• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:444:664] Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

gfm7175 said:
His "long and documented history", whatever that may be, has no relevance on what he has been posting in this thread about syllogisms... He is correct in his assertions about syllogisms... His assertions are supported by logic itself.
Click to expand...

Which is irrelevant to what I was posting about.
"You just don't understand" mantra dismissed...
Click to expand...

Your inability to face reality and use terms correctly noted.
No need for that... A "mantra" is a word/phrase/sound that is repeated frequently, such as your "you just don't understand" mantra that I have been repeatedly dismissing as non-substantive...
Click to expand...

Have someone explain to you what a 'mantra' is and how to use it properly. In this case, w/out lying.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
I don't have to prove anything for the logic of my argument to be valid and sound. No more than I have to prove that I live in Sacramento for the logic of my example to be valid and sound. You're just plain wrong about this. Your agnosticism is messing up your logic.
Click to expand...

Quag said:
Actually the problem is your belief is messing up your logic, you are confusing your beliefs with facts
Click to expand...
Inversion fallacy.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
I have bolded in red the portion that should put an end to our exchanges:

Hypothetical Syllogisms
Two propositions may be joined into a compound proposition by using the words "if" and "then". The resulting compound proposition is known as a hypothetical or conditional proposition. In a hypothetical (in standard form) the component proposition which follows the "if" is called the antecedent, and the other, which follows the "then", is called the consequent. For example in

1.) "If might makes right, then love has no place in the world."

"might makes right" is the antecedent and "love has no place in the world" is the consequent. A hypothetical does not assert the truth of either its antecedent or its consequent. It asserts that a relationship exists between the two such that if the antecedent is true the consequent must be true.

https://homepage.usask.ca/~wiebeb/Propositional.html


Namaste
Click to expand...
If God created life, then life is providential. Or If life is providential, then life is sacred.
Bolded is not necessarily true it is just your belief hence your "argument" is worthless (I prefer my term rather than sound because you are so far gone on the logic here we need to point ou exactly how far off the path you are)

http://mechanism.ucsd.edu/~mitch/te...onal_statement_valid_arguments(1-11-2010).pdf
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
See #172 and desist, please.
Click to expand...

See previous post your "argument" remains worthless because you don't understand logic.

You didn't make love to Jennifer Lawrence Angel
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Quag said:
...deleted 'poor education' mantra... deleted sexual reference... deleted sexual reference... deleted 'you just don't understand' mantra
Click to expand...

"I think I can I think I can I think I can..."
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Quag said:
If God created life, then life is providential. Or If life is providential, then life is sacred.
Bolded is not necessarily true it is just your belief hence your "argument" is worthless (I prefer my term rather than sound because you are so far gone on the logic here we need to point ou exactly how far off the path you are)

http://mechanism.ucsd.edu/~mitch/te...onal_statement_valid_arguments(1-11-2010).pdf
Click to expand...
Your evaluation of my hypothetical syllogism as "worthless" is itself worthless. If you persist in this nonsense after #172, you're just being irrational. The truth of my antecedent is immaterial; the truth of my consequent is immaterial; the truth of the premise lies in the logical relationship between the antecedent and the consequent, and in this case that happens to be an analytic truth, as explained already.

I'm not replying to further irrational agnosticism. This thread is about logic, not God.

Namaste
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Quag said:
You are trying your old and illogical trick of defining God to fit your argument. Doesn't work because you cannot prove or even provide any evidence for the then part of your statement you can only believe it.
The problem is anyone can define God any way they want including the exact opposite of what you claim
Ie If God exists then life is not providential has exactly as much value as your claim
Because I have defined God that way doesn't make it so an
Click to expand...
See post #172, specifically the portion that is in red text...
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Tanngrisnir said:
Which is irrelevant to what I was posting about.
Click to expand...
Your mantra?

Tanngrisnir said:
Your inability to face reality
Click to expand...
Define "reality" as you are using the word here...

Tanngrisnir said:
and use terms correctly noted.
Click to expand...
Argument of the Stone fallacy. Which terms have I used "incorrectly" and how was my usage "incorrect"? What is the "correct" usage?

Tanngrisnir said:
Have someone explain to you what a 'mantra' is and how to use it properly. In this case, w/out lying.
Click to expand...
"Poor education" mantra noted, but still worthy of a response.

Regarding the bolded, how about yourself then? Please, "educate" me on what a 'mantra' is. Note that I have already defined the term for you...
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Quag said:
If God created life, then life is providential. Or If life is providential, then life is sacred.
Bolded is not necessarily true it is just your belief hence your "argument" is worthless (I prefer my term rather than sound because you are so far gone on the logic here we need to point ou exactly how far off the path you are)

http://mechanism.ucsd.edu/~mitch/te...onal_statement_valid_arguments(1-11-2010).pdf
Click to expand...

Quag, please see the red text in post #172, then please attempt to respond back in good faith... It has already been pointed out numerous times (besides in #172) that the parts you bolded are not being asserted as truth. The relationship between the two is what is being asserted (IF a, THEN b)
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

gfm7175 said:
Your mantra?
Click to expand...

"you just don't understand" mantra dismissed...

Try substantive reasoning next time.
Define "reality" as you are using the word here...
Click to expand...

If you need that done, you're pretty much unreachable.
Argument of the Stone fallacy. Which terms have I used "incorrectly" and how was my usage "incorrect"? What is the "correct" usage?
Click to expand...

Newp. Why try and reference logic, when you and it are clearly unacquainted?
"Poor education" mantra noted, but still worthy of a response.

Regarding the bolded, how about yourself then? Please, "educate" me on what a 'mantra' is. Note that I have already defined the term for you...
Click to expand...

"you just don't understand" mantra dismissed...

Try substantive reasoning next time.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Tanngrisnir said:
...deleted 'mockery' mantra...
Click to expand...

Tanngrisnir said:
...deleted 'lack of intelligence' mantra...
Click to expand...
We can't have a fruitful discussion about "reality" if you are unwilling/unable to define your terms...

Tanngrisnir said:
...deleted 'lack of intelligence' mantra
Click to expand...

Tanngrisnir said:
...deleted 'mockery' mantra
Click to expand...
I'll ask one more time, since I am supposedly "wrong" about what a 'mantra' is, what is the "correct" definition of a 'mantra'?
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

gfm7175 said:
We can't have a fruitful discussion about "reality" if you are unwilling/unable to define your terms...


I'll ask one more time, since I am supposedly "wrong" about what a 'mantra' is, what is the "correct" definition of a 'mantra'?
Click to expand...

"you just don't understand" mantra dismissed...

Try substantive reasoning next time.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Tanngrisnir said:
...deleted 'mockery' mantra
Click to expand...

You've been led to the water, but I can't force you to drink from it...

So long, good friend... until you feel up to engaging in more substantive discussion.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

gfm7175 said:
You've been led to the water, but I can't force you to drink from it...

So long, good friend... until you feel up to engaging in more substantive discussion.
Click to expand...
For Whom the Bell Trolls by Unearnest Hawingway. :2brickwal
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
Your evaluation of my hypothetical syllogism as "worthless" is itself worthless. If you persist in this nonsense after #172, you're just being irrational. The truth of my antecedent is immaterial; the truth of my consequent is immaterial; the truth of the premise lies in the logical relationship between the antecedent and the consequent, and in this case that happens to be an analytic truth, as explained already.

I'm not replying to further irrational agnosticism. This thread is about logic, not God.

Namaste
Click to expand...

You persist in no dealing with the actual failings of your "argument" instead pretending that it is sound when it isnt
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

gfm7175 said:
See post #172, specifically the portion that is in red text...
Click to expand...

Post 172 failed as already pointed out
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

A class on the conditional argument/hypothetical syllogism

 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

This may help those who struggle to understand: the major premise in a hypothetical syllogism is a SUPPOSITION.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel said:
Your evaluation of my hypothetical syllogism as "worthless" is itself worthless. If you persist in this nonsense after #172, you're just being irrational. The truth of my antecedent is immaterial; the truth of my consequent is immaterial; the truth of the premise lies in the logical relationship between the antecedent and the consequent, and in this case that happens to be an analytic truth, as explained already.

I'm not replying to further irrational agnosticism. This thread is about logic, not God.

Namaste
Click to expand...

You made it about God because you believe that the idea God implies providential; but it doesn't. This is a truism only to you.

If birds can fly then they can also swim.

This is as sound and argument as

If God created life, then life is providential.

I can't believe your head is so far up your own ass that you don't understand that.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

KerouacJack said:
...
I can't believe your head is so far up your own ass that you don't understand that.
Click to expand...
Ah, but it's my ass, and it's your head that doesn't belong there. So get it out, pilgrim.


Namaste
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom