Re: What is wrong with this argument?

From: The Ghost In The Machine (ewill_at_sirius.athghost7038suus.net)
Date: 03/28/05 

Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 00:00:05 GMT

In sci.logic, Mike Oliver
<mike_lists@verizon.net>
 wrote
on Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:48:16 -0600
<3aokgfF69hofbU1@individual.net>:
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>> One could formulate
>> it in one of the following manners:
>>
>> [1] There is One True God that everyone believes in.
>>
>> (Eg)(Ax)(Gg . (Px => Bxg) . (Ag')(Bxg' => (g=g'))) [+]
>>
>> This is demonstrably false
>
> Perhaps, but not according to the line of argument
> you've taken here, where you attempt (for example)
> to demonstrate that Allah and the Christian God are
> not the same being, by showing that Muslims and
> Christians hold beliefs that would be mutually
> incompatible if they *were* the same being.
>
> All that shows is that (if the Christian God is
> in fact the same being as Allah) then Christians,
> or Muslims, or both, hold some false beliefs.
>
> This is similar to an error committed by many
> in sci.logic of identifying an object with
> the properties of that object--for example,
> when some speak of a proposition being "true
> in ZFC".

I'm not quite sure what to make of this subpoint but it
is an interesting one. Of course, one can dissect
this various ways:

[1] A: "I believe in Jesus."
    B: "So do I. What a coincidence."
    A: "Jesus is sitting next to the Father."
    B: "No he's not, he walks among us."
    A: "Heretic!"
    B: "Infidel!"
    A: "I'll have your head for that one!"
    B: "Bring it on, scum".

    and so on.

[2] A: "I believe in Jesus."
    B: "I believe in the almighty Allah."
    A: "Well Jesus believers all believe in Heaven."
    B: "So do believers in Allah."
    A: "Well Jesus believers all believe in prayer."
    B: "So do believers in Allah. Do you think they're the
       same deity, then?"
    A: "Egads! That's brilliant!"

[3] A: "I believe in Jesus."
    B: "Oh please. I'm an atheist."
    A: "What?"
    B: "You heard me. I don't believe in your Jesus."
    A: "Well you must worship something right?"
    B: "Wrong."
    A: "Well, OK, but you still worship money, right?"
    B: "Worship? I might use it on occasion to pay my bills
        and to buy snacks and such. Does that count?"
    A: "Well, OK, you must worship the devil then you sinner!"
    B: "Yeah, right. You've been smoking the Holy Incense again,
        haven't you?"

In [1] the entity has the same name but not the same property sublist.
In [2] there are two entities with the same sublists (but A and B
will discover as they expand the sublists that they will eventually
diverge). In [3] the atheist isn't exactly convinced with the
theist's logic that there has to be a god in the atheist's life.

[1] could be a variant of converse accident/hasty generalization.
I'm not sure regarding the other two, beyond the obvious ad
hominems near the end of the arguments.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

Of course you're the one introducing the concept of "false
belief", which is basically an analysis of 'Bxg' (or,
if you prefer, a brand new concept -- true belief versus
false belief versus just plain old belief). I'll admit
I'm not sure *what* belief is at this point, although it's
not necessarily connected to truth or observable fact.
At this point pure logic may have to yield to semantics. 

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.