John,
First of all, I would ask that you read my entire posts before you reply to them. Some of the questions you have asked would have been answered if you had continued to read.
No, I have not even begun my proofs of God, because we can't get past these logical fallacies. As an example, why must you insist on using 'ad hominem' arguments? I can count four in this post alone, all that were specifically aimed at myself (you can probably find them). Why not say 'whoops, you're right' and give it up? I'm not going beat you over the head because you messed up, your 'ad hominem's have nothing to do with your current arguments.
To defend myself, I do understand informal logic and some of formal logic. But from your letter it appears that you don't understand informal logic. One of the fundamental tasks of informal logic is to demonstrate that all conversation can be reduced to one of four types of speech, Nonsense, Questions, Commands, and Statements. The posts I've referred to do not fall under Nonsense, for you meant to be understood (I assume). They do not fall under Questions or Commands because you're trying to say something, they're not merely asking me a question and or commanding me to do something. So I must conclude that they are Statements, therefore they fall under the rule of logic, both formal and informal.
The reason why I have used informal in this debate is so that I am easier to understand. You and I may understand M.P. (Modus Pollens) or A.C. (Asserting the Consequent), but others probably do not. I wish that more people understood formal logic, but most do not.
Speaking of logic, I do not understand how your statements regarding Lewis' lack of arguments can be tenable. First, you say that English is not precise. I agree, but logic must be. If you do not find an English word that means exactly what you're trying to say, then make one up or define an existing word precise enough so that it can only have one meaning. Many English words have multiple meanings, so your usage of them has to be defined in debates like these.
Secondly, on the issue of these arguments. You yourself have disproven your own argument! First you said that Lewis doesn't have an argument. Now you say he has a bad one. This kind of confusion only exists because you have not precisely defined your own terms.
On another note, a straw man does not necessarily mean someone used the straw man intentionally, it could be a mere misunderstanding.
>hmmm... C.S. Lewis presents an argument and doesn't bother to
>provide any evidence in support of it. In fact Lewis ignores facts
>that ought to be easily accessible. And all you can do is harp on
>the idea that I haven't provided evidence? Strange...
>
>Even more strange is that you have been told where such evidence
>can be found, and which disciplines provide that evidence.
>
>Stranger yet still, I have outlines precisely what is wrong with
>Lewis' logic and YOU aren't responding. You promised to defend
>Lewis. You aren't. Why am I starting to think you are just here to >play games?
This discussion of my quote that's at the beginning of your message is a straw man, even though you've misunderstood me. I did not say you didn't provide evidence -at all-, I said that message #10 didn't.
Your other comments at the beginning of your message are an example of another logical fallacy, 'Tu quoque' which means 'you too'. This is a logical fallacy because Lewis' alleged lack of evidence does not influence your own (though you do, in fact, have some now). For the rest, I don't think you want a reply to them because they appear to be mostly pejorative instead of being real questions or statements.
Now to the main part of your argument. When you say that animals depend on the herd, it appears that you are meaning that they are calculating their odds of survival within the herd. It's not very clear though, please clarify your statement. This is very important, because if this is what you're saying then you're view of 'herd instinct' is very different from Lewis'.
Also, please clarify the stuff about practical system. Lewis is not saying that morality is physical. He's saying that it is metaphysical and influences and directs our physical actions.
The statements regarding mother-child observations, or teams of monkeys fighting tigers don't contradict Lewis' argument. These observations could be used to prove either side. In these cases, merely asserting what we observe to happen does not really prove anything.
So to clarify, when I (and I think Lewis as well) say 'herd instinct' I mean essentially 'herd-preservation' without consideration of 'self-preservation'. The only way I can make sense of your non-dichotomy, is if you see 'herd instinct' as one and the same as 'self preservation'. Is this what you're trying to say?
Also, I should not have used the word 'fight' in my discussion of human quarrels. What I meant was quarrel. A quarrel is a disagreement about fairness. The examples I used were based around quarrels not fights. If you'll notice I used only one example of fighting, but all of them were quarrels.
My own experience with animals is that they do not quarrel, they fight. The animal species (plural) I'm referring to includes dogs, cats, ducks, geese, chickens, cattle, goats, and a horse (I live on a 65 acre farm in E.Texas). I've always observed that the strongest gets whatever he wants, whether or not it's fair, but the others don't complain. Again, a quarrel is a disagreement about fairness. These animals do not consider fairness to be an issue in their confrontations, so they don't quarrel.
Evan
P.S. Expect a complete outline of my 'proofs of God', somewhat shortly. I started with morality, because I thought it would be the most easily understood argument. Unfortunately, this has not turned out to be the case. So instead of the outline, I have had to defend morality by itself.
P.S.S. When I said you had a 'real contradiction' I meant that you had an argument that opposed what Lewis said. But I do not consider your contradictions of Lewis' arguments to be reasonable, hence the debate. We can only have this debate if you really oppose Lewis' arguments (and therby mine). Does this clarify?
™ Version 4.2
