AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
There are many different ways you can argue ID logically.
Could you present the idea of ID in a logically valid syllogism?
Could you present the idea of ID in a logically valid syllogism?
For Dixie: Common Sense
- Thread starter AnyOldIron
- Start date
You mean an Aristotelean syllogism?
Yes, anybody can. Just as you did with green cows earlier.
For example, the syllogism
some A is B, all B is C, therefore some A is C may be simplistic but is logically valid.
One could say something like:
Evolution could have been directed by an all-powerful Being, God is represented as an all-Powerful Being, therefore God could have used Evolution as a tool of Creation...
One could even express it in a mathematical formula.
And if I had keys for the calculus symbols I would do it for you.
Yes, anybody can. Just as you did with green cows earlier.
For example, the syllogism
some A is B, all B is C, therefore some A is C may be simplistic but is logically valid.
One could say something like:
Evolution could have been directed by an all-powerful Being, God is represented as an all-Powerful Being, therefore God could have used Evolution as a tool of Creation...
One could even express it in a mathematical formula.
And if I had keys for the calculus symbols I would do it for you.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Break the argument ID proponents put forward down into a deductive syllogism, a conclusion supported by two (or more) premises.
For example:
P: Complex things made by humans are designed
P: Natural things are infinitely more complex than man-made things
Ergo, natural things are designed.
This is non-sequiter, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, but the argument used by Creationists/ID is boiled down to the conclusion made and the premises they use to support it.
For example:
P: Complex things made by humans are designed
P: Natural things are infinitely more complex than man-made things
Ergo, natural things are designed.
This is non-sequiter, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, but the argument used by Creationists/ID is boiled down to the conclusion made and the premises they use to support it.
I didn't make this argument. Therefore you battle with a strawman.
You asked if I could make an argument for ID that was logically valid. I presented one above. You then start in on a different argument made by others. So, if you want to discuss their argument, then find somebody making it.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
I didn't make this argument. Therefore you battle with a strawman.
I know, I presented it as an example of a deductive syllogism.
The argument you used is valid, though the premises can be easily demonstrated unsound, and the argument you used isn't the one proponents of ID use to explain how design came about.
I know, I presented it as an example of a deductive syllogism.
The argument you used is valid, though the premises can be easily demonstrated unsound, and the argument you used isn't the one proponents of ID use to explain how design came about.