Qwerty the Sir

I like raspberry ice cream and Roger Ebert doesn't.

What exactly is intelligent design? When people explained it to me before, it seemed to either fall into the realm of young or old earth creationism or theological evolution. Does it have an original or unique view on the issue? Also, I saw some Richard Dawkins' God Delusion, excerpts here. Now, that is not exactly what I consider a strong or convincing case against God (rather polemical invective). William Rowe has done much work on the philosophy of religion and he is a great resource for those interested in the arguments (he takes the negative view on the arguments, but even though I disagree with him, I find his work is indepth, non polemical and invaluable). As to Dawkins himself, there were many reviews of his book after it came out, but this one particularly stood out to me. It is by Thomas Nagel (who I believe does not believe in God), who takes issue with and focuses on the philosophical aspects of Dawkins' book. Some excerpts: This was my impression as well. A very important point on the underlying assumptions of each paradigm and how they lead to different conclusions. Unfortunately, most papers which carried the article have archived it (requiring subscription). I found the full article on Google's cache, but it is hosted by The New Republic; not a publication I would like to associate with or endorse. Quite idiotically, they entitled the page "The problem with atheism" which is not what the Nagel article is about. pg. 1: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:Tdt8eM...t=clnk&cd=3 pg. 2: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:Tdt8eM...t=clnk&cd=3

Scott Niedermayer is going to retire on top. What a player.

On Hall of Fame inductions, Messier, MacInnis, and probably Francis would all make it for me, but I have a hard time giving the last spot to Stevens over Oates and Larionov (Oates and Larionov are very close and comparable to Francis as well, but Francis longevity is amazing). Now, in terms of strictly NHL career, Oates is for me ahead of Stevens and Larionov. His prime production is incredible and his playmaking ability was unmatched in his time except for Gretzky and Lemieux. He was also an above average forward defensively, and he rarely hurt his team with penalties. However, Larionov's pre NHL career (which was his prime) may be just as impressive. I just don't know who to pick. Stevens is a great player and should have got in next year, but he was never as good as MacInnis (remember Washington?) and I have a hard time slotting him above Oates/Larionov. Still, it was a loaded class this year, and so it's not a huge snub for Oates and Larionov.

If a person claims an argument concerning God has "enormous logical fallacies", then a discussion about those logical fallacies, and the logic behind it is certainly warranted and on topic. I have stated many times that I believe the cosmological proof to be deductively valid, free of fallacious form (disjunctive syllogism - so "logical"), flawless in it's logical form. Here is another affirmation. If this is your mindset, then perhaps I have wasted my time.

Perhaps we are at a complete impasse about what constitutes logic/fallacy in respect to circularity (thanks for opening my eyes Sand and Cantousent). However, the cosmological argument does not rely on circularity. I am keen to see what "enormous logical fallacy" it commits (again keeping in mind the lack of circularity). You have only really addressed this once, and I pointed out that your reconstruction of Aquinas' argument was incorrect: "If God is uncreated, unmoved, uncaused, then everything is created, moved, caused; now, everything is created, moved and caused, and so it is concluded that God is uncreated, unmoved, and uncaused". ...was your reconstruction of the argument (put into verbal terms) and that does not match the text of Aquinas.

Circular reasoning: also known as Begging the question.

You edited post 204 after I had already replied so here is my reply to added portions. Um, where did you get this notion from? If you read the context where I said we agreed, you will see it is concerning the fact that the Purgatory proof is indeed affirming consequent (you actually said initially that the problem with the Purgatory proof was it’s circularity , and I pointed out that there was nothing circular but rather that the proof affirms consequent to which you later affirmed). The record is quite clear and I am confused as to what made you think otherwise. I don’t know why you have the idea that I am retracting anything. Indeed, if anyone has retracted something, it was your change in labeling the “fallacy” of the Purgatory argument from circular to affirming consequent. Absolutely not. The only thing that was dubious was your reconstruction of Aquinas argument. If you reference my last post, I write your symbolic reconstruction of the argument in words and then compare it to the actual text of Aquinas. The two arguments are nothing alike. Your argument reconstruction where you claim to show affirming consequent is actually a misrepresentation. You have frankly not shown at all anything ‘bad’ with the logic of the argument. The new proof/argument has nothing to do with Aquinas. It comes from recent literature (William Rowe, who critiques the argument’s premises [importantly noting that it is deductively valid and logical beforehand]) and it is from the proofs/arguments Leibniz/Clarke. Your objection right here is a critique of a premise. I’m sure that if your went on JSTOR, you would find your objection answered to and fro. I had stated before that even if a premise of an argument itself comes from a logically fallacious argument, the new argument (given it follows valid form) is still logical. Content of premises have nothing to do with logicality. To illustrate, we have two arguments in succession that lead to conclusion ‘Q’. One is a regular modus ponens set up like this: 1) P > Q 2) P Therefore Q The second argument is an argument for the first premise (P > Q). It goes like this: 1) R > ~(P > Q) 2) ~R Therefore ~~(P > Q) or P > Q The first argument is deductively valid. The second argument commits the fallacy of denying antecedent and is invalid. However, though the first premise (P > Q) is reached through an invalid argument, its position in the first argument has no bearing on the first argument’s logicality. As for whether the first premise actually is a hasty generalization (which is an inductive and not deductive fallacy), again, I point you towards JSTOR. The meanings of self-existent and dependent as well as Principle of Sufficient Reason all have bearing on whether the premise is a false dilemma or a logical truth (tautology) and there is much debate. Again, I am replying to your statement that the proofs for God/First Cause/Prime Mover had “enormous logical fallacies”. So far, aside from pointing out affirming consequent in a misinterpreted version of Aquinas proof/argument, you haven’t shown any of these fallacies. As for premises themselves, well, lets just say it is quite a one sided portrayal to just call them “fallacies”. Simply invoking Ockham’s razor to dismiss an argument shows an unwarranted assumption that it is ‘better’. It is just as “faulty” of a premise as the issue of infinite regresses (which you have labeled more than once). In fact, considering that there is a debate on whether infinite regresses are even logically possible, I would say that principle of parsimony is less warranted.

Full installs also eliminate the need for swapping discs (except for Planescape: Torment).

Parsimony itself is very controversial premise. Ah, yes, if someone were to use cosmological proof and smuggle in any attributes of God/First Cause/Prime Mover without adding new premises, then argument would be invalid (conclusion won't follow) and fallacy. This is why Aquinas (and other people who want to prove their own concept of God take two steps. One to establish First Cause/God/Prime Mover, and then to establish attributes.

Here are games I keep in my "collection" (ones I considered so good that they deserved a place in cherry wood case). I replay many of them: Age of Empires Age of Empires: Rise of Rome Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings Age of Empires II: The Conquerors Baldur

Well, when speaking of the strongest versions of the first cause argument, it is inaccurate. Your use of the word may actually lead people to believe there is a logical fallacy where there is none. I still don't know why you bring this up continually? First you claimed in post 158 that the argument was circular. In post 159, I pointed out that if the proof was circular, it would still be valid deductively and 'logical'. Then I pointed out that I thought it committed the logical fallacy of affirming consequent. I'd say with your recent statement, we agree on this part, and are speaking past each other. Ah, finally. This is what I have been waiting to hear from you. An actual attempt to show a logical fallacy in proof/argument of First Cause/Prime Mover/God. Now, you have brought up Aquinas version of the proof. If I may dare say that his version (at least in my opinion) is one of the weaker ones that have been put forth (perhaps simply due to the language it is written in and the different meanings of words back then). If you allow me, I will put forth another version later on. First however, I must point out that your reconstruction of Aquinas argument/proof is severely flawed. If you read your reconstruction in words, we have: "If God is uncreated, unmoved, uncaused, then everything is created, moved, caused; now, everything is created, moved and caused, and so it is concluded that God is uncreated, unmoved, and uncaused". This is your symbolic reconstruction of Aquinas argument/proof, and comparing with the actual translated text, it really doesn't match. Read it to yourself and I'm sure you'll agree that this is not what Aquinas was saying. Now, if Aquinas argument/proof had actually been like your reconstruction/formalization of it, then undoubtedly it would have been affirming consequent and logically invalid. It would have been an example of "bad logic" or "fallacious logic". With that said, let me offer another cosmological proof/argument. This is a version that floats around in the recent literature: 1) Every being that exists is either a dependent being or a self-existent being. 2) Not every being can be a dependent being. Therefore there exists a self-existent being. Now, if you look at the form of this argument, it very closely follows disjunctive syllogism, which is a named valid deductive form (thus rigorously 'logical'). Symbolically, it looks like this: 1) p v q 2) ~q Therefore p The cosmological argument/proof above is absolutely logical, and it's logic is flawless (it follows a very well known named form of deductive inference). That is as far as I will go as I am not interested in getting into debate about its premises. If you want an in depth back and forth critique and defense of the premises, as well as elaboration on the terms "self-existent being" and "dependent being", I suggest looking at the journal articles on JSTOR.

Thanks Istima Loke, I think you helped me see the impasse. First of all, I just want to reiterate that I know that circularity is not at all convincing. If I was making an argument in my paper and the argument went as: "The external word exists, therefore the external world exists" ...I would probably be called out for it. Had I submitted the paper in a Philosophy class, I would get a note about circular reasoning. Circularity is just not a good way to reason, it becomes too easy to prove anything. But if I were to take a test in Logic class and was asked to give an example of a deductively valid symbolic proof/argument, I could very easily put: 1) P Therefore P ...and get it correct. But say I put down this as an answer: 1) P > Q 2) Q Therefore P ...I would get that wrong, as it is not deductively valid but rather affirming consequent. Now, the second example is what most people would call much more fruitful than the first (affirming consequent/backwards modus ponens is used in abductive reasoning/inference to best explanation which is the way much scientific reasoning goes), but the first is "logical" and the second is not. That is my point. Logic is funny like that, for example, you can logically prove anything from a contradiction (which is why most logic systems are not paraconsistent and most logicians endorse the Principle of Non-Contradiction despite paradox against it. Lastly, circular proofs or arguments do not have to be false at all (again, logic has nothing to do with truth). 'Illogical' arguments can be true. There are even those who say that there can be true contradictions.

My pure speculation for next season: Chicago will be most improved team, doing a spin-o-rama with Denis Savard behind the bench. Khabibulin will play at consistent high level expected of him, making it safe for the speedy Chicago forwards to play a daring style. Nashville on the other hand will face biggest flop. That's what getting rid of all your players does. The team will probably have to move to another market soon. Toronto, Montreal, and the Islanders will all fight for 8th seed in the East again. The Stanley Cup will stay in the West for second year, going to either Vancouver or San Jose who will meet in epic clash in Conference Finals. The winner of that series will coast against the Eastern team Lecavalier will hit his upside this year, scoring 59 goals with 72 assists to lead the league in goals and points. Thornton will fall short of his third consecutive 90 assist season but still lead the league with 79. Crosby will not have the generational upside some people expect but neither will he flop, getting his third straight 100 point season. Joe Sakic will not reach 100 points again, but his status as legend was set long before last year. Backstrom will be the rookie of the year as he becomes as valuable as Ovechkin to Washington geting 32 goals and 53 assists while playing a solid all-round game. Toews will not be far behind, putting slightly worse numbers playing a very similar game. Yashin will rejuvenate his career with whoever he plays with, getting past the contract and underachieving to have his first 100 point season. Naslund will bounce back to have his best season yet, putting up 53 goals and 61 assists and giving Vancouver that offensive depth and edge to compliment their solid defense and incredible goaltending, making them one of the favorites to go all the way. With that horrible shootout still in the NHL, Luongo and Brodeur will again assault Bernie Parent's former wins record. The asterisk will never be far behind though.

The issue is certainly semantic. I don't view this as "attack" or "retreat" (and I don't know why you think I'd "retreat" although I do get tired of repeating the same stuff over again and am feeling frustration in engaging you in discourse like some other posters in this thread), rather as clarifying logic and separating it's formal study and meaning from rhetorical argument. Now, again I must repeat, circularity in argument follows a valid deductive proof/argument (which is the essence of a "logical" argument/proof). Yes, it may be vacuous or unsatisfying, but that has no bearing on logicality (see again tautologies). Logic has nothing to do with truth, only form. For something to be "logical" it just has to be valid; not sound (it is beyond scope of logic to actually determine truth value). I still wait for you to point out the actual "bad logic" in the arguments for God/Prime Mover/First Cause. You have only once addressed this main issue in last several posts and again, you have only brought up contentious premises (which are present in many argument/proofs and do not concern the logic). The only glimpse of any 'bad logic' in those arguments is if they attempt to smuggle any sectarian attributes of God in the conclusion without premise (which the most rigorous ones in recent literature do not).

metadigital, I'm not arguing against the fact that Catholic Encyclopedia's argument for Purgatory isn't affirming the consequent; in fact, that's what I thought it was when I first saw it (I tried to look at it in most charitable way and construct modus ponens for it later). However, even if there is no reason to take P > Q as a premise for any argument (see Michael Jordan example), in another argument with a valid form, that bad premise does not affect the logicality at all. Getting back to original point, none of the 'famous' arguments/proofs of God/First Cause/Prime Mover suffer from any logical fallacies, and the some of the most recent literature (both criticism and defense) on them affirms, as has always been, that they are indeed deductively valid and the points of contention lie in the premises. It is not as if they are alone in having premises called out, as again, arguments for everything from free will to existence of an external world have problematic or contentious premises.

Thanks a lot guys, I'll try these out. :D

I haven't played NWN1 in ages and only played the Paladin Trilogy as a player made module (well I only got through half of Midnight before a problem warranted a reformat), but do you have to roll back patches to play these modules (I have 1.68 and they need 1.62)?

Very well, although you would have been better off pointing out the “bad logic” of the arguments for God themselves instead of bringing up another example. It confused me. Circularity is most certainly not a formal logical fallacy. I am not concerning myself with informal (debate) logic or even those many common rhetorical meanings of “logic” out there. I am strictly staying with the formal study of logic (let’s face it, the word is tossed around too haphazardly as is). The argument/proof: 1) P Therefore P ...is certainly what I would call “logical”. It is deductively valid. The point that it may vacuous or unsatisfying is irrelevant. Tautologies are also vacuous and unsatisfying; they are also “logical”. You say I am “polluting the meaning of proof”. I say you have very odd concept of the word. Um, ok. I don’t see how this is relevant to our discussion at hand, and so I am at a loss as how to respond. I will say that many disciplines seek truth and not comfort. I think the impasse lies here. First of all, you threw that word “fallaciously” in there again. Like “illogical” or “irrational”, that word is thrown around so much despite it not being used right. Where is the fallacy in my deductions, especially my modus ponens one (affirming consequent is certainly a fallacy, and I can grant circularity to be an informal fallacy [though not at all a formal ‘logical fallacy’ or example of “bad logic”])? To start, one must realize that logic has nothing to do with truth value. So when I put forth the argument/proof: P = Purgatory exists Q = Prayer for sins 1) Q > P 2) Q Therefore P It is a deductively valid (and hence “logical”) argument/proof. Why is it deductively valid? Well, if follows the form of modus ponens and that is one of the named forms which has all ampliative inferential links. Because inferences from that form are all ampliative, its conclusion cannot be false if the premises are all true. That is the definition of ‘deductively valid’ (note that nothing is claimed about the actual truth or falsity of the premises or conclusion). To illustrate the (lack of) relation between logic and truth, here is a argument: 1) If Michael Jordan is President of United States, then he is from Indiana. 2) Michael Jordan is President of United States. Therefore Michael Jordan is from Indiana. This argument follows form of modus ponens... 1) p > q 2) p therefore q ...and so it has all ampliative inferential links and so it is deductively valid. If the premises were true, then due to the definitional nature of the premises and inferential relations between them, the conclusion must be true. Now, the premises are not true (in the best of our knowledge and conception of truth) and the conclusion is not true, but the argument is definitely “logical”. The premise of Catholic Encyclopedia’s argument - (1) Q > P (“if people pray for sins then Purgatory exists”) is either certainly an assumption or a conclusion of another argument which had premises which if you go back far enough would have to start with some assumptions. Even if this premise of “if people pray for sins then Purgatory exists” is false, it has no bearing on the logicality of argument/proof. You have brought up two arguments for Prime Mover/First Cause/God but your objections are only directed against their premises (you have not shown at all how their logical form is “faulty” merely taken issue that they assume things and the notion of God/Prime Mover/First Cause is defined in an arbitrary way thus calling them “faulty”). Now, I have no will debate the premises/assumptions on which these arguments stand on (or on the premises/assumptions on which Science rests on) as I am not interested in debating God or Science, only talking logic [:D], but I do know that both arguments you mentioned are deductively valid, and even their critics throughout the years understood them to be as such. There is nothing wrong with the logic of those arguments.

The circular conclusion is that, because we pray for the dead, purgatory must exist (otherwise our prayers would be pointless ...). My friend, I’m afraid you have gone to another tangent. In previous post you spoke of “ultimate proof” which I took to be proof/argument of First Cause or Prime Mover or God (again correct me if interpreted in wrong way). However, the example you gave is one proof of Purgatory. Purgatory has nothing to do with an ultimate proof of First Cause/Prime Mover/God; it is an afterlife concept that one branch of Christianity. Still, the argument given is actually logically valid. Informally, circularity is considered ‘bad’ because “it makes it too easy to prove anything if you assume what you set out to prove”. However, formally, the argument/proof: 1) P Therefore P (blatant circular proof) ...is absolutely deductively valid and nothing 'bad' about logic. Also, I’m not actually sure that argument is circular but rather it falls into the problem of affirming consequent: P = Purgatory exists Q = Prayer for sins 1) P > Q 2) Q Therefore P Although argument is short and hard to reconstruct formally; perhaps it could just be a modus ponens and thus absolutely valid and logically rigorous: P = Purgatory exists Q = Prayer for sins 1) Q > P 2) Q Therefore P Now, people may take issue with premise that “if people pray for sins then Purgatory exists”, but then again it goes back to premise contention and not anything to do with logic or fallacious reasoning. Also, one man’s “faulty premise” can be another man’s axiom (again, why debating so futile ). For example, person may not like principle sufficient reason, but absolutely love principle uniform nature. Both, of course are postulates that very contentious.

By "ultimate proof"/"notion" I assume you speak of people trying to argue for/prove the existence of God (very broadly speaking be it Prime Mover or Personal). If not, my sorry. If so, I don't understand how you can say that these proofs/arguments (I speak of well known ones that have been rehashed through the years by different people with different words) have "enormous logical fallacies" which have since been debunked, when these proofs are undeniably deductively valid and therefore rigorous under rubric of formal logic. Now of course, individual premises of the argument are contested, but that has no bearing on logicality and not agreeing with premise or thinking it false or truth value does not make premise a fallacy (indeed, scientific reasoning relies on very contentious premises as well; think uniform nature, external world, so on; not to mention delving into abduction or inductive reasoning and that problems). Most arguments/proofs are not matter of logic (though many people like to say words like 'illogical' or 'fallacy' [not calling your out my friend, just what I've seen very often in the past] for rhetoric flair) but rather about agreeing with premise (which is why debating usually very pointless, hehe).

"you can mount me" and "we can make the trade at your place since I can't host" People actually talk like this?

Pretty much just Mask of the Betrayer and Spore.

Cheats:Hans()/Ctrl-J and CLUAConsole:ExploreArea() are just necessities when you're replaying those Infinity Engine games, and sometimes it's fun to give a small stat boost or get an nice item.