In deductive reasoning if the conclusion was not the necessary conclusion of the premises then in wouldn’t be much use. The conclusion is in fact a ‘must’, given the initial premises. — Miles
In deductive reasoning if the conclusion was not the necessary conclusion of the premises then in wouldn’t be much use. — Miles
You are right, deductive arguments can be sound but not valid, but this is why we have the crucial ‘if’ which enforces a ‘conditional’ validity. — Miles
The characteristic of the conclusion is different that P1 and P2. The ‘therefore’ in the conclusion just means ‘X cannot fail but to Q’ if we have accepted the validity of P1 and P2. — Miles
Please remember:
The conclusion of such a deductive argument, although necessary true, isn’t some necessary truth. That much we both agree on. It is a contingent truth as you say, but contingent on P1 and P2. Meaning it is necessarily true ‘if’ we accept P1 and P2. Which, as I stated, can either or both be contested. — Miles
So we must present at least one arguments to weaken the universality of P1, and at least one argument to weaken the observation made in P2.
And I do in fact think there is a way to make one such decisive objection. — Miles
1. If every event has a cause, then some events are substance-caused
2. Every event has a cause
3. therefore some events are substance-caused — Bartricks
Ultimately, God's first action (be that creation of spacetime or whatever) has to be uncaused. So this action counts as an event and it has no cause. So you terms, think of the substance moving on its own with no prior reason; this is not caused by the substance, it simply has no cause. — Devans99
B. I do not see that you have proved substance causation; God could be composed of parts that all exist timelessly. — Devans99
C. I feel it is remiss to leave out the start of time from such arguments as it has a pivotal role. — Devans99
I don't practice Zen. Look it up on Wikipedia. — jgill
Is reason axiomatic? How do you think it develops or arises in the human mind? Can it change as a culture changes? — jgill
its impossible to exist in an uncaused state within time, so the uncaused cause has to be beyond time. — Devans99
You may wish to reject the structure and force of a deductive argument but the point remains that in both valid and sound arguments the conclusion is implied by the premises, such that to deny the conclusion would be to a contradiction. — Miles
But truth or falsehood doesn’t apply to your mars bar statement because you are not asserting a state of affairs (be it concretely or abstractly). — Miles
Which brings us to what Aristotle would call the first principle of thought, the law of non-contradiction. We cannot accept that something is both A and not A at the same time and in the same respect. — Miles
Then why did you mention Zen? If neither you nor I know anything about it, why mention it as if it had some importance? — Bartricks
Is it possible there are aspects of reality that may be beyond what we consider reason? — jgill
We can’t just start an argument with a statement that is neither true nor false and draw conclusions from it. Because the conclusion will be neither true nor false. And statements like ‘sit here’ or ‘buy me a mars bar’ are neither true nor false. That’s that. — Miles
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.