Ventus Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ Did you not read post # 37?
Do you mean post 34? If so, yes I read it.
No, I said post # 37Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ Therefore you DO need to read itÃ¢â‚¬Â¦
First - In order to have a Ã¢â‚¬Å“validÃ¢â‚¬Â and Ã¢â‚¬Å“trueÃ¢â‚¬Â syllogism, what conditions MUST you meet? When you figure that out youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll discover where you err.
I believe my syllogisms meet the requirements of being both logically and materially consistent.
Again, Ã¢â‚¬Å“saying itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s so doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t make it soÃ¢â‚¬Â, and you havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t provided any Ã¢â‚¬Å“validÃ¢â‚¬Â or Ã¢â‚¬Å“trueÃ¢â‚¬Â reasoning to any logical or materialistic consistency in your syllogism. Further, I provided why you are incorrect AND illogical in your syllogism, and you have yet to counter (or refute) my dismantling of your reasoning (except your saying Ã¢â‚¬Å“it is soÃ¢â‚¬Â).
Second Ã¢â‚¬â€œ You attempt to disqualify the non sequitur up front by making the blatantly fallacious statement Ã¢â‚¬Å“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 followsÃ¢â‚¬Â. But, it is dishonest AND it does NOT follow! Why, because you are attempting to project (or superimpose) the Ã¢â‚¬Å“misunderstandingÃ¢â‚¬Â or Ã¢â‚¬Å“misinterpretationÃ¢â‚¬Â 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.
It doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t matter how you attempt to state it, it is still dishonest AND still does not follow (non sequitur) because you are still Ã¢â‚¬Å“attempting to project (or superimpose) the Ã¢â‚¬Å“misunderstandingÃ¢â‚¬Â or Ã¢â‚¬Å“misinterpretationÃ¢â‚¬Â FROM the perpetrator TO the CreatorÃ¢â‚¬Â. And, no matter how you restate it, your flaw remains. This relativistic attempt at reasoning never works logically or rationally.
Third Ã¢â‚¬â€œ when you made the fallacious statement Ã¢â‚¬Å“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 followsÃ¢â‚¬Â, your Ã¢â‚¬Å“I thinkÃ¢â‚¬Â statement itself disqualified (or exposed) premise 3 as invalid in reality.
This doesn't make sense to me, please explain.
OkayÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ You statement Ã¢â‚¬Å“I ThinkÃ¢â‚¬Â is not evidential or factual; it is opinionated. Further, it is presuppositionÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ Even worse it is nothing more than an Ã¢â‚¬Å“a prioriÃ¢â‚¬Â assumption. And you as much admitted that you based your Ã¢â‚¬Å“premise # 3 on you Ã¢â‚¬Å“a prioriÃ¢â‚¬Â assumption. Therefore, not only does this premise fail on the reasons I previously provided, but it fails by your own admission as well.
Conclusion: Premise three is false, thus rendering your logic false.
This is an opinion statement, you have provided no evidence.
That is not only incorrect, but it is inane as well Ventus. Once again Ã¢â‚¬Å“saying its so, doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t make it soÃ¢â‚¬Â. And if you think the rhetoric of childish tactics will trump logic and rationale (at this forum anyway), you soon find out that civil and honest dialogue simply does not proceed that way.