Should Science Speak to Faith?

[Walsingham]

Well, Democrats all the way! Barack Obama would make a nice president. Edwards is too freaky and Clinton is too... well... politically inside. However it would be cool to see a woman president put the smack down on Iran. Oh, the fun there would be too much to miss. HA!

I'm not sure your dominatrix fantasies should extend to starting wars with other countries. Unless they're Switzerland, because they're far too smug.

[Sand]

HA!

[Qwerty the Sir]

Incidentally, every theologist/philosopher since the classical Greeks introduced the notion, has tried to come up with "the ultimate proof". And every subsequent philosopher has debunked the previous one, by demonstrating the enormous logical fallacies in their reasoning.

 

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).

Edited June 22, 2007 by Qwerty the Sir

[theslug]

Well, Democrats all the way! Barack Obama would make a nice president. Edwards is too freaky and Clinton is too... well... politically inside. However it would be cool to see a woman president put the smack down on Iran. Oh, the fun there would be too much to miss. HA!

I'm not sure your dominatrix fantasies should extend to starting wars with other countries. Unless they're Switzerland, because they're far too smug.

Change that to those damn swedes and it's a deal. Btw Ron Paul should be president. Its just not time for a woman president, and probably never either way. Just way to emotional and dramatic. Generalizations ftw.

[Guard Dog]

Change that to those damn swedes and it's a deal. Btw Ron Paul should be president. Its just not time for a woman president, and probably never either way. Just way to emotional and dramatic. Generalizations ftw.

 

I'm with you. Of all of the candidates to date Ron Paul is my favorite by a long, long way. Too bad he has no shot. As for Clinton, unless you like the idea of a heavy handed, intrusive, big brother government she (and most of the other democrats) should scare the bejesus out of you. I have no problem voting for a woman, but by God not THAT one. The only democrat in the running I would find palatable is Bill Richardson. And he has no shot.

[Blank]

I vote Llyranor for president. And nick_i_am as his vice. I think it would be interesting to have a foreign president, with foreign interests, and it might mess up the US even more. I regret voting for him now.

 

By the way, gang, bravo in regards to this thread and the INTERNETDRAMA thread. I believe both were golden.

Edited June 23, 2007 by Blank

[metadigital]

"You are using the fallacy that "science" is the knowledge learnt from observing the world, the book of facts and laws therein derived from same ... the codex.

 

Science is the mental discipline of only accepting as true what can be demonstrated, predictably, from observed phenomena. It is a rigour of denying what is merely comfortable or convenient to find what is TRUE.

 

You are dodging the spirit of the science by trying to adhere to the letters it is written in."

 

I always find it interesting that you use the word fallacy to describe the other side in a disagreement. Science is the codex. The mental discipline of science is not science. It is a philosophy, but not science. I'm not dodging the spirit of science. I would rather see science as the set of rules. That's not a weaker position, by the way. If we use science as the basis for our observable world, and ethics and morality as our reaction to it, then science is beyond reproach. It works both ways, then. Science cannot speak to faith, true. ...But then faith cannot speak to science.

For what purpose are you splitting this hair?

 

The codex of knowledge has resulted from a shift of emphasis from accepting what a cleric says has been divinely revealed to them, and is unquestionable, to a desire to only accept what can be independently asserted through experiment, and thus provide predictable (and hence useful) descriptions of our world.

At this point, I would like to establish an basis for agreement. Can we agree that science, as a set of laws or rules, does not care about morals or ethics? Can we agree that Science simply has no stake in the argument. Then, can we agree that those who study science can apply the things they learn through science to enhance their world view?

 

Frankly, despite your clever post, I'm not dodging the issue at all. I sincerely do not believe that science will ever be the basis for ethics or morals. I think I'm I adhering far more rigorously to the spirit of science by separating it from the moral argument than you are by putting it in the middle.

 

Until we establish that morals and ethics are a purely sentient construct, then I don't see this issue moving at all.

I have a counter-proposal; I will agree with your statement if you agree that humanity does not get its ethical guidance from religion.

"I didn't know anyone was insulted; for my part I'm just trying to clarify a misconception you have."

 

"I'll leave aside your scientist-bating for the moment. (Why can't science give guidance for morals? That is the very basis for humanism, after all. Are you denying humanism exists?)"

 

I didn't know if you meant science-bating or if you'd meant to say science-baiting. Either way, it seemed as if you'd taken insult.

 

At any rate, I have no misconception. However, I will let you take the last word. We all know the famed meta constitution and, short of spending the rest of my life answering the arguments you fabricate and attribute to me, I just don't think I can compete. The floor is all yours, meta. :Cant's smiling at meta with a raised eye-brow icon:

I know it is rare, but sometimes my posting may not be perfectly spelled and adhere to grammatical convention, if only because I type on a laptop, which necessitates that I correct a lot of my touch typing, some of which I might occassionally be missed (deliberately, to see if people are reading what I write, of course ); I won't stoop to remarking just how often I need to correct your spelling when I reply.

 

Oh, Scientific American Digital finally fixed the link to the full debate.

[metadigital]

Incidentally, every theologist/philosopher since the classical Greeks introduced the notion, has tried to come up with "the ultimate proof". And every subsequent philosopher has debunked the previous one, by demonstrating the enormous logical fallacies in their reasoning.

 

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).

The short answer is both; faulty premise and bad logic.

 

For example, the Catholic Encyclopedia mentions the "proof" of purgatory, to wit: if the dead simply went to heaven or hell on the basis of their sins while on Earth, there would be no point in praying for them.

... For why pray for the dead, if there be no belief in the power of prayer to afford solace to those who as yet are excluded from the sight of God? ...

The circular conclusion is that, because we pray for the dead, purgatory must exist (otherwise our prayers would be pointless ...).

A classic example of a syndrome the philosopher Daniel Dennett has called

[Qwerty the Sir]

The short answer is both; faulty premise and bad logic.

 

For example, the Catholic Encyclopedia mentions the "proof" of purgatory, to wit: if the dead simply went to heaven or hell on the basis of their sins while on Earth, there would be no point in praying for them.

... For why pray for the dead, if there be no belief in the power of prayer to afford solace to those who as yet are excluded from the sight of God? ...

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.

Edited June 24, 2007 by Qwerty the Sir

[metadigital]

I wasn't "gone to another tangent", I was giving further evidence of faulty logic. I answered your query against my comment by saying that it was both faulty premise AND faulty logic. You may think that circular logic is not a fallacy, but it is. It doesn't "prove" anything, except that which was assumed to be correct in the first place. (This cannot avoid confirmation bias.) In other words, it's superfluous to the process: you might as well use "proof" as a synonym for "assumption", for all the service it provides in this definition. You are polluting the meaning of "proof".

 

This is why scientific method (see also logical positivism) is all about DISPROVING a hypothesis ... failure to be able to disprove that a force acts on two objects proportional to their masses and inversely as the square of their distance apart means that we accept that this is true (and call it something nifty, like gravity); the fact that we cannot disprove it no matter how many times we try, with bodies of all sizes, anywhere, means that it stands up to scientific rigour. To illustrate, at enormously large scales, there is a small fraction of a percent that isn't explained by Newton's law ... this has been corrected by implementing Quantum Gravity, which can explain satisfactorily the tiny imprecision at large scales (super massive black holes with singularities the size of the diameter of the solar system, for example, and their warping effect on space-time). Hence, science does not defend Newton just because he was a great thinker. Neither does his idea get special protection, just because of precedence, or because we are comfortable with the notion. That's the point of science: it seeks truth, not comfort.

 

Your neat little deductions are proceeding fallaciously. Why does Q imply P? That is an assumption. You are defining that Q follows P. There isn't even any observable data! You are just re-stating assumptions in a different order.

 

P = Dragons exist

Q = People play DnD

 

1) P > Q

2) Q

∴P

 

See? It's pointless. And definitely not logical.

 

I didn't think it was worth refuting a posteriori arguments, typified by Thomas Aquinas (The Unmoved Mover, The Uncaused Cause, The Cosmological Argument: all of which rely on the idea of infinite regress, and use God to terminate it, assuming that God is immune to it, by definition, then further assuming that this terminator has other properties like omniscience and omnipotence ... those paradoxes notwithstanding, usually manifested with arguments about free will and the problem of evil); nor a priori arguments (i.e. not requiring any real-world data) typified by St Anselm's Ontological Argument, which arbitrarily decides that existence is "more perfect" than not existing, then uses this assumption to prove that God must exist, because s/he is the most perfect thing. Faulty premises AND faulty logic.

[WITHTEETH]

[Istima Loke]

Considering what you assumed to be correct as correct is not a logical fallacy. Or as Parmenides said (in his poem "On Nature"):

 

 

The one: that it is and it is impossible for it not to be.

This is the path of Persuasion, for it accompanies Objective Truth.

 

[metadigital]

Fallacies of definition

Fallacies of definition refer to the various ways in which definitions can fail to have merit. The term is used to suggest analogy with the logical fallacies. This is a typical sort of list found in texts used in college logic courses.

Contents

1. Circularity
   1. 
      
   2. Defining with a synonym
      
   3. Defining with a near synonym
      

[*]Over-broad definitions

[*]Over-narrow definitions

[*]Obscurity

[*]Examples and definition in context

Circularity

If one concept is defined by another, and the other is defined by the first, we have a pair of circular definitions, somewhat similar to a question-begging argument: neither offers us enlightenment about the thing we wanted to be enlightened about.

...

[etc]

[taks]

Considering what you assumed to be correct as correct is not a logical fallacy.

it is a circular argument fallacy if any of your conclusions appear as one of the premises. aka begging the question.

 

taks

[Istima Loke]

I think I get what you say. But I never said that A stands. I said that if A stands and someone asks me: "Hey, does A stand?" I would say: "Why yes, yes it stands". It is a principal of logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Identity

 

No?

 

Reason for edit: Grammar... and stuff

Edited June 24, 2007 by Istima Loke

[Qwerty the Sir]

I wasn't "gone to another tangent", I was giving further evidence of faulty logic. I answered your query against my comment by saying that it was both faulty premise AND faulty logic.

 

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.

 

You may think that circular logic is not a fallacy, but it is. It doesn't "prove" anything, except that which was assumed to be correct in the first place. (This cannot avoid confirmation bias.) In other words, it's superfluous to the process: you might as well use "proof" as a synonym for "assumption", for all the service it provides in this definition. You are polluting the meaning of "proof".

 

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.

 

This is why scientific method (see also logical positivism) is all about DISPROVING a hypothesis ... failure to be able to disprove that a force acts on two objects proportional to their masses and inversely as the square of their distance apart means that we accept that this is true (and call it something nifty, like gravity); the fact that we cannot disprove it no matter how many times we try, with bodies of all sizes, anywhere, means that it stands up to scientific rigour. To illustrate, at enormously large scales, there is a small fraction of a percent that isn't explained by Newton's law ... this has been corrected by implementing Quantum Gravity, which can explain satisfactorily the tiny imprecision at large scales (super massive black holes with singularities the size of the diameter of the solar system, for example, and their warping effect on space-time). Hence, science does not defend Newton just because he was a great thinker. Neither does his idea get special protection, just because of precedence, or because we are comfortable with the notion. That's the point of science: it seeks truth, not comfort.

 

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.

 

Your neat little deductions are proceeding fallaciously. Why does Q imply P? That is an assumption. You are defining that Q follows P. There isn't even any observable data! You are just re-stating assumptions in a different order.

 

P = Dragons exist

Q = People play DnD

 

1) P > Q

2) Q

∴P

 

See? It's pointless. And definitely not logical.

 

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.

 

I didn't think it was worth refuting a posteriori arguments, typified by Thomas Aquinas (The Unmoved Mover, The Uncaused Cause, The Cosmological Argument: all of which rely on the idea of infinite regress, and use God to terminate it, assuming that God is immune to it, by definition, then further assuming that this terminator has other properties like omniscience and omnipotence ... those paradoxes notwithstanding, usually manifested with arguments about free will and the problem of evil); nor a priori arguments (i.e. not requiring any real-world data) typified by St Anselm's Ontological Argument, which arbitrarily decides that existence is "more perfect" than not existing, then uses this assumption to prove that God must exist, because s/he is the most perfect thing. Faulty premises AND faulty logic.

 

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.

Edited June 27, 2007 by metadigital

[metadigital]

Here is the issue: there is no reason to assert that, because P is true therefore Q follows.

 

It is stated that this is a fact, without any support. Why does Q follow P? Dragons exist because people play DnD? Penguins fly because a Gold atom has 79 protons in its nucleus?

 

If Q was a consequent of P then we would know so, because we would observe it somewhere. Under such a circumstance, modus ponens is certainly logical, valid and correct. Just invoking MP on an arbitrary collection of assertions is fruitless and illogical.

 

I'll assume you didn't follow the links I provided in my last reply, due perhaps to the new forum formatting.

Fallacies of Definition

Fallacies of definition refer to the various ways in which definitions can fail to have merit. The term is used to suggest analogy with the logical fallacies. This is a typical sort of list found in texts used in college logic courses.

 

As for splitting hairs about whether it is informal or formal, I draw your attention to the wikipedia again:

Formal Fallacy

In philosophy, a formal fallacy or a logical fallacy is a pattern of reasoning which is always or at least most commonly wrong. This is due to a flaw in the structure of the argument which renders the argument invalid. A formal fallacy is contrasted with an informal fallacy, which has a valid logical form, but is false due to one or more of its premises being false.

 

The term fallacy is often used more generally to mean an argument which is problematic for any reason, whether it be a formal or an informal fallacy.

...

Informal Fallacy

In informal logic, an informal fallacy is an argument pattern that is always or at least most commonly wrong due to a mistake in its reasoning. In contrast to a formal fallacy, the error has to do with issues of rational inference that occur in natural language which are broader than can be represented by the symbols used in formal logic. Informal fallacies, when deductive, commonly occur in an invalid form, but by including an unstated co-premise, most deductive informal fallacies are actually valid, with the hidden co-premise false, making the argument unsound.

 

It is problematic to analyse inductive informal fallacies in the same way as valid or invalid, as the worthiness of an inductive argument lies in its inductive strength. For instance, the fallacy of hasty generalisation, stated as:

 

s is a P and s is a Q

therefore, All P's are Q's

 

Could have an extra premise added such as:

 

For any X and for any Φ, if X is P and X is Φ, then all P's are Φ

 

This turns the argument into a deductive one, and in the case of a fallacy, the added premise is false. This approach tends to obliterate the distinction between induction and deduction. It is important to distinguish between a principle of reasoning (deductive or inductive) and the premise of an argument.

 

There is no empirical a posteriori ratification for the statement "Intercessory prayers > Purgatory". It is affirming the consequent:

P: Purgatory exists for those whose sins aren't so bad as to be sent straight to Hell [completely suppositious, and supposititious to boot]

Q: people pray to ease the suffering of those in Purgatory [observable fact]

 

affirming the consequent

Affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy, committed by reasoning in the form:

 

If P, then Q.

Q.

Therefore, P.

My highlights.

[Hurlshort]

I think Meta is an expert in phallicism.

[Cantousent]

As promised, I'm willing to give you the last word, meta. I gladly welcome anyone reading this thread to view our posts and draw his own conclusions.

[Calax]

I skimmed this and am wondering how the HELL we got from a debate between two scholars to a debate between meta and qwerty (that involves math and D&D geeks...)

[Qwerty the Sir]

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.

Edited June 25, 2007 by Qwerty the Sir

[Xard]

Meh, I should read 4 pages if I'd want to understand **** what is going on here.

 

So I say only this: Logical Positivism SUCKS

[Walsingham]

Meh, I should read 4 pages if I'd want to understand **** what is going on here.

 

So I say only this: Logical Positivism SUCKS

 

If I understand logical positivism, I'm with Xard.

[metadigital]

Meh, I should read 4 pages if I'd want to understand **** what is going on here.

 

So I say only this: Logical Positivism SUCKS

Sit in the corner and suck on your lollipop. There's a good boy. Don't let the nasty complicated science hurt you.

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.

I thought you'd retreat once I took the semantic argument from under you. I'll reply in detail shortly.

 

As promised, I'm willing to give you the last word, meta. I gladly welcome anyone reading this thread to view our posts and draw his own conclusions.

Nice side-step on my counter proposal. I'll conclude that you concede that point.

[Qwerty the Sir]

I thought you'd retreat once I took the semantic argument from under you. I'll reply in detail shortly.

 

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).

Edited June 25, 2007 by Qwerty the Sir