Forums › Forums › Epistemology And Philosophy › Proof For God In A Logically Semantic Presentation
Tagged: God
-
Proof For God In A Logically Semantic Presentation
Posted by A Hasan on January 4, 2021 at 11:28 pmCould someone present the Quranic proof for God as understood by Ghamidi sahab (presented in his al hikmah lectures) in a logically semantic manner?
Thanks
Faisal Haroon replied 3 years, 11 months ago 4 Members · 10 Replies -
10 Replies
-
Proof For God In A Logically Semantic Presentation
-
Umer
Moderator January 5, 2021 at 12:10 amI think it is already available in a very logical manner, unless you’re asking for something else:
-
A Hasan
Contributor January 5, 2021 at 12:13 amI’m looking for a format more in line of:
P1 All philosophers are smart
P2 John is a philosopher
C1 John is smart
-
Ahsan
Moderator January 5, 2021 at 12:21 amI think this analogy can be falsified. Whats ur point?
-
A Hasan
Contributor January 5, 2021 at 12:22 amPlease try and falsify it 😂
-
Ahsan
Moderator January 5, 2021 at 2:05 amIq test simply 😀
Neglecting other aspects of trait can lead to wrong conclusions
Consider this analogy
P1 Humans need air to breath
P2 Dogs need air to breath
C1 Humans are dogs -
A Hasan
Contributor January 5, 2021 at 2:06 amI’m not talking about the premises being true. That is logically irrelevant. It’s about if it is deductively sound.
The argument you gave is not true since humans are not dogs. And that was not one of your premises. If it was then it would be true.
-
Ahsan
Moderator January 5, 2021 at 2:13 amI showed you example of fallacy of the Undistributed Middle
https://www.thoughtco.com/undistributed-middle-fallacy-1692453First two premises are two, but wrong conclusion. Humans are dogs is the conclusion not premise.
You are committing in my opinion similar fallacy. -
A Hasan
Contributor January 5, 2021 at 2:15 amMy argument is a well known example of simple deduction. It is simply watertight. You cannot disprove it.
You have introduced a hidden premise into your conclusion that humans are dogs. If that were in the premises, the argument would be deductively sound.
Of course it would be factually incorrect just as mine is
-
Ahsan
Moderator January 5, 2021 at 2:40 amOk i understood ur point nw. Its not about false premises.
-
-
Faisal Haroon
Moderator January 5, 2021 at 12:17 pmAhmad that exercise is left to the reader. I have high hopes from you so don’t you dare let me down! 😅
Before you put in a lot of hard work though, I suggest that you pin down the purpose of such an exercise. What would you accomplish by syllogistically proving God? You would only be proving one a-priori concept (God) with another (logic). At least in my mind, it’s a zero sum game. From my perspective, the sheer capability of my mind to think logically proves an intelligent creator – God.
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi