Subj : Doubt, no doubt... To : JOHN WILSON From : LEE LOFASO Date : Mon Aug 06 2001 09:15 am Hello John, >LL>Premise 1 - Every firm belief is presumption. >LL>Premise 2 - The existence or nonexistence of God cannot be >LL>proven. Conclusion - Therefore, only a theory of probability can >LL>exist. JW>Aristoltelian logic has many advantages -- but, being a mystic (among JW>other things) Some firm beliefs may be based on personal experience: JW>reality is always in question, your Doubt is right up there, but we are JW>forced to trust our own existance as at least partially real. JW>No? Perhaps. JW>I pause here to see if we can build a mutually acceptable platform. "I think therefore I am." - Descartes Notice the syllogism I presented was presented in incorrect form. I stated the conclusion as premise 1. Just wanted to check to see if Richard understands how to construct a proper syllogism. Here is the correct order: P1: The existence/nonexistence of God cannot be proven. P2: Only a theory of probability can exist. Cn: Therefore, any firm belief is presumption. Compare this with Descartes' argument: P1: Either I exist or I do not exist. P2: Only a theory of my existence can exist. Cn: Therefore, I think (firm belief) therefore I am (presumption). Notice that P1 Either God exists or God does not exist is the same as Descartes' P1 Either I exist or I do not exist. In both cases, there is no in-between. P2 is the same for both arguments, as is the Conclusion. In order to test for soundness and validity, one would have to construct four syllogisms, and test the syllogism presented against each. There are 256 possible ways to construct a syllogism, 24 of them valid, only 15 being important. Of those 15 syllogisms that are important, only 4 of them apply in this case. Although it does not matter if one tests for soundness first, or validity first, I prefer to test for validity first. Obviously, if a syllogism is shown to be not valid why would one want to continue any further? There's no point. Since either I exist or I do not exist, I cannot both exist and not exist. Therefore, the statement I exist does not equal the statement I do not exist. Let's call the statement I exist A and the statement I do not exist B. We can write P1 as A does not equal B. P1: A does not equal B Now let's look at P2. Only a theory of probability can exist. Since I cannot prove I exist, and I cannot prove I do not exist, then all I can show is a theory of probability for existence or nonexistence. Thus, a belief. In that light, P2 can be shown in four different ways: P2: Some A = C (some of what exists is a theory of probability) P2: Some C = A (some theories of probability suggest I may exist) P2: Some B = C (some of what does not exist are theories of probability) P2: Some C = B (some theories of probability suggest I may not exist) The Conclusion, any belief is presumption, is the only valid conclusion that can be drawn given P1 and P2, since my existence or nonexistence cannot be proven or disproven, no theory of probability ever being an absolute certainty. Here are the four syllogisms that can be constructed from the argument: P1: A <> B P2: Some A = C Cn: :. Some C <> B P1: A <> B P2: Some C = A Cn: :. Some C <> B P1: A <> B P2: Some B = C Cn: :. Some C <> A P1: A <> B P2: Some C = B Cn: :. Some C <> A Now all one has to do is test for soundness. JW>:-) Soundness or weirdness, it's all the same thing. ;) JW>Whether or not, I look forward to an attempt in that direction, anyway. Do I exist? Or am I a figment of somebody's wild and overactive imagination? How can I possibly know for sure? Could be that we're all just a bunch of computer blips having a flame war... JW>Cordially... Taking out flame-torcher... >RMM>You have ignored everything I said after Pogo... and now you > >even ignore the special grasp I had of that topic. JW>My grasp was less rational than emotional: JW>When a tear appeard in the corner in Pogo's eye, sometime one appeared in JW>mine...pretty good for a `comic strip'. Thank goodness Doonsbury is JW>still around. :-) JW>Speaking of rational/emotional...'tis an interesting phenomenon: JW>Intellectual grumpiness :-) Present company excepted, of course. JW>(Cynic that I sometimes am, I have to add: so far... :-) JW>Regards... JW>... Is everything then illusory? No, it just appears that way... Row, row, row your boat Gently down the stream. Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily Life is but a dream. "I dream, therefore I am." - HAL --Lee * SLMR 2.1a * I must be shutting up like a telescope. --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:18/140) .