Today I’m going to talk about something big—bigger than the latest political circus, bigger even than all our current wars (and threatened very-near-future wars), even bigger than our $36+ trillion national debt.
Yes, the proofs are trying to assert prior substance by way of process, which is a leap. Correct logic shows validity, not necessarily truth, because correct logic contains no guarantee that the starting point is right.
Still, I like logical reasoning. I think syllogisms help reveal truth. Or, at very least, they serve as a starting point for further inquiry. I know they don't work on everyone, but they are an important part of my process.
Indeed, it was a thought spurred by a surrebuttal to an objection to the Cosmological argument that moved me away from atheism. (It didn't make me a theist, but it did convince me that the universe has divine attributes.)
Yes, the proofs are trying to assert prior substance by way of process, which is a leap. Correct logic shows validity, not necessarily truth, because correct logic contains no guarantee that the starting point is right.
Precisely. I don’t blame Aquinas for his efforts, really. It’s at least a set of not-insane hypotheses for a man of his time to propose.
Maybe it’s “our” fault for taking the word “proof” to mean something more than “this logic works assuming our assumptions are valid”.
All fair enough.
Still, I like logical reasoning. I think syllogisms help reveal truth. Or, at very least, they serve as a starting point for further inquiry. I know they don't work on everyone, but they are an important part of my process.
Indeed, it was a thought spurred by a surrebuttal to an objection to the Cosmological argument that moved me away from atheism. (It didn't make me a theist, but it did convince me that the universe has divine attributes.)
Oh heck yeah. I’m not throwing out logic!
I love everything about this.