Were you ever taught logic?

I was taught logic. It was called geometry,at least, Socrates believed that.

Where is the logic lacking in this forum BTW?

Chobo Char said:

Hmm, almost. Add "The child cannot even be sure said house exists." and it would be accurate.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I think the epistemological question you raise here, while relevant, is a separate discussion.

One question I am raising is, how does the fact that many will not enter heaven demonstrate that God doesn't love the world? I suppose the casual response is to posit the premise that "If God loved the world, all people (or at least more people than just a 'few') would go to heaven."

So, I ask you to consider my restatement: If I loved my child, then I would allow my child into my house. My child will not enter my house, however (The Book of Hypotheticals 7:14). Therefore I do not love my child.

Does the single fact that my child will not enter my house prove that I don't love my child? No, it doesn't. No reasons have been given to explain why my child will not enter my house. Likewise, no reasons have been given in Captain Jackson's signature to explain why many will not enter heaven.

Maybe the reason is that God really doesn't love the world. But that has yet to be demonstrated. The single fact that many will not enter heaven does not by itself prove such a proposition.

Jet Black said:

of course the whole problem here is the "My child will not enter my house" bit. You have swapped the choice element from you to the child. As has already been pointed out, the child cannot be certain the house even exists, more to the point, the child cannot be certain that you exist either. The child also has many other people inviting him into their houses too (though we cannot be sure if these people or their houses exist either), and according to many of them, all the other houses are actually torture chambers, and only their house is the correct one.

Click to expand...

That you have focused on volition means you're very insightful. That's an inherent part of this discussion. But understand that I haven't "swapped" anything. As I said above, no reasons have been given to explain why my child will not enter my house. Is it an act of the child's will, or of mine (or both)? I ask the same question concerning the many who will not enter heaven. Why aren't they going to heaven?

Is it because God's evil and wants to see most people suffer while only a few make it in?

Is it because most people reject God and want to do their own thing?

Here's where Chobo Char's epistemological question becomes critical, and I commend him for his insight (I'm fortunate to be in a discussion with insightful people!). To avoid getting into some boring long-winded typed-out carpal tunnel-inducing explanation, I'll say this much: I think this is an issue of man's volition, but I don't believe people are excluded from salvation on the basis that they couldn't figure things out in time.


- Bud

pureone said:

Where is the logic lacking in this forum BTW?

Click to expand...

The most common fallacy in this forum is the Strawman fallacy. Creationists never bother to learn what evolution is, so they just make up their own defintions for it and then refute that, and that does nothing but make them look silly.

The post hoc fallacy is very common. Just take a look at "the blood-stained century of evolution thread.

The appeal to Appeal to Belief is quite common.

The Appeal to Ridicule is quite common.

I was never taught logic. Maths was the closest I came to it. But many of my friends did classics at Uni and logic was a part of that. I have learnt a lot coming on the Internet.

See, the thread went exactly like I thought. I have seen as many 'non-Creationists' use strawman argument as well as appeal to ridicule. Quite a few more, truth be told.

Svt4Him said:

See, the thread went exactly like I thought. I have seen as many 'non-Creationists' use strawman argument as well as appeal to ridicule. Quite a few more, truth be told.

Click to expand...

Which thread are you refering to?

Captain Jackson said:

If God loved the world, then he would allow many into his paradise. Few will enter his paradise, however (Matthew 7:14). Therefore the Christian God does not love the world.

Click to expand...

To put your signature in premise/conclusion form...

P1- If God loved the world, then he would allow many into his paradise.

P2- God does not allow many into his paradise.

C- Therefore, God does not love the world.


A logically valid argument - a good example of modus tollens. The question here of course is whether the argument is sound. Seems to me that the argument begs the question (Petitio Principii): how does God's not allowing many into his paradise imply that God does not love the world? Maybe it does, but that hasn't been established yet. In other words, you have to demonstrate that Premise 1 is true.

This is merely a restatement of my previous post, in which I make the point that the single fact that many will not enter heaven does not in itself prove that God doesn't love the world.

How should you demonstrate that Premise 1 is true? Just show that the only possible reason people don't get into heaven is that God is mean and won't let them in. That should be simple enough.

Or just get a different signature, if that's easier.

Food for thought,


- Bud

BudJohnson said:

To put your signature in premise/conclusion form...

P1- If God loved the world, then he would allow many into his paradise.

P2- God does not allow many into his paradise.

C- Therefore, God does not love the world.


A logically valid argument - a good example of modus tollens. The question here of course is whether the argument is sound. Seems to me that the argument begs the question (Petitio Principii): how does God's not allowing many into his paradise imply that God does not love the world? Maybe it does, but that hasn't been established yet. In other words, you have to demonstrate that Premise 1 is true.

This is merely a restatement of my previous post, in which I make the point that the single fact that many will not enter heaven does not in itself prove that God doesn't love the world.

How should you demonstrate that Premise 1 is true? Just show that the only possible reason people don't get into heaven is that God is mean and won't let them in. That should be simple enough.

Or just get a different signature, if that's easier.

Food for thought,


- Bud

Click to expand...

It appears that it's ok to be illogical, unless you are a Christian.

BudJohnson said:

How should you demonstrate that Premise 1 is true? Just show that the only possible reason people don't get into heaven is that God is mean and won't let them in. That should be simple enough.

Click to expand...

This depends on how you define mean and good though, and they are incredibly subjective concepts. I would say that in Jackson's signiature he is implicitly defining a good God as one who lets many into heaven.

I took logic as an elective in high school. IMO it should be a required course everywhere.

Here's a good site:
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/welcome.php

I like logic. Logic dictates that if you own a weed-eater, you are straight.

Jet Black said:

This depends on how you define mean and good though, and they are incredibly subjective concepts. I would say that in Jackson's signiature he is implicitly defining a good God as one who lets many into heaven.

Click to expand...

There's nothing implicit about his definition of "good God." Premise 1 of his argument states most explicitly that a "good God" (i.e., a God who loves the world) is a God who lets many into heaven.

And there's the rub: In his argument, he bases his conclusion that the Christian God is not loving on the premise that God doesn't allow many into his paradise. But what justification has he given for it? None, so far. He has to demonstrate that God's not allowing many into his paradise is due to the fact that God is not loving. Captain Jackson's argument is fallacious, as I've already demonstrated. But I see the potential for Captain Jackson to run into even more problems with his signature. Consider the following...


"Why is God not loving, Captain?"

"Because God doesn't allow many into his paradise, Bud."

"Why doesn't God allow many into his paradise?"

"Because God is not loving."


This is purely hypothetical, of course. I really don't know how the good Captain would respond. But in an already fallacious argument, Captain Jackson is in danger of circularity (another form of the Petitio Principii fallacy). I hope he's at least perceptive enough to avoid a second fallacy.

Captain Jackson said:

Were you ever taught logic?

Were logic and/or logic fallacies ever formally taught to you? I'm a college sophomore, and the only logic I've learned I learned by myself.

I'm asking because this forum is packed thread to thread with logic fallacies.

Click to expand...

Packed indeed, beginning with his own signature. I had forgotten that our good Captain was the very man who started this thread on logic and fallacies.

I couldn't help but note the bitter irony.

Svt4Him said:

It appears that it's ok to be illogical, unless you are a Christian.

Click to expand...

Well, it does appear that the majority of people are willing to overlook their own misapplications of logic when it's convenient - and that includes people from all the differing theological perspectives.


I still say teaching logic in high school is a wonderful idea.

- Bud

The Captain changed his signature.

No assumptions made here.

Regarding the OP: I worked through a logic course at home (I was home schooled) in sixth grade, was taught logic fallacies again in a debate class my freshman year, and was taught logic yet again my junior year in English 101 and 201 at the local university. I've found that, though I've always been logical by nature (sometimes to excess, as my family can no doubt confirm), formal logic training has helped me a great deal.

-jon

Were you ever taught logic?

Click to expand...

I've been learning Philosophy and Logic since I was 15, I've come to realize the world is lacking in its ability to exercise proper critical thinking.

I know Logical Fallacies in and out. I see a lot of them on this board, but I think its rude to point them out simply as spite.

From my experience, most people are "born with it" so to speak. I am also aware that men, with more compartmentalized psychology, have a higher tendency (but not that much higher) to be logical thinkers (just more logical thinkers, that isnt the same as better logical thinkers).

I believe Critical Thinking should have a more involved role in education, its never unappreciated.

I still have a problem with the puzzle (I can't think of it exactly) where you are confronted with two people, one always lies and the other tells the truth. You are allowed one question to find the answer. Has anybody come across it?

You ask one of the people "How would the other person respond to the question X?" Then the correct answer is the opposite of whatever answer you receive. If you asked the honest person, he would honestly tell you the other person's lie, and if you asked the liar, he would lie about the other's honest response.

fungle said:

I still have a problem with the puzzle (I can't think of it exactly) where you are confronted with two people, one always lies and the other tells the truth. You are allowed one question to find the answer. Has anybody come across it?

Click to expand...

There's a version of the puzzle found in the movie "Labyrinth" (with David Bowie as the Goblin King). There are two doors. One door leads in the right direction, the other one leads in the wrong direction. There are two people standing in front of the doors. One always lies, and one always tells the truth. You don't know which one is the liar, and you don't know which door is the wrong door. What one question can you ask that will tell you which door you should take?

Point to a door and ask one of them, "Would he (the other guy) tell me this is the right door?"

Both would answer "yes" if you were pointing at the wrong door (the liar would say "Yes, he would tell you that's the right door" and so would the honest man.), and both would answer "no" if you were pointing at the right door.

The only snag in this puzzle is that the liar could just say "I don't know" (He'd be lying, but, of course, he is the liar!).


- Bud