A Formal Proof that if Evil Exists then the Theists' God Does Not

[Skwim]

In the classes I took on formal logic, that wasn't called proof. It was called deduction. I need your source(and NOT wikipedia).

Logic: A Modern Introduction to Deductive Reasoning, D.B. Terrelll (my college text)
Introduction to Logic, Irving M. Copi
Logic for Dummies, Mark Zegarelli (picked up for a buck at a rummage sale)

EDIT:
Hint: Both ibiblio and gutenberg are teeming with humanities texts.

????


Edited to add:

OMG! In going through the rests of the posts here I just came across the following:

I'm going to give skwim some time(weeks) to respond, considering that I threw a library at him from which to derive his research(of which, a simple google search won't yield an answer).

EDIT:
At this point, I'd be open to copying relevant posts into a one-to-one debate to prevent 3rd party pollution of the argument.

You poor man. I almost feel sorry for you. . . . Almost.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

Logic: A Modern Introduction to Deductive Reasoning, D.B. Terrelll (my college text)
Introduction to Logic, Irving M. Copi
Logic for Dummies, Mark Zegarelli (picked up for a buck at a rummage sale)

Cite appropriately, either by MLA or APA standards, please.

Edited to add:

OMG! In going through the rests of the posts here I just came across the following:

You poor man. I almost feel sorry for you. . . . Almost.

Are you going to engage in an actual debate or just troll the offer?

 

[Skwim]

Cite appropriately, either by MLA or APA standards, please.

As if you'd go out and pick up a copy to check it out.

Are you going to engage in an actual debate or just troll the offer?

Just what is it you feel needs to be debated; the proof I presented or my explanations of validity, proof, and soundness?

 

[HiddenDjinn]

As if you'd go out and pick up a copy to check it out.

Sure, I'd head to the New York Public Library to check your sources.

Just what is it you feel needs to be debated; the proof I presented or my explanations of validity, proof, and soundness?

The major contention is the soundness of the argument.

 

[Skwim]

The major contention is the soundness of the argument.

As I said in the post, "And therefore [the proof] isn't concerned with being sound [the soundness of the argument], but being valid."
Unless one accepts the premises as true the conclusion that follows will never be sound to you.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

As I said in the post, "And therefore [the proof] isn't concerned with being sound [the soundness of the argument], but being valid."
Unless one accepts the premises as true the conclusion that follows will never be sound to you.

And I can argue that the argument shouldn't be sound to anyone, should we debate the merits of the argument. The problem: not easily argued one way or the other in a free-for-all.

 

[9Westy9]

opcorn:

 

[McBell]

As I said in the post, "And therefore [the proof] isn't concerned with being sound [the soundness of the argument], but being valid."
Unless one accepts the premises as true the conclusion that follows will never be sound to you.

Seems to me that this is a big part of the problem.

A sound argument is sound regardless of its validity.
The argument in the op is logically sound.
It just happens to be invalid.

Far to many people think that if an argument is logically sound, that it has to be valid as well.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

Seems to me that this is a big part of the problem.

A sound argument is sound regardless of its validity.
The argument in the op is logically sound.
It just happens to be invalid.

Far to many people think that if an argument is logically sound, that it has to be valid as well.

You have philosophical definitions of "valid" and "sound" mixed up. It's the other way around.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Cite appropriately, either by MLA or APA standards, please.

Seriously? You're going to take issue with citation standards? Why limit to MLA or APA? Why not chicago? Or ASA? It's a forum post, not a term paper or a dissertation (and journals will often have some idiosyncratic standards anyway). If you can get the information you need, that's all that matters. And if you wanted a page number or a quote, one can ask for those things without requiring "appropriate" citations (whatever that may involve on an online discussion forum).

 

[McBell]

You have philosophical definitions of "valid" and "sound" mixed up. It's the other way around.

Yes, I do have a mess up with the words used.

What I mean to say is that an argument being logically sound does not make said argument valid outside the argument itself.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What I mean to say is that an argument being logically sound does not make said argument valid outside the argument itself.

As far as logic is concerned it does. Being valid is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for soundness.

 

[McBell]

As far as logic is concerned it does. Being valid is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for soundness.

But it does not make what has been logically deduced true outside of the argument used to deduce it.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

Seriously? You're going to take issue with citation standards? Why limit to MLA or APA? Why not chicago? Or ASA? It's a forum post, not a term paper or a dissertation (and journals will often have some idiosyncratic standards anyway). If you can get the information you need, that's all that matters. And if you wanted a page number or a quote, one can ask for those things without requiring "appropriate" citations (whatever that may involve on an online discussion forum).

TBH, I don't care as long as I can understand how to check the citation.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

But it does not make what has been logically deducted true outside of the argument used to deduct it.

I'm not sure I follow. In order for an argument to be valid, the conclusion must follow from the premises (or, if the premises were true, the conclusion must also be true). For it to be sound, it must be valid and the premises must be true.

 

[McBell]

I'm not sure I follow. In order for an argument to be valid, the conclusion must follow from the premises (or, if the premises were true, the conclusion must also be true). For it to be sound, it must be valid and the premises must be true.

You can have a logically sound argument and not a single premise be true.

To be logically sound the conclusion must follow from the premises.

There is nothing that says the premises must be true.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You can have a logically sound argument and not a single premise be true.

The definition of a sound argument is one that is valid and all the premises are true.

To be logically sound the conclusion must follow from the premises.

That's validity

 

[McBell]

The definition of a sound argument is one that is valid and all the premises are true.


That's validity

Hmmm....

Seems I have had to much sugar.

You are right.

So I stand corrected, the argument in the OP is not logically sound.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

Hmmm....

Seems I have had to much sugar.

You are right.

So I stand corrected, the argument in the OP is not logically sound.

Exactly what I'm saying. The argument in the OP is not logically sound. I further propose that the argument cannot be considered logically sound by any reasonable person.

 

[Skwim]

And I can argue that the argument shouldn't be sound to anyone, should we debate the merits of the argument. The problem: not easily argued one way or the other in a free-for-all.

Now I'm not sure what you're talking about. Your initial response to me, post 140 addressed what I said in post 139. My reply to this, post 161, was still in reference to the subject of post 139, as was your post 162, and my post 163. And so it went with your 164 and my 165, which brings us to the present, where you say,

"And I can argue that the argument shouldn't be sound to anyone, should we debate the merits of the argument."
​

Now the argument I posted in 139 had no statements, true or otherwise, only symbols, so naturally there would be no truth value to it to argue about. I told you in 139 that soundness wasn't an applicable judgment of it, so unless you switched mental gears somewhere, that's the argument still under consideration. So, are you now talking about some other argument that contains statements that could make an argument sound or unsound?

What I mean to say is that an argument being logically sound does not make said argument valid outside the argument itself.

Don't know what "valid outside the argument" means, but any argument that is sound necessarily means it is also valid.