What is my mistake in this reasoning?

[fakename]

user "GratefulFred":

As for logical argument construction:

If DOING “A” is good,
Then BEING “B” is better

is a non-sequitor in my opinion.

At least I’m not reasoning circuitously anymore (at least I think).

But if my argument is a non-sequitor, then the theory of participation is a non-sequitor because it says that if something is only good then it is not as good as the reason for it being so. But this is not a non-sequitor when one realizes that the end is better than the means to it.

So with that in mind, clearly since it is better to be better, then it must be true that it would be better to be the good itself rather than the thing which is made good. That’s my defense.

 

[porthos11]

Nowhere. Check the CCC: It is the vocation of every human being to show forth the image of Christ.

aka: God

Read Scripture, what did Paul say? It is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me.

Be God.

The point is not the conclusion, which may or may not be correct theologically. The problem is the argument itself. The primary premise is flawed (actually the previous poster is correct, it is a non sequitur). An argument based on an unproven premise is a logical fallacy and makes the argument invalid.

 

[fakename]

user "porthos11":

The point is not the conclusion, which may or may not be correct theologically. The problem is the argument itself. The primary premise is flawed (actually the previous poster is correct, it is a non sequitur). An argument based on an unproven premise is a logical fallacy and makes the argument invalid.

Well like I said above, my (revised) argument is just an instance of participation + the idea that it is always better to be best.

But I don’t think that it’s true that every premise has to be proven in every proof; it just has to be that every premise is true.

I think that it truth is mirrored in the scholastic saying that “a science doesn’t prove its own principles -it leaves it to a higher one.”

 

[porthos11]

Well like I said above, my (revised) argument is just an instance of participation + the idea that it is always better to be best.

But I don’t think that it’s true that every premise has to be proven in every proof; it just has to be that every premise is true.

I think that it truth is mirrored in the scholastic saying that “a science doesn’t prove its own principles -it leaves it to a higher one.”

A premise doesn’t have to be proven per se, but it must be accepted as true, either by proof (theorem), or as self-evident (axiom).

However, that the thing being worshipped is “greater” (true, by the very definition of worship) is necessarily “better” is not proven. This can be shown by the fact that some religions worship gods (“greater”) that are evil (not “better”). One may worship Kali out of servile fear, but one would not necessarily want to be Kali.

I therefore posit that the premise that just because God is great, being God is better not a self-evident premise and needs to be proven.

 

[fakename]

user "porthos11":

A premise doesn’t have to be proven per se, but it must be accepted as true, either by proof (theorem), or as self-evident (axiom).

However, that the thing being worshipped is “greater” (true, by the very definition of worship) is necessarily “better” is not proven. This can be shown by the fact that some religions worship gods (“greater”) that are evil (not “better”). One may worship Kali out of servile fear, but one would not necessarily want to be Kali.

I therefore posit that the premise that just because God is great, being God is better not a self-evident premise and needs to be proven.

some good points. I think as an argument I would say that God is perfect and by definition the perfect is better than the good. We should want good therefore we should want to be perfect even more. But again, God is perfect so we should want to be him.

Another one would be that God is the first mover, but the first mover is perfectly happy so God is perfectly happy. And also, it should be noted that only God is perfectly happy. So if humans want to be perfectly happy they must be God.

Now I think that the problem with my train of thought is that there are differences in the way “happy” and “perfect” are applied to different beings. True?

 

[Julia_Mae]

An argument based on an unproven premise is a logical fallacy and makes the argument invalid.

Actually, it makes for advancement in science which, without unproven arguements, would cease to operate.

This:* If worshiping God is good, then being God is better…*

is correct.