Sorry sntjohnny, but I must have somehow missed that part of my education. Never even heard the word syllogism before and a quick google just showed me it would take more brainpower and time to understand than I can spare just now. Just when you have the time and are in the mood take a look and I'll try to clarify if any of my reasoning seems muddled.

Don't really know how better to say it. I'm trying to reason that we know matter and energy can exist independent of a creator. That for any creator to exist it would need to developed unguided from the substance around it. Which means life and consciousness can exist without creation, because by any definition I can think of a creator would have to be alive and conscious.

If we can reason that life and substance can exist without creation then it would not be possible to argue that merely our existence and our universe were proof of a creator, no matter how amazing these things appear to us.

Brian.

I'm with Cimics.  I'm not sure I can accept the terms of your argument.  I was hoping the syllogism would help us.  One of the comments I centered on was this one:

"So some kind of substance must be able to exist without creation. For a creator to exist it would have to have arisen from this substance by some unguided process."

I agree with the first sentence, but probably not in the same way you mean it.  But not the second sentence.

A syllogism typically has this sort of form:

A.  Such and Such
B.  This and that
therefore
C.  such and such and this and that.

Not really profound really- the conclusion (C) usually is just a simple combination of statements A and B.   You can create syllogisms that are valid but not necessarily true:

A.  All men have heads.
B.  Here is a man.
therefore
C.  He has a head.

The syllogism works because we have to assume A and B, but these assumptions might not be true.  In this case, in B, 'here is a man' it is logically possible that we've been presented with a de-capitated man, so the conclusion, while valid, may not be true.  But all that means really is that our assumption in A is not really narrowly construed enough.  I could suggest better formulations of A, but this is a family friendly forum.  

However, if we can create reasonable (or even better, unassailable) assumptions, we can use a syllogism as a reliable way to create 'new' knowledge, or at the very least, we can use it to isolate the logical steps in our arguments.

Let's start forming a syllogism for our use.

A.  "Something must be able to exist without creation."

I derived that from the statement I quoted above.  I largely agree with this.  To head off some ambiguities, I like to take the word 'something' and break it up thusly:

"The sum of all that is real" must exist without being created.

Problems inherent in our language typically give ourselves two options to choose from- God, and the universe.   Basically we are arguing about the nature of the final regress.  However, with crazy-butt theories like the multi-verse running around, we cannot so easily use the word 'Universe' as our strictly materialistic alternative.   Furthermore, even though Christian theists mean 'the sum of all that is real' as part of the very definition of God, this fact is often mis-understood or even ignored.

So, to escape all of that, in discussions like the one you and I are embarking on, I substitute for 'something,' 'the sum of all that is real,' and because that is too hard to type all the time, I just put 'x.'  That way no one can say we are assuming any of our conclusions.

So- if you're still with me-  

'x'='the sum of all that is real'='something' [from your statement and the syllogism letter A above]

So, finally:

A.  'x' must exist without being created.

I agree with this assumption, and believe it can be argued forcefully if driven to defending it.  But maybe you already agree with it?  If you do, I can try to formulate a 'B.'

Sorry sntjohnny, you silpped your post in while I was replying to cimics. I don't have the time just now to digest your comments as it is somewhat past the time I should be sleeping here in the UK. Got to work tomorrow.

Brian.

That statement reinforces the point that it is possible for a conscious living being to exist without creation.

Oh I agree.

I don

In logic, a syllogism is "valid" if the truth of the premises necessarily leads to the truth of the conclusion.  A syllogism is "sound" if the syllogism is valid and the premises are true.  Obviously, you want a sound syllogism, but at the very least you want one that is valid with debatable premises.  Neither of your syllogisms here are valid.

It is possible for a living conscious being to exist without creation.
People are living conscious beings.
It is possible people could exist without creation.

One problem is that "possible" need not describe the entire set of living conscious beings.  That is, it could be possible that an eternal living conscious being could exist without creation but not possible that a noneternal living conscious being could exist without creation.  If people fell in the latter category, then your conclusion would be false.

A creator could not have created its own substance.
Substance can exist without creation.
The substance of our universe could exist without creation.

Similar problem here.  Let's grant premise 1.  All that shows is that initial-creator-substance would have to exist without creation.  So, premise two is true, but it only means that there are at least one kind of substance that must exist without creation.  The universe, however, may not fall within that type of substance.  If it doesn't, then your conclusion is false, even though your premises are true.

disagree. B Stewart's syllogism is not only valid, but it's sound, as well.

The first premise ("It is possible for a living conscious being to exist without creation") is undeniably true. The only way in which in can be false is if it is shown that it is logically impossible for any living conscious being (that from now on I'll refer to as "LCB") to exist without being created.

No one, I think, will argue that his second premise is false. We all concede that people are LCBs.

His conclusion states nothing more than what is implicit in his two premises: Since it's possible that LCBs can exist uncreated and since humans are LCBs, it's also possible that humans can exist without creation.

Now, the significance of this syllogism to the argument about the existence of god(s) is unclear, but the fact that it's a sound argument isn't unclear at all. It is a sound argument.

Sorry, Cogito, but the argument is invalid.  Take a look at this:

P1 It is possible for an atom of matter to exist with more than five protons  in its nucleus.

P2  An atom of hydrogen is an atom of matter.

C Therefore, it is possible that an atom of hydrogen could exist that has more than five protons in its nucleus.

Premises one and two are undeniably true, but the conclusion is undeniably false, since an atom with more than one proton in its nucleus cannot be an atom of hydrogen, much less an atom whose nucleus contains more than five protons.

Hi guys, this is great, you are making me think! Unfortunately I don't get a lot of spare time during the week for the luxury of thinking so it will probably have to wait till the weekend before I can consider this fully.

sntjohnny said:

If I understand what you are trying to do……you are trying to argue that a creator must emerge from 'the substance' and we can say the substance is eternal, but we cannot say that about the creator. Is that right?

I'm not trying to speculate on the nature of the substance or the creator. Whether neither or both are eternal makes no difference. The only point relevant to my argument is that some kind of substance can exist independent of creation.

We don't know or need to know the nature of this substance. The fact that it can exist is enough for me to say "It is possible that the substance of our universe could exist without creation". Could being the key word. It could be possible.

It's precisely because we do not know the nature of this substance that we cannot say our universe was created. We can however say perhaps it wasn't. The doubt is my point.

I'm not trying to argue that a creator does not exist, as I believe that would be an impossible thing to attempt. I'm only saying that we can't use ours and the universe's very existence as proof of a creator. Most religious people I have ever debated with will cite the universe and the complexity of life as all the proof they need for a creator. I'm arguing that this view is unsound and so to hold belief in a creator you must base your conviction on some other grounds.

When I say that doubt is the point I mean we must doubt the existence of a creator because reasoning of the facts shows us that one might not be necessary for us to be here. If substance and life can exist without creation, then we can't say for certain that we ourselves are not that substance and that life.

Our existence may seem fantastic or even magical to us. The idea of a creator nicely allows us to side step our wonderment. However a creator and its substance must by definition be more complex than us, so by using a creator to answer one question we have produced and even greater question.

I'm only trying to argue that it is not rational to base belief in a creator solely on the fact that we are here. Just like everyone else I hope there is a creator and this life is not all there is, but I will have to remain agnostic until there is some evidence I can take seriously.

I'm still hoping someone can shoot my ideas down in flames. Why must we have been created?

I hope guys that my tone is not coming across as confrontational – I'm not that kind of person. I'm just seeking good-natured debate.

Brian