Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

syllogisms

ATHOS
Posts: 123
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 6:54:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Can anyone tell me if there's something wrong with this?

major premise: god is a creator

minor premise: god is perfect

conclusion: what god creates must be perfect
What can be expected from insane premises except an insane conclusion? The way to undo an insane conclusion is to consider the sanity of the premises on which it rests.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How long will contradiction stand when its impossible nature is clearly revealed?
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 6:57:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 6:54:46 AM, ATHOS wrote:
Can anyone tell me if there's something wrong with this?

major premise: god is a creator

minor premise: god is perfect

conclusion: what god creates must be perfect

You are missing the additional premise

That which is created by a perfect being is perfect itself.

The major premise is actually irrelevant. God does not actually have to create anything in order for that which he creates to be perfect.
ATHOS
Posts: 123
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 7:11:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 6:57:25 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 6/23/2013 6:54:46 AM, ATHOS wrote:
Can anyone tell me if there's something wrong with this?

major premise: god is a creator

minor premise: god is perfect

conclusion: what god creates must be perfect

You are missing the additional premise

That which is created by a perfect being is perfect itself.

The major premise is actually irrelevant. God does not actually have to create anything in order for that which he creates to be perfect.

how could it be improved?
What can be expected from insane premises except an insane conclusion? The way to undo an insane conclusion is to consider the sanity of the premises on which it rests.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How long will contradiction stand when its impossible nature is clearly revealed?
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 7:38:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 7:11:26 AM, ATHOS wrote:
At 6/23/2013 6:57:25 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 6/23/2013 6:54:46 AM, ATHOS wrote:
Can anyone tell me if there's something wrong with this?

major premise: god is a creator

minor premise: god is perfect

conclusion: what god creates must be perfect

You are missing the additional premise

That which is created by a perfect being is perfect itself.

The major premise is actually irrelevant. God does not actually have to create anything in order for that which he creates to be perfect.

how could it be improved?

First, if you're talking about God, capitalise the G. Not all gods are God.

P1: God is a perfect being. (a definition)

P2: That which is created by a perfect being, is itself, perfect.

C1: If God creates anything, that thing must be perfect.

I believe this is valid logic. You need to include the definitions of "perfect" and "God". It may be impossible for a being to be "perfect". "Perfection" may just be a human invention, and may be meaningless unless an object has an objective it needs to meet. P2 may be incorrect, why can a perfect being only make perfect things? Do perfect things have the highest value, and a perfect being can only make things with the highest value?

I believe the failing point here, like with "maximally great", is that "perfect" seems to be very subjective, it doesn't seem like an absolute.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 8:11:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 7:38:41 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/23/2013 7:11:26 AM, ATHOS wrote:
At 6/23/2013 6:57:25 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 6/23/2013 6:54:46 AM, ATHOS wrote:
Can anyone tell me if there's something wrong with this?

major premise: god is a creator

minor premise: god is perfect

conclusion: what god creates must be perfect

You are missing the additional premise

That which is created by a perfect being is perfect itself.

The major premise is actually irrelevant. God does not actually have to create anything in order for that which he creates to be perfect.

how could it be improved?

First, if you're talking about God, capitalise the G. Not all gods are God.

P1: God is a perfect being. (a definition)

P2: That which is created by a perfect being, is itself, perfect.

C1: If God creates anything, that thing must be perfect.

I believe this is valid logic. You need to include the definitions of "perfect" and "God". It may be impossible for a being to be "perfect". "Perfection" may just be a human invention, and may be meaningless unless an object has an objective it needs to meet. P2 may be incorrect, why can a perfect being only make perfect things? Do perfect things have the highest value, and a perfect being can only make things with the highest value?

I believe the failing point here, like with "maximally great", is that "perfect" seems to be very subjective, it doesn't seem like an absolute.

I concur. though if Athos would like to provide us with such definitions I would be very interested in investigating their consequences.
Also, creation should be defined suitably. Creation in our worldly sense normally only consists of moving physical components into a new form with different properties from the original form. God though, would conceivably have the power to actually create (from nothing).
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 9:31:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 6:54:46 AM, ATHOS wrote:
Can anyone tell me if there's something wrong with this?

major premise: god is a creator

minor premise: god is perfect

conclusion: what god creates must be perfect

I would claim that is a category mistake. Consider the counterexample:

John is a baker
John is human
Therefore what John bakes must be human.

There is no reason why perfection must logically be passed down through creation. Aquinas points out that humans are analogous representations of God: we have his attributes that are watered down, AKA analogy of proportion. We are good similar to God because we both to an extent fulfil our own telos. However, we are not univocally like God because properties do not get given down through creation with absolute clarity.

Thus it is an enthymeme with what I'd state is a false premise.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 9:37:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I keep changing my mind with whether it is just an enthymeme or a fallacy of division. A fallacy of division runs "if X has property Y, and Z is a subset of X, then Z has property Y".

Or, a jumbo jet can fly. Therefore, the jumbo jet's passengers can fly. However, one incredibly immoral test will prove that this is not the case.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
ATHOS
Posts: 123
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 10:04:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 9:31:01 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/23/2013 6:54:46 AM, ATHOS wrote:
Can anyone tell me if there's something wrong with this?

major premise: god is a creator

minor premise: god is perfect

conclusion: what god creates must be perfect

I would claim that is a category mistake. Consider the counterexample:

John is a baker
John is human
Therefore what John bakes must be human.

There is no reason why perfection must logically be passed down through creation. Aquinas points out that humans are analogous representations of God: we have his attributes that are watered down, AKA analogy of proportion. We are good similar to God because we both to an extent fulfil our own telos. However, we are not univocally like God because properties do not get given down through creation with absolute clarity.

Why would a supposedly "perfect' God create imperfection?

Thus it is an enthymeme with what I'd state is a false premise.
What can be expected from insane premises except an insane conclusion? The way to undo an insane conclusion is to consider the sanity of the premises on which it rests.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How long will contradiction stand when its impossible nature is clearly revealed?
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 3:05:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 10:04:44 AM, ATHOS wrote:
At 6/23/2013 9:31:01 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/23/2013 6:54:46 AM, ATHOS wrote:
Can anyone tell me if there's something wrong with this?

major premise: god is a creator

minor premise: god is perfect

conclusion: what god creates must be perfect

I would claim that is a category mistake. Consider the counterexample:

John is a baker
John is human
Therefore what John bakes must be human.

There is no reason why perfection must logically be passed down through creation. Aquinas points out that humans are analogous representations of God: we have his attributes that are watered down, AKA analogy of proportion. We are good similar to God because we both to an extent fulfil our own telos. However, we are not univocally like God because properties do not get given down through creation with absolute clarity.

Why would a supposedly "perfect' God create imperfection?

Thus it is an enthymeme with what I'd state is a false premise.

Because perfection is boring. Maybe God is the only thing that can possibly be perfect?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 3:43:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 3:05:26 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/23/2013 10:04:44 AM, ATHOS wrote:
At 6/23/2013 9:31:01 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/23/2013 6:54:46 AM, ATHOS wrote:
Can anyone tell me if there's something wrong with this?

major premise: god is a creator

minor premise: god is perfect

conclusion: what god creates must be perfect

I would claim that is a category mistake. Consider the counterexample:

John is a baker
John is human
Therefore what John bakes must be human.

There is no reason why perfection must logically be passed down through creation. Aquinas points out that humans are analogous representations of God: we have his attributes that are watered down, AKA analogy of proportion. We are good similar to God because we both to an extent fulfil our own telos. However, we are not univocally like God because properties do not get given down through creation with absolute clarity.

Why would a supposedly "perfect' God create imperfection?

Thus it is an enthymeme with what I'd state is a false premise.

Because perfection is boring. Maybe God is the only thing that can possibly be perfect?

Asking why God would make imperfection does not stop an argument not following. It highlights the enthymeme of additional premises needed, namely "God would not create imperfections."

There are a number of reasons, including:

1) Multiple perfections are logically incoherent
2) The creation of perfection is incoherent
3) Creation of imperfection reaches an end that perfection does not
4) Perfection itself is subjective
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 6:09:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 7:38:41 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/23/2013 7:11:26 AM, ATHOS wrote:
how could it be improved?

First, if you're talking about God, capitalise the G. Not all gods are God.

But all Gods are gods, right? So, if you are unsure, or if you want your proof to be general rather than specific (thus making it able to handle the, "I wasn't talking about Jehovah; I was talking about a different creator," objection) use the lower case.

P1: God is a perfect being. (a definition)

P2: That which is created by a perfect being, is itself, perfect.

C1: If God creates anything, that thing must be perfect.

I believe this is valid logic.

There's a problem with commas. Not a logic problem maybe, but there's no reason to give your opponent anything to grasp at. And I notice a move from "is" to "must be," and from "is created" to "creates." I would reproduce the language of one line in the next.

Perhaps:
P1: Anything created by a perfect being is itself perfect.
P2: Jehovah is a perfect being.
C: Anything created by Jehovah is itself perfect.

I think we have good form (validity) now, though, as mentioned by others, there is no reason to accept the premises.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 6:22:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 6:09:11 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 6/23/2013 7:38:41 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/23/2013 7:11:26 AM, ATHOS wrote:
how could it be improved?

First, if you're talking about God, capitalise the G. Not all gods are God.

But all Gods are gods, right? So, if you are unsure, or if you want your proof to be general rather than specific (thus making it able to handle the, "I wasn't talking about Jehovah; I was talking about a different creator," objection) use the lower case.

P1: God is a perfect being. (a definition)

P2: That which is created by a perfect being, is itself, perfect.

C1: If God creates anything, that thing must be perfect.

I believe this is valid logic.

There's a problem with commas. Not a logic problem maybe, but there's no reason to give your opponent anything to grasp at. And I notice a move from "is" to "must be," and from "is created" to "creates." I would reproduce the language of one line in the next.

Perhaps:
P1: Anything created by a perfect being is itself perfect.
P2: Jehovah is a perfect being.
C: Anything created by Jehovah is itself perfect.

I think we have good form (validity) now, though, as mentioned by others, there is no reason to accept the premises.

Agreed, is/ought is a tricky one so we should always be consistent.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 3:28:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You are missing a logic step.

X creates Y
X is perfect

Conclusion: Y is perfect.

The step you are missing is:

A thing is equal to what it creates
or
A thing is equal to what created it
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 8:57:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 6:09:11 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 6/23/2013 7:38:41 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/23/2013 7:11:26 AM, ATHOS wrote:
how could it be improved?

First, if you're talking about God, capitalise the G. Not all gods are God.

But all Gods are gods, right? So, if you are unsure, or if you want your proof to be general rather than specific (thus making it able to handle the, "I wasn't talking about Jehovah; I was talking about a different creator," objection) use the lower case.

Is there more than one God? They should be given different names, lol.

All "Gods" may be gods, but I guess that doesn't mean that all gods are "Gods".


P1: God is a perfect being. (a definition)

P2: That which is created by a perfect being, is itself, perfect.

C1: If God creates anything, that thing must be perfect.

I believe this is valid logic.

There's a problem with commas. Not a logic problem maybe, but there's no reason to give your opponent anything to grasp at. And I notice a move from "is" to "must be," and from "is created" to "creates." I would reproduce the language of one line in the next.

Perhaps:
P1: Anything created by a perfect being is itself perfect.
P2: Jehovah is a perfect being.
C: Anything created by Jehovah is itself perfect.

I think we have good form (validity) now, though, as mentioned by others, there is no reason to accept the premises.

LOL, I guess I haven't quite got the hang of validity yet. Yes, it has nowhere near been shown to be sound yet.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 9:00:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 3:28:38 AM, FREEDO wrote:
You are missing a logic step.

X creates Y
X is perfect

Conclusion: Y is perfect.

The step you are missing is:

A thing is equal to what it creates
or
A thing is equal to what created it

A thing in the category of perfection can only create things which also fit into the category of perfection?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 9:21:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 9:00:41 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
A thing in the category of perfection can only create things which also fit into the category of perfection?

It's not that we think it's true. We're just trying to show what premises might validly lead to that conclusion.

P1: Perfect things can create only perfect things.
P2: Jehovah is a perfect thing.
C: Jehovah can create only perfect things.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 5:56:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 9:21:29 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 6/24/2013 9:00:41 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
A thing in the category of perfection can only create things which also fit into the category of perfection?

It's not that we think it's true. We're just trying to show what premises might validly lead to that conclusion.

P1: Perfect things can create only perfect things.
P2: Jehovah is a perfect thing.
C: Jehovah can create only perfect things.

I knowww. :P
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 7:26:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 9:00:41 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/24/2013 3:28:38 AM, FREEDO wrote:
You are missing a logic step.

X creates Y
X is perfect

Conclusion: Y is perfect.

The step you are missing is:

A thing is equal to what it creates
or
A thing is equal to what created it

A thing in the category of perfection can only create things which also fit into the category of perfection?

I'm not saying that it is.
I'm saying it's the missing assumption.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 8:01:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 7:26:55 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/24/2013 9:00:41 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/24/2013 3:28:38 AM, FREEDO wrote:
You are missing a logic step.

X creates Y
X is perfect

Conclusion: Y is perfect.

The step you are missing is:

A thing is equal to what it creates
or
A thing is equal to what created it

A thing in the category of perfection can only create things which also fit into the category of perfection?

I'm not saying that it is.
I'm saying it's the missing assumption.

I knowowowoww, :P. I was just suggesting it doesn't need to be "equal" per say, just in the same category.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!