Jump to content


Photo

Logical Issue


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
42 replies to this topic

#21 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 May 2011 - 04:26 AM

C1. From P1 and P2: God's Word, if it exists, should be perfect.

View Post


Not if you are considering the flawed actions and words of man in that perfection, as they are contained within the Bible as examples of fallen man. Therefore this this conclusion is flawed and fails.

C2. From C1: If the Bible is God's Word made manifest, it should be perfect.

View Post

Not if you are considering the flawed actions and words of man in that perfection, as they are contained within the Bible as examples of fallen man. Therefore this this conclusion is flawed and fails.

C3. From P3 and C2: If the Bible is God's Word made manifest, it should not be improvable.

View Post

This claim is nothing more than a subjective opinion, and not an objective fact, as it has not been tested and verified in reality. Therefore this this conclusion is flawed and fails.

C4. From C3: If the Bible is improvable, it is not God's Word made manifest.

View Post


This claim is nothing more than a subjective opinion, and not an objective fact, as it has not been tested and verified in reality. Therefore this this conclusion is flawed and fails.

C5. Prom P4 and C4: The Bible is not God's Word made manifest.

View Post


This claim is nothing more than a subjective opinion, and not an objective fact, as it has not been tested and verified in reality. Therefore this this conclusion is flawed and fails.

C6. From P5 and C5: The God described in the Bible does not exist.

View Post


Because of the many flaws based upon nothing more than the submitter’s subjective opinions, based outside of reality, unsupported by any facts, and in opposition of established contemporaneous historical facts, this conclusion is flawed and fails.

#22 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 May 2011 - 04:40 AM

Mod hat on: Warning.. Master Buffalax... if you are going to continue attempt to cake claims as if they were facts, without providing facts to support them, you may not want to post replies. As this is a time wasting tactic. Further, “definition by conversion” is a type of equivocation; just as “deliberately vague language” and “insinuation to make point/points” are types of equivocation. You may want to be wary about using these tactics when arguing “evidence” and the "Word of God”.

You may want to consider these prior to posting replies…. Mod hat off


#23 Master Buffalax

Master Buffalax

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Albuquerque, New Mexico

Posted 11 May 2011 - 09:10 AM

It does, but you may have missed it. You can only live a "good life" by submitting to God. You can try to live a good life by following the law, but this won't count as righteousness before God. Trying to live righteously by human effort is like trying to clean the windows with dirty rags. It might seem like you are cleaning away some of the filth but you are only smearing it around.

God's intention is not to make a reasonably good purse out of a sow's ear. That is all legalism does. You can have the foliage on the outside, but without bearing fruit you are useless. A commandment, or an endorsement if you like, even if it is given by God himself, does not change a person from within. This is the message of the gospel.

Consider the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself. If that law was followed by the Jews of that time then what problem would slavery pose? I would rather be a slave of someone who loves me than a free man in the society we live in today.

In fact, that is the choice we are given. Absolute freedom does not exist. We can choose to be slaves to sin under the guise of "freedom", or slaves to the one who truly loves us.

View Post

I accept almost all of this. I'll admit that laws, or even commandments, aren't enough to deal with the root of the problem, which is sin. I'll also admit that the main message of the Bible is probably the necessity of faith in God. But that definitely isn't the only message of the Bible.

Large parts of the Bible just tell us what the law is, whether it be man's law (ie. Leviticus) or God's law (ie. the Ten Commandments). Why would any of this be in there if faith was the only thing God wanted from us? While faith might be both necessary and sufficient to be saved, being faithful is not the only thing that God wants us to do. He wants us to love our neighbors, and not murder, and help the poor and... In short, he wants us to behave morally to the best of our abilities, even if that's not enough by itself to be saved.

And for us to behave morally, we need to know what "morally" means, which is why the Bible has lots of moral commentary in addition to history and demands for faith. Assuming we put our faith in God, telling us how to live our lives as best we can is a perhaps secondary but still very important purpose of the Bible. To that end, if the Bible grossly mishandles a moral dilemma (as I've argued that it does in the story of Sodom), it is not perfectly suited to fulfilling its role as a moral guidebook, and thus is not perfect in general.

#24 Master Buffalax

Master Buffalax

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Albuquerque, New Mexico

Posted 11 May 2011 - 09:27 AM

I think one needs to be careful to use the characters in the bible has moral standards. Quite frankly it is obvious that they had moral failures.

View Post

That's fair, but given its role as a moral guidebook, the stories of the Bible should be reliable as moral lessons even if any individual character is not an immaculate beacon of morality. This is why in my original post, I didn't just say that what Lot did was immoral. I said that how the Bible treated his immoral action seriously undermines its effectiveness as a moral guidebook. He did an awful thing to his daughters, but he is never punished and he comes across as a clear protagonist for the story. Even when his wife is punished harshly for the (seemingly lesser) sin of glancing back to Sodom as she was fleeing, Lot gets away without even a verbal reprimand. In fact, nothing in the story of Sodom even hints that Lot did anything wrong; reading it with a completely open mind, I would come to the conclusion that when someone tries to rape your house guests, one reasonable response is to offer the rapists your family members instead. If the Bible brings up such a big moral issue in the context of a moral lesson, it needs to address said issue. It doesn't, and by making it do so I would improve it.

Care as well needs to be taken with using popular standards of the present as absolutely ethical. They just may not be that flawless as we (presently) think.

View Post

This is a reasonable response to the slavery issue, and we could probably have an interesting debate over whether slavery is "absolutely" or "relatively" immoral. AFJ sidestepped that debate with some history, though, so slavery is no longer an issue here. Lot's actions are still an issue, though, and I hope you can see that his actions (perhaps unlike slavery) are jaw-droppingly, gut-wrenchingly immoral under any ethical framework. Like I said earlier, regardless of the circumstances, handing your daughters over to rapists is never ok.

The rest of your post is related to slavery specifically; it's historically quite interesting, but no longer relevant to the thread since I've conceded the slavery argument.

#25 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 11 May 2011 - 10:10 AM

That's fair, but given its role as a moral guidebook, the stories of the Bible should be reliable as moral lessons even if any individual character is not an immaculate beacon of morality.  This is why in my original post, I didn't just say that what Lot did was immoral.  I said that how the Bible treated his immoral action seriously undermines its effectiveness as a moral guidebook.  He did an awful thing to his daughters, but he is never punished and he comes across as a clear protagonist for the story.  Even when his wife is punished harshly for the (seemingly lesser) sin of glancing back to Sodom as she was fleeing, Lot gets away without even a verbal reprimand.  In fact, nothing in the story of Sodom even hints that Lot did anything wrong; reading it with a completely open mind, I would come to the conclusion that when someone tries to rape your house guests, one reasonable response is to offer the rapists your family members instead.  If the Bible brings up such a big moral issue in the context of a moral lesson, it needs to address said issue.  It doesn't, and by making it do so I would improve it.

This is a reasonable response to the slavery issue, and we could probably have an interesting debate over whether slavery is "absolutely" or "relatively" immoral.  AFJ sidestepped that debate with some history, though, so slavery is no longer an issue here.  Lot's actions are still an issue, though, and I hope you can see that his actions (perhaps unlike slavery) are jaw-droppingly, gut-wrenchingly immoral under any ethical framework.  Like I said earlier, regardless of the circumstances, handing your daughters over to rapists is never ok.

The rest of your post is related to slavery specifically; it's historically quite interesting, but no longer relevant to the thread since I've conceded the slavery argument.

View Post


You are hanging on to what Lot did and also using what God did to Lots wife for disobeying Gods demand. Did God say to Lot to let His daughters to be raped or not? No. So Lot did not disobey God like His wife did. Are You trying to say since God did not do anything about his daughters that the bible can be improved upon based on that?

#26 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 11 May 2011 - 10:32 AM

It appears that the OP is trying to prove his opinion by using his opinion? ;)


I've been watching your posts Buffalax and I've lost count of how many times you have affirmed the consequent.

#27 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 11 May 2011 - 10:58 AM

Large parts of the Bible just tell us what the law is, whether it be man's law (ie. Leviticus) or God's law (ie. the Ten Commandments).  Why would any of this be in there if faith was the only thing God wanted from us? 

View Post


Faith is not the only thing God requires from us. He wants us to bear the fruit that leads us to do the things that belong to a righteous life. We can see in the accounts in the gospels that the Jews were doing "righteous" deeds, but not bearing fruit. The fruit of the spirit are listed in Galatians 5:22-23:

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law."

There are a couple of things we should realize concerning faith.

1. Without faith we cannot please God. Hebrews 11:6.

2. Faith without deads is dead. James 2:26.

The relationship between faith, fruit and deeds is much like the horse and cart analogy in that they must function in the correct order for a Christian life to work in a manner that pleases God. But it is also important to realize that there is a dependency between all three. Faith has to be active in order for the fruit to grow. Fruit must motivate the deeds of a righteous life. And the deeds must be present in order for faith to remain alive.

Anyone who tries to perform deeds by human effort is putting the cart before the horse. All religions seem to follow a similar pattern: you do good deeds in order to climb up the ladder of righteousness. But as Jesus said:

"the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber." John 10:1

Good deeds based on "climbing" are a way for a man to elevate himself. This leads to pride - the kind of pride that is earthly - and pride leads to a fall. Rigtheousness can only be attained by letting the Holy Spirit do the "work". When someone submits themselves to God, he "enters the rest" that God promised - the true sabbath rest, that is...

#28 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 May 2011 - 01:50 PM

I think one needs to be careful to use the characters in the bible has moral standards. Quite frankly it is obvious that they had moral failures.

View Post

That's fair, but given its role as a moral guidebook, the stories of the Bible should be reliable as moral lessons even if any individual character is not an immaculate beacon of morality.

View Post


And it is, at the very least, a very reliable moral guidebook. But, I’m just curious as to how someone who labels themselves a “Christian” will only focus on the shallow end of the morality pool, and overlook everything else. Further it seems quite counter Christian-like to claim that you can do a better job than God. It seems to me that another attempted this, and we know what it got him. Further, you attempt to it with fallacious logical steps (syllogism). This begs the question “how can you claim to outdo perfection with flawed logic?” and still claim to be a follower of the one you are attempting to disprove. This smacks of false world view labeling. You do know what Jesus Himself said the attributes of His followers are, do you not?

Also, you tend to focus on fallen man’s bad actions, then attempt to fallaciously attribute them to God.

This is why in my original post, I didn't just say that what Lot did was immoral.  I said that how the Bible treated his immoral action seriously undermines its effectiveness as a moral guidebook.  He did an awful thing to his daughters, but he is never punished and he comes across as a clear protagonist for the story. 

View Post

You have absolutely no idea of the outcome of Lot, therefore your entire description is presupposed at best. Then again, one day we’ll know for sure (see 1st Corinth chapter 13). But, were I you, I’d be a little more concerned about my own outcome.

Even when his wife is punished harshly for the (seemingly lesser) sin of glancing back to Sodom as she was fleeing, Lot gets away without even a verbal reprimand. 

View Post

Did his wife not directly disobey a warning that they had all just been given? This smacks more of a consequence to an action than that of a punishment for disobeying.


In fact, nothing in the story of Sodom even hints that Lot did anything wrong; reading it with a completely open mind, I would come to the conclusion that when someone tries to rape your house guests, one reasonable response is to offer the rapists your family members instead.  If the Bible brings up such a big moral issue in the context of a moral lesson, it needs to address said issue.  It doesn't, and by making it do so I would improve it.

View Post


Once again, you are superimposing your “opinion” upon the narrative, not stating facts; which is easy to do from the sidelines. This seems more like a closed mind than an open mind.



Care as well needs to be taken with using popular standards of the present as absolutely ethical. They just may not be that flawless as we (presently) think.

View Post

This is a reasonable response to the slavery issue, and we could probably have an interesting debate over whether slavery is "absolutely" or "relatively" immoral. AFJ sidestepped that debate with some history, though, so slavery is no longer an issue here. Lot's actions are still an issue, though, and I hope you can see that his actions (perhaps unlike slavery) are jaw-droppingly, gut-wrenchingly immoral under any ethical framework. Like I said earlier, regardless of the circumstances, handing your daughters over to rapists is never ok.

View Post


Once again, you are assuming you have the moral high ground, and assuming that you can do a better job than God without providing any semblance of actual evidence, facts or proof of your prowess to do such. Words are not actions, and saying so doesn’t make it so. Which brings to mind the whole world-view issue; but we’ll get to that later….

#29 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,242 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 11 May 2011 - 03:15 PM

That's fair, but given its role as a moral guidebook, the stories of the Bible should be reliable as moral lessons even if any individual character is not an immaculate beacon of morality.  This is why in my original post, I didn't just say that what Lot did was immoral.  I said that how the Bible treated his immoral action seriously undermines its effectiveness as a moral guidebook.  He did an awful thing to his daughters, but he is never punished and he comes across as a clear protagonist for the story. ...Lot gets away without even a verbal reprimand.  In fact, nothing in the story of Sodom even hints that Lot did anything wrong; reading it with a completely open mind,...

I think it's worthwhile reading on regarding what happened to Lot (and his descendents).

This is a reasonable response to the slavery issue, and we could probably have an interesting debate over whether slavery is "absolutely" or "relatively" immoral.  AFJ sidestepped that debate with some history, though, so slavery is no longer an issue here.  Lot's actions are still an issue, though, and I hope you can see that his actions (perhaps unlike slavery) are jaw-droppingly, gut-wrenchingly immoral under any ethical framework.  Like I said earlier, regardless of the circumstances, handing your daughters over to rapists is never ok.

The rest of your post is related to slavery specifically; it's historically quite interesting, but no longer relevant to the thread since I've conceded the slavery argument.

View Post

Concerning the slavery issue my point was that slavery was mainly abolished by pro forma christian nations. Not immediately but in the course of a historical process. Regarding Lot I think it's worthwhile to read on in the Bible. I'll have a peek for now, but recall there are more twists to the story then is immediately obvious.

#30 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 May 2011 - 05:57 PM

Master Buffalax, it seems, has decided to continue in his misrepresentations of the Word of God (i.e. the Bible). He further has decided to continue in the egregious tactic of assuming logic is the only evidence one needs, and that this is enough to override physical evidence via his presuppositions. This tactic is as illogical as the claim that the physical is all there is, and that the metaphysical need not be used as evidence at all.

He further continues to assume that his opinion is above that of God; which leads us to his less than honest tactic of positing a false world view. In that he claimed to be a follower of Christ, then further claimed that Christ wasn't who he said He was, in that what he (Jesus) said, could not me taken literally. This is a common tactic used by Bible scoffers.

His "Clear cases of misrepresentation" of Biblical scripture, "equivocations", and clear positing of a "false Worldview" can be found in every post in this thread and the following thread as well:

http://www.evolution...opic=3891&st=60

This thread was obviously set up to do nothing more than promulgate a false theology, from a fallacious syllogism.

#31 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 12 May 2011 - 02:52 AM

That's very interesting!  I didn't know that Israel handled slaves that way; it sounds like "indentured servitude" might be a more accurate description in modern language.  That actually sounds like a pretty good system if you can rely on people to treat their slaves with a basic level of respect.  (Unfortunately, a lot of companies today can't even be trusted to treat their employees with respect, so I doubt it would work in our current society.)  If I'm hearing you correctly, "slavery" in the pre-Civil War American sense didn't exist in ancient Israel, so it makes sense for the Bible not to condemn it.  I'll withdraw "condemn slavery" as a proposed improvement to the Bible.

I still say that removing Genesis 19:8 would undeniably be an improvement, though.  I look forward to hearing your response to this, since your response to the slavery point was so refreshingly topical and well-informed :blink: .

View Post


Of course you know Israel did not always follow the law. But under the law there was no provision for the capture and buying of free people.

I have to agree in part with what I believe Uppsala wrote. The law was given to restrain. Also the scripture counts all men unrighteous--the purpose of the law was to reveal that unrighteousness--by showing man he could not keep it.

#32 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 12 May 2011 - 06:05 PM

This argument doesn't address the issue of Lot, though.  I don't care how difficult one's life is; handing one's daughters over to rapists is never ok, or even excusable.  Lot's actions in Genesis 19:8 were appalling regardless of the society he lived in, and I hope that everyone here can recognize that.

View Post

Fully recognized. I'm not sure how you can say that the God of the Bible is not real because Lot, who was Abraham's nephew, did some really bad things.

It proves that the Bible could be improved, which means the Bible is not perfect because perfect things are unimprovable by definition.

But if the story of Lot is history, how can it be "improved." And there are lessons we can learn from the entire story--I have heard sermons preached on Lot--and Jesus used Lot's wife as a negative example--we are not to look back, once we have left the world. Lot's wife looked back to Sodom, and became a pillar of salt. This is a moral and spiritual lesson.

So you need to be careful, that you are putting up your own standards, thereby blocking your spiritual vision. Especially when God directed and delivered those writings to us for our profit.

It does not prove that God is not perfect; quite the contrary, I'm working under the assumption that God must be perfect if He exists.  It does, however, prove that the Bible is not the literal Word of God, since the Word of a perfect God should also be perfect, which the Bible is not.

I think by my last reply you might see that you have missed the things about Lot. Man is a fallen being. Abraham himself failed when he went into Hagar, but God is longsuffering, and willed redemption to us by his Son--a descendant of Abraham.


I chose Genesis 19:8 as an example of an improvement precisely because it's morally unambiguous.  Lot offered his daughters to rapists.  I should think that anyone with a working moral compass and a basic respect for women's rights can recognize that this was a horrible thing to do.  If some people disagree, I'll concede that my argument doesn't apply to them, but I'll think they're bad people.

Are you under the assumption that God, or the writer, Moses, approved of what Lot did? Then that would be a wrong assumption.

Remember that the only reason the angels came to Sodom was because Abraham interceded. He was Abraham's nephew. They had at one time been together, but parted ways. Lot chose to stay in Sodom, knowing of the immorality there. Spiritually, he is an example of a worldly Christian--a Christian who believes, but compromises his faith, leaving a door for the devil.

As I said before, the story of Sodom is a story of morality.  In such a story, glossing over the kind of moral atrocity Lot tried to commit is an unacceptable oversight.  The fact that said atrocity was committed by the story's most obvious protagonist only makes the problem worse.  As such, the story of Sodom would be a much better moral parable if it either pointed out what Lot did was wrong or left out that bit altogether. 

There is no oversight. If you read the previous portions of scripture, you will see Abraham's intercession for Sodom. He ask that if there are only 10 righteous people, would the Lord spare the city. The Lord agrees, but obviously could not find ten. He brought Lot out by mercy to show us that living close to sin will taint our spiritual discernment. Remember he committed incest with his daughters and impregnated them both. And I have already brought up his wife.

The Bible is full of negative examples. Israel in the wilderness, and the subsequent death of an entire unbelieving generation, is a negative example. Ananias and Saphira, who lied to the Holy Ghost in the book of Acts is a negative example. Aaron making the golden calf is a negative example. David's adultery. Peter's denial of Christ. Paul's killing of Christians. But all these things have their purpose. They show what the Lord intends--some for moral examples, some to show the mercy and glory of God, some to show the judgment of God on sin.

Forgive my punctuation and spelling errors. I don't have time to edit this :blink:.

#33 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 21 May 2011 - 04:39 AM

Disclaimer: If memory serves, multiposting is ok if each post is in response to a different person.  Apologies if I'm wrong on this.

Interesting argument.  I already said that I'm dropping the "condemn slavery" improvement, so I guess this isn't a critical issue anymore.  But I do think that it's a mistake to say that the Bible doesn't need to condemn slavery just because our own sin is the deeper issue.

View Post

The bible does condemn mistreatment of your fellow man. So anything, including forced slavery (as opposed to indentured), that mistreats a fellow human being, or hates, envies, or covets what another is or has is sin. Christ went to not only seperate sins, but to the root of the problem--the human heart. For out of the heart of man comes all evil. Also Paul teaches on the "flesh, " which is contrary to the Spirit of God (Read Galatians). That is why man can never "turn over a new leaf." We have to be regenerated by the Spirit of God. Born again by the word of God.

That is why evolution is evil. It denies by censure Adam--and hence the fallen nature (the "flesh") of man. So man is left without knowing where he came from and how to get to where he needs to be. Evolution is an eclipse of the truth of the fallen nature, and corruption within both the human heart, and creation itself. But it will be restored in the end, when Christ returns. And then evolution will be seen for the lie that it is.

#34 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 21 May 2011 - 09:51 AM

What if someone cobbles together a perfectly sound syllogism, yet physical evidence disproves it; has the syllogism actually proven the logician’s conclusion correct?

View Post

This is impossible and has never happened. If a syllogism leads to a wrong conclusion, it employed either fallacies or false premises.

View Post

Master Buffalax was absolutely incorrect here, as any logician, logistics student, and/or anyone who delves into logic knows that the RULES of logic and syllogisms don’t work that way. Therefore his “impossible” statement is self-defeating and incorrect. Here we’ll take a look at Logic 101:

As I alluded to previously, a deductive argument’s having the right form DOES NOT mean that its conclusion is necessarily true. There is a difference between truth and validity. Validity is the concern of formal logic. It deals with how well the argument is put together (its form). Truth concerns material logic. It deals with the content of the argument and whether the premises and conclusion BY DEFINITION correspond to reality.

Formal logic can be represented in symbolic form that have no material meaning, but truth BY DEFINITION can be found ONLY in meaningful statements. The difference becomes evident once we start looking at some examples.

On the one hand, an argument might be valid (formally) but have one or more false premises:

Premise 1: All Muslims are holy rollers.
Premise 2: All holy rollers are chain smokers.
Conclusion: Therefore, all Muslims are chain smokers.

As we look at the above argument, we find that both premises and the conclusion are false, but formally the argument is absolutely valid. This syllogism itself disproves Master Buffalax’s assertion; because it proves that an argument can be valid, even if its conclusion is false. Why: because “Validity” only means that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be also. However, if the premises are not true, then the conclusion may not be true, even though it is validly drawn from them.

Conversely, an argument might have all true premises and a true conclusion but be formally invalid:

Premise 1: All good angels are part of God’s heavenly kingdom.
Premise 2: Gabriel is part of God’s heavenly kingdom.
Conclusion: Therefore, Gabriel is a good angel.

What could possibly be wrong with the above?

The problem is that it has a major loophole in the logic. Angels are only a part of God’s kingdom, saved men are a part as well. Isn’t it possible that Gabriel is a saved man? Premise 2 didn’t indicate that we were necessarily talking about an angel, it only stated that someone named “Gabriel” was “part of God’s heavenly kingdom”.

In order for the argument to be valid “AND” true, it should have been formulated:

Premise 1: All good angels are part of God’s heavenly kingdom.
Premise 2: The angel Gabriel is part of God’s heavenly kingdom.
Conclusion: Therefore, Gabriel is a good angel.

I challenge you to provide me with one logical argument (syllogism or otherwise) that takes true premises and uses sound logic to reach a false conclusion. 
It can't be done.

View Post


As I provided in syllogism # 2 above, you can indeed “provide one (and I could provide many-many more) logical argument (syllogism or otherwise) that takes true premises and uses sound logic to reach a false conclusion”… IT CAN BE DONE!

The problem is, Master Buffalax wasn’t very well grounded in logistics and reasoning. And yet he impressed himself so much with his own syllogism, that he couldn’t accept where it was wrong (in premise AND conclusion).

So we must realize:

Logic itself is NOT the answer
The metaphysical AND the physical are required to find validity AND truth.
You need BOTH!

So I would suggest that those of you who wish to use logic, “PLEASE” (please…please…please) observe the following:

Be prepared
Be prepared to listen to others
Be prepared to be wrong
Be prepared to accept being wrong
Be prepared to correct where you are wrong
Then be prepared to grow, and to help other grow

If you cannot do the above, you will relegate your philosophy to provide opinion as evidence, and equivocation as truth. This is what happened to Master Buffalax, and why he is no longer here.

#35 Ventus

Ventus

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Alberta, Canada

Posted 21 May 2011 - 12:32 PM

A thought occurred to me last night as I was enjoying the live web-broadcast of the non-rapture presented by Family Bible Ministry.

Here we have a case where a man, Harold Camping, has imperfectly interpreted scripture to make a wrong prediction, namely that the Judgment would begin today, May 21, 2011. Now, if the Bible is the perfect word of God, shouldn't it be IMPOSSIBLE to imperfectly interpret it?

I think many will respond that since men are imperfect we are not capable of completely grasping that which is imperfect - but I don't think that logically follows. If a thing is perfect it shouldn't matter the capabilities of those who are asked to understand or interpret that thing, the thing should be able to be perfectly understood, otherwise it isn't perfect.

Here's the argument presented as an adjustment of the OP:

1. If He exists, God, by His very nature, should be perfect.
2. Every aspect of a perfect being is, by definition, perfect.
3. Perfect things cannot be misunderstood or misinterpreted
4. The Bible can be misinterpreted and misunderstood.

Therefore

The Bible is not perfect and cannot be an aspect of a perfect thing (God) - The Bible is then not the Word of God.

#36 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 21 May 2011 - 01:02 PM

A thought occurred to me last night as I was enjoying the live web-broadcast of the non-rapture presented by Family Bible Ministry.

Here we have a case where a man, Harold Camping, has imperfectly interpreted scripture to make a wrong prediction, namely that the Judgment would begin today, May 21, 2011. Now, if the Bible is the perfect word of God, shouldn't it be IMPOSSIBLE to imperfectly interpret it?

I think many will respond that since men are imperfect we are not capable of completely grasping that which is imperfect - but I don't think that logically follows. If a thing is perfect it shouldn't matter the capabilities of those who are asked to understand or interpret that thing, the thing should be able to be perfectly understood, otherwise it isn't perfect.

Here's the argument presented as an adjustment of the OP:

1. If He exists, God, by His very nature, should be perfect.
2. Every aspect of a perfect being is, by definition, perfect.
3. Perfect things cannot be misunderstood or misinterpreted
4. The Bible can be misinterpreted and misunderstood.

Therefore

The Bible is not perfect and cannot be an aspect of a perfect thing (God) - The Bible is then not the Word of God.

View Post


P3 is a non-sequitor. Misunderstanding and misinterpreting do not reflect on the thing being misunderstood or misinterpreted. Math is a perfect science. You learned some of it in school. So why did they have tests? Because the perfect science was misunderstood and misinterpreted by some of the students.

Now that your logic has been shown to be imperfect, wouldn't it be wiser to start questioning it rather than the Bible.?

#37 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 21 May 2011 - 05:06 PM

A thought occurred to me last night as I was enjoying the live web-broadcast of the non-rapture presented by Family Bible Ministry.

Here we have a case where a man, Harold Camping, has imperfectly interpreted scripture to make a wrong prediction, namely that the Judgment would begin today, May 21, 2011. Now, if the Bible is the perfect word of God, shouldn't it be IMPOSSIBLE to imperfectly interpret it?

I think many will respond that since men are imperfect we are not capable of completely grasping that which is imperfect - but I don't think that logically follows. If a thing is perfect it shouldn't matter the capabilities of those who are asked to understand or interpret that thing, the thing should be able to be perfectly understood, otherwise it isn't perfect.

Here's the argument presented as an adjustment of the OP:

1. If He exists, God, by His very nature, should be perfect.
2. Every aspect of a perfect being is, by definition, perfect.
3. Perfect things cannot be misunderstood or misinterpreted
4. The Bible can be misinterpreted and misunderstood.

Therefore

The Bible is not perfect and cannot be an aspect of a perfect thing (God) - The Bible is then not the Word of God.

View Post


Ventus … Did you not read post # 37?

First - In order to have a “valid” and “true” syllogism, what conditions MUST you meet? When you figure that out you’ll discover where you err.

Second – You attempt to disqualify the non sequitur up front by making the blatantly fallacious statement “I think many will respond that since men are imperfect we are not capable of completely grasping that which is imperfect - but I don't think that logically follows”. But, it is dishonest AND it does NOT follow! Why, because you are attempting to project (or superimpose) the “misunderstanding” or “misinterpretation” FROM the perpetrator TO the Creator. Unfortunately for you, the Creator stated CLEARLY in several verses how and why NOT to make these mistakes. Further, when YOU make a mistake or misinterpretation, YOU own it. It is a relativistic ploy to attempt to blame your mistake on someone else.

Third – when you made the fallacious statement “I think many will respond that since men are imperfect we are not capable of completely grasping that which is imperfect - but I don't think that logically follows”, your “I think” statement itself disqualified (or exposed) premise 3 as invalid in reality.

Conclusion: Premise three is false, thus rendering your logic false.

#38 Ventus

Ventus

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Alberta, Canada

Posted 21 May 2011 - 06:19 PM

Ventus … Did you not read post # 37?


Do you mean post 34? If so, yes I read it.

First - In order to have a “valid” and “true” syllogism, what conditions MUST you meet? When you figure that out you’ll discover where you err.


I believe my syllogisms meet the requirements of being both logically and materially consistent.

Second – You attempt to disqualify the non sequitur up front by making the blatantly fallacious statement “I think many will respond that since men are imperfect we are not capable of completely grasping that which is imperfect - but I don't think that logically follows”. But, it is dishonest AND it does NOT follow! Why, because you are attempting to project (or superimpose) the “misunderstanding” or “misinterpretation” FROM the perpetrator TO the Creator. Unfortunately for you, the Creator stated CLEARLY in several verses how and why NOT to make these mistakes.
Further, when YOU make a mistake or misinterpretation, YOU own it. It is a relativistic ploy to attempt to blame your mistake on someone else.


Sorry, that's a typo. It should have read "we are not capable of grasping that which is PERFECT. My bad.

Third – when you made the fallacious statement “I think many will respond that since men are
imperfect we are not capable of completely grasping that which is imperfect - but I don't think that logically follows”, your “I think” statement itself disqualified (or exposed) premise 3 as invalid in reality.


This doesn't make sense to me, please explain.

Conclusion: Premise three is false, thus rendering your logic false.

View Post


This is an opinion statement, you have provided no evidence.

#39 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 21 May 2011 - 06:58 PM

This is an opinion statement, you have provided no evidence.

View Post



But I have. It is still false. Now you need to support it if you think it is true.

#40 Ventus

Ventus

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Alberta, Canada

Posted 21 May 2011 - 07:31 PM

But I have.  It is still false.  Now you need to support it if you think it is true.

View Post


Sorry performedge, the above was directed at Ron, not yourself.

As for your assertion re:mathematics there are two flaws I see with your argument. The first is that students are tested on the teaching they have experienced as much, or more than the subject itself. It's not a matter of if they misunderstood math, but if they misunderstood the teacher (or just weren't paying attention.)

The second is that you fail to demonstrate how math is Perfect.

Assertion three remains valid.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users