Metaphysics Debate 3

"Now, I think you may have misunderstood my argument, I was saying Dubito or Cogito ergo sum, (it was originally Dubito, but was changed in order to not be heretic), was flawed, and could not be used to rebut my argument." 1. I know. I set up my ethos on this already. I was only showing your wording for the voters becuase we used different terms. 2. Then it was irrelevant to put it in your argument, as we are not arguing cogito and it serves you nothing apparently. "I don't have to prove the existence of the Evil Deceiver, my point is that you can't know whether he exists or not. The proof of that would be that you can't disprove his existence, and that means however unlikely it is, it is possible that he exists, as long as there is the slight possibility that he may exist, the rest follows." That's not a true statement. A being can not exist if he is a contradiction. Your being is a contradiction *namely because you said he is omnipotent and omniscient at the same time.* Because you stated that your being is the only one who can know the truth, because he is the bender of all truth, you made fatal error and can be contradicted by Richard La Croix's argument Let me show you: ""(I) b does a (2) b is the only being who knows that (1) is true. Now, if 'x is omnipotent' entails (3) x can create any finite being y, provided (i) y has properties such that the statement that y has those properties neither is self-contradictory nor entails a contradiction and (ii) there is no being z such that the statement that z and y exist either is self-contradictory or entails a contradiction, then an omnipotent being can create b . . . But, if 'x is omniscient' entails (4) For any finite being B and for any act A, if B does A then x knows that B does A, Then an omniscient being cannot create b . . . Since an omnipotent being can create b and an omniscient being cannot create b then 'x is omnipotent and omniscient' entails (5) x can create b and x cannot create b. But, since (5)is self-contradictory it would appear to follow that a being who is both omnipotent and omniscient is logically impossible. "" Therefore, your being is a contradiction. Therefore, if we use the ever present natural law all logicians use (that if anything is a contradiction, it can not exist), then he doesn't exist. _______________________________________________ ""In syllogistic form. 1. There is the possibility of an Evil Deceiver 2. If he exists he has the ability and will to change logic, and the empirical world. 3. We would not be aware of what is true, and what is one of his lies. 4. We would not know anything. 5. A wise man would recognize that fact."" Your syllogism violates the following: 1. Contradiction between premise and conclusion fallacy: How can a wise man know a fact if all facts, by your former premises, are being can change logic. 2. Illicit distribution of an end term: Where is a wise man in any of your premises? He is only in your (5) conclusion. 3. The number of negative-quality premises must be equal to the number of negative-quality conclusions. So, no valid syllogism can have 2 negative premises. So, if if the conclusion is positive, the syllogism can not posses a negative premise. Therefore, your syllogism is useless: invalid. I'm sorry. _____________________________________ "As long as we don't know whether he exists or not, we have the possibility of the situation where we don't know anything. This lack of knowledge leads to us being unable to prove the absolute truth of anything, if we don't know what is true, than we don't know anything. Your hypothetical good deity is also possible, but as he can't be proven, he cannot rebut my possibility. We don't know this, so we can't know anything else." Your solipsist based argument can be countered by another solipsist based argument. And you contradicted yourself again. How come my being can't exist just because "you can't prove him" but yours can? We can't know that my being exists or not, so we can't know that he might be fixing everything or not: so then, by your logic, it is fallacious to argue that we shouldn't take him into consideration also. This twists things up a bit doesn't it. This is why we must use logic. "Okay, your argument that if a man knows that he knows nothing he knows something is flawed. The phrase I offered as a possible topic of debate is a fairly well known figure of speech. It is fallacious to say it is false simply because it is phrased as a contradiction. In truth, a man can't even know that he knows nothing, because of the possible Evil Deceiver possibly messing with logic. So he can't know anything, not even that he can't know anything. It is a paradox, but it is proved logically, so I guess it is a true paradox." Just because something is a figure of speech, doesn't mean it is true. You just committed the Fallacy of Popular Wisdom. And what fallacy am I committing by throwing away a contradiction? I'm sorry, but that is laughable, because I am not committing a single fallacy by throwing away a contradiction as false. It is well known, and a fact, in logic, that a contradiction is non-existent. And where, might I ask, is it proved logically? Can you prove it logically in a valid syllogism for me? You have stated that it has been "proved" but have given me no proof. Therefore, I'm sorry, but I can't just take your word (you haven't even supplied me with a credible ethos to do so.) Regards, Vi