C
I wasn't. A friend of mine takes philosophy A-level, and he is, but that's it.Captain Jackson said: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.
I agree. But I've found most forums are, and it comes pretty much from everyone. Christians are accused of it most often, but I don't believe that is true. I've been accused, just recently, of lacking any training in this area since I point out in threads the logical flaws. Those I point out are usually non-Christians.Captain Jackson said: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.
Explain. It seems to me a logical conclusion you could reach by the assumption that God is a good God.Svt4Him said:I agree. But I've found most forums are, and it comes pretty much from everyone. Christians are accused of it most often, but I don't believe that is true. I've been accused, just recently, of lacking any training in this area since I point out in threads the logical flaws. Those I point out are usually non-Christians.
For instance, your tag:
If God loved the world, then he would allow many into his paradise.
That is a fallacy.
What exactly is the question being asked? If it's why a good God would send people to hell, or is it what is required to get into heaven, or is it what keeps people out of heaven, or is it does love overlook sin?ObbiQuiet said:Explain. It seems to me a logical conclusion you could reach by the assumption that God is a good God.
I don't agree, mainly with your conclusion. Is it love that you would sentence your son to eternal torture? That would be called abuse. Loving parents punish their children so they'll get better, and abusive parents just let them suffer with no productive means.Svt4Him said:What exactly is the question being asked? If it's why a good God would send people to hell, or is it what is required to get into heaven, or is it what keeps people out of heaven, or is it does love overlook sin?
But I'll try. The statement says if God is love. Well, let me say then, God is love. So it then says love will overlook sin, but if it doesn't, it's not love, I'm assuming by inference. Love never overlooks sin. If I was a judge, and my son was brought before me, having committed horrific crimes, when I sentence him, is it a reflection of my love? They are in no way related. It's called a non sequitur argument.
Though his sig is an emotional argument (and emotions rarely follow logic).
Captain Jackson said: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.
I didn't study logic until college, and that was only because I was a philosophy major. No one in my circle of friends, no one with whom I work or go to church has studied logic formally. That doesn't mean they aren't intelligent; many of them are. They merely haven't been trained in the art and science of thinking and reasoning.Captain Jackson said: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.
If I may contribute to the derailment, I'd like to throw in a restatement of your signature...Captain Jackson said:Who am I kidding? Once a thread is derailed, it's gone.
How is it illogical? You've already mentioned that you agree with it, so what's wrong with it?
Hmm, almost. Add "The child cannot even be sure said house exists." and it would be accurate.BudJohnson said:If I may contribute to the derailment, I'd like to throw in a restatement of your signature...
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.
You're welcome to comment on this, or even ask what my point is.
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.BudJohnson said:If I may contribute to the derailment, I'd like to throw in a restatement of your signature...
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.
You're welcome to comment on this, or even ask what my point is.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?