I learned this a long, long time ago. Thanks for this clear explanation!
One problem: people in the real world tend to "beg the question;" "P is the case because P is the case," i.e., "The Bible is true because the Bible says the Bible is true." No winning arguments when people do not follow logic!
On Jul 21, 5:30 pm, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I learned this a long, long time ago. Thanks for this clear > explanation!
> One problem: people in the real world tend to "beg the question;" "P > is the case because P is the case," i.e., "The Bible is true because > the Bible says the Bible is true." No winning arguments when people > do not follow logic!
Actually there is no winning in these matters. it is only the degree of losing.
In the above example, all you should do is be gracious and just accept their unconfitional surrender. As the wise ones in here often suggest: "To believe that God exists, you must first believe that God exists"
On Jul 21, 5:30 pm, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I learned this a long, long time ago. Thanks for this clear > explanation!
> One problem: people in the real world tend to "beg the question;" "P > is the case because P is the case," i.e., "The Bible is true because > the Bible says the Bible is true."
... but the Bible doesn't say the Bible is true. Indeed, the Bible doesn't even say there is a Bible.
On Jul 21, 5:30 pm, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> One problem: people in the real world tend to "beg the question;" "P > is the case because P is the case," i.e., "The Bible is true because > the Bible says the Bible is true."
... but the Bible doesn't say the Bible is true. Indeed, the Bible doesn't even say there is a Bible.
> > I learned this a long, long time ago. Thanks for this clear > > explanation!
> > One problem: people in the real world tend to "beg the question;" "P > > is the case because P is the case," i.e., "The Bible is true because > > the Bible says the Bible is true."
> ... but the Bible doesn't say the Bible is true. Indeed, the Bible > doesn't even say there is a Bible.
You may be correct that it does not do so as such, but what do you make of this?
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." - 2 Timothy 3:16-17
(Oldman quoted that the last time something like this came up)
I'd say that if you buy into the claim that there is a God, surely he could not be lying. For that.that... would be just not right, I tellya
> I learned this a long, long time ago. Thanks for this clear > explanation!
> One problem: people in the real world tend to "beg the question;" "P > is the case because P is the case," i.e., "The Bible is true because > the Bible says the Bible is true." No winning arguments when people > do not follow logic!
Your definition of reductio ad absurdum is incorrect.
More importantly, a reductio ad absurdum argument can lead to a valid conclusion. Have you ever heard of satire?
You seem to be implying that this type of argument is always a logical fallacy. Where reductio ad absurdum does become a fallacy is when one of its premises are wrong.
In your two examples, there are wrong premises in each which of course invalidates both the conclusion and your use of reductio ad absurdum.
In your argument against God from the existence of evil, proposition 5 and everything following it are wrong. To say that God created everything in the universe is not the same as saying God allowed sin into the world. God created humans and gave them free will to know God and themselves as Divine or to be dazzled by their intellect and senses and wallow in desire which leads to evil. If some humans such as atheists choose to wallow in desire and sensory impressions they bear the responsibility for evil to exist not God.
In your argument from design, the first premise is incorrect. No theists would suppose God didn't exist.
So, it's back to a first year 'introduction to logic' course for you.
On Jul 21, 4:11 pm, Turner <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Your definition of reductio ad absurdum is incorrect.
> More importantly, a reductio ad absurdum argument can lead to a valid > conclusion. Have you ever heard of satire?
> You seem to be implying that this type of argument is always a logical > fallacy. Where reductio ad absurdum does become a fallacy is when one > of its premises are wrong.
> In your two examples, there are wrong premises in each which of course > invalidates both the conclusion and your use of reductio ad absurdum.
> In your argument against God from the existence of evil, proposition 5 > and everything following it are wrong. To say that God created > everything in the universe is not the same as saying God allowed sin > into the world. God created humans and gave them free will to know God > and themselves as Divine or to be dazzled by their intellect and > senses and wallow in desire which leads to evil. If some humans such > as atheists choose to wallow in desire and sensory impressions they > bear the responsibility for evil to exist not God.
> In your argument from design, the first premise is incorrect. No > theists would suppose God didn't exist.
> So, it's back to a first year 'introduction to logic' course for you.
> On Jul 22, 7:51 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Nice try, psycho. Peddle your fairy tales elsewhere, and come back when > you > > have an actual argument against me.
> Nice dodge, shipwreck. My mistake, I thought you actually wanted a > clue.
On Jul 22, 7:58 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No you didn't. You're a horrible liar. Either make an argument or kindly > exit this thread.
Yes I did, and no, I'm not. Your argument fails from the standpoint of assigning if-then values that do not represent the actual cause and effect factors surrounding the case at hand.
Take the time to investigate. At the very worst you will have more ammo for your anti-Christian campaign.
If you think it is legitimate then why did you focus on illegitimate uses of it? A good teacher would be demonstrating how to use something correctly. Care to try?
Your atheist zeal clouds your mind and leads you into numerous logical fallacies which are easily pointed out. Just recently I have pointed three logical mistakes that you have made and you have made no response to any of them. Of course, it is difficult for you to rail against logical truth effectively.
It is amusing to see how atheists embarrass themselves when they venture into using or discussing logic.
On Jul 22, 7:16 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Your definition of reductio ad absurdum is incorrect.
> > More importantly, a reductio ad absurdum argument can lead to a valid > > conclusion. Have you ever heard of satire?
> > You seem to be implying that this type of argument is always a logical > > fallacy. Where reductio ad absurdum does become a fallacy is when one > > of its premises are wrong.
> > In your two examples, there are wrong premises in each which of course > > invalidates both the conclusion and your use of reductio ad absurdum.
> > In your argument against God from the existence of evil, proposition 5 > > and everything following it are wrong. To say that God created > > everything in the universe is not the same as saying God allowed sin > > into the world. God created humans and gave them free will to know God > > and themselves as Divine or to be dazzled by their intellect and > > senses and wallow in desire which leads to evil. If some humans such > > as atheists choose to wallow in desire and sensory impressions they > > bear the responsibility for evil to exist not God.
> > In your argument from design, the first premise is incorrect. No > > theists would suppose God didn't exist.
> > So, it's back to a first year 'introduction to logic' course for you.
On Jul 21, 8:07 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> You may be correct that it does not do so as such, but what do you > make of this?
> "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, > correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may > be > thoroughly equipped for every good work." - 2 Timothy 3:16-17 > I'd say that if you buy into the claim that there is a God, surely he > could not be lying. For that.that... would be just not right, I tellya
> On Jul 22, 7:58 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > No you didn't. You're a horrible liar. Either make an argument or kindly > > exit this thread.
> Yes I did, and no, I'm not. Your argument fails from the standpoint > of assigning if-then values that do not represent the actual cause and > effect factors surrounding the case at hand.
> Take the time to investigate. At the very worst you will have more > ammo for your anti-Christian campaign.
I'm not about to listen to random mp3s about some myth. If you really want me to respond to an argument, then make an argument. Don't be lazy and tell me to figure out your argument for you.
I mean, when omprem calls your post spam, you know you're in trouble.
> If you think it is legitimate then why did you focus on illegitimate > uses of it? A good teacher would be demonstrating how to use > something correctly. Care to try?
Ommy, I'm concerned for your health. You know hallucinogens can be dangerous to your health.
Your atheist zeal clouds your mind and leads you into numerous logical
> fallacies which are easily pointed out. Just recently I have pointed > three logical mistakes that you have made and you have made no > response to any of them. Of course, it is difficult for you to rail > against logical truth effectively.
Those were examples. I was not making either of the arguments presented. You know, examples? As in, samples intended to illustrate a point?
It is amusing to see how atheists embarrass themselves when they
> venture into using or discussing logic.
Projection can point to psychological problems. I recommend you get checked out as soon as possible. My thoughts are with you.
On Jul 22, 8:20 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> Ernest
> With all due respect, this is getting close to spam.
I disagree (imagine that). It is a legitimate resource, and well, time is short. Those that are really interested will check it out. Those that just want to P&M will.... P&M.
On Jul 22, 8:40 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not about to listen to random mp3s about some myth. If you really want > me to respond to an argument, then make an argument. Don't be lazy and tell > me to figure out your argument for you.
> I mean, when omprem calls your post spam, you know you're in trouble.
No trouble at all. I've seen dozens of posts, in this group, recommending literature or web resources for study. If you are not interested, then just pass.
If I were you, I'd want to know why the application of my logic was not quite right.
If you feel my application of logic is incorrect, then fucking tell me what is incorrect about it, don't just link me to some crappy ministry website. Make a god damn argument, man. That's what we're here for.
> On Jul 22, 8:40 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm not about to listen to random mp3s about some myth. If you really > want > > me to respond to an argument, then make an argument. Don't be lazy and > tell > > me to figure out your argument for you.
> > I mean, when omprem calls your post spam, you know you're in trouble.
> No trouble at all. I've seen dozens of posts, in this group, > recommending literature or web resources for study. If you are not > interested, then just pass.
> If I were you, I'd want to know why the application of my logic was > not quite right.
To go by the branches and do not touch the reality, is a good example of to be a monkey. Second, guess there is enough proof we are natural beings in a natural environment, and there is no sign of the energy a superbeing looking on us. There is not a spiritual world as there can not be a being without being . What is, is ,and what is not possibly to detect by any means, simply is a figment of your imagination. AB, etc. it 's a good example of how could be used the brain in mental exercises only. Not proof of a superbeing in the sky.
|
