happy to switch sides and take the theist side. It would be interesting and I will debate any theist who is willing to take on the contrary position and make a good faith effort.Third, to JT, your statement of withdrawl is very polite and kind. It bespeaks a reasonable and well mannered person, and those are two qualities I hold in very high esteem. You presented yourself excellently in this topic.Finally, to MtW, while your syllogism was logically accurate, there is one little nit I should pick. When formulating an argument, it is best to avoid the word "therefore" in a statement you mean to be a premise. That is a textual indication that the point is a conclusion.

Your argument is not at all circular, MtW. A circular argument is one where a premise is the same as the conclusion, such as:1. God exists and is inerrant.
2. The bible is the accurate word of god.
3. The bible says god exists and is inerrant.
4. Therefore, god exists and is inerrant.Your argument is, unfortunately, not clearly phrased. If I may suggest a formulation that I think accurately reflects your stance:1. The universe is a system.
2. All systems have purpose.
3. All things with a purpose are created.
4. Therefore the universe is created.You were combining what seemed to me to be two propositions (2 and 3) into one. It's not a simple syllogism any more, but I can't think of a way to phrase what I understand your position to be in that way.Does the above accurately describe your position Mike?

Purpose can only be ascribed by an intelligent agency. I would also propose that only the actual creator can state an items true purpose (i.e. what it was made for). Thus, to use such a point as a proposition is circular. It is implicit in your propositions that an intelligent creator exists, and when that is also your conclusion, the argument is circular.

I will, for now, withdraw my claims of circularity. The argument still is circular, I think, but we can leave that for later when we have clarified a few issues.In addition to circularity, I think your second and third propositions are not factual, but before I can accurately show that, we must agree on definitions.I propose the following definitions, from the Oxford English Dictionary:Purpose: the reason for which something is done or for which something exists.System: a set of things working together as a mechanism or interconnecting network.

To begin, are your charges of dishonesty directed at me? If they are, I will discontinue this discussion.Now, on to business. I accept your definitions, but are you sure you want to use them? The reason I ask is that your first proposition is that the universe is a system, and under your definition it is not, so we would have to decide if your argument works with only propositions 2 and 3. I can leave that for later.Sticking with the matter at hand, the definition given in your last post for function states "...existence, value, or significance." The "or" signifies a non-inclusive set of qualities, (if it were otherwise, the conjunction would be "and") so by your definition, existence without value or significance is sufficient to meet the definition. That being so, your "logical progression" falls apart.Perhaps this demonstrates how one might honestly ask for clear definitions in a debate over logic. Once you gave your definitions, it became clear that at least one part of your argument is weak.

I have been nice to you so far, trying to get you to define your terms and even formulating your argument in a logically cohesive manner for you, since you seemed incapable of doing it yourself.
You might want to consider your manner in light of that.I see that you are from The United Kingdom. I suppose the stereotype of the British having better language Skills is shown as false here. My grammatical point was correct and I can provide backup if you want to hear it. Words conjoined by the conjunction "or" form a choice(i.e. "He went to the store OR the bar." would be true if he went to either place). So, in the series " existence, value, or significance" only one need be true for the statement to be true. You see, if all were required for the statement to be true, the conjunction "and" would be correct (i.e "He went to the store and the bar" would only be true if he went to both places). It's quite simple and you are quite wrong.More later. I have a domestic emergency.

In message 36 of this thread I proposed a clear formulation of your argument for you and it has been the one used since. Yes, I have not been absolutely consistent and my ideas have changed as I have at different times considered your argument. That alone shows that you don't understand logic. Your "book", whatever it may be, is inadequate. I am better then this. I am done with you and your arrogance, sir, like Salty and Kendemeyer before you. The attitude that anyone who disagrees with you either a liar or doesn't understand you is a foolish one. Repitition is not evidence.By the way, when I said your argument was logical, I was being polite. It almost was, and when I reworded it for you, it was. Then, the premises must be addresed, and that is where you fail.By the way, you might want to look up the word "stereotype".In any case, I am done with you. I will be giving you the attention you deserve; I will be ignoring you. I will not tolerate the false charges of a fool.