Is logical support of theism possible?

No, I said that the (A)universe is a (B)system. (You may disagree with the premise which you are perfectly entitled to)I then have a premise that (B)sytems are (C)consciously madeIf all B's are C's, and A is a B - then A is a C. (You can disagree that ALL B's are C's)It is logically deduced Ned - but you do not in any way have to agree with my premise that the universe is a system.--------------------------------------------------------------------
If I said (systems)A's are B's(made), and then said C's(universe) are (systems)A's therefore B's, that would still not be circular Ned.Example;All men are human
Ned is a manNed is a human.Hope you understand.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-26-2004 11:29 AM

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.

Ok, you're right Mike. The argument appears logical in the form given.However, your premises are extremely weak and the argument only appears to be logical.The dictionary defines "man" as being a member of the human set.Only one of many definitions of system has purpose involved with it.To make the Universe a system in that way means you first have to show that it has purpose. However, showing that the Universe has purpose is what you are trying to conclude.

Ned and Mike.I promise - I am mostly trying to give my reasons as to why systems are purposeful and therefore - imho, consciously made. It is incredibly acceptable and reasonable - for you to deduce that my premises are not fair....I was hoping that common knowledge might have you agree with them - but I need to articulate the connection clearly. My premise that the universe is a system is something that is not agreed by us - which is fair enough. I think I understand what you mean, in that I must show the universe to be a purposeful system, before concluding it to be. In this regard - I have failed to show how the universe - in it's entirety - is a system. Which is hard to do. (I think I understand what you meant by "circular" now - in that I conclude P1, and then my conclusion is P1 plus the consciousness)A is B, B is C, A is B therefore C.It might appear circular.Example;Ned is a man
All men are humanConclusion; Ned is man therefore a human. Maybe I should conclude that the universe is purposefully made - or that Ned is a human. A = C, and skip the b. (Is that the error?) (I'm getting confused )So - the appearance of "circular" reasoning seems to be there, I grant you - but I admitt it is validly logic but something is iffy - maybe Mike could tell me what that is.Maybe I should re-formulate my babble. Lol, I promise this isn't to annoy anyone - but the OP onfused me a bit - my initial intention was to show how logic can be used to make a cohesive argument in favour of God. So - I will try and explain my premises - and the connections, which I admitt I have not done too well.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-26-2004 12:07 PM

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?

Thanks Mike, the formulation is a good example; However - to be honest, despite it being an accurate and good example of a more clear description, I don't think I am going to say those exact things, in that I cannot locate the creator; In essence - like Dan Carroll says "first show me God". IMHO, my argument is more cordial than a fully blown theistic endeavour, and is based on common knowledge in that I admitt I am appealing to people's common knowledge on shared facts - believer and unbeliever alike - and I prefer for it's information to be limited for now. I will make a post shortly, that opens a can of worms on this whole issue, ./Thankyou for showing me the logic/illogic!This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-26-2004 01:10 PM

Although I already mentioned something of the sort in a previous post, Mike, perhaps you can explain your definition of "system" such that both premises 1 and 2 are - in your words - "common knowledge".

ok, ok, I guess I'll withdraw my circularity argument. (though with a lot of misgivings since I think it is buried in the definitions).However, as noted, we need to see the definitions of "system" and the rational, since, in my looking up of the word there are definitions for which a system is not purposeful but simply interacting set of things.I do, by the way, agree that the universe is a "system" in some of the dictionary definitions of the word. But that doesn't mean it is a system in ALL of the definitions given.

Ned, you were not exactly "wrong".Infact you were right to be so particular, because if a circular argument is that the conclusion is the premise, then here's what I was saying; A = B
B = CConclusion; A = B = CSo, my conclusion should have simply been A = C. Hence you were right to find it circular - as including the B gave it an optical illusion of being circular.Back soon.

Hi PaulK,Yeah, it was definitely P1 that I was focusing on, (and that you mentioned previously). However, although P2 seems straightfoward, it is either trivially correct or vacuously wrong depending on how you parse it. From MikeHager's posts, however, I wasn't sure that that was what we were doing in this thread.

Hi MTW,Sorry you're not feeling well. And thanks for the invite to the discussion (I feel mainly ignored since I got back ). I'll have a chance tomorrow to put forward my reasons for considering P1 to be untenable and P2 to be weak - assuming no one else does so in the interim. PaulK's way quicker on the uptake than I am...

Phat,Your evidence could also used to demonstrate the efficacy of belief particularly as these kinds of miracles occur in a variety of belief systems.There are also a number of different views on what the word God refers to and some of those systems don't see God as a separate agent designing and then manipulating a creation.lfen

Mike,Part of what you talk about I experience as the rich diversity of the universe. I have thought that that anything exists is quite amazing. Had the universe consisted of a great lump of homogenous matter that did nothing it would still be an incredible miracle, but that it exists with such potentials as we have seen from particles up to galaxies and life on earth does boggle my mind.My tendency is to believe that consciousness in some fundamental way that I can't grasp is the source of this. I however am very dubious about your arguments about purpose. Purpose is something we humans ascribe, assign, or even invent to explain our behaviours and the behaviours of sub systems.That a system functions doesn't necessarily mean it has a purpose. It could be put to any number of purposes I suppose. Someone designs a gun to eject a lump of lead over a distance to wound or kill an animal or another human. That was that designers purpose. Let's say I need to hammer a nail in and lack a hammer. My purpose is to affix a sign to a tree. I use the butt of my rifle to whack the nail in. I could have used a rock I found lying on the ground. The rifle was designed, the rock wasn't. In both cases I supplied the purpose, in one case it was the designed purpose and in the second case there was no design of the rock at all.Purpose is what humans create. Design is what humans do. Why would we ascribe this to the source of the universe?lfen

Ifen, I understand what you're saying concerning us applying purpose.However, I meant specifically, purpose in systems. For example, blood is pumped around the body. Why? The purpose in this example, is that it is there - to be pumped around the body - rather than pumping it out onto the floor, which would have no purpose.It's the same with the eco system. Each system has purpose.My argument, is that when we look at the systems we make, we conclude that only consciousness can literally create such purpose. Hope you understand.
Regards, mike.PS.I'm still testing my argument, ans it's evolving already - and becoming stronger IMHO.

You are describing one of the functions of blood. You can assign a purpose to a function. I could say that the designer created blood so the mosquitos could drink some to lay viable eggs to make more mosquitoes. That is the function for mosquitos anyway and thus could be said to be the purpose that God intended blood for. Thus humans are God's blood cows for his mosquitos! I'm all for studing systems and system thinking and analysis. I think you are going astray here with your ideas about purpose. Purpose relates to what humans take to be their intentions.lfen