[jayceeii]

I think syllogisms are not even arguments. They are instead forms of categorization. Presupposing they are arguments leads to false beliefs something has been proved, when it has only been suggested. In general they define a class, and then assert something possesses one of the traits of the class, therefore they are in the class. But the real argument is over the definition of the class. Deduction is only as strong as the induction behind it. Some deductions can be very strong, but it is still useful to remember it is a suggestion.

1. All men are mortal.
2. Jesus was a man.
3. Jesus was mortal.

The real argument here is over whether there is something undying in men, above the body, and whether or not Jesus was man or God. The categorization is inaccurate as well as assigning Jesus to the class.

[James]

So a few thoughts …

I think a syllogism is very effective for showing that a position is not prima facie incoherent. By the same token, a syllogism can be used to show where a contradiction exists in a position too. Breaking a position down into premises is also a useful way to identify areas of agreement as well as highlighting the areas of disagreement during a discussion.

A syllogism cannot be used to prove that the conclusion of an argument is true. Even if an argument is valid, this does not guarantee that its premises are true and the premises are usually accepted despite not being the conclusion of a valid argument themselves.

In order to make arguments work, particularly in this context, complex problems are usually oversimplified in order to arrive at a desired conclusion (God exists). As you rightly point out, it is the oversimplification of these complex issues that is the problem, and not the logical structures they are made part of. The Kalam is a perfect example of this problem.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

Even granting that the universe began to exist and that this must have happened in the past because that event isn’t happening now, why doesn’t the conclusion therefore read “Therefore, the universe had a cause of its beginning” to preserve the temporal sense of what is being claimed to have taken place in P2? Because a cause that exists in the past may or may not exist now (so may not be God)?

[Algernon]

I think a syllogism is very effective for showing that a position is not prima facie incoherent. By the same token, a syllogism can be used to show where a contradiction exists in a position too. Breaking a position down into premises is also a useful way to identify areas of agreement as well as highlighting the areas of disagreement during a discussion.

A syllogism applied to a complex problem yields an oversimplification of the problem. Therefore, a misrepresentation of the problem. A misrepresentation of the problem is not the problem itself. It’s a strawman. Whatever is derived from said strawman is of dubious, if not specious, value.

A syllogism cannot be used to prove that the conclusion of an argument is true. Even if an argument is valid, this does not guarantee that its premises are true and the premises are usually accepted despite not being the conclusion of a valid argument themselves.

In order to make arguments work, particularly in this context, complex problems are usually oversimplified in order to arrive at a desired conclusion (God exists). As you rightly point out, it is the oversimplification of these complex issues that is the problem, and not the logical structures they are made part of.

Agreed.

The Kalam is a perfect example of this problem.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

Even granting that the universe began to exist and that this must have happened in the past because that event isn’t happening now, why doesn’t the conclusion therefore read “Therefore, the universe had a cause of its beginning” to preserve the temporal sense of what is being claimed to have taken place in P2? Because a cause that exists in the past may or may not exist now (so may not be God)?

Rather than oversimplification, doesn’t the Kalam suffer from overcomplexification, so to speak? The problem itself it really simple: The cause of the universe is unknown FULL STOP. Anything beyond this is purely speculative. Especially what WLC appended to the argument which is a non-sequitur to boot. Framing the problem in the context of a syllogism masks the fact that it’s purely speculative whilst lending an air of “reason”.

“Has”/”had” seems to be picking at nits; 3 is consistent with 1, which can be read in the sense of “Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning [as a characteristic]”.

• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 1 day ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 1 day ago by  Algernon.
• This reply was modified 3 weeks, 1 day ago by  Algernon.

[James]

I have no real objections to anything you’ve said there @Algernon . Just a couple of observations. Let’s take the following syllogism (it’s one I presented as far back as 2016).

P1. If God exists and Bob is suffering then God is allowing Bob to suffer.
P2. If God is allowing Bob to suffer then allowing Bob to suffer is objectively good.
P3. Allowing Bob to suffer is not objectively good.
C. Therefore, God is not allowing Bob to suffer.
C1. Therefore, it is not the case that God exists and Bob is suffering.
P4. Bob is suffering.
C2. Therefore, God does not exist.

The argument cannot and does not prove that C2 is true (C2 is arrived at via DeMorgan’s law btw). It can only be used to demonstrate our choices when it comes to claims we have embraced. For example, given that you assume that God exists and everything he does is objectively good, why are your moral faculties telling you that P3 is true? If the goodness of the allowing is contingent upon the person doing the allowing then that is prima facie, moral relativism. If God’s reasons for allowing the suffering are unknown, we cannot presume that we should intervene and end the suffering ourselves and even if we can. Here the syllogism is a means to dig deep and focus in on areas of concern or inconsistency. I also used this to demonstrate that the problem of suffering is not just an argument from emotion. None of that proves the truth of the conclusion.

… and so on. I think in that regard, syllogisms can prove useful.

In addition, this came up on my YouTube feed yesterday and seems pertinent to this discussion.

https://youtu.be/I-IB6zwhnj8?si=supNpz_ORMd6ml4-

[Algernon]

Why did you square peg this into a syllogism-ISH format at all? How does this not underscore the point in the OP that syllogisms do not scale well for complex problems? Am I missing something?

I can understand why many Christians do. It helps to prop up their delusion that their faith is based in reason when it is based in faith alone: “See! My faith IS reasonable. My faith is based on deductive reasoning as evidenced by this syllogism”. It appeals to those with a lack of solid critical thinking skills, solid conceptual thinking skills and/or intellectual honesty. Including themselves.

[seán s. (nonbeliever)]

I watched the video; it’s quite good. For me there are two reasons to debate these questions.

1. Debates like these help me clarify my own beliefs. And …
2. Debates like these often have an audience. I may not change the opponent’s mind, but audience members struggling with these issues might be helped, if only to know there are reasonable reasons to doubt.

seán s.

• This reply was modified 2 weeks, 4 days ago by  seán s. (nonbeliever).

[seán s. (nonbeliever)]

Syllogisms scale well enough for complex problems, but they become complex because the problem is complex.

seán s.

[James]

Placing the argument in syllogistic format was useful for two reasons. Firstly, it proves that the problem is not merely emotional and secondly, it gives for a way of identifying and focussing on an area where a claim may be incomplete. I tend to agree with Sean that a simple syllogism may not help with a complex problem.

[Algernon]

In and of itself, shouldn’t a syllogism demonstrate clarity and soundness of thought and reason? The “syllogism” that you provided as an example fails in this regard. Surely you must realize this. Which still leaves me with the question, “Why format it as a syllogism?”

Placing an argument in the format of a syllogism, in and of itself, does not “prove that the problem is not merely emotional”.

• This reply was modified 1 week, 6 days ago by  Algernon.

[seán s. (nonbeliever)]

Syllogistic reasoning is a tool, a valuable tool. But all tools have limitations.

seán s.

• This reply was modified 2 weeks, 5 days ago by  seán s. (nonbeliever).