An advanced syllogism using both Thaxton's specified complexity and Dawkins idea of god ("River of Eden"?) might be:
DNA processes are carried out by an intelligent agent. God is an intelligent agent. Thus, DNA is GOD
DNA doesnt care about suffering because DNA does't care about anything DNA is God
God doesn't care about suffering, or anything. Copyright Eric Peterson 2004
I believe this argument is sound and valid. What does your staff think? If you publish this, include my name.
Truly
Eric Peterson, Phoenix AZ, BA Philosophy-Eastern Michigan Univ.
40 comments
Well, if A = B, and B is defined by C, then A is also defined by C. So your logic is technically sound. You premises, meanwhile, are sorely lacking.
Premise one is invalid. DNA processes are not carried out by an intelligent agent. Additionally, even if they were, you would still have to prove that the intelligence was God, not something else.
"An advanced syllogism using both Thaxton's specified complexity and Dawkins idea of god "
More like a retarded syllogism. You just "solved" the problem of evil, and god doesn't come out looking good.
@Pyroclasm
Technically premises cannot be invalid. Validity is that the drawing of a conclusion from any premise (not just true ones) is formally correct. The drawing of a valid conclusion from a false premise is an unsound argument, but it is still valid. (An interesting point the follows from this is that circular logic is, in fact, logically valid).
However, the argument is not valid, as can be shown by the following reductio ad absurdum:-
1 is a whole number. 3 is a whole number. Thus, 1 is 3.
The principle of Identity of Indiscernibles states that two things are identical if and only if they share all of their properties: It is not enough to show that they share at least one property.
(chuckle) He thought that that argument was worth copyrighting?
Let's see:(False premise. There is no reason to believe that there is any intelligent guiding force for DNA processes.) (God is also hypothetical) (Wrong. If your original premise was correct, your conclusion should be "DNA processes are carried out by God". Of course, that is making the false assumption that God is the ONLY intelligent agent in order to make the two terms interchangable, which is not supported by your second premise). (I assume that the "DNA is God" at the end is a typo, because it makes no sense there. This is technically valid within itself, but DNA doesn't care about anything because it cannot care. It is not conscious.) (Only works if you accept your conclusion at 3, which was arrived at in an unsound and invalid manner, making this conclusion the same).
I now demand a BA in Philosophy in compensation for having read this idiocy. Apparently, anyone can get one of them anyway...
Edit: Yeah, I think you might be right about that one, Goosey. But, considering that this guy seems to not even have a grasp on the most basic aspects of logic, I think that it may be giving him too much credit...
@Allegory for Jesus
I don't think the "DNA is God" was a typo. Let's see if I can try and write this out in a more formal way.
1) DNA processes are carried out by an intelligent agent (premise #1)
Yeah, it doesn't make sense, but I think that's what he was trying to say.
Who ever said god was intelligent, hmmm?
Seeing as how the most devout, presumably the most "touched by god", are proud of their resistance to intelligence, it follows that their sky daddy does not like intelligence.
You can't reverse engineer scripture to include a 20th-century discovery. That would be scandalously dishonest, but a mountebank might just think he could pull that one off.
You should have carried on a further step or two. I think you'll be amused by the results.
Thus, DNA is GOD
All living creatures contain DNA.
DNA is only found in living creatures.
All living creatures are only found on Earth.
Therefore God is only found on Earth.
God is part of us; we're a part of God.
Thus: We are God.
The first line of the syllogism doesn't make sense. Assuming that DNA is "carried out" by an intelligent agent, and assuming that said agent is "God," it doesn't follow that DNA is itself God.
For example, I can say that the task of painting my house was carried out by a painter. It doesn't follow that the paint is itself the painter.
The big gaping holes in your logic are:
I think Eric Peterson, Phoenix AZ, BA Philosophy-Eastern Michigan Univ is an idiot.
Oh, Eastern. Picking up the dregs that couldn't get into the Univ. of Michigan* next door?
*Disclosure: Maleficent is a pompous Wolverine.
Nobody worships DNA, at least not seriously.
And there is no intelligent guiding force in DNA, if you actually read the Selfish Gene, the whole book not just the title, you would see that Dawkins makes that point many many times.
Worshipping DNA? If it's Douglas Noel Adams you're talking about, why not? At least, and unlike Jesus, I know for sure he existed (we've met at a book-signing event about 20 years ago).
"DNA processes are carried out by an intelligent agent. God is an intelligent agent. Thus, DNA is GOD"
back to the symbolic logic 101 books!
"What does your staff think?"
that you're a douchebag
"DNA processes are carried out by an intelligent agent. God is an intelligent agent. Thus, DNA is GOD"
Pope is a human. I am a human. Thus, I am the pope.
"DNA processes are carried out by an intelligent agent."
Well, if you're going to start out with an incorrect statement, there is no place to go from there. It's chemistry, Eric, and you won't find it in your philosophy textbook.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
