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

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

As we carry on in this civil discussion of if-then reasoning, let us keep in mind the various uses of if-then discourse beyond its stipulated sense in formal logic, and this in the interest of clarity and understanding.

Conditional Sentence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_sentence


Raquel is cute, isn't she?

 

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

You mean that your premises are no more false, Quig. Still, the first is semantic nonsense based solely on agnostic contrarianism. God and Providence are synonymous. So you're in effect asserting "If God intervenes, then God does not intervene." You're supposing a contradiction: If P, then not-P.

God and providence are not synonymous but there are some who believe they go hand in hand there are others who dont
It is unprovable either way because the nature of God is unknown and unknowable which is why your statement is no more true than mine

 

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Quag, the bolded is what you are not comprehending.

See previous post

 

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

The conditional statement If God created life, then life is providential

1. is TRUE if God created life and life is providential.

2. is FALSE if God created life and life is not providential.

3. is TRUE if God did not create life and life is providential.

4. is TRUE if God did not create life and life is not providential.

Well at least you understand that part!!!!
Now for a conditional argument to be true the if can be true or untrue, that's what the if is for
But the then MUST follow the if.
Ie your number 1 must be true but you cannot show it to be true or that it cannot be #2

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

God and providence are not synonymous but there are some who believe they go hand in hand there are others who dont
It is unprovable either way because the nature of God is unknown and unknowable which is why your statement is no more true than mine

Take your agnostic rote elsewhere. You have no understanding of the concept and accordingly no standing to critique the concept. You also don't understand conditionals; so pay attention.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Well at least you understand that part!!!!
Now for a conditional argument to be true the if can be true or untrue, that's what the if is for
But the then MUST follow the if.
Ie your number 1 must be true but you cannot show it to be true or that it cannot be #2

#2 is ruled out by definition in this case. If God intervenes, then it is a contradiction to deny that God intervenes.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

God and providence are not synonymous but there are some who believe they go hand in hand there are others who dont
It is unprovable either way because the nature of God is unknown and unknowable which is why your statement is no more true than mine

Take your agnostic rote elsewhere. You have no understanding of the concept and accordingly no standing to critique the concept...

It occurs to me that you may not understand the reference to "agnostic rote" or the "lack of standing," and so I refer you to an earlier post of mine that goes into this point:

...
Of course, the "rephrasing" is illegitimate because it assumes that truth is relative in this case, an assumption only someone without a clear concept of the subject would make. Granting legitimacy to this assumption legitimizes the silly smorgasbord view of the concept held by the rephraser, as if everyone, like our rephraser, stood before a diverse spread of concepts and chose one that was appetizing (or like the rephraser rejected all). That's not the way it works -- except for those without a clear and compelling concept of their own. Anyone with a clear and compelling concept intends and means just that concept when he asserts it. Any objection to the concept on the grounds that it is not another concept or, as in this case, that it is only the concept it is and not another, is based on a misunderstanding or on the shallowest understanding of how this kind of concept and so this particular concept comes to be adopted.

NB
I've written this defense abstractly in order to keep this discussion about reasoning and nothing else, in accordance with the guidelines of this forum.

And if that post is too abstract, there is an entire thread devoted to the point in the "Theology" forum:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/theology/328640-fifty-million-frenchmen-cant-wrong.html

 

[William Rea]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

It's called, 'presuppositional apologetics'.

In the world of apologetics, presuppositionalists are by far the most mendacious, you will never get a good faith debate with any of them.

 

[KerouacJack]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

It's called, 'presuppositional apologetics'.

In the world of apologetics, presuppositionalists are by far the most mendacious, you will never get a good faith debate with any of them.

You have hit the nail on the head.

 

[KerouacJack]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

You mean that your premises are no more false, Quig. Still, the first is semantic nonsense based solely on agnostic contrarianism. God and Providence are synonymous. So you're in effect asserting "If God intervenes, then God does not intervene." You're supposing a contradiction: If P, then not-P.

No you must qualify which idea of God you are asserting to assume providence... I have an idea of God right now in my head that doesn't.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

It's called, 'presuppositional apologetics'.

In the world of apologetics, presuppositionalists are by far the most mendacious, you will never get a good faith debate with any of them.

What is called "presuppositional apologetics"? Your post suffers from vagueness of reference. And what are you on about anyway? This is not "Beliefs and Skepticism," mate.

 

[KerouacJack]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

And what are you on about anyway? This is not "Beliefs and Skepticism," mate.

Your the one that brought your stupid dogma into this. Because you refuse to accept the possibility that your idea of God might not be truth.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

You have hit the nail on the head.

But the nail's on his thumb for heaven's sake!

No you must qualify which idea of God you are asserting to assume providence... I have an idea of God right now in my head that doesn't.

Whence the discursive necessity you assume? The idea of God in your head is your problem, not a problem with the argument you would criticize.
Like our friend Quag, you might benefit from a perusal of the following thread:
https://www.debatepolitics.com/theology/328640-fifty-million-frenchmen-cant-wrong.html

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

What is called "presuppositional apologetics"? Your post suffers from vagueness of reference. And what are you on about anyway? This is not "Beliefs and Skepticism," mate.

All zones of this forum are not safe for you other than the religious one.

 

[KerouacJack]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

But the nail's on his thumb for heaven's sake!

Whence the discursive necessity you assume? The idea of God in your head is your problem, not a problem with the argument you would criticize.
Like our friend Quag, you might benefit from a perusal of the following thread:
https://www.debatepolitics.com/theology/328640-fifty-million-frenchmen-cant-wrong.html

The problem here is intangible vs tangible truth. There is no soundness, as to reality, in premises that really on intangible evidence.

If you want to qualify your premises as the thought experiments they are; whose truth is contained only to the immaterial metaphysical plane from whence they came. Then the understanding of a sound argument is expanded and supported.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

All zones of this forum are not safe for you other than the religious one.

A forum for the discussion and debate regarding the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence

You might want to take you bearings, Tim the plumber. This forum is about plumbing the depths, not dissing and pissing in the sink.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

The problem here is intangible vs tangible truth. There is no soundness, as to reality, in premises that really on intangible evidence.

If you want to qualify your premises as the thought experiments they are; whose truth is contained only to the immaterial metaphysical plane from whence they came. Then the understanding of a sound argument is expanded and supported.

A serious post. Bene. Two preliminary questions before replying in full:

Does the first sentence of your post acknowledge the existence of intangible as well as tangible truth?

What sort of thing do you have in mind in your reference to "intangible evidence"?

 

[KerouacJack]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

A serious post. Bene. Two preliminary questions before replying in full:

Does the first sentence of your post acknowledge the existence of intangible as well as tangible truth?

What sort of thing do you have in mind in your reference to "intangible evidence"?

There are intangible truths, like I am thinking of purple horse. It true that the image of the horse in my mind is purple.

Intangible evidence; purple horses run on 5 legs... whenever I reverence this fantasy you can always assume purple horses now have 5 legs.,.

We are getting into metaphysics now though... which is not the topic... the just concern ourselves with reality. No where in your premise did you reference metaphysical reality where your argument is would be sound. The reader can than default to conditional of our shared objective reality where your argument is not sound.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

You might want to take you bearings, Tim the plumber. This forum is about plumbing the depths, not dissing and pissing in the sink.

When you come out with drivel people will, rightly, tell you so.

Unless they have got bored with you for a bit.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

When you come out with drivel people will, rightly, tell you so.

Unless they have got bored with you for a bit.

Uh-huh.
This is the "Philosophy" forum --

A forum for the discussion and debate regarding the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence Do you have anything to say about knowledge

-- do you have anything at all to say about "knowledge, reality, and existence"?

This is a thread on logic and reasoning. Do you have anything at all to say about logic or reasoning?

Save your Drivel Routine for "Beliefs and Skepticism."

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

The problem here is intangible vs tangible truth. There is no soundness, as to reality, in premises that really on intangible evidence.

If you want to qualify your premises as the thought experiments they are; whose truth is contained only to the immaterial metaphysical plane from whence they came. Then the understanding of a sound argument is expanded and supported.

...Two preliminary questions before replying in full:

Does the first sentence of your post acknowledge the existence of intangible as well as tangible truth?

What sort of thing do you have in mind in your reference to "intangible evidence"?

There are intangible truths, like I am thinking of purple horse. It true that the image of the horse in my mind is purple.

Intangible evidence; purple horses run on 5 legs... whenever I reverence this fantasy you can always assume purple horses now have 5 legs.,.

We are getting into metaphysics now though... which is not the topic... the just concern ourselves with reality. No where in your premise did you reference metaphysical reality where your argument is would be sound. The reader can than default to conditional of our shared objective reality where your argument is not sound.

You seem, by your illustration, to relegate "intangible truth" either to the imagination in particular or to introspection in general. I was hoping for something somewhat more precise. Is Descartes' "Cogito, ergo sum" a tangible or an intangible truth on your view, or is it a truth at all?

Next you reject metaphysics. You reject metaphysics in the "Philosophy" forum! That takes a certain, shall we say, confidence. But you need to offer an argument for this rejection,. After all, metaphysics is the foundational concern of 2400 years of philosophical inquiry. Moreover, in the case at hand, the word "God" appears in the major premise and in the conclusion. How on earth can metaphysics be rejected in a fair engagement with the argument?

Finally, we are not about science here, and there is no reason at all, short of some robust argumentation on your part, to limit discussion to the restricted physicalist assumptions of science.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Uh-huh.
This is the "Philosophy" forum --
-- do you have anything at all to say about "knowledge, reality, and existence"?

This is a thread on logic and reasoning. Do you have anything at all to say about logic or reasoning?

Save your Drivel Routine for "Beliefs and Skepticism."

Yes I have stuff to say about reasoning and understanding of the world.

Talking gibberish will not develope either of these things.

Your attempt to stop the world thinking straight is damaging to humanity. It is harmful. If only to you.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Yes I have stuff to say about reasoning and understanding of the world.

Talking gibberish will not develope either of these things.

Your attempt to stop the world thinking straight is damaging to humanity. It is harmful. If only to you.

If you have stuff to say, then say it. All you're doing is name-calling directed at posts instead of individuals. That sort of mischief is out of place in a philosophical discussion. Provide an argument to support your derogation. Show that you have an understanding of what you're dismissing out of hand. Derogation alone is worthless, and lives next door to trolling. If you have something to say on point, then say it. Show that you know what you're talking about. Stop the taunting tourism.

 

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Take your agnostic rote elsewhere. You have no understanding of the concept and accordingly no standing to critique the concept. You also don't understand conditionals; so pay attention.

Take your failed 3rd grade philosophy elsewhere you have no understanding of conditional arguments.

 

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

#2 is ruled out by definition in this case. If God intervenes, then it is a contradiction to deny that God intervenes.

No tit isn't
Sorry your attempt to define your worthless argument into something less than a total failure wont work any more than every other time you tried that6 tactic