Some Basic Logic

[OldWiseGuy]

The way most people use the word logic has little to do with logic itself. For example, someone might say that that isn't logical, but really what they mean is that it's not logical to them. However, logic is not something subjective, it's more like mathematics. There is a difference between what you think follows from certain statements, and what actually follows based on the principles of logic. Logic in a lot of ways is like mathematics. For example, in algebra you use variables, and you plug numbers into those variables. In logic you also use variables, but instead of plugging numbers into the variables, you plug statements into the variables.

For example:

Here is a structure of a proof called modus ponens using variables.

Premise 1) If 'P,' then 'Q.'
Premise 2) 'P.'
Conclusion: Therefore, 'Q.'

The following is an example using the statements that can be plugged into the proof.

Premise 1) If 'the Bible is true,' then 'God exists.' (P = "the Bible is true" Q = "God exists.")
Premise 2) The Bible is true.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

This is a proof for the existence of God. It follows necessarily from premise 1.

One might ask how we know the structure is correct. The way we know is by using truth tables. However, I'm not going to give an explanation of truth tables. If you want more information, there are a variety of classes free on Youtube that explain truth tables.

The problem is that logic generally isn't taught in high school, and sometimes it's not required in college. It should be taught starting in the 9th grade, but unfortunately it's not.

You asked why isn't there tangible evidence of logic. There is but you have to know where to look. The most tangible evidence is in computer programming. However, most people aren't that familiar with the logic that is required for formal arguments. Moreover, many people really don't understand what logic is. They use the word logic, but they use it in a very general way.

So logic doesn't apply much to people but rather to objects? A computer uses logic but it is just an object.

 

[Sam26]

So logic doesn't apply much to people but rather to objects? A computer uses logic but it is just an object.

Logic in terms of formal arguments, is used to show what follows from certain statements that people assert or make. Thus, we as people use statements, so the rules of logic tells us something about the use of those statement in formal arguments. We also use statements in computer programming, and it's people who use logic to program the computer. When talking about statements we are talking about language, and again it's people who create the language to program the computer, or to create an argument.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Logic in terms of formal arguments, is used to show what follows from certain statements that people assert or make. Thus, we as people use statements, so the rules of logic tells us something about the use of those statement in formal arguments. We also use statements in computer programming, and it's people who use logic to program the computer. When talking about statements we are talking about language, and again it's people who create the language to program the computer, or to create an argument.

I'm wondering where you are going with this?????

 

[Sam26]

I'm wondering where you are going with this?????

The point of the thread is to give people some background information about logic, since logic is used in arguments. Arguments are used all over this and other forums as a way to express what people believe,i.e., the conclusions they make from other statements they believe to be true. In order to have a good argument one needs to know some of the basics of logic. My hope is that people in defending what they believe, in terms of arguments, come to understand that logic is an important tool for defending one's beliefs - whether Christian or not.

So what are the reasons or evidence to support what one believes; and are you drawing the proper conclusions?

 

[Sam26]

Logic is important not only as a tool to examine religious arguments, but remember it's a tool to examine all arguments. Politics comes to mind, sometimes I want to scream when I hear some of these politicians make what they think are good arguments. Many of them aren't trying to give us good policy arguments, but are trying to create a narrative that describes the other side. A narrative that they control through the news media. The problem is that it's very difficult to sort through what many are saying are the facts.

However, if we understand some of the basics of logic it's becomes easier to sort through the kinds of arguments that are put forward by politicians or ideologues, and those who put forward a particular religious belief or dogma.

 

[Rebecca12]

But that is NOT the logic of the bible. Hebrew Block logic allows for that, if you are working in different blocks.

So if one is to analyze the bible, one should use the SAME logical framework.

Well, not really. There is logic as in principles of reasoning: A cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship. We cannot communicate, we cannot function, without this understanding. Without this understanding words are meaningless and communication impossible. Everything becomes a meaningless mystery. Hebrew "block logic" as a term used by some to describe linguistic differences and a way to analyze those differences is not necessarily a problem. But ancient Hebrew isn't a different system of formal logic. If suppositions about Hebrew thought and language is used to try to explain biblical contradictions as still contradictions but logically "correct" (claiming A is both A and not A at the same time) people are going beyond what we know about languages and how people think and communicate.

 

[Chesterton]

 

[Sam26]

Well, not really. There is logic as in principles of reasoning: A cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship. We cannot communicate, we cannot function, without this understanding. Without this understanding words are meaningless and communication impossible. Everything becomes a meaningless mystery. Hebrew "block logic" as a term used by some to describe linguistic differences and a way to analyze those differences is not necessarily a problem. But ancient Hebrew isn't a different system of formal logic. If suppositions about Hebrew thought and language is used to try to explain biblical contradictions as still contradictions but logically "correct" (claiming A is both A and not A at the same time) people are going beyond what we know about languages and how people think and communicate.

Very nice reply Rebecca.

 

[Sam26]

That's funny.

 

[Rebecca12]

The point of the thread is to give people some background information about logic, since logic is used in arguments. Arguments are used all over this and other forums as a way to express what people believe,i.e., the conclusions they make from other statements they believe to be true. In order to have a good argument one needs to know some of the basics of logic. My hope is that people in defending what they believe, in terms of arguments, come to understand that logic is an important tool for defending one's beliefs - whether Christian or not.

So what are the reasons or evidence to support what one believes; and are you drawing the proper conclusions?

It is good to start simple. The first step of any sound argument is that the premises must be true. If you cannot establish the truth of the premises then even if the construction of the argument is valid the argument is nevertheless unsound and unworthy of consideration.

I see unsupported premises all the time.

Another common problem that comes to my mind results from misunderstanding of fallacious arguments. Just because an argument is fallacious doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusion is wrong. For example, an appeal to authority is fallacious but the authority may actually be correct. It depends. A related problem is attacking a source as biased. First of all, how do you know it is biased? Is it because you disagree? In fact, such an attack might simply be a way of poisoning the well. Which in itself is a fallacy. And even if a source is biased doesn't necessarily mean it is inaccurate, it just means you need to examine it further.

Well, those are my random thoughts.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Logic is important not only as a tool to examine religious arguments, but remember it's a tool to examine all arguments. Politics comes to mind, sometimes I want to scream when I hear some of these politicians make what they think are good arguments. Many of them aren't trying to give us good policy arguments, but are trying to create a narrative that describes the other side. A narrative that they control through the news media. The problem is that it's very difficult to sort through what many are saying are the facts.

However, if we understand some of the basics of logic it's becomes easier to sort through the kinds of arguments that are put forward by politicians or ideologues, and those who put forward a particular religious belief or dogma.

Logic only works if all parties agree to it. People's goofy opinions are 'their baby' and not easily given up.

 

[Dave-W]

If suppositions about Hebrew thought and language is used to try to explain biblical contradictions as still contradictions but logically "correct" (claiming A is both A and not A at the same time) people are going beyond what we know about languages and how people think and communicate.

But in Hebrew Block logic, the "contradictions" and "mysteries" go away and settle into the framework.

There is no contradiction between God hardening Pharaoh's heart and he hardening his own heart.

There is no problem in having "three in one" as in the godhead.

I could go on. Read the links I gave.

But I will say it took me YEARS to be able to wrap my head around it. I do not expect that anyone will pick it up overnight.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It seems then that the only conclusion one can arrive at is the one resulting from "logic". If true then we should have solved all our problems long ago. It isn't logical to carry huge problems over from one generation to the next.

 

[Sam26]

But in Hebrew Block logic, the "contradictions" and "mysteries" go away and settle into the framework.

There is no contradiction between God hardening Pharaoh's heart and he hardening his own heart.

There is no problem in having "three in one" as in the godhead.

I could go on. Read the links I gave.

But I will say it took me YEARS to be able to wrap my head around it. I do not expect that anyone will pick it up overnight.

Many people claim that there are contradictions when there are none, so it depends on the statements, and it depends on how certain words or ideas are defined. Saying that a statement is contradictory doesn't mean that it is.

Saying that God exists, and that he doesn't exist is contradictory.

Saying that a married man is a bachelor is contradictory.

Saying that I don't believe in the use of correct reasoning, while at the same time using reason to argue a point is contradictory.

I believe one could define the Trinity in a way that isn't contradictory, but many Christians explain in a way that is contradictory.

The way Christians think of omnipotence is sometimes contradictory. It depends on the way it's defined.

Moreover, just because something is not understood or mysterious doesn't mean that it's contradictory.

 

[Sam26]

It seems then that the only conclusion one can arrive at is the one resulting from "logic". If true then we should have solved all our problems long ago. It isn't logical to carry huge problems over from one generation to the next.

There are limits to logic, i.e., not everything that can be justified, or not everything that justifies a conclusion is the result of logic. As I stated in another post one can justify a belief based on sensory experience. For example, I know the orange is sweet because I tasted it.

Not only is there logic as expressed in this thread, but there is logic built into the use of words. This means that there is a logic of use in terms of language. Think of a child learning to use the word blue, i.e., how do we know when the child has learned to use the word? We would say that the child doesn't understand how the word is used, if the child keeps pointing to yellow and saying "blue." However, if the child points to the correct color while saying "blue," then it's probably the case that the child has learned the proper use of the word. In fact, use comes before a definition. We don't generally teach a child a definition at first, instead we show them how a word is used in a sentence, or how the word is used as we point to an object.

 

[Dave-W]

Many people claim that there are contradictions when there are none, so it depends on the statements, and it depends on how certain words or ideas are defined. Saying that a statement is contradictory doesn't mean that it is.

Saying that God exists, and that he doesn't exist is contradictory.

Saying that a married man is a bachelor is contradictory.

Saying that I don't believe in the use of correct reasoning, while at the same time using reason to argue a point is contradictory.

I believe one could define the Trinity in a way that isn't contradictory, but many Christians explain in a way that is contradictory.

The way Christians think of omnipotence is sometimes contradictory. It depends on the way it's defined.

Moreover, just because something is not understood or mysterious doesn't mean that it's contradictory.

I am not saying to throw out logic.
Rather, that there exists more than one logical framework.
Just make sure you are using the correct one.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I would score the value of logic based on outcomes, not process.
For example the logical solution to the healthcare problem is.....better health, not better health insurance.

 

[Rebecca12]

I would score the value of logic based on outcomes, not process.
For example the logical solution to the healthcare problem is.....better health, not better health insurance.

Sure, why not. But what if you are born with type 1 diabetes. Or short gut syndrome. My husband is doing an operation on a baby today that is missing part of its intestine. This baby will be a million dollar baby.

 

[Rebecca12]

But in Hebrew Block logic, the "contradictions" and "mysteries" go away and settle into the framework.

There is no contradiction between God hardening Pharaoh's heart and he hardening his own heart.

There is no problem in having "three in one" as in the godhead.

I could go on. Read the links I gave.

But I will say it took me YEARS to be able to wrap my head around it. I do not expect that anyone will pick it up overnight.

I disagree. (FWIW, none of the sources you cited denies the principle of non-contradiction that I could find.)

Saying something is logical doesn't make it so. If the law of non-contradiction is not applied, well then it is possible to prove anything. Don't like something? Make up an inconsistent position and say it is consistent. And claim that this tactic must be true because the ancients did it. Without any proof that they did.

 

[Rebecca12]

It seems then that the only conclusion one can arrive at is the one resulting from "logic". If true then we should have solved all our problems long ago. It isn't logical to carry huge problems over from one generation to the next.

The problem is that rationality is work.