A SYLLOGISM

A syllogism (Greek: syllogismos "conclusion," "inference") is a kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two or more others (the premises) of a specific form. In antiquity, two rival theories of the syllogism existed: Aristotelian syllogistic and Stoic syllogistic. Aristotle defines the syllogism as "a discourse in which certain (specific) things having been supposed, something different from the things supposed results of necessity because these things are so." Despite this very general definition, Aristotle limits himself to categorical syllogisms which consist of three categorical propositions in his work Prior Analytics. These included categorical modalsyllogisms. From the Middle Ages onwards, "categorical syllogism" and "syllogism" were mostly used interchangeably, and the present article is concerned with this traditional use of "syllogism" only. The syllogism was at the core of traditional deductive reasoning, where facts are determined by combining existing statements, in contrast to inductive reasoning where facts are determined by repeated observations. Within academic contexts, the syllogism was superseded by first-order predicate logic following the work of Gottlob Frege, in particular his Begriffsschrift (Concept Script) (1879), but syllogisms remain useful in some circumstances, and for general-audience introductions to logic.

Hypothetical syllogism
In classical logic, hypothetical syllogism is a valid argument form which is a syllogismhaving a conditional statement for one or both of its premises. If I do not wake up, then I cannot go to work. If I cannot go to work, then I will not get paid. Therefore, if I do not wake up, then I will not get paid. In propositional logic, hypothetical syllogism is the name of a valid rule of inference[3][4](often abbreviated HS and sometimes also called the chain

argument, chain rule, or the principle of transitivity of implication). Hypothetical

syllogism is one of the rules inclassical logic that is not always accepted in certain systems of non-classical logic. The rule may be stated:

where the rule is that whenever instances of " on lines of a proof, "

", and "

" appear

" can be placed on a subsequent line.

Hypothetical syllogism is closely related and similar to disjunctive syllogism, in that it is also type of syllogism, and also the name of a rule of inference. Formal notation [edit] The hypothetical syllogism rule may be written in sequent notation:

where

is a metalogical symbol meaning that , and

is a syntactic

consequence of

in some logical system;

and expressed as a truth-functional tautology or theorem of propositional logic:

where

, and

are propositions expressed in some formal system.

SYLLOGISTIC ARGUMENTS
#1) ARGUMENT FROM CAUSALITY.

Premise 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Premise 2) The universe began to exist.

Therefore,the universe has a cause. Premise 1 is true for three reasons 1) "Nothing" by definition cannot do anything. 2) We never experience something coming from nothing. 3) Every instance of change requires a cause (ALL of our experience verifies this) and something coming from nothing would in fact be an instance of change. Premise 2 is true for three reasons 1) There cannot be an actual infinite amount of "quantitative" events. 2) An actual eternal universe would have reached maximum entropy. 3) The big bang shows that the universe ultimately began to exist. The cause of the universe would have to be a sentient cause 1) A non-sentient eternal state of being could never change from that eternal state apart from a volitional source (the actual cause of time,space,matter and energy would ultimately have to have been in an eternal state of being). 2) The order and complexity of the effect (the universe) points to an intelligent cause.

*The "universe" is the entire natural world of time,space,matter and energy.

#2) ARGUMENT FROM COMPLEXITY.

Premise 1) The more complex something is,the more likely it is a product of design.

Premise 2) Biological complexity is more complex than all man-made design.

Therefore,biological complexity is a product of design.

Premise 1 is true because to deny it would be tantamount to saying the more complex something is,the LESS it requires an intelligence (which would go against our everyday reasoning).

Premise 2 is true since even the simplest possible cell would be more complex than an entire modern city. This argument does not commit a false analogy because 1) While it is true that life has the ability to reproduce and man-made designs do not,the first self-replicating cell would have had to acquire it`s incredible complexity WITHOUT the ability to reproduce. 2) The very fact that life forms even have the ability to reproduce shows how much more complex biological complexity is compared to man-made design. Life is self sustaining,self repairing AND self reproducing.

Complexity WITHOUT order versus complexity WITH order: A huge jumbled pile of wooden logs would be an example of complexity WITHOUT order whereas DNA would be an example of complexity WITH order.

Order WITHOUT specified complexity versus order WITH specified complexity: 1) A distinction needs to be made between repetitive order (such as in crystals) and specified complexity (such as in DNA). 2) Crystals form as a result of built in properties reacting to natural laws. There are no inherent chemical properties of matter that would cause life to come from non-life but there ARE inherent chemical properties of matter that would prevent life coming from non-life. The argument from complexity cannot be used against God because 1) It only applies to things that actually began to exist. We know that biological complexity began to exist.Therefore,biological complexity requires an explanation. 2) God is not complex. Something is only complex when it has a high degree of order among many parts. Theists do not define God as having a high degree of order among many parts. God is a spirit who is not made of what he made.

Disjunctive Syllogism In classical logic disjunctive syllogism (historically known as modus tollendo ponens) is a valid argument form which is a syllogism having a disjunctive statement for one of its premises. Either the breach is a safety violation, or it is not subject to fines. The breach is not a safety violation. Therefore, it is not subject to fines. In propositional logic, disjunctive syllogism (also known as disjunction

elimination andor elimination, or abbreviated E), is a valid rule of inference. If we are told that at least one of two statements is true; and also told that it is not the former that is true; we can infer that it has to be the latter that is true. If either P or Q is true and P is false, thenQ is true. The reason this is called "disjunctive syllogism" is that, first, it is a syllogism, a three-step argument, and second, it contains a logical disjunction, which simply means an "or" statement. "Either P or Q" is a disjunction; P and Q are called the statement'sdisjuncts. The rule makes it possible to eliminate a disjunction from a logical proof. It is the rule that:

where the rule is that whenever instances of " lines of a proof, " " can be placed on a subsequent line.

", and "

" appear on

Disjunctive syllogism is closely related and similar to hypothetical syllogism, in that it is also type of syllogism, and also the name of a rule of inference. Formal notation The disjunctive syllogism rule may be written in sequent notation:

where

is

a metalogical symbol , and

meaning

that

is

a syntactic

consequence of

in some logical system;

and expressed as a truth-functional tautology or theorem of propositional logic:

where

, and

are propositions expressed in some formal system.

Natural language examples Here is an example: Either I will choose soup or I will choose salad. I will not choose soup. Therefore, I will choose salad. Here is another example: It is either red or blue. It is not blue. Therefore, it is red.