Comments on: Logic and Conventionalism

By: Zao on the Transcendental Argument | Urban Philosophy

Zao on the Transcendental Argument | Urban Philosophy — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 02:04:08 +0000

[...] A Conventionalist Justification of LogicThe Case Against Presuppositionalism: Part IIThe Case Against Presuppositionalism [...]

By: Zao on the Transcendental Argument | Urban Philosophy

Zao on the Transcendental Argument | Urban Philosophy — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 02:04:08 +0000

[...] A Conventionalist Justification of LogicThe Case Against Presuppositionalism: Part IIThe Case Against Presuppositionalism [...]

By: Nocterro

Nocterro — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:44:17 +0000

For some theists at least, their belief in God IS based on argument. Also, we debate in order to arrive at a greater understanding of the truth.

By: Nocterro

Nocterro — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:44:00 +0000

For some theists at least, their belief in God IS based on argument. Also, we debate in order to arrive at a greater understanding of the truth.

By: C.L. Bolt

C.L. Bolt — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:03:41 +0000

I don't know, what are you doing? lol

By: C.L. Bolt

C.L. Bolt — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:03:00 +0000

I don't know, what are you doing? lol

By: noen

noen — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 06:34:18 +0000

Yes, it was my mistake. It still leaves open the question of is the argument true? Does the truth of Christianity depend on the TAG being true? If the TAG is false does that disprove all notions of "god"?

Religious faith does not revolve around proofs for or against anything. People do not derive their faith from propositional equations. Belief is not about the abstract assertion that certain metaphysical objects exist. The purpose and function of religion is not to see who can get other people to believe in this or that set of "facts" about the world. It doesn't work that way and to argue about these things seems to me to be the very definition of pointless.

Really… what is the point? What is the goal? Do you really believe you'll convert anyone?

What are you doing?

By: noen

noen — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 06:34:00 +0000

Really… what is the point? What is the goal? Do you really believe you'll convert anyone?

What are you doing?

By: C.L. Bolt

C.L. Bolt — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 04:36:44 +0000

"The first premise is…'If Christianity is true, TAG succeeds' which assumes that in some sense the TAG is a Christian tenet."

You originally wrote:

"Faulty syllogism

(1) If P then Q

(2) ~Q

It does not therefore follow that:

(3) Therefore, ~P"

Yes, it does follow, because what you wrote it is a valid argument.

By: C.L. Bolt

C.L. Bolt — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 04:36:00 +0000

"The first premise is…'If Christianity is true, TAG succeeds' which assumes that in some sense the TAG is a Christian tenet."

You originally wrote:

"Faulty syllogism

(1) If P then Q

(2) ~Q

It does not therefore follow that:

(3) Therefore, ~P"

Yes, it does follow, because what you wrote it is a valid argument.