I am saying it’s an invalid statement. So I guess by default, they are false, which makes your statement false. It’s not true that the man who does not own a car does not own a lexus. He does not own any car, therefore you cannot even ascertain the type.[/quote]
You said it was true. Like, a minute ago. You are reversing yourself here? Is this what you’re going with?[/quote]
Yes, I am reversing myself. It is false. Upon further review, the statement is false. If the man does not own a car, you cannot determine which he does not own. It is false. I thusly reverse my previous statement that it could be true. It cannot be true because it’s a contradiction.
I was therefore wrong at even entertaining the possibility of it’s truth.[/quote]
You are wrong. Here again it is all made perfectly clear. Follow along:
In classical logic, if a proposition is true, its negation is false. Conversely, if a proposition is false, its negation is true. This is the first Google hit on that matter (for confirmation, because you’d probably try to deny even this):
Take a look up above, in the quote. About the proposition that The man who does not own a car does not own a Lexus, you said: “It is false. Upon further review, the statement is false.”
Which means that, because of the first numbered point that I laid out in this post, the proposition’s negation must be true, if you are correct. That negation is this: The man who does not own a car does own a Lexus.
So, you stand by, I presume, the contention that The man who does not own a car owns a Lexus. Yes?
[quote]pat wrote:
Fallacious statements can be true and fallacious all the same time. [/quote]
Internally contradictive propositions cannot be true. Stop arguing from ignorance.[/quote]
Yes, they can. They are invalid. You cannot discuss the brand of car someone does not own who does not own a car. That’s a contradiction.
[/quote]
It is not a contradiction. You may decide to maintain it is irrelevant, but it is not a contradiction. Not anywhere close.
It is the same as saying “thing A does not have property T. Because T(f) is a sub-property of T, thing A does not have T(f) either”. This is hardly contradictory. [/quote]
Yep, exactly correct. In fact it is among the things you encounter in the very beginning of a course in logic.
X doesn’t own a car
Every lexus is a car
therefore X doesn’t own a car
That being said, this proposition is not logically contingent. It’s a tautology.
Which can be demonstrated by the fact that the opposite proposition
(“a man doesn’t own a car, therefore he owns a lexus”) would be self-contradictory.
It depends what you mean by “comment” (and “discuss”).
You can say (affirm) that he does not own this or that kind of a car. It would be tautologically true. (and admittedly pointless).
What you can’t do is ASKING “what kind of car does a man who doesn’t own a car have ?”.
In the same way, you can affirm that “an uncaused being has no cause”. it’s tautologically true.
But you can’t ask “what’s the cause of the uncaused being ?”.
That being said, this proposition is not logically contingent. It’s a tautology.
Which can be demonstrated by the fact that the opposite proposition
(“a man doesn’t own a car, therefore he owns a lexus”) would be self-contradictory.
[/quote]
Yes indeed.
It is a proposition. It is true. As a premise, it earns a T. If it is combined with two other premises, each of which earns a T, and the conclusion is an F, then that argument is invalid. It is as simple as that.
[quote]pat wrote:
Fallacious statements can be true and fallacious all the same time. [/quote]
Internally contradictive propositions cannot be true. Stop arguing from ignorance.[/quote]
Yes, they can. They are invalid. You cannot discuss the brand of car someone does not own who does not own a car. That’s a contradiction.
[/quote]
It is not a contradiction. You may decide to maintain it is irrelevant, but it is not a contradiction. Not anywhere close.
It is the same as saying “thing A does not have property T. Because T(f) is a sub-property of T, thing A does not have T(f) either”. This is hardly contradictory. [/quote]
Yep, exactly correct. In fact it is among the things you encounter in the very beginning of a course in logic.[/quote]
Even if just irrelevant, it’s still a fallacy. However, 'does not own supposes that the subject does own a car, which the subject does not. Even if just irrelevant, your objection is still false, because it’s based on a fallacy. Certainly I have been struggling to find the exact fallacy. But even if irrelevant conclusion it’s still a fallacy.
In the same way, you can affirm that “an uncaused being has no cause”. it’s tautologically true.
But you can’t ask “what’s the cause of the uncaused being ?”.
[/quote]
This.
The premise that I was using–Uncaused being X was not caused by itself–is a true logical proposition.
From there, we see that the original argument is rendered
T
T
T
Therefore, F
And from there, we see that the argument is invalid.
It depends what you mean by “comment” (and “discuss”).
You can say (affirm) that he does not own this or that kind of a car. It would be tautologically true. (and admittedly pointless).
What you can’t do is ASKING “what kind of car does a man who doesn’t own a car have ?”.
In the same way, you can affirm that “an uncaused being has no cause”. it’s tautologically true.
But you can’t ask “what’s the cause of the uncaused being ?”.
[/quote]
Okay, I concede then it’s not a contradiction, but it’s still false to question the properties something does not have.
In the same way, you can affirm that “an uncaused being has no cause”. it’s tautologically true.
But you can’t ask “what’s the cause of the uncaused being ?”.
[/quote]
This.
The premise that I was using–Uncaused being X was not caused by itself–is a true logical proposition.
From there, we see that the original argument is rendered
T
T
T
Therefore, F
And from there, we see that the argument is invalid.[/quote]
No because you cannot question the causation of an uncaused being.
Okay, I concede then it’s not a contradiction, but it’s still false to question the properties something does not have.[/quote]
So you have been insisting that it is contradictory with utter certainty, and now suddenly it isn’t. Huh.
Now, that second sentence has no bearing whatsoever on this debate. No question is being asked. An AFFIRMATION is being made. It’s a proposition, and it’s true. Yes?
Okay, I concede then it’s not a contradiction, but it’s still false to question the properties something does not have.[/quote]
So you have been insisting that it is contradictory with utter certainty, and now suddenly it isn’t. Huh.
Now, that second sentence has no bearing whatsoever on this debate. No question is being asked. An AFFIRMATION is being made. It’s a proposition, and it’s true. Yes?[/quote]
Well, I guess I was mistaken on what it means to question the properties that something does not have.
So yes, contradiction seemed to fit the bill, but I guess I am wrong on that.
However, it does not change the fact that it’s irrelevant to question the properties something does not have, what ever that may be called. An irrevelent affirmation is still irrelevent.
Given what you’ve been told today, by me and everyone else, it or is it not a true proposition that Uncaused thing X was not caused by itself? Yes, or no?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Given what you’ve been told today, by me and everyone else, it or is it not a true proposition that Uncaused thing X was not caused by itself? Yes, or no?[/quote]
Actually, I already did, but it has been lost in the middle of the multiple socratic games of this thread.
So, let’s do it again :
this argument
[quote]
X exists
X cannot have caused itself
X cannot have been caused by [nothing]–Because [nothing] has no causal power
therefore, x is caused[/quote]
is indeed invalid.
And if it were true, it would actually defeat Pat’s purpose.
If X was really an X, as in “any thing”, it would include things like “God” or “2+2=4”.
In God’s case, the conclusion (therefore God is caused) would be the opposite of the propositon of the cosmological argument.
Pat’s answer is that God being uncaused by defintion, you can’t “discuss” it’s cause, and it should somehow be excluded of X.
And I have to disagree :
The only way to solve this is to propose a more accurate X, from the beginning.
That’s why i reformulated the argument like this :
A contingent X exists
A contingent X can’t have caused itself
A contingent X can’t have been caused by nothing
A contingent X can’t be uncaused
Therefore, a contingent X is caused by something else.
this is the first step of the cosmological argument.
Then you refute the possibility of infinite regress and causal loop, and you affirm the existence of at least one non-contingent being.