- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,267
- 52,668
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Again: I do not have a problem with circular logic - none.
2 + 5 = 7 because 7 = 2 + 5.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Biblically defined kinds
- Thread starter CACTUSJACKmankin
- Start date
Again: I do not have a problem with circular logic - none.
2 + 5 = 7 because 7 = 2 + 5.
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,267
- 52,668
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Has it occurred to you that the Bible is 66 books in one? People who demand external verification don't realize that one book in the Bible verifies the next; especially since the books were written over a period of 1500 years, by 40+ authors, in 3 different languages, on 3 different continents, etc., independent of each other.
Upvote
0
Good grief, so you're not only at war with science but also with math?
I know math professors who'd slap you in your face for that statement.
Edit: actually, that answer would make them give you an F in an examination, forcing you to repeat a whole semester of math courses - I'd prefer a slap into the face.
Upvote
0
Wrong. 2 + 5 = 7 because (2) + (5) = (1+1)+(1+1+1+1+1) <by definition> =1+1+1+1+1+1+1=7, again by definition.
Maths is try because of definitions, but you can't define truths about the world.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,267
- 52,668
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I knew someone was gonna do this, but I thought they were gonna come back with 4 +3.
Anyway, I made my point:
- 2 + 5 = 7 and 7 = 2 + 5
Was this even a sentence?
Upvote
0
so you admit that it was written by men and had different authors living in different eras. Thus the word of man, NOT God.
Upvote
0
Since the [gospels] themselves are undated, the order in which they were written is not absolutely clear. John McVay lists some theories:
- Oral Theory: The three gospels were written independently and all based on "structured and durable oral traditions"
- Augustinian Theory: The three gospels were written in the order: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; each author had access to the earlier gospels
- Two Source Theory: Both Matthew and Luke based their gospels on Mark and the lost Gospel of Q.
- Four Source Theory: Both Matthew and Luke based their gospels on Mark and the lost Gospel of Q. In addition, Matthew includes some material from a third source, often called "M". Luke similarly includes passages from another source, often called "L". Both L and M were probably oral traditions.
- Two Gospel theory: Matthew was written first. Luke was written later and based on Matthew. Mark was written last, and based on Luke and Matthew.
- Theory of Markan Priority without Q: Mark was written first. Matthew was written later and based on Mark. Luke was written last, and based on Mark and Matthew.
The Augustinian Theory was accepted by the Christian church for most of its history. The Four Source Theory is supported by most mainline and liberal theologians today. One source estimates that over 90% of contemporary Gospel scholars accept this theory and the existence of the Gospel of Q.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,267
- 52,668
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,267
- 52,668
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,267
- 52,668
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
definitions are not logical deductions.
definition: a plus b is c.
logic: a then b therefore c.
Upvote
0
But now that isn't circular argument, you are merely asserting the truth of two (equivalent) statements. I notice you're ignoring the problem you have using the Bible to verify the Bible.
"Maths is true because of definitions, but you can't define truths about the world."
Upvote
0
ReverendDG
Defeater of Dad and AV1611VET
well from your post here i can see you don't even know what circular logic is.
please go read what it is before even arguing about it
Upvote
0
It's neither a proof nor an example for circular logic (just the first half of it).
A circular argument goes like this:
1.) A is true (see step 2 for proof) and if A is true, then B is true, therefore B is true. (5+2=7 because 7=5+2)
2.) B is true (see step 1 for proof) and if B is true, then A is true, therefore A is true. (7=5+2 because 5+2=7 - AV missed this part, failing to give an example for a circular argument)
It would have been a proof if AV had shown that 7=5+2 is a true statement and that 7=5+2 concludes 5+2=7. However, he did neither, so all he did was making just another claim.
An actual proof for 5+2=7 starts with having a look at the definitions for the set of natural numbers N and addition, drawing conclusions from the characteristics of N and that function. Then you'd come up with something similar to what FishFace wrote.
Upvote
0
Actually, it's not a because, it's an and. The basis of mathematics generally stems from a system such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms
Upvote
0
....Please never, ever stop posting. I love reading what you have to say. It gets me through those slow, boring afternoons.
Its a shame Jesus didn't explain mathematics to his followers. At least you'd be able to quote passages for that too. Oh well, as long as you actually read the links posted in this thread, you might be able to actually achieve a higher standard of thinking, one which you so loudly claim to have.
Its a shame Jesus didn't explain mathematics to his followers. At least you'd be able to quote passages for that too. Oh well, as long as you actually read the links posted in this thread, you might be able to actually achieve a higher standard of thinking, one which you so loudly claim to have.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
