Is Logic Biased Towards Atheism?

[Bobby_A.Greene]

**Logic is a language **

A language contains an alphabet, a vocabulary, rules of grammar, and syntax. A language can be inflexive or analytical. And language is generative. Logic is none of these, therefore logic is not a language. The same applies to a computer program, calling a computer program a ‘language’ is a misnomer.

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

David Brown:

I often do confuse myself. But, you said (I cut your whole statement from # 37): “I am also observing the word ‘logic’ being very loosely used. There are not several different types of logic, but there are several different types of ‘systems of reasoning’ which are not true logic.” So you must have some meaning for “true logic” or were you just being redundant? Did you really mean “which are not logic”? You still haven’t explained your terms in any case.

By the way, I have studied logic as an undergraduate. I studied logic as a graduate student at Houston. I studied logic as a post-graduate student at Toronto. And I have studied logic as a philosophy professor and logic teacher for almost ten years.

So you have to excuse me, but when I hear someone say: “There is no such thing as “Mathematical Logic”!” (post # 36) and “Also, there is no such thing as “Philosophical Logic”!” (post # 36) and someone who doesn’t know: “For example, what aspects of logic are found in Modal Logic that are not already contained in Logic?” (post # 35), I have to wonder if they understand logic. I have cited references for the existence of Mathematical Logic (post # 44). I have cited references for the existence of Philosophical Logic (post # 45). I have cited examples of non-traditional logics (post # 45). All of which can easily be discovered and which are well-known and well-accepted in the philosophical community (of which I am a card-carrying member). I have told you (post # 43) what modal logic has that is not in traditional logic (operators for possibility and necessity). And yet you bleat on about how I should study logic??? PLEASE!

You might try something constructive, like giving the specific difference for logic as a system of reasoning and accounting for all the logics you claim don’t exist.

David

I’m sorry David, I didn’t mean to make you crazy.

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

Catholic2003:

Bertrand Russell also wrote Why I am Not a Christian, thus bringing us back to the “athiests made up the rules of logic” claim.

On the subject of logic and atheism we shouldn’t neglect that oft quoted mathematician, Goedel.

atheism.about.com/b/a/153900.htm

geocities.com/williamiv.geo/Stories/Papers/Logicv3.htm

 

[MysticRose]

Bobby A. Greene:

A language contains an alphabet, a vocabulary, rules of grammar, and syntax. A language can be inflexive or analytical. And language is generative. Logic is none of these, therefore logic is not a language. The same applies to a computer program, calling a computer program a ‘language’ is a misnomer.

lan·guage (lnggwj)

NOUN:

1a)**Communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, **such as ** voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols. ** (again such as but not only)
b)Such a system including its rules for combining its components, such as words. (such as but not only)
c)Such a system as used by a nation, people, or other distinct community; often contrasted with dialect.

2a)**A system of signs, symbols, gestures, or rules used in communicating: the language of algebra. **
b)Computer Science A system of symbols and rules used for communication with or between computers.
3)Body language; kinesics.
4)The special vocabulary and usages of a scientific, professional, or other group: “his total mastery of screen language camera placement, editingand his handling of actors” (Jack Kroll).
5)A characteristic style of speech or writing: Shakespearean language.
6)A particular manner of expression: profane language; persuasive language.
7)The manner or means of communication between living creatures other than humans: the language of dolphins.
8)Verbal communication as a subject of study.
9)The wording of a legal document or statute as distinct from the spirit.

It seems to me there are many different types of language and that therefore logic in itself could be and is because of it’s use of rules to define the way it is used therefore a language unto itself.

Bobby I am confused which side are you on in this the Catholic side or the Atheist side …

 

[David_Brown]

Bobby A. Greene:

I’m sorry David, I didn’t mean to make you crazy.

I am sorry for getting mad (and crazy).

David

 

[David_Brown]

Bobby A. Greene:

A language contains an alphabet, a vocabulary, rules of grammar, and syntax. A language can be inflexive or analytical. And language is generative. Logic is none of these, therefore logic is not a language. The same applies to a computer program, calling a computer program a ‘language’ is a misnomer.

To tip my hand, I agree with MysticRose. Logic (in at least some systems) has subjects, predicates, relations, tenses (and inflections), grammar and syntax (there are punctuation rules in Logic, for example), and more. It certainly is analytic. True, it is considered an artificial language and no one thinks a system of logic captures every distinction in natural language but it has most if not all of what you mentioned in some degree.

But if you don’t see logic as a language in any sense, how do you explain:
(1) The similarities mentioned above (subjects, predicates, etc.)?
(2) How do you explain that fact that logic can translate natural language into various symbolic expressions, manipulate those expressions, and then translate them back into a natural language–with the assumption that the conclusion bears on a truth expressed in that natural language?
(3) That some logicians and some linguists see natural language having a “deep logic” or 'deep grammer" which gives a logical structure to the linguistic rules of natural languages (Perhaps something like the ‘universal grammar’ of Chomsky or something like Steven Pinker’s The Language Instinct)?

I don’t see how you can address questions like those without seeing logic as a language in some sense (as MysticRose claimed). Why is it important to deny this anyway?

David

 

[buffalo]

atheos_sum:

Perhaps it is the idea that logic alone will not lead one to God. One needs to have faith in order to believe in God. So, without faith, and with only logic, perhaps one is inclined to be an atheist. Maybe that is what this person was saying. Logic is a kind of reason, and there is an inverse relationship between reason and faith.

What is the tiebreaker? God’s Revelation. It seems to me to be a necessary part for without his Revelation our limited intellect and reasoning ability could not get to an endpoint.

 

[David_Brown]

john doran:

it depends on your definition of “faith”. i am assuming a rather blandly generic “belief in a (set of) proposition(s) for which one has no proof”. which means, of course, that belief in the laws of logic on the basis of anything other than their (discursive) demonstrability, is belief grounded in faith.

but that is as may be. i would venture to suggest that the existence of the real world and the reliability of our senses and the existence of the past are also all “self-evident” in a very real way.

I don’t think your definition of faith is as “bland” or harmless as you seem to think. In fact it generates problems that should be avoided. The division of faith/no proof and knowledge/proof evacuates the intellectual dimension from faith and sets up a potential conflict that doesn’t need to be there.

Aquinas, in his Commentary on the De Trinitate of Boethius (to which I referred in post # 31 above), claims that “matters of faith cannot be demonstratively proved.” This means that faith can have reasons but that those reasons don’t demonstrate the truth of what is believed. This means that faith can have some intellectual content and therfore allows for a natural theology. It also raises the bar for claims to knowledge.

David

 

[john_doran]

David Brown:

I don’t think your definition of faith is as “bland” or harmless as you seem to think. In fact it generates problems that should be avoided. The division of faith/no proof and knowledge/proof evacuates the intellectual dimension from faith and sets up a potential conflict that doesn’t need to be there.

Aquinas, in his Commentary on the De Trinitate of Boethius (to which I referred in post # 31 above), claims that “matters of faith cannot be demonstratively proved.” This means that faith can have reasons but that those reasons don’t demonstrate the truth of what is believed. This means that faith can have some intellectual content and therfore allows for a natural theology. It also raises the bar for claims to knowledge.

i agree with your second paragraph, but disagree that it follows from the first (though i am not sure you intended anything like an entailment relation between the two).

in retrospect, i should have been more clear that the kind of proof i am disclaiming is the sense of proof as something like “to demonstrate with irrefutable (cartesian) certainty”, as well as the assumption that such demonstrability is a necessary condition for knowledge.

in short, i am simply making plantinga’s point that, if warrant of that degree is your goal and criterion for “knowledge” or “certainty”, then there is (almost) nothing of which we can be certain. but, since we are sure that we do, in fact, know a fair number of things, then it must be the case that the criterion of (thoroughgoing) demonstrability is false.

for sure one can have faith in some proposition p for which one also has independently sound deductive or inductive - but ultimately non-entailing - evidence; the role faith plays in such situations is to close the deductive gap: i have good reason to believe that the people claiming to be my parents are, in fact, my parents, and despite that i am aware of no logically incontrovertible proof of the truth of their claim, i tjink i “know” them to be my parents…

if i am not mistaken, this is also (and far more interestingly, if you ask me) the role aquinas gives moral wisdom in his ethical philosophy…

by the way, david, when were you at U of T? i did a number of philosophy degrees there over the years…

 

[atheos_sum]

David Brown:

A friendly question atheos_sum:

William James’ essay “The Will to Believe” is generally taken to be trying to refute arguments like the atheistic argument of W. K. Cliifford in “The Ethics of Belief” (infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html)). In that essay Clifford famously said: “To sum up: it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” James argued that Clifford is wrong, at least in the case of live, forced, momentous options (which would include some religious and ethical choices).

Do you associate James with your pragmatic atheism? If so, how? I am curious.

David

No. He was not an atheist, and I don’t associate his arguments as somehow vindicating atheism in particular. Like i said in the above post, I find his idea of live and dead options useful in explaining my views. Did you understand what i wrote?

James’ views were complex, and many have used his pragmatism to justify a variety of beliefs.

 

[David_Brown]

john doran:

i agree with your second paragraph, but disagree that it follows from the first (though i am not sure you intended anything like an entailment relation between the two).

in retrospect, i should have been more clear that the kind of proof i am disclaiming is the sense of proof as something like “to demonstrate with irrefutable (cartesian) certainty”, as well as the assumption that such demonstrability is a necessary condition for knowledge.

in short, i am simply making plantinga’s point that, if warrant of that degree is your goal and criterion for “knowledge” or “certainty”, then there is (almost) nothing of which we can be certain. but, since we are sure that we do, in fact, know a fair number of things, then it must be the case that the criterion of (thoroughgoing) demonstrability is false.

for sure one can have faith in some proposition p for which one also has independently sound deductive or inductive - but ultimately non-entailing - evidence; the role faith plays in such situations is to close the deductive gap: i have good reason to believe that the people claiming to be my parents are, in fact, my parents, and despite that i am aware of no logically incontrovertible proof of the truth of their claim, i tjink i “know” them to be my parents…

if i am not mistaken, this is also (and far more interestingly, if you ask me) the role aquinas gives moral wisdom in his ethical philosophy…

by the way, david, when were you at U of T? i did a number of philosophy degrees there over the years…

Thank you. In reverse order UT '93-'97. Joe Boyle was my supervisor. I had Dumont (?), Gooch, and Inwood as my main teachers. When were you there?

Since Plantinga has “difficulties” with natural theology, it is not surprising. Using Plantinga does present some challanges to a Catholic. Rational Faith: Catholic Responses to Reformed Epistemology , ed. Linda Zagaebski has some responses to Plantinga and others. Though he has warmed up a bit to Aquinas in Warranted Christian Belief, I think he still has a generally skeptical view of natural theology.

You are right that I did not think my first paragraph entailed the second. But I did think Aquinas gave a different view from what I saw implied in your definition, and since you had Plantinga in mind I guess you (harmlessly) did.

Thanks again,

David

 

[atheos_sum]

MysticRose:

I have a question here how is that man excepts these concepts as factual in the first place as fact? Does he not have to have Faith in Logic and that logic is therefore something that is without error so that it can be relied upon to be believed as true even to begin with?

faith (fth)

NOUN:

1)Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

It seems for most in this thread you like to run right past the FACT that you have to have Faith to even believe in logic therefore making Atheism a system of beliefs and therefore making it technically a religion in itself … by defintion … Atheism even though it denies God is still a system of beliefs in denial of God and therefore because this CANNOT be conclusively proven then it is a theory therefore it is a belief system. BY the way by the rules of logical stements what I have just stated is a fact, and therefore a logical true or positive statement …therefore an atheist would have to contend that the negative is the truth but in logic the positive is always more true than the negative UNTIL proven. Atheists contend on a regular basis that we have the positive side not the negative and then will say that it is our job to prve the positive when in the laws of logic this is not so at all as the positive always outweighs the negative therefore it is harder to prove the negative statement …

If you make you post more understandable, perhaps i will better be able to respond. For i do believe my views to be consistent, but i would not want to address an issue you are not raising.

Are you saying that one has to have “faith” in the law of logic in order to be justified in using them? What is the postive and negative–are you saying the burden of proof is on the atheist to prove God does not exist instead of the theist first proving that he does?

 

[David_Brown]

atheos_sum:

No. He was not an atheist, and I don’t associate his arguments as somehow vindicating atheism in particular. Like i said in the above post, I find his idea of live and dead options useful in explaining my views. Did you understand what i wrote?

James’ views were complex, and many have used his pragmatism to justify a variety of beliefs.

Yes, I thought I got it. Did I miss something? It seemed a bit odd and more than a bit interesting (which is why I asked) that you referred to a work where James clearly has an atheist in his sights and is arguing to justify at least some religious and moral choices without having proof. I knew he was not an atheist, and was pretty sure you knew it too (so I didn’t question that), but I hadn’t heard an atheist appeal to that particular work (Pragmatism and the other stuff, yes, but not “The Will to Believe”)>. I was just fascinated. Nothing more.

Thanks,

David

 

[john_doran]

David Brown:

Thank you. In reverse order UT '93-'97. Joe Boyle was my supervisor. I had Dumont (?), Gooch, and Inwood as my main teachers. When were you there?

that’s really interesting - joe was my supervisor, too…i was at st. mike’s for the better part of a decade, from '90 through something like 2001 (i took a year off).

i’m not sure i had main teachers, though i took something of a shine to katz. i had mark kingwell for a class or two, as well, before he embarked on his path to more popular literary fame…other than that, i pretty much played the field and didn’t really consult anyone about anything (a failing of mine that reared its ugly head when i was in law school at U of T, too…sigh).
David Brown:

Since Plantinga has “difficulties” with natural theology, it is not surprising. Using Plantinga does present some challanges to a Catholic. Rational Faith: Catholic Responses to Reformed Epistemology , ed. Linda Zagaebski has some responses to Plantinga and others. Though he has warmed up a bit to Aquinas in Warranted Christian Belief, I think he still has a generally skeptical view of natural theology.

i remember discussing plantinga’s views with boyle (who once told me that plantinga was the smartest guy he knew - “if you’re talking about the most revved-up sixteen-wheeler of a mind, then plantinga’s the guy”…); i also remember joe mentioning zagaebski’s book as the catholic philosopher’s response to plantinga’s reformed theology…

i guess now that i’ve read the full range of plantinga’s corpus, i’d say that i don’t believe whatever skepticism the professor may or may not harbor toward natural theology (as thomistically conceived, anyway) is entailed by the rest of his philosophy.
David Brown:

You are right that I did not think my first paragraph entailed the second. But I did think Aquinas gave a different view from what I saw implied in your definition, and since you had Plantinga in mind I guess you (harmlessly) did.

given my explanation in the preceding paragraph, i think we’re at more or less of a consensus ad idem here…

nice to talk to you, david.

take care.

 

[MysticRose]

atheos_sum:

If you make you post more understandable, perhaps i will better be able to respond. For i do believe my views to be consistent, but i would not want to address an issue you are not raising.

Are you saying that one has to have “faith” in the law of logic in order to be justified in using them? What is the postive and negative–are you saying the burden of proof is on the atheist to prove God does not exist instead of the theist first proving that he does?

Yes that is exactly what I have been trying to say throughout this thread in many different ways now. That because nothing is absolute because of the ever-existing reasoning that anything can be changed due to lack of information in the past, thereby then changing it’s dynamic in the future, then it can only be relatively absolute. Meaning the absolute is contigent upon the information known at the time. Even in Mathematics where absolutes are the hardest to disprove and mostly known to occur, Mathematicians have said that it is relative to the known applications given and if the application changes then the absolute can change. So therefore, by this standard, and what is the true defintion of Fact, nothing is absolute fact. Even now facts change all the time given the information that is known to the Scientist and if new information is gathered then facts from before can become obsolete and new facts entered into it’s place. Again this is therefore, theorizing not fact.

So, there is a degree of error and in anything of which there is a degree of error that is then presented as a fact you must then have faith at the time that the fact presented is an absolute that will not change. Thereby you have faith entered into a system of beliefs where Atheists claim there is absolute absence of belief and faith …

This is not true, if they claim God does not exist without actual absolute proof then it is a contention and therefore theorized that God does not exist because of a set of information that they have gathered that they say is the supposition to the claim. But the fact remian that it is still a belief or a theory because it cannot be proven. Just as you cannot truly prove Scientifically that God does exist you cannot prove that he does not so therefore it is theory on the behalf of both sides, Scientifically speaking.

Now in the case of proing something to the positive you must first remove the negative aspects so that the positive is the only thing that remains… therefore by this a Scientist works from the negative aspect not the positive … therefore if I have the negative claim then it is encumbent on me to prove it not the other way around.

The positive is always right until proven wrong by he negative. Therefore, the claim of Atheists all the time that it is on us to prove Christianity and God exists is our burden ( that the burden of proof lays with us) is actually a strawman argumentation used and devised because it is truly an unwinable argument Scientifically on both sides of the equation. It is simply a matter of deflection on their part to make us appear weaker than they are when reality we are on the very same playing field Scientifically speaking.

Where we outweigh there argumentation is in the realm of personal observation and human interaction which again they will quickly find almost every strawman argument to disprove. The human mind and our own sense of reality is more highly enlightened to truth then any other creatures on this planet. So therefore it is not something that can easily be dismissed that people have such revelations and personal relationships with God or that their hearts know that something (God) does truly exist and therefore they have Faith in the enlightened sense of Him.

They though will then say that we are crazy, that it is a mental deficiency in the human mind and that we should not allow ourselves to be ruled by this deficiency. Whereas, most of the human race has this enlightened sense of being that goes beyond the realm of what can be physically seen felt and touched in order to be believed. I truly believe that some just do not understand that they are the ones that are limitted either because of unenlightened sense or because they keep themselves from developing it on purpose out of fear.

 

[David_Brown]

MysticRose:

…

Now in the case of proing something to the positive you must first remove the negative aspects so that the positive is the only thing that remains… therefore by this a Scientist works from the negative aspect not the positive … therefore if I have the negative claim then it is encumbent on me to prove it not the other way around.

The positive is always right until proven wrong by he negative. Therefore, the claim of Atheists all the time that it is on us to prove Christianity and God exists is our burden ( that the burden of proof lays with us) is actually a strawman argumentation used and devised because it is truly an unwinable argument Scientifically on both sides of the equation. It is simply a matter of deflection on their part to make us appear weaker than they are when reality we are on the very same playing field Scientifically speaking.

I know atheos_sum will have his own questions but I am confused about the paragraphs above.
(1) I am not sure of the method you propose for “proving something to the positive.” Apart from not understanding exactly what you are saying, I don’t see science or any other rational activity as operating that way. But since I find it hard to see the method you propose (it doesn’t look like any of the methods I cover in my philosophy of science course) I might not get it.

(2) As for the claim in the second paragraph above (“The positive is always right until proven wrong by he negative”), I wonder where this rule came from. As I have mentioned in previous posts I have taught philosophy and logic for almost 10 years and have never found that rule in philosophy or logic–but since I don’t know everything I might have missed it. I don’t even know how one would go about defending it (especially as “positve” statements can be given a “negative” form and vice versa, I don’t see how it helps to make the distinction). Since the rule is not self-evident, in any case, could you please give the reasons behind adopting it? Perhaps say where it came from.

Thanks,

David

 

[MysticRose]

Ok I have a situation for you and it is hypothetical, (because in reality our justice system does not always work this way, sorry I am tainted), but it is believed that someone is INNOCENT unitl proven guilty am I right? That is the premise of law and logic that our justice system works on.

innocence is the positive and guilt being the negative

Who’s job is it then to prove what? is it the job of the the person on trial to actually prove the case or is it the job of the job of the prosecutor, who brought the negative charge against the defendant to begin with to prove that the defendant is guilty in the first place?

So therefore, you have the positive statement " I am not guilty, I did not commit the crime" which although has the negative in it with the word not is still positive in context of the statement itself. Then, you have the negative “you are guilty, you did commit the crime” which although does not include the negative connotation of “not” in the statement the context of the statement itself is negative because it is accusatory and is implying that someone has done a crime, and is guilty of said crime.

The positive then sits and waits for the negative to prove that the positive is in actuality the negative. Where does the Original burden of proof lie? Even if we explore the words given to them …

Prosecutor and then Defendant…
pros·e·cut·ing attorney (prs-kytng) KEY

NOUN:
Abbr. PA or Pros. Atty.
A lawyer empowered to prosecute cases on behalf of a government and its people. Also called prosecution , prosecutor .

and the actions that he takes are

pros·e·cute (prs-kyt) KEY

VERB:
pros·e·cut·ed , pros·e·cut·ing , pros·e·cutes
VERB:
tr.

Law
**To initiate ** civil or criminal court action against.
**To seek to obtain ** or enforce by legal action.

de·fen·dant (d-fndnt, -dnt) KEY

NOUN:
Law
**The party against which an action is brought. **

It is the prosecutor’s job to in making a negative charge prove that negative charge against a person.

This person until such time as this proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, is then proven in Law is preseumed innocent of the negative charges against him/her, keeping in the eyes of the Law the positive positioning.

Now we as Christians have according the Atheists or at least the ones that I have spoken to made the positive charge that “God exists” they counter with “God does not exist”. “God exists”, in logic being a positive statement contextually and “God does not exist”, in logic being a negative statement contextually in logic. So, therefore, with this and Scientific rules of statement fact of Theory, then who is the one with the Burden of Proof?

 

[David_Brown]

MysticRose:

Ok I have a situation for you and it is hypothetical, (because in reality our justice system does not always work this way, sorry I am tainted), but it is believed that someone is INNOCENT unitl proven guilty am I right? That is the premise of law and logic that our justice system works on.

innocence is the positive and guilt being the negative

…

So therefore, you have the positive statement " I am not guilty, I did not commit the crime" which although has the negative in it with the word not is still positive in context of the statement itself. Then, you have the negative “you are guilty, you did commit the crime” which although does not include the negative connotation of “not” in the statement the context of the statement itself is negative because it is accusatory and is implying that someone has done a crime, and is guilty of said crime.

The positive then sits and waits for the negative to prove that the positive is in actuality the negative. Where does the Original burden of proof lie? Even if we explore the words given to them …

…

It is the prosecutor’s job to in making a negative charge prove that negative charge against a person.

This person until such time as this proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, is then proven in Law is preseumed innocent of the negative charges against him/her, keeping in the eyes of the Law the positive positioning.

Now we as Christians have according the Atheists or at least the ones that I have spoken to made the positive charge that “God exists” they counter with “God does not exist”. “God exists”, in logic being a positive statement contextually and “God does not exist”, in logic being a negative statement contextually in logic. So, therefore, with this and Scientific rules of statement fact of Theory, then who is the one with the Burden of Proof?

I think most people can see just from looking at the above that there are great confusions (or things that need explanation) and your example actually works against the point you were trying to make.

(1) In a court a person is presumed innocent. They may or may not be innocent. The position is one of skepticism or agnosticism and not affirmation.

(2) The traditional claim has always been (I forget the Latin) “He who asserts must prove.” A theist who claims God exists, asserts and therefore must prove; and atheist who claims God does not exist, equally asserts and must prove. Burden of proof is relative to circumstances.

(3) You seem confused about the whole “positive”/“negative” thing. The prosecutor asserts–makes a positive claim–that the defendant is guilty of some crime. Though the claim is (presumably) negative (commiting a crime is not a positive thing in a moral sense), the claim is a positive assertion of guilt in the relevant sense that is being discussed. The prosecutor asserts guilt and therefore has the burden of proof. The defense has only to show that burden not met. A person declared “not guilty” is not necessarily “innocent” but is said to have not been proven guilty. An important distinction that would have prevented nonsensical claims like: “The positive then sits and waits for the negative to prove that the positive is in actually the negative.”

In any case, you have used “positive” and “negative” to mean “true” and “false,” “good” and “bad,” “accuser” and “accused,” and “assert” and “deny” (if I missed one I apologize) without distinction. Equivocation is not a good thing in an argument or in an explanation.

(4) None of what you said even remotely comes close to justifying the claim that “The positive is always right until proven wrong by the negative.” Apart from the problems mentioned in (3) above, it just seems false. First, “is always right” is not the same as “presumed right,” the latter is what the legal example you used would require. Second, when I positively assert that a giant invisible bunny is pushing the earth around the sun (this is also positive in some of the others senses you confuse), do you really think it is true until someone proves me wrong? Should people believe it unitl they can prove it false? That would take a long time since the bunny is good at not being found. Third, the claim violates the basic notion that “he who asserts must prove.” It is up to the prosecutor to prove her case; it is up to me to prove the invisible bunny. To think otherwise leads to madness.

David

 

[MysticRose]

David Brown:

I think most people can see just from looking at the above that there are great confusions (or things that need explanation) and your example actually works against the point you were trying to make.

(1) In a court a person is presumed innocent. They may or may not be innocent. The position is one of skepticism or agnosticism and not affirmation.

(2) The traditional claim has always been (I forget the Latin) “He who asserts must prove.” A theist who claims God exists, asserts and therefore must prove; and atheist who claims God does not exist, equally asserts and must prove. Burden of proof is relative to circumstances.

(3) You seem confused about the whole “positive”/“negative” thing. The prosecutor asserts–makes a positive claim–that the defendant is guilty of some crime. Though the claim is (presumably) negative (commiting a crime is not a positive thing in a moral sense), the claim is a positive assertion of guilt in the relevant sense that is being discussed. The prosecutor asserts guilt and therefore has the burden of proof. The defense has only to show that burden not met. A person declared “not guilty” is not necessarily “innocent” but is said to have not been proven guilty. An important distinction that would have prevented nonsensical claims like: “The positive then sits and waits for the negative to prove that the positive is in actually the negative.”

In any case, you have used “positive” and “negative” to mean “true” and “false,” “good” and “bad,” “accuser” and “accused,” and “assert” and “deny” (if I missed one I apologize) without distinction. Equivocation is not a good thing in an argument or in an explanation.

(4) None of what you said even remotely comes close to justifying the claim that “The positive is always right until proven wrong by the negative.” Apart from the problems mentioned in (3) above, it just seems false. First, “is always right” is not the same as “presumed right,” the latter is what the legal example you used would require. Second, when I positively assert that a giant invisible bunny is pushing the earth around the sun (this is also positive in some of the others senses you confuse), do you really think it is true until someone proves me wrong? Should people believe it unitl they can prove it false? That would take a long time since the bunny is good at not being found. Third, the claim violates the basic notion that “he who asserts must prove.” It is up to the prosecutor to prove her case; it is up to me to prove the invisible bunny. To think otherwise leads to madness.

David

David I can begin to understand why you are frustrated because I am now becoming frustrated …

How do you get that i based my WHOLE argumentation on that argument when I said that it was HYPOTHETICAL to begin with and tat it was illustrative, meaning that I was using to correlate with?

I have a serious point in what I said and the FACT remains that you have no addressed at all the argument that I have posed, instead you have introduced strawman argumentation to deflect from the argumentation that I posed and that is credible…

I wonder why that is?

 

[David_Brown]

MysticRose:

David I can begin to understand why you are frustrated because I am now becoming frustrated …

How do you get that i based my WHOLE argumentation on that argument when I said that it was HYPOTHETICAL to begin with and tat it was illustrative, meaning that I was using to correlate with?

I have a serious point in what I said and the FACT remains that you have no addressed at all the argument that I have posed, instead you have introduced strawman argumentation to deflect from the argumentation that I posed and that is credible…

I wonder why that is?

Let’s Examine The Facts:

1. atheos_sum had a hard time making sense of your original argument.
2. atheos_sum asked for a better explanation.
3. You tried to answer at length.
4. I had questions about 2 paragraphs in particular.
5. You gave a “HYPOTHETICAL” argument in response.
6. I pointed out that your response didn’t make sense.
7. You respond with an “attitude” and accusations.

Let’s start at the beginning. Atheos_sum had a hard time understanding your argument in post # 92 (me too). You gave a lengthy response in #95. I said in post #96 that apart from atheos_sum’s questions that two paragraphs in particular didn’t seem to make much sense to me. You gave a hypothetical “situation” in post # 97. Why? Just for kicks? I thought you were trying to explain the argument you were making. I replied in post # 98 that your “hypothetical” didn’t really exlain or help and in fact was seriously flawed as to logic and law. Now in post #99 you try to spin you way around again: If you read what I actually said in post # 98 you will find that I was criticising your post # 97 and not your “WHOLE” argument and saying it was “HYPOTEHTICAL” doesn’t matter. You used a hypothetical argument for some purpose, whatever that purpose was you failed at it because you made factual and logical errors in adundance (which my post only noted some of the major ones in only two paragraphs).

Your accusations about not dealing with your argument and “straw man” only reinforce the fact that you have difficulty with logical argument (I have taught logic at the college and university level for almost 10 years and my understanding of that subject goes well beyond anything you have demonstrated, so please stop lecturing me about logic).

You claim to have a serious point. You claim to have something “credible” to say. Atheos_sum asked for a better explanation of what it was. You didn’t do a very good job making yourself or your point understood. Instead of coming up with an explanation that didn’t depend on factual or logical errors, you whine about having “a serious point” and make accusations. Fine, please make it so that atheos_sum and others can understand it and avoid factual and logical errors. Your post # 97 is about the worst piece of “reasoning” I have seen on this forum–and that is saying a lot. And please, please don’t go around throwing accusations of logical fallacies while demonstrating how little you know about them. Pointing out logical and factual errors, by the way, is not a fallacy–in fact it is good reasoning.

Try again. What is your “serious point”? The original one you were trying to make before you confused atheos_sum–the “credible” one that got lost?

Thanks,

David