a question on validity

Hi, I just have a question on logic rather than any philosophical theory… If anyone knows the answer to this…please tell me!

IS the following VALID:
God loves everybody who does not love themselves. Therefore God loves himself.

I realise that it is logically impossible, and involves completely strange reasoning, as if God loves himself then he does not love himself, but does love himself, and so on and so forth… BUT, does this answer the question on validity? I would say that it is invalid, because in my eyes, the conclusion does not follow inescapably from the premises…but I’m still a little bewildered. Help!

God’s not a “body” :wink:

Hi Amelia,

How about this one?

The barber of Seville is a man who shaves all the men (and only those men) in Seville who don’t shave themselves. Who shaves the barber?

Regards,
Michael

Ohh, I like logic. Ok lets get this standardized.

The rule:
For all x, if ~xLx, than gLx.

The question:
Does gLg?

Well lets do this Reductio Ad Absurdum. I know direct proof is stronger but its the morning. Ok

Assume:
10 ~gLg

By universial instanceation of our above rule useing g for x

20 if ~gLg, than gLg

By 10, 20 and your friend and mine Motus Ponins

30 gLg

Conjunction of 10 and 30 gives us

40 ~gLg AND gLg

Woohoo, a contradiction. Therefore gLg!!! Just to be uber-certian their isn’t a strange paradox lets plug that into the rule.

so we have

  1. gLg
  2. if ~gLg, than gLg (agian the instanciation)

Well from 1. and 2. we can get nothing. The prensence of the concequent does not prove the anticedent. Also, despite is strangeness, as long as we can keep 2 a counterfactual conditional- its harmless.

So there you have it. God indeed loves himself (if that rule is true.)

thank you, thank you, I’ll be here all night
]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Of course now we can have a long argument about the validity of RAA arguments.

I’ll though I have a feeling with some crazy manuvers I could do this one direct.

Also there are language issues. If I say that, “Michell is a sweet heart, she loves everyone.” Despite the very direct logical implications of this you wouldn’t fault me if I said next, “But unfortuneatly she loves not herself.” Damn fuzzy language.

Is your premise true?

I think not.

God loves everybody. Therefore? God loves us.

The premise says nothing about God’s feelings about himself, since God does not fall into the definition of “everybody”. It part of the unviversal concept of God is that God is not one of “us”.

Isn’t that slipping close to Deism, Philosophical Caveman. To say that God is not a Body. Any Theistic conception of God it seems to me would have God meet and exceede the nessisary and sufficent conditions for personhood.

Your premise my dear that, “God loves everybody who does not love themselves” is not only wrong but invalid, because there is an ALSO missing there. The correct premise is, “God [Also] loves everybody who does not love themselves.” And so your second statement then becomes completely VALID that, “God loves himself” 'cause that is PRECISELY why He can love everybody.

As such your query here is not only invalid because your basic premise is framed wrong because of a lacking ALSO and I’d say is rather stupid too, I mean why waste so much web-space for no reason at all?

BeenaJain wrote:

BeenaJain, I’m asking you to please stop saying those things! There was no reason to throw out that insult. There was also no reason to call Femphil a liar. It’s not only counterproductive, it’s mean-spirited.

Please try to be considerate of other people’s feelings - please treat them no less than you’d want them to treat you. I’ve read enough of your posts to think that you are a good person; I’m asking you not to let that goodness be overshadowed.

Best wishes,
Michael

There was no insult at all. In fact it’s a person like you who never saw my BRILLIANT response to amelia’s query but only saw the word stupid in there who is really stupid. What is an unjust moron like you doing on a philosophy forum? When God made us and gave us language to communicate with, He did not emphasize that the word stupid remain locked inside a dictionary because then wisdom would remain locked inside our minds too. Just like you never complimented on my response but only saw the word stupid because you do not believe that words are meant to use and use appropriately which is precisely what I did, but you didn’t because YOU have wisdom locked inside your brain unfortunately! Again, why did you not compliment me first and then criticise? Again are YOU stupid? :smiley:

And I’m looking for a response, I need to know WHY you did not compliment me on settling this issue of validity from the roots regarding amelia’s query? If you don’t respond I will take it that you are one of the bashers on this forum who hate other peoples’ brilliant entries and so want to bash them, make them look small and kick them out. That’s the only thing you do. And you yourself never settled the validity of it nor the issue as such. And I didn’t even call amelia stupid, only the query, although if justified that would not have been wrong either, STUPID!

You know what? Now I AM GOING TO have a a forum of my own and I’m going to bash bashers like you there who have no ounce of commomsense in their heads themselves but who like to make other intelligent people miserable.

I think, unless I am mistaken Beena, Pole saw your “Brilliant” response and saw how its effectiveness was diminished because you chooseto level what can be construed as a personal attack.

Understand that for even the wisest man or woman to communicate requires a receiver to communicate to. The process of communication in human beings has evolved to include certain rules ( mostly unspoken) but seem universal upon introspection.

Tomorrow, you could prove for fact that we all have free will, that God exists, and furthermore, that she is you. If, during this process, you decide to insult me I will either
A) ignore you
or
B) insult you back. regardless of your godly nature
So understand that insults hurt you twofold… one in that it causes others to lessen or outright dismiss your points as being valueless, because few people can put value on an idea that includes an insult. Sure, we might laugh, will we change our lives or our thinking because of it?
No
And two, the person you insult may respond with an insult… a war erupts, and the original point of discussion moves no closer to the truth. And if you so valued the truth as to defend it with insults, you disservice it, as insults prevent others from reaching that truth as well.

Maybe it isn’t about the truth… what is it about then?

GateControlTheory,
Again, since you too have ONLY selective reading and that too is warped I will quote that part of my response again, I said to amelia, ‘As such your query here is not only invalid because your basic premise is framed wrong because of a lacking ALSO and I’d say is rather stupid too.’

Where is a personal attack above?

And by the way there can be no discussion with fools like you. The reason is that they have nothing in their heads to contribute so they just sit there and criticise other people. Therefore there can be no effective communication with you or Polemarchus because you are guilty of accusing me of insulting when I insulted no one in my VERY FIRST RESPONSE but just resolved the issue due to which you felt jealous. The rest was just reaction forced on me by you two. In fact you two are the ones who have really insulted me and my post and are guilty. As such, if this was my forum I’d give you two a warning to stop bashing others otherwise we are likely not to see brilliance here on the forum but just bashing by idiots like you with empty heads.

Go and read something substantial to put in those empty heads or, “empty vessels” like you will always “make a lot of sound.” EEEEEEEEEEEEEEKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK. My ears have started to hurt now. Case closed, I will not argue with fools who have selective and warped reading habits and virtually no reasoning abilities.

Hey Look, BeenaJain revels herself to be utterly without those very manners she accused me of lacking. how surprising!

" Ladies and gentlemen, I welcome you to the Circus of Flying Axe Heads! in this corner we have direct from Canada, the Mistress of insults. Don’t stand too close and least of all to offer her food. She’ll just spit on you."

Beena, you really need some middleground, honey love dear sweetums sugar pie cutie poof.

No, perhaps I should not rely on your ability to discern the meaning of words. I AM making fun of you this time.

Hi BeenaJain,

Yes, you’re an intelligent woman. I think that’s wonderful. I place a high value on rationality. And yet I place an even higher value on civility and kindness.

“An honest heart being the first blessing, a knowing head is the second.” – Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr

When I said that your unfortunate remark was “counterproductive,” I meant just that; it simply undermined everything positive that you had to say. I realize that you’re a sensitive person. I’m only asking that you please take into account that most of us are sensitive persons as well. Last month you said to Hermes:

He didn’t deserve that. He said nothing against you. A few days ago you wrote this to Femphil:

And yet all she was saying was that she loved to visit Mundane Babble. Why did you feel it was necessary to call her a liar? I can only imagine how you would react if someone, without provocation, called you a liar. And look how you’ve here responded to a perfectly innocent post by Amelia?

I’m asking you as sweetly as I know how, to please stop it. I’m bending over backwards not to bash you. In my last post I said that I think you’re a good person. I still do. But I’m wondering if you might have a hair-trigger attached to your temper? Everyone has a temper, a sense of outrage. But a common civility requires us to know where the over-ride switch is located.

I generally enjoy your posts, BeenaJain, so I don’t want you to go away. I’m not against you. I’m not going to fight you. I’m also not going to stand aside and watch you insult people without having the slightest provocation. I understand that you don’t like it, but that’s the way it is. If someone wrongly insults you then I’ll stand up for you as well.

Best wishes,
Michael

Who is reading selectively I wonder?

Was I a fool when I tried to help you with your various PC/ISP/Website problems?

If you think me a fool because I dared to disagree with something you said, does it follow that anyone who disagrees with you is foolish? Would that mean you are absolutely right 100% of the time, making you, in effect, something more than human?

You made a nice point, diminished that point by choosing a poor form of delivery, and seem quite irrational now that others have pointed out your mistake in behavior. Perhaps there is something going on in your life that is causing you some stress, thereby resulting in your snappish attitude. Or perhaps this is a joke… you prefer your logic mixed with some nice ad hominem and what not. To each their own I suppose.

What I find sad is that I knew… KNEW for a fact as soon as I hit reply you would call me stupid, or an idiot, or something like that. Not because it is necessarily true, it may be so but I tend to think that I am a little brighter than that, but because you are nothing if not predictable.

I imagine now I will see your name popping up on threads where I decide to post arguing an inane point simply to frustrate me. You seem to think that philosophy is arguing the person, and not the idea, thus all this seems overly personal to you. Know that it isn’t personal, also know that unlike some here, I am not a saint, and should you desire to trade insults with a former construction worker who has heard and seen things that would make a sailor blush, know that I am more than capable to accomodate you.

:smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:
:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
:stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue:

Just a friendly note:

Chow! and happy discussions.

Benna’s point on the ALSO is wrong because it assumes otherwise an ONLY is implied.

Anyway, here the statment is valid if one considers God a body, because indeed in such a case it is potentially talking about God’s love or nonlove of himself.

I actually have thought of the direct proof.

It uses the equivilance relationship between ‘if p than q’ and "q or ~p’

The rule:
For all x, if ~xLx, than gLx.

10 if ~gLg than gLg ---- by universial instanciation
20 gLg or ~~gLg ---- by the equivilance relation above
30 gLg or gLg ---- by double negation
40 gLg ---- forget what the rule is called, but its pretty obvious

So this one is now valid unless you feeling like argueing with first order predicate calculus, or you deny that God is a ‘body’.

There’s one detail everyone is missing. In the problem, it was stated that “God loves those who…” NOT that God ONLY loves those who… Therefore, while the statement clearly says who he does love, it does not limit him from loving others that do not fit that description, so the only answer to be drawn from this is that God MAY love himself, there’s not enough information in the problem to definitively say either way.

Kory