If god then ...

Originally posted by Penguin
Right, so your problem, as we have been saying, not with the logic but with the truth of the two premises (or rather the first premise).

You assert that it is [b]not true that 'everything that exists has a cause'. I agree with that since there are at least two things that we are not aware of causes for: the appearance of particles in a vacuum, ...[text shortened]...

There is nothing logically wrong with the OP but there is with your version.

--- Penguin.[/b]

This is the OP version by wolfgang:

1. Everything that exists has a cause
2. God exists
3. Therefore God has a cause

Unless "cause" means"purpose" then the conclusion #3 is wrong because God is "not caused" by anything.

#1 is only wrong if "everything" includes God. However, in Christian theology God is usually not included in "everything" because God is the creator of everything.

#2 is obviously correct, according to Christian theology.

This is why I say the logic is wrong.

I restated the three statements so all are true, according to Christian theology. So, if you have a better way of restating the three statements than I did, so that it is also logical, then go ahead.

Originally posted by RJHinds
This is the OP version by wolfgang:

1. Everything that exists has a cause
2. God exists
3. Therefore God has a cause

Unless "cause" means"purpose" then the conclusion #3 is wrong because God is "not caused" by anything.

#1 is only wrong if "everything" includes God. However, in Christian theology God is usually not included in "everything" bec ...[text shortened]... ter way of restating the three statements than I did, so that it is also logical, then go ahead.

this makes no sense I watched the life of brian

Originally posted by redbarons
this makes no sense I watched the life of brian

And this made sense to you?

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
This is the OP version by wolfgang:

1. Everything that exists has a cause
2. God exists
3. Therefore God has a cause

Unless "cause" means"purpose" then the conclusion #3 is wrong because God is "not caused" by anything.

#1 is only wrong if "everything" includes God. However, in Christian theology God is usually not included in "everything" bec ...[text shortened]... ter way of restating the three statements than I did, so that it is also logical, then go ahead.

#1 is only wrong if "everything" includes God. However, in Christian theology God is usually not included in "everything" because God is the creator of everything.

No, that won't work. You exclude God from being in the set of "everything that exists" and then assert his existence which puts him in the set of things which exist. So you have a contradiction if you insist he had no cause.

It really isn't clear to me that Classical logic is applicable to questions about God. The law of divided middle or non-contradiction may not apply. Also it is not clear what is meant by cause - how proximate does the cause have to be? If I bake a cake then it is my creation so this seems to undermine the notion that God creates everything. I want to avoid the word "cause". I think there are three ways of approaching this:

1) God created all things.
2) God exists.
3) God created himself.

1) God caused the universe to be.
2) God is outside the universe.
3) We cannot draw any valid conclusions about how God was created.

One can prove that anything follows from a contradiction, in Propositional logic this is written as -P, P |- Q. So if one assumes a contradiction then there is an explosion, everything and its converse becomes true. The formal language loses its power as any sentence is true.

1) Everything that exists has a cause (A)
2) God exists.(A)
3) God has no cause. (A)
4) God has a cause. (1+2)
5) God has no cause and God has a cause. (3 + 4)
6) Therefore Classical logic breaks in discussions about God.

Which may be the real problem with the discussion.

Originally posted by DeepThought
[b
Which may be the real problem with the discussion.[/b]

The discussion is not to find any Truth but
rather to demonstrate simple Logic to simple folk.

I do not believe in the conclusion of my OP but I want
others to determine what they see is wrong with the argument.

small steps

Originally posted by RJHinds
And this made sense to you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krb2OdQksMc

I enjoyed the real(because I saw it)life of brian to the less plausible son of god jesus rubbish.

Originally posted by DeepThought
6) Therefore Classical logic breaks in discussions about God.

I disagree that this has anything to do with classical logic breaking. I think you may have issues of words having multiple meanings or indefinite meanings and then logic being used incorrectly. But I dispute your claim that classical logic breaks down.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree that this has anything to do with classical logic breaking. I think you may have issues of words having multiple meanings or indefinite meanings and then logic being used incorrectly. But I dispute your claim that classical logic breaks down.

Oh go on then, but I'll use symbolic logic:

(Ex)Fx means There exists an object x with predicate (property) F.
(Ax)Fx means All objects have property x
Gx means x is God.
Cxy means that y is the cause of x

The first column is the initial assumption the line is based on, the second column is the line number and the stuff at the end is the lines manipulated and the logical operation used. A = Assumption, RAA = Reductio Ad Absurdum.

Translating the above into symbols we have:

1 (1) (Ax)(Ey)(Cxy) A (all things were created by some thing)
2 (2) (Ex)Gx A (A thing exists which has the property of being God)
3 (3) ¬(Ey)(Ex)(Gx&Cxy) A (there is no thing which created God)
1 (4) (Ey)Cay 1, Universal extraction
1 (5) Cab 4, Existential extraction
2 (6) Ga 2, Existential extraction
1,2 (7) Ga&Cab 5, 6, Conjugation insertion.
1,2 (8) (Ex)(Gx&Cxb) 7, Existential insertion
1,2 (9) (Ey)(Ex)(Gx&Cxy) 8, Existential insertion
1,2,3 (10) (¬(Ey)(Ex)(Gx&Cxy)) & ((Ey)(Ex)(Gx&Cxy)) 9, Conjugation insertion.

Then one of:
2,3 (11) ¬(Ax)(Ey)(Cxy) 10 RAA (not all things have a creator)
or
1,3 (11) ¬(Ex)Gx 10 RAA (there is no God)
or
2,3 (11) ¬¬(Ey)(Ex)(Gx&Cxy) 10 RAA
2,3 (12) (Ey)(Ex)(Gx&Cxy) 11 Double negative (God had a creator)
or
RAA is invalid in this case.

Classical logic's applicability is disputed in some fields, if you are interested type "paraconsistent logic" into Wikipedia's search thing. I'm standing by my claim that the concept of God is not consistent with classical logic, I can spend all day creating paradoxes based on the concept. Either you have to assume that God doesn't exist or accept that the normal rules of logic don't apply.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Oh go on then, but I'll use symbolic logic:

(Ex)Fx means There exists an object x with predicate (property) F.
(Ax)Fx means All objects have property x
Gx means x is God.
Cxy means that y is the cause of x

The first column is the initial assumption the line is based on, the second column is the line number and the stuff at the end is the lines m ...[text shortened]... you have to assume that God doesn't exist or accept that the normal rules of logic don't apply.

I was just going to say that

Originally posted by DeepThought

#1 is only wrong if "everything" includes God. However, in Christian theology God is usually not included in "everything" because God is the creator of everything.

No, that won't work. You exclude God from being in the set of "everything that exists" and then assert his existence which puts him in the set of things which exist. ...[text shortened]... cal logic breaks in discussions about God.

Which may be the real problem with the discussion.

1) God created all things.
2) God exists.
3) God created himself.

1) God caused the universe to be.
2) God is outside the universe.
3) We cannot draw any valid conclusions about how God was created.

One can prove that anything follows from a contradiction, in Propositional logic this is written as -P, P |- Q. So if one assumes a contradiction then there is an explosion, everything and its converse becomes true. The formal language loses its power as any sentence is true.

1) Everything that exists has a cause (A)
2) God exists.(A)
3) God has no cause. (A)
4) God has a cause. (1+2)
5) God has no cause and God has a cause. (3 + 4)
6) Therefore Classical logic breaks in discussions about God.

Which may be the real problem with the discussion.

I think the original Kalaam argument was in premise 1 -

"Every effect has a cause." (So states R.C. Sproul).

And all modern day versions of the argument I have seen do not say:

"Everything that exists has a cause" but rather
"Everything that begins to exist has a cause."

(my emphasis)

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] 1) God created all things.
2) God exists.
3) God created himself.

1) God caused the universe to be.
2) God is outside the universe.
3) We cannot draw any valid conclusions about how God was created.

One can prove that anything follows from a contradiction, in Propositional logic this is written as -P, P |- Q. So if one assumes a contradicti ...[text shortened]... but rather
[b]"Everything that begins to exist has a cause."

(my emphasis)[/b]

spot on /nailed it/took you a bit longer than me though.

Originally posted by sonship
I have cut out the quote of my earlier post

I think the original Kalaam argument was in premise 1 -

"Every effect has a cause." (So states R.C. Sproul).

And all modern day versions of the argument I have seen do not say:

"Everything that exists has a cause" but rather
"Everything that begins to exist has a cause."

(my emphasis)[/b]

I didn't invent the premises. Besides you can take the version of the conclusion that contradicts that assumption.

I don't think "Every effect has a cause" is a particularly useful statement. All it does is define any phenomenon which doesn't have a cause to be not an effect, without ruling out the possibility of such a phenomenon. So any consequent argument is only valid for a subset of things that can exist. The problem with "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is that you then need to rule out the possibility that things other than God can have no beginning if you want a God that is a universal creator, so the number of premises is growing. Besides how do we know this? At least Sprout's formulation is grammatically forced, but there's no absolute reason to think that things that begin must have a reason for their beginning.

Originally posted by DeepThought

At least Sprout's formulation is grammatically forced, but there's no absolute reason to think that things that begin must have a reason for their beginning.

Are you suggesting that Christian philosophers do not have a right to refine and re-tool philosophical arguments ? That would be strange because atheist philosophers are afforded this right.

I am not well educated in philosophy. But I do notice that when vulnerabilities are discovered in arguments of all types, they are revised. And philosophers of all persuasions do this.

I don't see any reason to call a fowl based on a charge of making a formula "grammatically forced."

I think your whole mathematical style of argument is "grammatically forced" to squeeze out God's existence.

ps That was R.C. Sproul

Originally posted by DeepThought

... but there's no absolute reason to think that things that begin must have a reason for their beginning.

I think such an attitude is not at all friendly to the discipline of doing science.

I think you have done science no favors by suggesting that causes should not always be searched out for the beginning of things. I think that is a major activity of science.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] 1) God created all things.
2) God exists.
3) God created himself.

1) God caused the universe to be.
2) God is outside the universe.
3) We cannot draw any valid conclusions about how God was created.

One can prove that anything follows from a contradiction, in Propositional logic this is written as -P, P |- Q. So if one assumes a contradicti ...[text shortened]... but rather
[b]"Everything that begins to exist has a cause."

(my emphasis)[/b]

I said, "everything that came to exist has a cause."

Isn't that the same idea?