Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

[Darth Wong]

That's great: his special exemption is justified by declaring that it is a "necessary truth". And of course, no such statement can be made about the universe even though it indisputably exists: something we cannot say for God.

[Surlethe]

All these pure deductive proofs of God seem to be nothing more than proofs that the universe or systems of logic exist: trivial in the extreme. That's if they don't just beg the question or have obviously false premises.

Here's a way of thinking about this sort of 'proof'. Consider reaction if there were a deductive proof (i.e., one not based on empirical observations) that the Milky Way galaxy exists, or that Newton's second law exists. You would be suspicious: something as particular a phenomenon as a physical law or the Milky Way is bound to require something meatier than simple philosophical presumptions. God is in the same category, so one should always approach this sort of argument with extreme skepticism.

[Darth Wong]

Indeed. If you concoct a series of premises which assume that God exists, you can use them to logically prove that God exists. It's the world's smallest circle. Then again, I've actually had a fundie say to me "what's wrong with circular logic", so there's really nothing beneath these people.

[Surlethe]

Indeed. If you concoct a series of premises which assume that God exists, you can use them to logically prove that God exists. It's the world's smallest circle. Then again, I've actually had a fundie say to me "what's wrong with circular logic", so there's really nothing beneath these people.

Every once in a while, I'll come up against an argument which goes something like this: "Well, how do you know that science isn't flawed? If God exists, then science doesn't work, and therefore not a good place to base your worldview."

The really great thing about this argument is that it's essentially an admission of defeat; it's logically equivalent to saying that if science isn't terribly flawed, God can't exist. And it's really not difficult to show that science works.

[Alyrium Denryle]

What they dont understand is that when writing a syllogism, IF the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. The key word is IF the premises are true.

If I write the syllogism

All salamanders are amphibians
Viviana The Iron Maiden (my pet salamander) is a salamander
ergo: Viviana the Iron Maiden is an amphibian

I must verify the premise that all salamanders are amphibians. Now, this is a simple matter, because the order salamanders are in, Urodela, (actually salamanders ARE urodela, formerly Caudata) is nested within Amphibia, and thus amphibians by definition.

I must then verify that Viviana The Iron Maiden is a salamander. Again, a relatively simple matter, as she possesses the characters that make her, bu definition, a salamander.

Thus the conclusion must be true (if the form of this syllogism is valid, which it is)

The deductive arguments used by apologists are valid. That is, the form is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be. But the premises remain unverified and thus the syllogism may or may not be sound. The problem is, they have to deductively prove their premises because they are not exactly first principles or true by definition, they must themselves be proven using syllogisms, which requires that the argument be a massive massive compound syllogism.