Earlier i constructed a deductive argument and abductive argument against gravity. Below is a response against it. Someone stated the following: if gravity does not exist, then things would be floating around. My response is as follows: The thinking about can be refuted as follows: The statement above is a conditional statement. However it is not an argument for the existence of gravity. I am saying that because the Atheist thought that he had created a lawful argument. In short this is what he is implicitly saying. 1. If gravity does not exist, things would be floating. 2. Things are not floating. 3. Therefore gravity exists. Before i refute this argument i need to state the following: I have presented a valid argument for the Atheist. For the argument he presented was actually invalid. His actual argument was as follows: 1. If gravity does not exist, things would be floating. 2. Therefore every sense in our body tells us that gravity exists. The fact is the thinking above is not logical. Moreover the thinking above is invalid because: 1. The form is invalid. And 2. The conclusion cannot be inferred from the premise. Furthermore the argument is unsound because the premise is untrue, the conclusion is untrue, and the argument is invalid. The argument is invalid because every possible argument has its own form. Hence logic is the science that treats forms of thinking. The correct forms for arguments with conditional statements is as follows: 1. If X, then Y. 2. X. 3. Therefore, necessarily, Y. The form above is the correct form for modus ponens. Another argument is modus tollens. Its form is as follows: 1. If Y, then Z. 2. -Z. 3. Therefore -Y. The symbol in the bracket (-) is a negation sign/symbol. So, for his argument to be sound and valid, he ought to have applied the principles of logic. But he did not apply the principle of logic. Therefore his argument is invalid and unsound. However i have created a valid argument for him. Nevertheless the argument does not prove that gravity exists. Again, the argument is as follows: 1. If gravity does not exists, then things would be floating. 2. But thinhgs are not floating. 3. Therefore, necessarily gravity exists. (valid modus tollens) My objection is as follows: Even though my reconstruction of his unlawful argument is valid (in terms of its form) it does not imply that it is necessarily sound. let us consider WHY this is the case. Well, firstly: The Atheist has no experience of zero gravity. So the atheist cannot know that things would float without gravity. (Nothing can be known beyond sensory experience/matters of fact are contingent on sensory experience) Therefore the Atheist cannot infer that gravity necessarily exists because things are not floating. And consequently the first premise of the argument is an assumption that cannot be verified. Moreover it does not follow (from the fact that things are not floating) that gravity exists. (Please refer to the reasons i have already provided) let us consider a bit of epistemology: Consider the following proposition: Gravity is something that exists. Next; How can we verify the truth value of the proposition? Well, it is clear that the proposition is an ontological claim. And the question that follows pertains to our epistemic standard. So we must understand the distinction between Apriori knowlede and Aposteriori knowlege. Firstly; If the proposition above is Apriori then it may simply be true by definition or its existence has been taken for granted. Nevertheless, in either case the truth value of the proposition is not contingent on experience. Hence its truth value is not a contingent truth. For Apriori belongs in the realm of relation of ideas. Moreover mathematics, logic, and necessary truths belong to the same dimension. Apriori knowledge simply means something is known to be true by virtue of definition. (for example: A spinster is an unmarried woman). I know that that is true by virtue of what a spinster is, and not by experience, becauase i do not need to check with my senses/experience before i know what a spinster is. Next, if the proposition is Aposteriori, then its truth value is contingent on experience. For; Aposteriori belongs in the realm of matters of facts. Aposteriori also pertains to propositions with contingent truth. Moreover the truth value of such propositions is contingent on sensory experience. Having stated those thing we may ask the following question: What kind of proposition are we dealing with? Well the proposition is Aposteriori. For the proposition is about the claim that gravity actually exists. The point is this; The argument is unsound because it uses a premise with truth value that is contingent on experience. However the truth value of the premise cannot be verified by sensory experience. For no Atheist has experienced things floating on earth. Thus no Atheist can know that things are not floating because gravity exists. it is impossible to infer that. But that is exactly what he attempted to do with his unlawful argument. Chris this is how to do Philosophy. I have thoroughly refuted your friends thinking. The problem with you guys is that you are not prepared to challenge the dogma in Science. You are also not ready to break free from your indoctrination or things you accepted uncritically. And consequently you are blind to what is obvious.
Posted on: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 12:39:35 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015