Single Premise or Argument: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Single Premise or Argument » Single Premise or Argument

Single Premise or Argument

Single Premise or Argument

itry2brational
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 17

Posted 05/01/08 - 01:46 PM: Subject: Single Premise or Argument	#1
I have been in a debate with a person who posed this to me: "If faith is a gift from God then faith is evidence of God's existence." He also changed it to read different, here are the other versions: 4 Faith exists 5 If God exists and faith exists then faith is a gift from God 6 A gift is evidence of its giver 7 God exists. 8 Faith is a gift from God (4,5,7). 9 Faith is evidence of God (6,8). Some other gems I have taken from this debate are: "Since it can not be proven wrong that faith is a gift from God, and since it is obvious that faith is evidence of God if it is a gift from God, it can not be proven that faith is not evidence of God." "IF God exists and IF faith exists then faith is a gift from God. That statement does not assume that God exists." My debater has held fast to the belief that his first assertion, which I presented first, is merely one premise in his larger argument. I see several problems with its logical composition but I am NOT an expert on logical argument and I would like some insight from people who know more than I do about the topic. Any contributions or advice would be appreciated. Note: I posted in the religion section because of the topic of the premises/arguments but if it belongs on a different forum I will gladly remove and repost in the appropriate forum. Thanks.

Ataxia
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 31, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 41

Posted 05/01/08 - 02:09 PM:	#2
Substitute Flying Spaghetti Monster for God and you will see that this argument can be used to "prove" anything.
_____________________ "Jacob said, 'I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.'" (Genesis 32:30) "No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)

Abiathar
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 69

Posted 05/01/08 - 02:11 PM:	#3
Faith is evidence in a lack of evidence. Really, honestly, thats pretty much what it boils down to. If something exists and you have any grounds for evidence, you do no longer have Faith in it... you just -know-. Like we know that trees make a combiniation of semi-greenish leaves. Therefore, Faith is proof of nothing, other than the lack of evidence the other has.

itry2brational
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 17

Posted 05/01/08 - 05:22 PM:	#4
I like the responses, and agree with them. Im still confused about whether this person is actually forming a valid argument. Is "If faith is a gift from God then faith is evidence of God's existence." a premise or an argument?

unenlightened
Mysteriosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 813

Posted 05/02/08 - 08:35 AM:	#5
If silly arguments are an excretion of unenlightened, then silly arguments are evidence of unenlightened's existence. It works for me! The great thing about a conditional is that it only says something if the first part is true. In this case, the first part is only true if God exists, so it isn't much help in proving that She does. If 2+2=5, then anything you like is true. I can confidently assert this because it happens that 2+2 does not equal 5. The important question is "Is faith a gift from God, or is it a mental aberration?" If you can prove the existence of something (other than words or proofs etc) by purely verbal argument, then you have gone wrong somewhere. So yes, its a premise, and since it is more or less tautologous, it is probably 'true'. But no it cannot help an argument for the existence of God, because if it says anything at all, then it is because God (already) exists.
_____________________ The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 05/02/08 - 12:50 PM:	#6
Lol, well if faith is a gift from god, then faith is proof of god's existence, not just evidence. He needs to get on proving the "faith is a gift from god" part. It's like say "If god created bananas, then bananas are proof of god!" This is true, but in order to be anything but silly, you need to establish that bananas are indeed created by god. It's not really a premise or an argument, it's just a tauotological statement, a logically true statement, like: "If cats could fly, and I was tiny and had a cat saddle, then it would be possible to fly my cat around the house!" That isn't an argument or a premise, it's just a statement that logically follows if the conditions outlined in the statement were true. It in no way even remotely suggests that they are true. Edited by Wosret on 05/02/08 - 04:48 PM
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

jdrw
definitely ~d1

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1490

Posted 05/02/08 - 01:35 PM:	#7
Since it's empirically demonstrable that putting a saddle on a cat is impossible unless the cat is dead, it's preposterous even to imagine the possibility of flying your cat around the house. But all you need to do is modify your argument to state "If dead cats could fly ..." which is far more plausible a claim than putting a saddle on a cat that isn't dead, and dissolves the well-known "you can't saddle a cat" objection. I'm here to help. jd
_____________________ OTOH I might be exhaustively wrong about everything I've ever thought--with the possible exception of this sentence.

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 05/02/08 - 04:44 PM:	#8
I'm going to have to disagree. Think of a meeting place and I'll bring the cats and you bring the saddles, and we see how it turns out. I wouldn't want to ride a dead cat around...I'd rather ride bear-back. A zombie cat? Maybe.
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

itry2brational
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 17

Posted 05/02/08 - 05:42 PM:	#9
Im going to try to wrestle this back on to topic: So far it has been shown that it is neither and argument nor a premise but rather a tautology. The debater has said that he is not trying to prove something but isnt that what his series does, attempts to prove that God exists? Isnt it circular reasoning to say in step 7 'God exists' and then as your conclusion say 'Faith is evidence of God'? Dont the premises of an argument have to be true in order for the conclusion to be valid? Are both of his examples two different types of logical arguments(inductive and deductive)? What is wrong with this argument: 1 There should be evidence of the existence of God 2 We cannot find evidence of God's existence 3 therefore, God does not exist Thanks for the help.

jdrw
definitely ~d1

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1490

Posted 05/02/08 - 06:20 PM:	#10
itry2brational wrote: What is wrong with this argument: 1 There should be evidence of the existence of God 2 We cannot find evidence of God's existence 3 therefore, God does not exist Thanks for the help. Two problems. First, many true believers would dispute premise 2. They claim that there is indeed evidence--for instance, the testimony of people who claim that God has revealed himself to them. And there are those who claim that the existence of the universe itself is evidence (since the best explanation by their lights is God), and the moral law within us ... . Secondly, even if 2 is not disputed, the conclusion should be : 3) Therefore either God does not exist or it's a big universe and we just haven't found the evidence yet. Cheers. jd
_____________________ OTOH I might be exhaustively wrong about everything I've ever thought--with the possible exception of this sentence.

Deracinating
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 29, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 3

Posted 05/02/08 - 08:56 PM:	#11
This seems like an elementary example of circular argument. Of course, if God were real, then his actions would prove his existence. X implies y implies x. I'm also quite sure that seriously considering this argument or tautology or whatever you want to call it leads to some sort of brain cancer. No, just ignore people who say things like this.

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 05/03/08 - 09:08 AM:	#12
itry2brational wrote: Dont the premises of an argument have to be true in order for the conclusion to be valid? Are both of his examples two different types of logical arguments(inductive and deductive)? No, the premises don't have to be true for the conclusion to be valid, the premises have to be true for the conclusion to be sound. Sophists like theologians are chock full of valid arguments, they just don't have any sound ones. Deduction is built upon indiction. Inductive arguments have uncontroversial premises, that we know for a fact are true, but they only imply their conclusions, then we use the conclusions arrived at from a inductive inference, and use it in a deductive one, and deductive arguments necessaritate their conclusions. For instane, to demonstrate the process of a famous deductive argument, by demonstating its soundness with an inductive argument: p1. All men I have observed and are aware of have died p2. All the evidence I have available suggests that all men die p3. There are some anecdotes of immortals, people that claim to have seen them, but they can be dismissed for lack of evidence c1. Therefore all men are mortal. We take this, and use it in our deductive argument p1. All men are mortal p2. Socretes is a man c1. Therefore Socretes is mortal. My deductive argument is only sound because the importan premise is rendered so by an inductive process. If someone has arguments, and they can't render their premises uncontroverisal, and sound by an inductive process, then they are merely assertion, unsupported assertion, and you have zero obligation to accept them. They have skipped the important and difficult step of establishing the soundness of their premises, before the easy step of making them follow to a conclusion. Edited by Wosret on 05/03/08 - 09:13 AM
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

Christiangoth
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 05, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 11

Posted 05/06/08 - 12:56 AM:	#13
Hey all! I am the Christian that itry2brational refers to when he states that he has been involved in a debate with someone. However, he has misrepresented my claims, quoting selectively from multiple attempts by me to explain not an argument that God exists, but a counterargument against a common atheistic argument that God does not exist. It should be obvious that what was written by me was only shared selectively, as itry2brational quotes a series of premises I stated which are numbered, and the numbers he quotes do not begin with 1. In the entirety of what was written between us, I made an argument that the existence of a deity can not be disproven by evidence since what one person discounts as evidence another counts as evidence. I used the quality of human faith as an example; atheists will see it as just another personality trait, Christians believe it comes from God, but all agree that it exists. Even if an atheist asserts that God does not exist if there is no evidence of God, to assert that there is no evidence of God the atheist must deny that faith, which obviously exists, comes from God. However, as I demonstrated in my counterargument, this can only be done by asserting that God does not exist, in which case the atheist begs the question. I am creating a new thread on the actual argument I make, which is not presented in its entirety here, in a new thread. I ask that you judge my argument by my words, not the statements of itry2brational, whom I have nothing personal against but whom I feel shared only pieces of my argument selectively. The new thread that I have created on this topic is located at http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/the-im...

jdrw
definitely ~d1

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1490

Posted 05/06/08 - 08:51 AM:	#14
Christiangoth wrote: I made an argument that the existence of a deity can not be disproven by evidence since what one person discounts as evidence another counts as evidence. I used the quality of human faith as an example; atheists will see it as just another personality trait, Christians believe it comes from God, but all agree that it exists. Even if an atheist asserts that God does not exist if there is no evidence of God, to assert that there is no evidence of God the atheist must deny that faith, which obviously exists, comes from God. This faith that allegedly exists as though it were some kind of thing or entity is merely a belief. Faith is belief that certain claims are true even though there is not definitive proof that they are true. People all over the world all throughout history have believed that all sorts of claims were true without definitive proof that they are true. People have such faith in innumerable supernatural beings, for instance. Is the faith of tens of millions of Hindus in their supernatural beings a gift to Hindus from those supernatural beings that counts as evidence of their existence? Is the faith of every believer of every religion a gift from the supernatural beings of that religion that counts as evidence of their existence? Your argument is of the form: I believe in X. I believe that my belief in X is a gift from X. Therefore, my belief that my belief in X is a gift from X counts as evidence that X actually exists. Reasoning doesn't get much sillier than this. Evidence is part of the reason to believe in a claim. Reason to believe in a claim is provided by the epistemic criteria that can be shown to have been met. This typically means rational analysis and empirical evidence. You have provided neither. Therefore you have provided no reason to believe in your claim. Cheers. jd
_____________________ OTOH I might be exhaustively wrong about everything I've ever thought--with the possible exception of this sentence.

180 Proof
Cult Deprogrammer

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: reason's raggedy edge
Total Topics: 73
Total Posts: 3530

Posted 05/06/08 - 12:01 PM:	#15
1. Nature consists in all that is the case. 2. The concept “god” either implies supernaturalism, or it doesn’t. a. If the concept “god” implies supernaturalism, then it is an impossibility. (from 1) b. If the concept “god” does not imply supernaturalism, then it is unfalsifiable and meaningless. 3. The concept “god” is either impossible or meaningless. (from 2a and 2b) Edited by 180 Proof on 05/06/08 - 02:28 PM. Reason: hmmm ...
_____________________ If faith is irrational, then it is rational to dismiss "faith-based claims" out of hand. If faith is rational, then "faith-based claims" must be testable and/or sufficient -- but they are neither. If faith is a-rational, then "faith-based claims" are inexplicable and thus cannot explain anything.

itry2brational
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 17

Posted 05/06/08 - 11:39 PM:	#16
Welcome to the fray, Christiangoth. A couple things. As anyone who has the misfortune of visiting your thread will find out, there is no way to avoid being anything other than selective about quoting you. We ran into this very problem at the other site which has a limitation of 500 characters, which rarely prevented you from making 6 responses in a row. This of course was merely a drop in the bucket compared to the 3 or 4 private messages you sent me on that other sight which had no such limitation. How lucky for me. Secondly, here at this thread I have kept my interaction as neutral on the subject as possible. The topic is a question. Most of my OP is quotations from you. I have only expressed that I see problems with your logical composition but I have not stated what I think those problems are. And even when I posted elsewhere in my own thread I was still merely asking questions, not making statements. So please do not 'bare false witness' with that regard. Third, what sparked our debate was the first sentence, which I quoted verbatim, that you presented to me. The sequential construction of your 'argument' came later. The reason your argument starts with a '4' is because you tried to add to your 'Faith/Gift' argument the Atheist Argument(which you also presented, I did not create that argument either). Now, if you want us to review all of your steps as they were original presented(the first time), mashing the two arguments together, here is what you get(again, verbatim): Christiangoth wrote: 1 If God exists then there is evidence of God. 2 No evidence of God exists. 3 God does not exist (1,2). 4 Faith exists (I do not believe this to be in contest). 5 If God exists and faith exists then faith is a gift from God (I do not believe this to be in contest). 6 A gift is evidence of its giver (I do not believe this to be in contest). 7 God exists. 8 Faith is a gift from God (4,5,7). 9 Faith is evidence of God (6,8). I left a space in the middle because even by your own admission, the first 3 premises composed an 'argument'. What you said about 1-3: Christiangoth wrote: The above argument begs the question, but not obviously. So is 1 thru 3 an argument? Or is 4 thru 9? Are they really 2 separate arguments? I would also like to point out that an argument which states as one of its premises that 'God does not exist' and then a later premise states 'God exists.' is contradictory. The reason I did not present it this way(as 1 thru 9) was based on your OWN classification that 1 thru 3 was the 'Atheist Argument' and that 4 thru 9 were your Faith/Gift argument. If you feel like this was misrepresentation, Im sorry you feel that way. So far, in both this thread and your own, your positions/arguments have not been met with favor. While I have already admitted that I am not an expert on logic, as my name implies, I try. I still stick to my original post, so long ago: itry2brational wrote: You are so lost in your own warm glow of perceived intelligence that you cant see the trees through the forest. There is no more proof for the existence of a god than there is proof that we are all in the Matrix. Your logic is very faulty as well. "If faith is a gift from God then faith is evidence of God's existence." This is a logical fallacy called reductio ad absurdum. You must make a wild assumption for the first part to be true and the second does not logically follow. I believe at your other thread someone has made a good case about the gift concept which I questioned with that quote. Good luck, it looks like you will need it. shrug

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.