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

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Where does it come from?

From people
Now will you defend your BS mantra or continue to divert and make strawmen?

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Your THENs dont necessarily follow the IFs making the argument worthless.
Since you claim falsely that your "argument" is sound then it must be because you meant to write it as I did because without the 2nd IF it doesn't work

What follows the "then" in each case derives from an analysis of the concept that follows the "if" in each case.
Each consequent is an analytic truth.

 

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

What follows the "then" in each case derives from an analysis of the concept that follows the "if" in each case.
Each consequent is an analytic truth.

No what you are attempting to do is put the THEN into the IF and pretend that isn't what you are doing. Hence my re-write
As it is written the THEN doesn't necessarily follow the IF. No matter how much BS you throw out there it wont change that fact. And because it doens the argument is worthless

Learn some logic my friend because at the moment ou are doing it wrong

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Obviously you wish to play in the splash pool instead... That's fine with me... splash away...


Then why do you deny philosophy?

So you wanted me to define a rutabaga not science?

Philosophy is very subjective and in many case just idiots making up crap. Many make great points about what they are talking about, mostly just philosophers attacking other so called philosophers. Then they have the big debate and you can but tickets to go watch it.

No, not really...


Exactly what I asserted. We both agree here. Religion can't be proven, so the "soundness" (as you use the term) of the argument depends solely on one's religious faith...


Honestly is my goal in fruitful discussions...


False. Evidence for God is everywhere... The Bible is evidence... the vast majority of the world believing in the spiritual realm is evidence... various historical accounts are evidence... and on and on... There's also much evidence against God as well... The issue with this section of our discourse is that you are conflating 'evidence' with 'proof'... Religion CAN make use of evidence, but it can NOT make use of proofs, since religion is an open functional system...


Religion does not make use of 'hypotheses'... Religion is not science. One can't test the null hypothesis of something that is non-falsifiable.


No, it doesn't... Religion is rational because religion is essentially a (P, therefore P) circular argument, and circular arguments themselves are rational through the proof of identity.


I know about the Christian God through the Holy Bible... God is easily definable. I have already defined him for you.

You cannot define gods, you only offered your opinion and beliefs. You can believe whatever you want, but you cannot make others believe it by pointing at your religion or other believers opinions.

Nor I, you.


I understand science just fine... science is a set of falsifiable theories... Those theories are not falsifiable, so they are not part of science.


Science is not religion, and religion is not science.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Religion is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from that initial circular argument.


The circular reasoning is not pointless, nor is it irrational in any way... I have already shown you why that is.


We all can believe whatever religion we want and be just as rational as the other person in believing it... I have already explained why this is...


Science doesn't threaten Religion in any way and vice versa. They both stem from philosophy.

Being rational is not the same as rational reasoning.

There is no rational reason that believers needs to explain their beliefs, if they truly believe. And the bible tries to explain that in parts. If you believe, then believe, you should accept that what you believe has no actual evidence of its existence and you shouldnt get bothered by those that refuse to believe your stories. This telling me that you have evidence of some god is a bunch of BS and you know it. If anyone had evidence of a god they would be the most famous person in human history. istead no such person exists, there is just people telling stories.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

No what you are attempting to do is put the THEN into the IF and pretend that isn't what you are doing. Hence my re-write
As it is written the THEN doesn't necessarily follow the IF. No matter how much BS you throw out there it wont change that fact. And because it doens the argument is worthless

Learn some logic my friend because at the moment ou are doing it wrong

You are absolutely incorrect.
The idea of providence is derived from the concept of a Creator God.
The idea of sacredness is derived from the idea of providential provenance.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

From people
Now will you defend your BS mantra or continue to divert and make strawmen?

Okay, so they come from people... What makes them authoritative then? If people place them into a dictionary?

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

No what you are attempting to do is put the THEN into the IF and pretend that isn't what you are doing. Hence my re-write
As it is written the THEN doesn't necessarily follow the IF. No matter how much BS you throw out there it wont change that fact. And because it doens the argument is worthless

Learn some logic my friend because at the moment ou are doing it wrong

I'm not attempting to put the THEN into the IF. These meanings are there in the concepts. I'm drawing them out. You're denying them. You apparently don't understand the concepts.
Your argument, such as it is, is grounded in ignorance of the concepts involved in my argument.

 

[devildavid]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

No, what I'm saying is:
If God created life, then life is providential.
If life is providential, then life is sacred.
If God created life, then life is sacred.

Your first first line does not follow. First you have to establish the true motivation of this god. Maybe this god created life on a whim.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

So you wanted me to define a rutabaga not science?

Yup. I asked you if you thought a rutabaga could be defined objectively, then I asked the secondary question of can you define rutabaga in a way where it will be processed through my mind in the same exact way as it is processed through yours...

Philosophy is very subjective ...deleted 'lack of intelligence' mantra... ...deleted nonsensical mumbling...

Philosophy is an open functional system.

You cannot define gods,

I just did.

you only offered your opinion and beliefs.

No, I offered a definition.

You can believe whatever you want,

Thank you for your permission.

but you cannot make others believe it by pointing at your religion or other believers opinions.

I've never advocated such a thing. In fact, I agree with you here.

Being rational is not the same as rational reasoning.

Huh? ... A rational person IS one who makes use of rational reasoning...

...deleted unsubstantiated rambling...

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Yup. I asked you if you thought a rutabaga could be defined objectively, then I asked the secondary question of can you define rutabaga in a way where it will be processed through my mind in the same exact way as it is processed through yours...


Philosophy is an open functional system.


I just did.


No, I offered a definition.


Thank you for your permission.


I've never advocated such a thing. In fact, I agree with you here.


Huh? ... A rational person IS one who makes use of rational reasoning...

Your definition is only one of countless other opinions on what people believe a god to be. It is no different than how people define zombies; some say they are slow some say they are fast, some are the reanimated dead, while others are rely on a virus. And on and on. But even your own definition is an impossibility for Christians to know according to their own doctrine. Or at least it is for some, while not for others. SO which is correct?

The thing is that you cannot know anything about a god, or even if any gods exist. Such a being is said to be beyond human understanding. And if said god is not beyond our understanding, then it does not really qualify as being a god. Or perhaps it does since it is impossible for you to know the properties of gods since all evidence says that they are imaginary.

But that is neither here or there since you already asserted that you were not only a believer in a god but a Christian as well. There really isnt anything that you will accept other than confirmation of your beliefs.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Your first first line does not follow. First you have to establish the true motivation of this god. Maybe this god created life on a whim.

The first line of a syllogism does not follow anything. Please control your entitlement to an opinion. It has run amok into areas of learning foreign to you.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

...
The thing is that you cannot know anything about a god, or even if any gods exist....

The thing is, how do you know this?
How do you know gfm7175 "cannot know anything about a god, or even if any gods exist"?
How do you know I "cannot know anything about a god, or even if any gods exist"?
How do you know that one "cannot know anything about a god, or even if any gods exist"?
How do you who have no knowledge of God know anything about the knowledge of God?
And what makes you think you are entitled to an opinion on that about which by your own admission you know nothing?

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Addendum ^^^^

The thing is, how do you know this?
How do you know gfm7175 "cannot know anything about a god, or even if any gods exist"?
How do you know I "cannot know anything about a god, or even if any gods exist"?
How do you know that one "cannot know anything about a god, or even if any gods exist"?
How do you who have no knowledge of God know anything about the knowledge of God?
And what makes you think you are entitled to an opinion on that about which by your own admission you know nothing?

And for the record, as I was timed out of editing the above post, these are epistemological questions, all falling within the scope of the "Philosophy" forum.
Moreover, these epistemological questions trench on questions of proper reasoning, the topic of this thread.
Let's have no misunderstanding.

Namaste

Namaste is a sign of respect.

Let's have no misunderstanding.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

And once more with feeling:

(p→q) ∧ (q→r) → (p→r)

The argument.

 

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

You are absolutely incorrect.

The irony

The idea of providence is derived from the concept of a Creator God.

Only to those whose concept of god includes the idea.

The idea of sacredness is derived from the idea of providential provenance.

Only to those whose concept of providence includes the idea of sacredness.

 

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Okay, so they come from people... What makes them authoritative then? If people place them into a dictionary?

Nope gfm you dont get to divert any more.
You need to defend your mantra., Step up or admit you are just spewing BS

 

[devildavid]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

The first line of a syllogism does not follow anything. Please control your entitlement to an opinion. It has run amok into areas of learning foreign to you.

The first line has to make sense or all lines following do not. And again with the insults. Nothing new here.

 

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

And once more with feeling:

(p→q) ∧ (q→r) → (p→r)

The argument.

Try keeping up
Your Then doesn't necessarily follow your IF
Your once again completely ignore why your "argument" is worthless and continue to pretend it is the form that is in question
Are you really that deluded or do you realize your cant defend your position and thus are just trying to pretend everyone is arguing against the form of your "argument"?

 

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

I'm not attempting to put the THEN into the IF. These meanings are there in the concepts. I'm drawing them out.

No they are not in the meanings unless you put them there. You are failing out

You're denying them. You apparently don't understand the concepts.

Apparently you fail to comprehend that your personal opinion on God, providence and sacredness is not the only opinion that exists.

Your argument, such as it is, is grounded in ignorance of the concepts involved in my argument.

Yes that would be your problem

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Nope gfm you dont get to divert any more.
You need to defend your mantra., Step up or admit you are just spewing BS

My "mantras" will be in red text, and my support for my "mantras" will be in black text. If you disagree with the red text, you must first address the black text, THEN advance support for your own position...

I have claimed that dictionaries are not proof of anything because proofs reside in closed functional systems such as math and logic, dictionaries don't define words because people define words (through use of philosophy, so it's ultimately philosophy defining words since philosophy defines ways in which we reason, such as science and logic), dictionaries are not authoritative because they are simply a collection of words; they don't define those words; they don't own those words.

Now, it's your turn to clear your paradoxes... In post #2181, you claimed that ALL dictionaries are "authoritative and correct". This means that Oxford is authoritative and correct, but so is dictionary.com, so is Cambridge, so is Urban Dictionary... This is a paradox... you must clear it...
1) Dictionaries differ from each other.
2) ALL dictionaries are authoritative and correct.

You must also clear the second paradox you accumulated while trying to defend your position:
1)ALL dictionaries are the source of word definitions.
2) People are the source of word definitions.

If you don't clear these paradoxes, and continue to throw stones, I will not continue to argue with someone who argues irrationally.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

The first line has to make sense or all lines following do not. And again with the insults. Nothing new here.

To "make sense," I presume you mean to "have a meaning," yes? The line "If God created life on earth, then life on earth is providential" has a clear and unambiguous meaning. So what is your objection to it exactly?

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Try keeping up
Your Then doesn't necessarily follow your IF
Your once again completely ignore why your "argument" is worthless and continue to pretend it is the form that is in question
Are you really that deluded or do you realize your cant defend your position and thus are just trying to pretend everyone is arguing against the form of your "argument"?

No they are not in the meanings unless you put them there. You are failing out


Apparently you fail to comprehend that your personal opinion on God, providence and sacredness is not the only opinion that exists.

Yes that would be your problem

The concept of a Creator God contains the idea of providence. A Creator God means divine providence. That's the skinny, my friend. All your complaints to the contrary are erroneous and derive either from an unwitting contrarianism on your part or a genuine lack of understanding.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Third time's the charm.

(p→q) ∧ (q→r) → (p→r)

If God created life on earth, then life on earth is providential.
If life on earth is providential, then life on earth is sacred.___
Therefore, if God created life on earth, then life on earth is sacred.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

The thing is, how do you know this?
How do you know gfm7175 "cannot know anything about a god, or even if any gods exist"?
How do you know I "cannot know anything about a god, or even if any gods exist"?
How do you know that one "cannot know anything about a god, or even if any gods exist"?
How do you who have no knowledge of God know anything about the knowledge of God?
And what makes you think you are entitled to an opinion on that about which by your own admission you know nothing?

That raises the question; do you think it is possible to know those things? And if so how? How could you know about the existence of a being that you cannot physically know about?

Most people who believe in a god, either just believe in a god just because thats how they feel or they had some kind of personal experience. Included in personal experiences is seeing, speaking with, hearing, having a feeling, seeing effects, and general internalized relationships with their god. There is no physical way for any believer to prove the existence of their god.

The common accepted logic is that the human brain lacks the capacity to understand an infinite all knowing being. Also every description of gods portrays gods as being supernatural. We as humans reside in the natural world, there is no way to prove the existence of anything in the supernatural world since there is no way to even find the supernatural world, first you would need to prove that the supernatural isnt just make believe. There just just is not any coherent hypothesis for the existence of gods.

And yes I am still on subject with the OP, we are discussing proper reasoning. If you do not want it to be about gods then you might want to stop talking about them. We could have the same conversation about reasoning with any other supernatural claims. Or even fairy tales or UFO's, ghosts and bigfoot (though those are really fairy tales as well).

You could actually categories everything supernatural under fairy tales and you would not be able to remove gods from the fairy tale list. Want to try? That is an is pretty much a rhetorical question given that gods have already been assigned to the supernatural, even by most believers. So if the topic is really about proper reasoning then rationally there is no rational arguments for the actual existence of gods. One must accept that that which is asserted to be supernatural is beyond reasoning. The supernatural exists as a place to put things that are not supported by physical sciences. So proper reasoning dictates that beliefs in the supernatural are not demonstrable claims but merely beliefs or more to the point fantasies. But go ahead and show how the supernatural can be demonstrated using proper reasoning. The best that you can do is claim that the supernatural cannot be demonstrated as not existing. But then that is only a claim/belief. We then would move into the coveted philosophy round and round of you cannot prove a negative, where everybody ignore the word negative. Without a coherently defined position there isnt even a negative to prove or disprove. The supernatural by proper reasoning alone does not exist, given that its the place that failed hypothesis thrive. The supernatural is where fantasy replaces proper reasoning.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Third time's the charm.

(p→q) ∧ (q→r) → (p→r)

If God created life on earth, then life on earth is providential.
If life on earth is providential, then life on earth is sacred.___
Therefore, if God created life on earth, then life on earth is sacred.

That is not reasoning, that is preaching the bible. Not to mention the word 'if' dictates that it is nothing but a guess.