If man is complex, then God created him.

Isn't that a assumption? How can one prove an assumption logically?

It's like saying "If someone is a president, that man is obviously smart"

hmm well that video didn't prove god exists with logic. The statement "if man is complex then god created him" is completely illogical. Just because something is complex doesn't prove your point anymore than the fact that I hear ringing in my ears, means there is a bell nearby. Logic is only as good as the facts you base it upon.

This starts both proofs with some laughable assumptions. False assumptions can be used to prove anything. Garbage in, garbage out. That's not a problem with logic, that's a problem with the way one uses it. Logic is very far from useless. The given arguments are also in poor style and unparsimonious. I downvote it.

written by Farhad2000
"If man is complex, then God created him.

Isn't that a assumption? How can one prove an assumption logically?

It's like saying "If someone is a president, that man is obviously smart""
I think you misunderstood the intent of this video. Did you watch it all the way through? "How can one prove an assumption logically?"
That was the point the author of this video was trying to make. We (Atheists and Christians) cannot prove our belief logically. This applies to me just as much as it does you.

written by grspec
"hmm well that video didn't prove god exists with logic. The statement "if man is complex then god created him" is completely illogical. Just because something is complex doesn't prove your point anymore than the fact that I hear ringing in my ears, means there is a bell nearby. Logic is only as good as the facts you base it upon."
Same response as above. The point trying to be conveyed is that logic cannot prove os disprove the existence of God.

After reading these two comments I must ask myself why is it that the assumption "All things that exists are measurable. God is immeasurable. Therefore, there is no such as God." has not been challenged? Is it logical? Obviously not. So why not include it in your comments as well?

written by jwray
"This starts both proofs with some laughable assumptions. False assumptions can be used to prove anything. Garbage in, garbage out. That's not a problem with logic, that's a problem with the way one uses it. Logic is very far from useless. The given arguments are also in poor style and unparsimonious. I downvote it.
Again the intent of this video is to show that logic shouldn't mandate God's existence or non-existence since as you just said that is an abuse of logic. This is to show how logic can be abused.

If logic (and by extension, math) has nothing to say about God, then by the same argument it has nothing to say about the rest of reality. And yet every time I put two sticks on top of two sticks I end up with a pile of 4 sticks. I'm just lucky I guess.

Whoever did this video completely missed the point of freshman logic.

For information on how to argue logically and without fallacies, go here.

I think both SilentPoet and the video itself are missing the purpose of logic in argumentation.

Logic is a very critical (and necessary!) part of argumentation and constructive debate - if one point does not logically follow from another, then the argument is invalid, and thus fallacious.

What this video is presenting are VALID arguments, but they are not logically SOUND arguments (yes, there is a difference). Since an argument is a dialogue of sorts, there must be another person to agree on the PREMISES of the argument.

If an argument is valid, and in addition it started from TRUE premises, then it is called a SOUND argument. A sound argument must arrive at a true conclusion.

It is the premises of the arguments here that I (and many others) cannot verify as true ("If Man is Complex, then God created him" is an entirely unverifiable/untrue conditional premise), and thus I cannot accept the argument, though the conclusion follows logically from its stated premises.

Logic is just a formalization of a series of connected statements in order to establish a definite conclusion. It is a tool. It is not the argument itself. You are putting too much weight on the tool when it should be placed on the arguments. The premises of both of the arguments are the problems here, and thus making them UNSOUND arguments, despite their logical VALIDITY.

EDIT: Also, why the "lol" tag? This is hardly comedy, the way it misrepresents logic.

yup, this is great, man, just great!
to anyone who's out here this video is all about hte truth man!

ok. I'l get to grips with myself -

the point of the video is to show that logic is just a formal set of rules, it has actualy little to do with the object we are using. Be it God, paper, rock, scissors.It's absolutely abstract - you cano't use logic to disprove the "flying spaghetti monster" (shudders), logic simply doesn't do that. it's not a tool for truth exclusively, but it is a tool for thought an for evaluating mistakes in thought.
The point wasn't that God created man or anything, it's that the argument isn't logically flawed.


grspec said
The statement "if man is complex then god created him" is completely illogical.

No it isn't! it's just not TRUE. But it is logical.
an ilogical statement would be - this metal is made out of wood. Because the term metal automatically excludes the possibility of it being wood. Or a better example - "this triangle is round."

Debatable premises can sometimes be reduced to simpler premises that are not disputed. If someone challenges a premise of yours, sometimes you can prove that simpler undisputed premises imply the premise in question.

written by jmzero
"If logic (and by extension, math) has nothing to say about God, then by the same argument it has nothing to say about the rest of reality. And yet every time I put two sticks on top of two sticks I end up with a pile of 4 sticks. I'm just lucky I guess.


Whoever did this video completely missed the point of freshman logic."

Well, logic doesn't have much to do with reality. It does however have to do with our understanding of reality. Reality or truth is often different of what we understand of it.

written by HaricotVert
"For information on how to argue logically and without fallacies, go here.

I think both SilentPoet and the video itself are missing the purpose of logic in argumentation.

Logic is a very critical (and necessary!) part of argumentation and constructive debate - if one point does not logically follow from another, then the argument is invalid, and thus fallacious.

What this video is presenting are VALID arguments, but they are not logically SOUND arguments (yes, there is a difference). Since an argument is a dialogue of sorts, there must be another person to agree on the PREMISES of the argument.

If an argument is valid, and in addition it started from TRUE premises, then it is called a SOUND argument. A sound argument must arrive at a true conclusion.

It is the premises of the arguments here that I (and many others) cannot verify as true ("If Man is Complex, then God created him" is an entirely unverifiable/untrue conditional premise), and thus I cannot accept the argument, though the conclusion follows logically from its stated premises.

Logic is just a formalization of a series of connected statements in order to establish a definite conclusion. It is a tool. It is not the argument itself. You are putting too much weight on the tool when it should be placed on the arguments. The premises of both of the arguments are the problems here, and thus making them UNSOUND arguments, despite their logical VALIDITY.

EDIT: Also, why the "lol" tag? This is hardly comedy, the way it misrepresents logic."

Again, the point of this video is to show how logic can be abused. Yes, the premises in the video cannot be proven true or false, but the premises are given to show that using them is an abuse of logic. However, thank you for the info. I found it very useful.

On a side note, I added to "lol" tag since I did infact laugh out loud after watching this.

written by bluecliff
"yup, this is great, man, just great!
to anyone who's out here this video is all about hte truth man!

ok. I'l get to grips with myself -

the point of the video is to show that logic is just a formal set of rules, it has actualy little to do with the object we are using. Be it God, paper, rock, scissors.It's absolutely abstract - you cano't use logic to disprove the "flying spaghetti monster" (shudders), logic simply doesn't do that. it's not a tool for truth exclusively, but it is a tool for thought an for evaluating mistakes in thought.
The point wasn't that God created man or anything, it's that the argument isn't logically flawed.


grspec said
The statement "if man is complex then god created him" is completely illogical.

No it isn't! it's just not TRUE. But it is logical.
an ilogical statement would be - this metal is made out of wood. Because the term metal automatically excludes the possibility of it being wood. Or a better example - "this triangle is round.""

Thank you. Logic has little to do with truth, but a lot to do with what we understand of it.

I have yet to meet a person who ever tried to prove something to me using logic.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Upvote for mostly civil discussion on religion!

written by Farhad2000
"I have yet to meet a person who ever tried to prove something to me using logic."

Really? I have seen tons of videos on youtube and similar sites trying to use logic to prove or disprove God. Just type in "god and proof" and you should find videos using arguements similar to the ones used in this video.

written by dag
"Upvote for mostly civil discussion on religion!"

Gee, thanks. Hopefully this will be the first and not the last.

Again, the point of this video is to show how logic can be abused. Yes, the premises in the video cannot be proven true or false, but the premises are given to show that using them is an abuse of logic.

The video is not abusing logic at all. The logic is actually the most correct part of the video. The video *is* however abusing incorrect premises.

Comprende?

written by HaricotVert
"The video is not abusing logic at all. The logic is actually the most correct part of the video. The video *is* however abusing incorrect premises.

Comprende?"

Allow me to reiterate. By using premises that are unverifiable, logic is used in a way that is was never meant for and cannot be effectively used.
But thanks anyway for explaing this.

logic is used in a way that is was never meant for

No, you still don't get it. The logic is perfectly acceptable in its correctness. There is nothing wrong with the logic used. Even with unverifiable premises, the logic is being used entirely in the way it was meant to be.

Look, if I change the premises that the video's author uses while using the exact same logical principles, I arrive at a sound argument:

1. If I have an orange, it must have grown from an orange tree.
2. If an orange tree grew the orange, an orange tree must exist.
3. I have an orange.
4. Therefore, an orange tree exists.
QED.

See what I did there? I used the exact same LOGIC to arrive at a SOUND argument (a proof of existence) because I used true premises. It's a simple double application of Modus Ponens. You cannot say that Modus Ponens is "ineffectively used" because it arrives at a faulty conclusion.

Granted, you could disagree with my conclusion, suggesting that the orange was taken from a tree that no longer exists (in which case semantics matter), or that the orange was genetically engineered and created in a lab artificially, or that we all live in a dream state where nothing is real. But that is not the job of logic. That is the job of argumentation.

written by HaricotVert
"No, you still don't get it. The logic is perfectly acceptable in its correctness. There is nothing wrong with the logic used. Even with unverifiable premises, the logic is being used entirely in the way it was meant to be."

Are you saying it is perfectly okay to use logic based off of unverifiable premises to reach a conclusion to an answer?

"Look, if I change the premises that the video's author uses while using the exact same logical principles, I arrive at a sound argument:

1. If I have an orange, it must have grown from an orange tree.
2. If an orange tree grew the orange, an orange tree must exist.
3. I have an orange.
4. Therefore, an orange tree exists.
QED.

See what I did there? I used the exact same LOGIC to arrive at a SOUND argument (a proof of existence) because I used true premises. It's a simple double application of Modus Ponens. You cannot say that Modus Ponens is "ineffectively used" because it arrives at a faulty conclusion.

Granted, you could disagree with my conclusion, suggesting that the orange was taken from a tree that no longer exists (in which case semantics matter), or that the orange was genetically engineered and created in a lab artificially, or that we all live in a dream state where nothing is real. But that is not the job of logic. That is the job of argumentation."


Hmm. Look in my above comment. I stated when used with unverifiable premises, logic cannot be used effectively. Or that is to say it cannot prove or disprove squat. I don't mind logic. I just don't think logic is the mandatory factor in what is real and what isn't. The point of this video is to show that when it comes to God all known premises are as of yet unveriable, and thus, we cannot use logic to prove or disprove God.

But thanks again for explaining this. Most people would have simply become frustated by now.

"But that is not the job of logic. That is the job of argumentation." this video tries to argue just that, as far as I can see.


I don't see this video misrepresenting logic, it does say that logic is illogical (which is or could be a philosophical viewpoint) which is sort of true in a metaphorical way, since the arguments used in logic lie outside of it i.e. agreeing on a premise.


In your example you came to a true conclusion, of course, but I don't believe that it should take a theory or argumentation to prove that it's true, neither do I believe that proof is needed in that case (as most would agree) - nor logic (most people just believe in oranges - the fools! )

Are you saying it is perfectly okay to use logic based off of unverifiable premises to reach a conclusion to an answer?

Yes, absolutely. This is exactly the point. It is the job of the listener to figure out for themselves whether or not an argument is flawed or fallacious. Logic is merely a set of rules used to prove and argument's correctness based on a set of premises. Sure, if you break the rules of logic then your argument is invalid, but the author of this video does not here. The use of logic is in no way related to the verifiability of an argument's premises or conclusion. The videomaker's argument is flawed, though he uses logic just fine. You must be able to discern between the two. If you've ever taken a rhetoric class, participated in speech & debate teams, or even taken an introductory Logic course, this is one of the first concepts taught: knowing where your opponent's argument or premises are flawed, because their logic is more than likely to be perfectly valid.

Hmm. Look in my above comment. I stated when used with unverifiable premises, logic cannot be used effectively.

The author of this video does exactly the opposite of what you are saying here. He used logic very effectively (or perhaps "properly" is a better term) to come to a conclusion using unverifiable premises. Again, the "effectiveness" of using logic has nothing to do with true or false premises.

The point of this video is to show that when it comes to God all known premises are as of yet unveriable, and thus, we cannot use logic to prove or disprove God.

I disagree wholeheartedly. If your opponent accepts or agrees to your premises, then they must accept your conclusion if the logic you employ to arrive at that conclusion is correct. Especially if you're engaged in dialogue with one other person: you only have to convince them of your argument. Similarily, Reductio ad absurdum is a valid method of logic often used to disprove another person's argument, and is often used in such religious debates.

Seriously, people are confusing two entirely separate ideas. Logic cannot control the content that it works for. It's like you're blaming the hammer for not hitting a nail when you're the one holding it.

HaricotVert
I think what SilentPoet was trying to say is that with unverifiable premises logic can't be used to get to the truth (the facts/how the world works)

written by HaricotVert
"Yes, absolutely. This is exactly the point. It is the job of the listener to figure out for themselves whether or not an argument is flawed or fallacious. Logic is merely a set of rules used to prove and argument's correctness based on a set of premises. Sure, if you break the rules of logic then your argument is invalid, but the author of this video does not here. The use of logic is in no way related to the verifiability of an argument's premises or conclusion. The videomaker's argument is flawed, though he uses logic just fine. You must be able to discern between the two. If you've ever taken a rhetoric class, participated in speech & debate teams, or even taken an introductory Logic course, this is one of the first concepts taught: knowing where your opponent's argument or premises are flawed, because their logic is more than likely to be perfectly valid."

The logic is fine, but the premises are unveriable, so the logic cannot be proven. So using logic to prove God existence or non-existence is utterly futile. It simply conflicts with itself too much. So, again, I say logic cannot prove or disprove God. God is simply just too big for us to wrap our minds around entirely and thus, no matter what premises or arguements we use we cannot be sure of them. That is my point. The rest of what logic deals with is fine, but when it comes to God, logic simply fails.

As shown in this video logic can disprove and prove God, but not disprove or prove his existence.

Man does not yearn for two answers to the same question. Man asks for truth. Logic as it is, cannot give that to us when it comes to God.

On a side note, I would like to point out why that is why we would never fully understand God.

Obviously, if you don't accept any axioms you can't get anywhere. Logic shows that axioms imply conclusions. Since I suspect this video is an attempt to put science on a par with faith, I offer the following quotation by Stephen Hawking:

“Any sound scientific theory, whether of time or of any other concept, should in my opinion be based on the most workable philosophy of science: the positivist approach put forward by Karl Popper and others. According to this way of thinking, a scientific theory is a mathematical model that describes and codifies the observations we make. A good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions that can be tested… If one takes the positivist position, as I do, one cannot say what time actually is. All one can do is describe what has been found to be a very good mathematical model for time and say what predictions it makes.” (The Universe In a Nutshell , p31)

So far, every prediction I can make on the basis of the theory that there is no God is consistent with what I observe.

Since there are infinitely many things that can't be disproven without making some assumptions, such as Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and Russel's Teapot, in the absence of any evidence for something it is reasonable to act as though it doesn't exist.

In reply to jwray:
“So far, every prediction I can make on the basis of the theory that there is no God is consistent with what I observe.”

Amen!

written by jwray
"Obviously, if you don't accept any axioms you can't get anywhere. Logic shows that axioms imply conclusions. Since I suspect this video is an attempt to put science on a par with faith, I offer the following quotation by Stephen Hawking:

“Any sound scientific theory, whether of time or of any other concept, should in my opinion be based on the most workable philosophy of science: the positivist approach put forward by Karl Popper and others. According to this way of thinking, a scientific theory is a mathematical model that describes and codifies the observations we make. A good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions that can be tested… If one takes the positivist position, as I do, one cannot say what time actually is. All one can do is describe what has been found to be a very good mathematical model for time and say what predictions it makes.” (The Universe In a Nutshell , p31)

So far, every prediction I can make on the basis of the theory that there is no God is consistent with what I observe.

Since there are infinitely many things that can't be disproven without making some assumptions, such as Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and Russel's Teapot, in the absence of any evidence for something it is reasonable to act as though it doesn't exist.

And who is to discern what axioms to accept and to not accept? Even if we accepted those axioms, we end up with two answers to the same question.

Yes, I suppose it can reasonable to an extent, but to say that for sure it doesn't or does exists seems unreasonable, no? That is the point I have been trying to get across.

this video is not aboout puting science on par wit faith -
perhaps that was SilentPoets intent, but that's his problem. The video is about logic, how people use it etc.

written by bluecliff
"this video is not aboout puting science on par wit faith -
perhaps that was SilentPoets intent, but that's his problem. The video is about logic, how people use it etc."

That was not my intent. Look in my above post. It is unreasonable for any side of the God debate to claim to prove their side to be true through logic, since both sides can of the debate can be logically proven and disproven.

My point is that nobody can win the God debate through logic since all known premises as of yet are unverifiable, and thus cannot be proven as truth.

Discarded due to negative votes by members.