The Debate of God.

[Curious George]

But in any case making it a 2-part 'either/or' is still inadequate to the question; in order to be logical, all possibilities must be contained within the premise.

All possibilities are contained but they are hidden. While it still is an either or it is a lopsided either or not a 50/50 as Pascal argued.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

All possibilities are contained but they are hidden.

If they are unknown then they aren't 'contained', since you need to compare them in order to consider them. Aren't we talking about a mental exercise leading to a logical conclusion? Uninformed choice isn't really a moral choice [since we are talking about God ], it is only as valid as its own scope of all known paths... it's as logically valid as flipping a coin.

 

[Curious George]

If they are unknown then they aren't 'contained', since you need to compare them in order to consider them. Aren't we talking about a mental exercise? Uninformed choice isn't really a moral choice... it's as morally valid as flipping a coin.

You are mistaken, say for instance I have a paper bag. I can say that their either is or is not an apple in that bag. I do not need to know every other possibility to make this claim I only need to know what an apple is. To assume that this either-or statement- of there either is an apple in the bag or there is not an apple in the bag- is a 50/50 proposition is illogical. And, therein lies your mistake.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

You are mistaken, say for instance I have a paper bag. I can say that their either is or is not an apple in that bag. I do not need to know every other possibility to make this claim I only need to know what an apple is. To assume that this either-or statement- of there either is an apple in the bag or there is not an apple in the bag- is a 50/50 proposition is illogical. And, therein lies your mistake.

No, your analogy does not apply.
All you'd know is that there was an object in the bag.

In other words to assume it was an apple out of all other possible similar objects someone would have already told you it was an apple or not.

It could be two half-rounds of wood.

You are begging the question, another logical fallacy.

 

[Curious George]

No, your analogy does not apply.
All you'd know is that there was an object in the bag.

In other words to assume it was an apple out of all other possible similar objects someone would have already told you it was an apple or not.

It could be two half-rounds of wood.

You are begging the question, another logical fallacy.

you are mistaken again. I am not begging the question and I would not assume it was an apple or not.

are you reading my posts clearly?

we have a bag? Choosing arbitrarily an apple is not illogical. as you suggested in the bag could be two half-rounds of wood, if this were the case then we could say that their was not an apple inside the bag. Inside the bag could be nothing. Again in this case there is not an apple in the bag. Inside the could be an apple and a hamburger. In this case there is an apple in the bag.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

you are mistaken again. I am not begging the question and I would not assume it was an apple or not.

are you reading my posts clearly?

we have a bag? Choosing arbitrarily an apple is not illogical. as you suggested in the bag could be two half-rounds of wood, if this were the case then we could say that their was not an apple inside the bag. Inside the bag could be nothing. Again in this case there is not an apple in the bag. Inside the could be an apple and a hamburger. In this case there is an apple in the bag.

You are mistaken. Please look up 'begging the question'.

It's ok, you made a mistake. Move on.

 

[Curious George]

You are mistaken. Please look up 'begging the question'.

It's ok, you made a mistake. Move on.

I am well aware of what begging the question is and I am not begging the question. However, to humor you let us proceed.

Begging the question (Latin petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which a proposition relies on an implicit premise within itself to establish the truth of that same proposition

Now let us examine the logic.

We have a bag.

I say to you, "you know friend inside that bag there either is an apple or there is not an apple."

You say, "why that is preposterous. You cannot know what is in that bag."

I say, "you are right, I cannot know 100% of what is in that bag but nonetheless my statement holds. Either inside that bag an apple exists or inside that bag no apple exists."

you say, "Sir you are begging the question"

I say,"no friend I am simply stating a fundamental rule of logic such that 'A is B' and 'A is not B' are mutually exclusive"

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I am well aware of what begging the question is and I am not begging the question. However, to humor you let us proceed.



Now let us examine the logic.

We have a bag.

I say to you, "you know friend inside that bag there either is an apple or there is not an apple."

That was you, begging the question.

Being condescending to the person who gently showed you you were wrong, is not becoming of you.

 

[Curious George]

That was you, begging the question.

Being condescending to the person who gently showed you you were wrong, is not becoming of you.

Again, you are mistaken

the statement either there is an apple inside the bag or there is not an apple inside the bag is not a premise but a conclusion. The premises would be apples can exist, and it is possible for an apple to exist inside the bag.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Again, you are mistaken

the statement either there is an apple inside the bag or there is not an apple inside the bag is not a premise but a conclusion. The premises would be apples can exist, and it is possible for an apple to exist inside the bag.

You were begging the question by specifying an apple when you offered the bag.

It's interesting, but you were wrong in your analogy of the bag exactly how you were wrong about Pascal's Wager.

But by all means, tell me I was mistaken again.

 

[Curious George]

Btw I am not trying to come off as condescending and I apologize if it seems thus. I am trying to understand where our miscommunication rests. I do not see clearly what you are trying to say and if you do see what I am suggesting perhaps you can accurately assess where the miscommunication is.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

The correct logical question is 'Hold this bag. If you detect an object in the bag, try and figure out what the object is without looking into the bag."

[edit] the location of the miscommunication is that you are resisting being shown you were wrong.

Pascal's Wager is logical crap. There exist more than two possibilities.

 

[Curious George]

You were begging the question by specifying an apple.

It's interesting, but you were wrong in your analogy of the bag exactly how you were wrong about Pascal's Wager.

But by all means, tell me I was mistaken again.

let me try again with both premises and the conclusion

apples can exist, it is possible for an apple to exist in the bag, either an apple exists in the bag or no apple exists in the bag.

Choosing arbitrarily apples is not supposing any premise implicit in the conclusion.

 

[Curious George]

The correct logical question is 'Hold this bag. If you detect an object in the bag, try and figure out what the object is without looking into the bag."

[edit] the location of the miscommunication is that you are resisting being shown you were wrong.

Pascal's Wager is logical crap. There exist more than two possibilities.

The other possibilities are accounted. For instance, wood as you suggested does not negate my conclusion, having nothing in the bag does not negate my conclusion, having an apple and something else unforeseen does not negate my conclusion. Of all the possible outcomes I fail to see any which is some possibility that is not accounted for with my conclusion.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

let me try again with both premises and the conclusion

apples can exist, it is possible for an apple to exist in the bag, either an apple exists in the bag or no apple exists in the bag.

Choosing arbitrarily apples is not supposing any premise implicit in the conclusion.

Still doing it.

the point you are missing is that it could be any object similar in shape or mass to an apple, or could be another object contained within a hollowed-out apple or anything else. The instant you stated 'apple' before any examination by the person being handed to bag is begging the question.

If you are presenting a logical premise concerning the existence of any sort of deific then ALL possibilities must be included for the premise to be honest. I have showed why. You even conceded to the offered examples earlier. I don't need to do anything more.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Choosing arbitrarily apples is not supposing any premise implicit in the conclusion.

it does, looking back at the Pascal's Wager you were trying to apologize for via a new example. Apple/nothing is the false dichotomy, because it could be something else that also isn't an apple.

It's not God/nothing.

 

[Curious George]

Still doing it.

the point you are missing is that it could be any object similar in shape or mass to an apple, or could be another object contained within a hollowed-out apple or anything else. The instant you stated 'apple' before any examination by the person being handed to bag is begging the question.

If you are presenting a logical premise concerning the existence of any sort of deific then ALL possibilities must be included for the premise to be honest. I have showed why. You even conceded to the offered examples earlier. I don't need to do anything more.

It does not matter whether or not the object within was similar to an apple or not. I do not see the necessity for examining the bag either. I conceded that while those examples could be in the bag that they hold no validity of the truth of my conclusion.

 

[Curious George]

it does, looking back at the Pascal's Wager you were trying to apologize for via a new example. Apple/nothing is the false dichotomy, because it could be something else that also isn't an apple.

It's not God/nothing.

no the choice is not apple or nothing. the choice is X or not X.

And the same holds true for my original claim. God does not exist includes the possibility that other gods do exist.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

the choice is X or not X.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

'God does not exist', 'one God exists' 'a number of Gods exist'.