[TUT317]

Hi Scott,

I just noticed your syllogism. If I can make a suggestion. One of the first things I would do is leave out of the conclusion are words like ,'such' 'allow' and 'exist' because they are not in your premises.

[ScottGem]

Hi Scott,

I just noticed your syllogism. If I can make a suggestion. One of the first things I would do is leave out of the conclusion are words like ,'such' 'allow' and 'exist' because they are not in your premises.

Premise: God is omnipotent, loving, peaceful and moral.

Evil is the antitheses of love, peace and morality.

Conclusion: an omnipotent, loving God would not allow Evil.

Do you like that better? I still need the allow in the conclusion otherwise it doesn't make sense.

[elscarta]

Premise: God is omnipotent, loving, peaceful and moral.

Evil is the antitheses of love, peace and morality.

Conclusion: an omnipotent, loving God would not allow Evil.

Do you like that better? I still need the allow in the conclusion otherwise it doesn't make sense.

ScottGem, by including "allow" in your conclusion you have broken the rules of logical arguments since the introduction of a new idea in your conclusion does not follow logically from your stated premises.

If you wish to use "allow" in your conclusion then rephrase your premises to include "allow".

The following is an example of a logical argument based on your premises.


Premise:
God is omnipotent, loving, peaceful and moral.

Evil is the antitheses of love, peace and morality.

Conclusion: God is not Evil.

As you can see the conclusion does not contain anything which is not already define in the premises and the structure of the argument is valid.

a = b
c = not b
therefore a = not c

For a more in depth explanation of both what makes a valid argument and what makes an invalid argument (fallacy) check out the links below.

Arguments

List of Fallacies

[arcura]

elscarta,
You have made a very good point.
Thanks for that and the links.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[ScottGem]

If you wish to use "allow" in your conclusion then rephrase your premises to include "allow".

Your example is not valid because it does not say what I want it to say. Nor have you made a very good point. I have said very clearly and specifically, that my argument is based on what makes sense to me. I have stated that I am not trying to present a universal truth. I am not trying to prove to you or anyone that my conclusion is the only one out there.

I will state this one more time. I do not believe that an omnipotent being, as portrayed in the Bible with the ideals of love and peace and morality could allow or condone the level of tragedy and evil that exists in the world. Ergo, I have to come to the conclusion that there is no being that is watching what happens, making decisions about what happens, listening to and acting on prayers etc. That is my conclusion based on my values and my way of reasoning.

I understand that other people may come to different conclusions because they place faith in the concept that God has some grand plan that tragedy and evil is a part of. I am happy for those people and am glad they can find comfort in that faith. I CANNOT! I have not come lightly to this conclusion. Nor am I alone in this conclusion. Last night I watched the movie Employee of the Month, where these very same conclusions were made by the main character.

So, if you want to state what you BELIEVE and why feel free to do so. I have no concrete proof that you are wrong, just as you have no concrete proof that you are right.

[elscarta]

Your example is not valid because it does not say what I want it to say.

I never said that I was trying to say what you wanted to say. I was giving you an example of a logical conclusion that can be drawn from your two premises and showing you how the conclusion follows from those premises in the hope that you could then see how you should phrase your premises and conclusions so that they are logically valid.

Nor have you made a very good point.

The point I was making was regards to the structure of a logical argument not to whether your argument is correct or not. Acura understood this.

Furthermore just because an argument is logically structured does not make it necessarily true.

For example consider the following argument.

Premise:
All men are evil.

Peter is a man.

Conclusion:
Peter is evil.

This argument is logically structured, this means that the conclusion follows logically from the premises. But the conclusion is false since the first premise is false.

I do not believe that an omnipotent being, as portrayed in the Bible with the ideals of love and peace and morality could allow or condone the level of tragedy and evil that exists in the world. Ergo, I have to come to the conclusion that there is no being that is watching what happens, making decisions about what happens, listening to and acting on prayers etc. That is my conclusion based on my values and my way of reasoning.

ScottGem, what I have been asking for in my last two posts is for you to explicate your line of reasoning and so far you have not done that.

Maybe if you answer these questions I can work out what your line of reasoning is.

Which one of the four attributes that you have listed(omnipotent, love, peace or morality) do you see necessitates not allowing or condoning the level of tragedy and evil?

Or is it a combination of more that one of them?

Try leaving out each attribute in turn, do you come to the same conclusion in each case?

Also, not directly related to the above;

I have read that some Deists believe in an afterlife, what is your position on this?

And am I right in surmising that you believe in "free-will"?

[arcura]

elscarta,
I also will be interested in any answers to the questions you asked Scottgem.
Fred

[ScottGem]

I will state this one more time. I do not believe that an omnipotent being, as portrayed in the Bible with the ideals of love and peace and morality could allow or condone the level of tragedy and evil that exists in the world. Ergo, I have to come to the conclusion that there is no being that is watching what happens, making decisions about what happens, listening to and acting on prayers etc. That is my conclusion based on my values and my way of reasoning.

I understand that other people may come to different conclusions because they place faith in the concept that God has some grand plan that tragedy and evil is a part of. I am happy for those people and am glad they can find comfort in that faith. I CANNOT! I have not come lightly to this conclusion. Nor am I alone in this conclusion. Last night I watched the movie Employee of the Month, where these very same conclusions were made by the main character.

So, if you want to state what you BELIEVE and why feel free to do so. I have no concrete proof that you are wrong, just as you have no concrete proof that you are right.

I said I will state this ONCE more. I think I have made my position abundantly clear and have answered any questions asked.

[arcura]

Scottgem,
That's interesting. I do not agree.
Sorry about that but that's the way I am.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[sndbay]

Furthermore just because an argument is logically structured does not make it necessarily true.

For example consider the following argument.

Premise:
All men are evil.

Peter is a man.

Conclusion:
Peter is evil.

And where does logic leave us when we view the aspects of Hope = gives mankind the opportunity to become right with God and HIS fellowman.

Should we always leave hope within every man's heart and mind?

[TUT317]

And where does logic leave us when we view the aspects of Hope = gives mankind the opportunity to become right with God and HIS fellowman.

Should we always leave hope within every man's heart and mind?

Hi sndbay,

I was just interested in the way you use the equal sign, e.g.. Hope =
Usually that shows that something is equal to something else. There are at least four different ways 'is' can be used, all of which carry a different meaning.

For example, 'Superman IS Clark Kent' or Superman=Clark Kent. Formulated in this way we are saying that Superman and Clark Kent have exactly the same attributes. The two are really one and the same.

How you have formulated, "hope= gives mankind the opportunity to become right with God HIS fellowman" seems to be using 'is' in the predicate form. In other words, hope is what you have said it is, but it can be many other things as well. In the predicate form it is not restricted to the definition you have given.

You wouldn't think such a little word could cause so much confusion in language.

[elscarta]

And where does logic leave us when we view the aspects of Hope = gives mankind the opportunity to become right with God and HIS fellowman.

I see no problem with Hope and logic.

Following on from my previous example.

Premise:
Peter is evil.

Hope exists. (opportunity to become right with God and HIS fellowman)

Conclusion:

Peter has opportunity to become right with God and HIS fellowman.

Should we always leave hope within every man's heart and mind?

This question does not relate to the structure of a logical argument. Personally I believe that there is always hope. I base this on experience that has shown me that even in what appears the most hopeless of situations people can still change for the better.

[Alty]

This question does not relate to the structure of a logical argument. Personally I believe that there is always hope. I base this on experience that has shown me that even in what appears the most hopeless of situations people can still change for the better.

You're basing your post on your belief. When will you understand that your belief isn't the one and only belief? That's not a logical argument, that's just you telling everyone that your belief is the right one.

Proof, that's what a Deist needs. Until you can provide proof for your beliefs they remain just that, your beliefs. Beliefs aren't based on evidence, they're based on what you feel.

[TUT317]

You're basing your post on your belief. When will you understand that your belief isn't the one and only belief? That's not a logical argument, that's just you telling everyone that your belief is the right one.

Proof, that's what a Deist needs. Until you can provide proof for your beliefs they remain just that, your beliefs. Beliefs aren't based on evidence, they're based on what you feel.

Hello Altenweg,
Beliefs do require proof if we wish to communicate them to other people. If we just communicate a belief without proof then we have a situation whereby everyone has their own beliefs and these beliefs are subjective.
This gives rise to a situation whereby we are unable to test our beliefs against the belief of others. Normally the test is in the form of a logical argument.

For example, if I were a Deist (which I am not ) I could say that I BELIEVE we live in a probabilistic universe in which the laws of probability have to be obeyed, even by God. Once God has set the laws in motion he has a restricted role. ( I think that is what Deists claim?)

I could put this BELIEF to the test in the form of a LOGICAL syllogism.

Premise(1) Probability accounts for Gods greatness
Premise (2) Gods greatness accounts for goodness.
Conclusion Probability accounts for goodness.

I hope this helps

[sabrewolfe]

Thank you Acura for the informative post.
I do not wish to argue the existence of God nor satan. I would like to, however, discuss the article and the points that it makes.
As stated, it says how and why satan tries to destroy mankind and God's creation. The destruction of man's spirit has more of an impact on God's intent then mortal death itself. I would think that for a person to die by some cataclysmic event is less destructive than destroying a man's spirit itself, which gives into much more devistation. It is not of much gain to satan to merely kill a man, but if he can separate his family, cause him despair, take away his goodness and confidence, it will have much more of an impact to himself and his generations than just killing him. The death of one's spirit is of more use to satan's plot than mortal death itself. It can drive a man to turn away from God which is exactly satan's goal.
Satan has no interest in those who do not follow God, they are not in his way and he has no use for them, for they are already doing his work. It's those who walk with God that are satan's enemies. Through satan's malicious and deceptive works, he murders, kills and destroys man in both the spiritual and the mortal scales.
As far as that little chart that shows who killed more, God or satan, well I don't know what children's book that came out of, because it sure wasn't the bible. All this talk about "logic", if applied, would prove a very different scenario.
Thank you again Acura, the article was very informative and relative. I would like to talk to you more on the subject as originally posted.

[arcura]

sabrewolfe,
Thank you.
Your post was well though out.
I agree that with your thoughts on this.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[ScottGem]

As far as that little chart that shows who killed more, God or satan, well I don't know what childrens book that came out of, because it sure wasn't the bible.

If you read the post where that chart was posted, it said that it came from counting Biblical passages about people smitten by God. If you read the other posts discussing that particular issue, I'm not sure how you can make the above statement. At least four bibilical incidents were mentioned (the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.) that accounted for many thousands of lives lost due to God's direct actions. That the Bible states that God has directly killed many people by his actions is irrefutable.

You can argue that killings were justified and that they were done as part of God's vision for the world and on and on. I'm not getting into that argument. But to argue the fact that he has. To say that chart didn't come from biblical passages, to attribute it to a children's book, just makes you look foolish.

Check this article and tell me that chart didn't come from the Bible:
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot....lete-list.html

Googling how many people has God killed brings up several similar sites. And the totals are very close to each other.

[NeedKarma]

As far as that little chart that shows who killed more, God or satan, well I don't know what childrens book that came out of, because it sure wasn't the bible.

I believe it is based on the bible:
Dwindling In Unbelief: How many has God killed?

[elscarta]

Altenweg, I don't understand where all your angst against what I have posted is coming from.

You're basing your post on your belief.

And what am I supposed to base my post on?
Also I specifically qualified my last post with "I believe" as ScottGem asked for in post #36.

When will you understand that your belief isn't the one and only belief?

Where did I claim that my belief is the one and only belief?

That's not a logical argument, that's just you telling everyone that your belief is the right one.

Again where am I specifically telling everyone that my belief is the right one?

Proof, that's what a Deist needs.

But apparently some Deists find it difficult to articulate their own reasons and formulate logical arguments and refuse to supply proof of their own beliefs.

Also don't claim to need proof if you are not prepared to read and discuss the proof that is provided.

[Triund]

My only issue, if they don't beleive in God, then how do they beleive that "god" killed all of the people.

You can't not beleive when it serves your purpose and then beleive to make a point.

You hit it on nail so accurately.