How is S-> G assuming God exists?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
My argument from vision circular?
- Thread starter Link
- Start date
Because that thread was mostly about something else.
Your own words:
"p2 Only God can see who we are in terms of value nothing else can."
That is assumption that a certain god exists and also that it has an ability that nothing else does.
It doesn't assume God exists. You can say it again in a different way. That if vision of value of who we are exists, then God exists (since no one else can see us but him). Only God can see who were are in terms of value nothing else can does not assume God exists. This especially should not be read that way when I clarified it's If S then G or S -> G. That removes the ambiguity.
I am not following.
S -> G neither assume the sight nor God exists. It's a statement of implication.
Value is a social construct. It seems to me that, depending on the "we" in question:
- in some time periods, in some cultures, "who we are" is life created in the image of God,
- in other time periods, in other cultures, "who we are" is property, and
- in still other cultures, in still other time periods, "who we are" is lunch.
So you dispute V (the premise). But it's still a valid argument. I know people can argue against these premises, but they all seem obviously true to me. That we do have value objectively rings true to me and to many.
The question is not whether we have value objectively, but whether we have objective value.
Honestly, you are directly contradicting yourself. It is not even a circular definition.
Yeah, somethings are properly basic, but I argue we all know it. I can't prove the premise, just remind that we all know it.
That we have value objectively means same thing. But yeah better to say objective value less confusion. I invert sometimes not purposely.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Since validity is all you're looking for, all that's needed is to add 2 lines to resolve the problem, I think, and also maybe a tiny adjustment in language to make it clearer.
(V) Value to who we are
(S) Sight to who we are.
(G) God exists
Here is my revised version:
- Each person has an absolute objective value
- Therefore: an absolutely objective judge exists
- No human is absolutely objective
- God is defined as a non-human absolutely objective judge
- Therefore: God exists
In your revised version, 2 assumes two hidden premises.
1. That our value to who we are requires perception
2. Absolutely objective judge alone can see our value
My premises can be rephrased as
If there exists accurate value to who we are, then there exists a perception to who we are.
If there exists a perception to who we are, then God exists since he alone can perceive our exact value
There exists an objective value to who we are (same as your premise 1)
Therefore God exists.
I forgot to tell people there is rule in logic A-> B B-> C means A-> C (transitional rule).
Another way we can phrase the argument.
p1 If God does not exist, there doesn't exist a perception to who we exactly are (since he alone can judge perfectly to value).
p2 If there doesn't exist a perception to exactly who we are, there doesn't exist exact value to who we are.
p3 There exists exact value to who we are (assertion)
Therefore God exists. (modus tollens p3 with transitional rule to p2 and p1)
p1: Not G -> Not S
p2: Not S -> Not V
p3: V
c: G (modus tollens p3 with transitional rule to p2 and p1)
Last edited:
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Agree 100%. It looks perfectly valid to me. The objections will likely come from attacking objective value, but that has no bearing on the logic. It is not circular.
Hopefully, we can get a discussion now other than misunderstanding and thinking it's invalid. I'm going to make three separate threads, one for each premise.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
If the purpose is proving that people have objective value, I doubt anything will be accomplished.
What does "we" mean here? ─ each of us one by one, or all of us as a job lot?
What does "value" mean here? ─ some individual's opinion of what human quality exactly?
─ Or some market mechanism such as what you'd be worth in the slave market? Or in a bidding war between IBM and Google?
─ Or what?
What does "sight" mean here? The onlooking assessment of our "value"?
What does "God" mean here? ─ A real being with objective existence and thus found in the world external to the self, reality? If so, why not ask [him] rather than those who post on RF?
─ Or (as is my view) does "God" exist only as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain?
The God here means a real being, but the premise is an implication, it does not assume God exists.