Premise 1: Nothing can be created from nothing.
Premise 2: The universe is something.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe was created from something.
The argument is a valid deductive argument because the conclusion logically follows from the premises. In this case, the conclusion logically follows from the premises based on the rules of deductive reasoning.
Determining whether the argument is sound involves assessing both its validity and the truth of the premises.
Okay, let’s do that.
Validity: As mentioned above, the argument is valid because the conclusion logically follows from the premises.
Truth of the Premises:
Premise 1: "Nothing can be created from nothing." Okay, the Law of Conservation of Energy supports this as a philosophic principle because energy cannot be created or destroyed but only transformed. You gotta love those laws, eh? Thus, this premise is reasonable and widely accepted.
Premise 2: "The universe is something" is a straightforward, widely acknowledged observation. At least I hope it is.
So, given that both premises are generally accepted as true and the argument is valid, we can conclude that the argument is both valid and sound.
Which means it must be true!
There you go. Aren’t I a clever boy?
Good-bye creatio ex nihilo, hello creatio from something!
Now, would I use the above to “prove” my assumptions?
No, because assumptions cannot be proved.
Would I want to spend hours defending this argument, utilize it in an attempt to sink the assumptions of another, or make it a foundation of my faith?
No, because the philosophy of God draws me closer to philosophy than God.
Secondary thinking has clear limits. Knowing the truth of the above syllogism requires intuitive direct knowledge, not logic word games.
Premise 2: The universe is something.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe was created from something.
The argument is a valid deductive argument because the conclusion logically follows from the premises. In this case, the conclusion logically follows from the premises based on the rules of deductive reasoning.
Determining whether the argument is sound involves assessing both its validity and the truth of the premises.
Okay, let’s do that.
Validity: As mentioned above, the argument is valid because the conclusion logically follows from the premises.
Truth of the Premises:
Premise 1: "Nothing can be created from nothing." Okay, the Law of Conservation of Energy supports this as a philosophic principle because energy cannot be created or destroyed but only transformed. You gotta love those laws, eh? Thus, this premise is reasonable and widely accepted.
Premise 2: "The universe is something" is a straightforward, widely acknowledged observation. At least I hope it is.
So, given that both premises are generally accepted as true and the argument is valid, we can conclude that the argument is both valid and sound.
Which means it must be true!
There you go. Aren’t I a clever boy?
Good-bye creatio ex nihilo, hello creatio from something!
Now, would I use the above to “prove” my assumptions?
No, because assumptions cannot be proved.
Would I want to spend hours defending this argument, utilize it in an attempt to sink the assumptions of another, or make it a foundation of my faith?
No, because the philosophy of God draws me closer to philosophy than God.
Secondary thinking has clear limits. Knowing the truth of the above syllogism requires intuitive direct knowledge, not logic word games.
RSS Feed
