I've given you an example of order that isn't logical, Christ's nature of being fully God and fully man is not logical. Just as a square circle is not logical because you cannot have a square and a circle because both are terms that describe something specific and one is not the other. So if a square circle is illogical then a man-God is illogical too. But you are still confusing the state of being with the process by which it is determined that is it impossible to have a square circle.
I never said logic is man's thought processes, please read what I write. I said that logic is a series of criteria and principals. Do you know what I mean when I say criteria and principals? Because it doesn't mean every thought anyone. Can I suggest that you find a book on logic, some basic college level book and read it? You seem to be mixing a lot of terms and concepts and I'm really not sure where this is coming from.
Debating Catholicism
-
Eleventh Doctor
- Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
- Posts: 4769
- Joined: February 2013
King of The Lands of Rhetoric, Lord Ruler of the Debate Vampires, and Duke of Quebec
"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
-
Pound Foolish
- Coffee Biscotti
- Posts: 3349
- Joined: June 2012
- Location: Kidsboro
- Contact:
You have given no such example. We have not finished that debate, this conversation is a kind of essential byway. I never conceded that Christ's nature was anything like a square circle.
I did read what you wrote. According to you, logic would not exist without humankind. Or, to make the statement positive, man is responsible for the existence of logic. So then, logic must come from the human mind. Is there some part of man besides the mind that that could be responsible for logic? If not, then logic comes from the mind. Is there something the mind does (that is concerned with logic) besides think? If not, then, according to you, logic is our thought processes.
The principals of, for existence, physics, would exist without man to discover them. Criteria is something on which a judgment or decision is based. That something could exist without man. Granted, man would not be around to make a decision, but the facts would still exist.
Now, let's sum things up this way. Are we having this debate to find out who is right or what is right?
People make mistakes. When you say something you consider logical but is in fact wrong, it is an error, not logic. Logic, after all, is not mistakes.
But when someone says what is, then we have found the logical truth. But does that make the truth the debater's invention?
I did read what you wrote. According to you, logic would not exist without humankind. Or, to make the statement positive, man is responsible for the existence of logic. So then, logic must come from the human mind. Is there some part of man besides the mind that that could be responsible for logic? If not, then logic comes from the mind. Is there something the mind does (that is concerned with logic) besides think? If not, then, according to you, logic is our thought processes.
The principals of, for existence, physics, would exist without man to discover them. Criteria is something on which a judgment or decision is based. That something could exist without man. Granted, man would not be around to make a decision, but the facts would still exist.
Now, let's sum things up this way. Are we having this debate to find out who is right or what is right?
People make mistakes. When you say something you consider logical but is in fact wrong, it is an error, not logic. Logic, after all, is not mistakes.
But when someone says what is, then we have found the logical truth. But does that make the truth the debater's invention?
- "Pound Foolish, I just adoreee arguing with you! Here, have an eyeball."
~Suzy Lou Foolish
As the founder of the E.R.K., may I say: Emily RULES!
-
Eleventh Doctor
- Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
- Posts: 4769
- Joined: February 2013
Okay but you have never addressed my point that you cannot have something be 100% one thing and 100% another thing. That just doesn't make sense, like a square circle.
Logic is not every thought process that anyone has though. It is a specific set of principals and criteria for reasoning correctly. I'm not joking by the way, read a book on logic, you really need to because you clearly don't understand what I'm talking about.
Yes, the principals of physics existed before man since they are part of our objective universe, they however are not logic they are physics, stop confusing the two!!! However logic is specifically a system by which we think, so no logic would not exist without a person to think. Yes, the facts that we arrive at by using the system of logic would still exist but facts are not logic! They make up the objective reality of our universe and we humans can arrive at these truths by using the system of logic but the facts themselves are not logic!
We are having a debate to find out what is right but we cannot have a debate without first understanding the terms and you clearly do not understand what logic is, therefore this debate is pointless until you at least read the Wikipedia page on logic. Truth is not the debaters invention, you are correct, because truth is not logic! Logic is the system by which we can arrive at the truth. Truth exists before the system to find it but the system by which we find it is an invention of man, it did not exist before man, it would not exist without man. Because it is a system by which men arrive at right conclusions, without man it would have no existence.
Logic is not every thought process that anyone has though. It is a specific set of principals and criteria for reasoning correctly. I'm not joking by the way, read a book on logic, you really need to because you clearly don't understand what I'm talking about.
Yes, the principals of physics existed before man since they are part of our objective universe, they however are not logic they are physics, stop confusing the two!!! However logic is specifically a system by which we think, so no logic would not exist without a person to think. Yes, the facts that we arrive at by using the system of logic would still exist but facts are not logic! They make up the objective reality of our universe and we humans can arrive at these truths by using the system of logic but the facts themselves are not logic!
We are having a debate to find out what is right but we cannot have a debate without first understanding the terms and you clearly do not understand what logic is, therefore this debate is pointless until you at least read the Wikipedia page on logic. Truth is not the debaters invention, you are correct, because truth is not logic! Logic is the system by which we can arrive at the truth. Truth exists before the system to find it but the system by which we find it is an invention of man, it did not exist before man, it would not exist without man. Because it is a system by which men arrive at right conclusions, without man it would have no existence.
King of The Lands of Rhetoric, Lord Ruler of the Debate Vampires, and Duke of Quebec
"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
@ Eleventh: So you don't think that any religion not of God is satanic? I mean, what classifies a religion as being of God or of Satan?
Of course, I am actually looking for the truth. Part of the reason I came on here, because you guys know what you believe and can tell me (which I find easier to comprehend as opposed to reading a book because I can ask clarifying questions). But the reason I'm not liking what I'm finding is not my predisposition toward Catholics, but rather because what they tell me doesn't quite seem to line up with what I find in the Bible. That's most of the reason I seem so...argumentative?
While I do believe you guys believe what you're talking about, in regards to your faith, I also believe that John MacArthur knows what he's talking about. And it would hardly be reasonable to suppose he doesn't speak to Catholics or do no research in that area. Dude, he's been preaching since 1969. He knows his stuff. As for making inaccurate statements—well, let's look at this way. If I had to choose between believing him and believing you, I'd choose him.
Why?
Because the Holy Spirit reveals the truth through what MacArthur says. It's what I believe in, what my hope is in. Not MacArthur's word, the Spirit THROUGH him.
So...does that make sense?
@ Poundy: Perhaps I should rephrase what I said earlier. I don't hear NOTHING but bad stuff about Catholics. I hear A LOT of bad stuff. But that's not necessarily the whole packaged lot. Let's put it this way. There are some Muslims who are radicals and like to burn churches and kill Christians (and Americans in general) and defy the law. There are other Muslims who are more logical, they reason and debate people of other religions, and they live in comparative harmony with their foreign neighbors.
I look at Catholics that way—scratch that, I look at ALL people that way. There are some who are psychos, and some who are normal people just like me. So I don't believe all Catholics are bad. In fact, there are some Catholics whom I like very much. I love the movie The Sound of Music. I love the book it was based on. Does that make sense?
As for the Mary thing, I was thinking it over. Not actually ignoring it (though you can be sure I was rather tempted, lol). God's miracles are not confined to ANYTHING except His Will, much less a human perception of time. Since God also has command over the world (that would mean the entire world as a whole, not just the planet), He can do whatever pleases Him. As is His right.
Actually, I think it makes perfect sense that if Mary was sinless, she didn't need God. But I'm not sure I can refute the prayer thing, because I don't know as much about that. Can we let it rest for the moment?
Of course, I am actually looking for the truth. Part of the reason I came on here, because you guys know what you believe and can tell me (which I find easier to comprehend as opposed to reading a book because I can ask clarifying questions). But the reason I'm not liking what I'm finding is not my predisposition toward Catholics, but rather because what they tell me doesn't quite seem to line up with what I find in the Bible. That's most of the reason I seem so...argumentative?
While I do believe you guys believe what you're talking about, in regards to your faith, I also believe that John MacArthur knows what he's talking about. And it would hardly be reasonable to suppose he doesn't speak to Catholics or do no research in that area. Dude, he's been preaching since 1969. He knows his stuff. As for making inaccurate statements—well, let's look at this way. If I had to choose between believing him and believing you, I'd choose him.
Why?
Because the Holy Spirit reveals the truth through what MacArthur says. It's what I believe in, what my hope is in. Not MacArthur's word, the Spirit THROUGH him.
So...does that make sense?
@ Poundy: Perhaps I should rephrase what I said earlier. I don't hear NOTHING but bad stuff about Catholics. I hear A LOT of bad stuff. But that's not necessarily the whole packaged lot. Let's put it this way. There are some Muslims who are radicals and like to burn churches and kill Christians (and Americans in general) and defy the law. There are other Muslims who are more logical, they reason and debate people of other religions, and they live in comparative harmony with their foreign neighbors.
I look at Catholics that way—scratch that, I look at ALL people that way. There are some who are psychos, and some who are normal people just like me. So I don't believe all Catholics are bad. In fact, there are some Catholics whom I like very much. I love the movie The Sound of Music. I love the book it was based on. Does that make sense?
As for the Mary thing, I was thinking it over. Not actually ignoring it (though you can be sure I was rather tempted, lol). God's miracles are not confined to ANYTHING except His Will, much less a human perception of time. Since God also has command over the world (that would mean the entire world as a whole, not just the planet), He can do whatever pleases Him. As is His right.
Actually, I think it makes perfect sense that if Mary was sinless, she didn't need God. But I'm not sure I can refute the prayer thing, because I don't know as much about that. Can we let it rest for the moment?
-
Pound Foolish
- Coffee Biscotti
- Posts: 3349
- Joined: June 2012
- Location: Kidsboro
- Contact:
HeliosOh, you posted as I was, sir. I'll get back to you, and thanks for replying.
Good Doctor, as I said, I may or may not. Mathematics is one of my largest struggles in life, it is not something I know overmuch about nor generally enjoy discussing. In any case, I have never read anything about your point, so any answer I gave, just like my previous answer, would just be my speculation.
Please do not assume that I am an ignoramus because I disagree with you and your reading. You seem to consider this topic a given and seen astounded that I am so, ahem, foolish as to argue this. This is actually a hot topic of debate philosophy and a key one.
Facts are not logic? Really. Two plus two is logical, is it not? It is a fact that two plus two equals four, is it not? Did man invent two plus two? Would two chocolate bars plus two more not equal four bars if man were not here?
You seem to have left out one of my points. If man invented logic, then how did we invent it? What did we invent it with? Our feet? It must have been our minds. What do we do with out minds? Think. So, according to you, logic is just thinking. Granted, thinking according to certain principles which according to you are merely the product of human thinking, but thinking nonetheless. In which case, as long as a madman uses those principles, his logic is just as reliable as anyone's.
So you are trying to say that because there are established methods of logic, that man invented it. But what suggested those principles? Our minds? No. The real world.
You say the universe is objectively real. In reality, true logic is objective.
Let's cut to the chase. You say logic is human principles acting on objective reality, I say logic is a and objectively logical reality which we discover through using that reality.
Suppose we were to debate about the nature of Heaven. I propose that Heaven is a field of daisies where we sit around in lederhosen eating chocolate bars and listening to Selena Gomez all day. You assert that Jesus said Heaven is a place of holy joy where we worship God forever, and that Jesus must be telling the truth because He is God, which we know because no one but either a madman, or a the most deceitful liar in history, or one who is God would make such claim, and Jesus was clearly not mad, nor a deceitful liar, therefore He must be God and what He says must be true. (I here reluctantly admit that maybe you're right but we could listen to Selena as we worship.)
What did we just do?
We used logic. You used proofs of a fact to assert the fact. That is the human part of logic. Two people utilizing inferences and principles already in our universe to discover a truth already real.
Did you invent what you said?
If you had, it would be untrue. As it is true, it is not your invention. As it is true, it is logical.
Good Doctor, as I said, I may or may not. Mathematics is one of my largest struggles in life, it is not something I know overmuch about nor generally enjoy discussing. In any case, I have never read anything about your point, so any answer I gave, just like my previous answer, would just be my speculation.
Please do not assume that I am an ignoramus because I disagree with you and your reading. You seem to consider this topic a given and seen astounded that I am so, ahem, foolish as to argue this. This is actually a hot topic of debate philosophy and a key one.
Facts are not logic? Really. Two plus two is logical, is it not? It is a fact that two plus two equals four, is it not? Did man invent two plus two? Would two chocolate bars plus two more not equal four bars if man were not here?
You seem to have left out one of my points. If man invented logic, then how did we invent it? What did we invent it with? Our feet? It must have been our minds. What do we do with out minds? Think. So, according to you, logic is just thinking. Granted, thinking according to certain principles which according to you are merely the product of human thinking, but thinking nonetheless. In which case, as long as a madman uses those principles, his logic is just as reliable as anyone's.
So you are trying to say that because there are established methods of logic, that man invented it. But what suggested those principles? Our minds? No. The real world.
You say the universe is objectively real. In reality, true logic is objective.
Let's cut to the chase. You say logic is human principles acting on objective reality, I say logic is a and objectively logical reality which we discover through using that reality.
Suppose we were to debate about the nature of Heaven. I propose that Heaven is a field of daisies where we sit around in lederhosen eating chocolate bars and listening to Selena Gomez all day. You assert that Jesus said Heaven is a place of holy joy where we worship God forever, and that Jesus must be telling the truth because He is God, which we know because no one but either a madman, or a the most deceitful liar in history, or one who is God would make such claim, and Jesus was clearly not mad, nor a deceitful liar, therefore He must be God and what He says must be true. (I here reluctantly admit that maybe you're right but we could listen to Selena as we worship.)
What did we just do?
We used logic. You used proofs of a fact to assert the fact. That is the human part of logic. Two people utilizing inferences and principles already in our universe to discover a truth already real.
Did you invent what you said?
If you had, it would be untrue. As it is true, it is not your invention. As it is true, it is logical.
- "Pound Foolish, I just adoreee arguing with you! Here, have an eyeball."
~Suzy Lou Foolish
As the founder of the E.R.K., may I say: Emily RULES!
-
Eleventh Doctor
- Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
- Posts: 4769
- Joined: February 2013
I would say that the Nicean Creed is the benchmark for who is Christian or not Christian. It contains a summary of the Biblical truths necessary to call oneself Christian. I would call anyone who agreed with the Creed a Christian. I mean how far do you take this idea of satanic religions, do you believe that other Protestant denominations that don't agree with you are satanic too? Or is it it just non-Protestant Christians?
MacArthur has said false things about Catholics and Orthodox, if you want to believe him go right ahead but know that it is not the Holy Spirit telling these lies about Catholics and Orthodox. Go ahead and treat him like a Pope, because that's what you're doing.
PF: I don't want to waste anymore time, we are clearly talking about two different things and are just restating our points again and again. I'm not going to discuss this anymore. If you want to take this as sign that I am conceding and that you are right go ahead, I really don't care.
MacArthur has said false things about Catholics and Orthodox, if you want to believe him go right ahead but know that it is not the Holy Spirit telling these lies about Catholics and Orthodox. Go ahead and treat him like a Pope, because that's what you're doing.
PF: I don't want to waste anymore time, we are clearly talking about two different things and are just restating our points again and again. I'm not going to discuss this anymore. If you want to take this as sign that I am conceding and that you are right go ahead, I really don't care.
King of The Lands of Rhetoric, Lord Ruler of the Debate Vampires, and Duke of Quebec
"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
-
Pound Foolish
- Coffee Biscotti
- Posts: 3349
- Joined: June 2012
- Location: Kidsboro
- Contact:
Good Dr. Two different things? Perhaps.
In any case, you're quite right, I don't know nearly enough about logic. I'm sorry if you feel the time was wasted, but it wasn't wasted as far as I am concerned. You have made me think a great deal, and certainly made me question my assumptions. So, thank you for being patient with me though you were clearly the more educated one in this, and I wholeheartedly concede this discussion to you. Thanks for the delightful experience. Issue closed, for the time being at least. And I shall take your advice, incidentally. I am looking into books on logic and shall purchase one.
Now then, back to our original byroad.
I shall phrase my question differently. Is what is logical also true? Not to worry, I am not trying to reopen the discussion we just had. I simply need you to answer that last question before I make my point.
Helios, that's quite alright. Take your time to think about it and research also if you wish.
PS "Poundy"... I like it.
In any case, you're quite right, I don't know nearly enough about logic. I'm sorry if you feel the time was wasted, but it wasn't wasted as far as I am concerned. You have made me think a great deal, and certainly made me question my assumptions. So, thank you for being patient with me though you were clearly the more educated one in this, and I wholeheartedly concede this discussion to you. Thanks for the delightful experience. Issue closed, for the time being at least. And I shall take your advice, incidentally. I am looking into books on logic and shall purchase one.
Now then, back to our original byroad.
I shall phrase my question differently. Is what is logical also true? Not to worry, I am not trying to reopen the discussion we just had. I simply need you to answer that last question before I make my point.
Helios, that's quite alright. Take your time to think about it and research also if you wish.
PS "Poundy"... I like it.
- "Pound Foolish, I just adoreee arguing with you! Here, have an eyeball."
~Suzy Lou Foolish
As the founder of the E.R.K., may I say: Emily RULES!
-
Eleventh Doctor
- Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
- Posts: 4769
- Joined: February 2013
What is logical can be true but not always. For example this logical formula from Wikipedia.
All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
Therefore, Socrates is green
It is logically valid but is not true.
This is another argument
All men are mortal.
Socrates is mortal.
Therefore, Socrates is a man.
While it is true it is not logically valid.
Logic is a system and should not be used to determine truth in every case.
I look forward to hearing what you learn, maybe you'll come back and prove me wrong. I am not an expert in logic or philosophy I have simply been sharing my limited knowledge.
All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
Therefore, Socrates is green
It is logically valid but is not true.
This is another argument
All men are mortal.
Socrates is mortal.
Therefore, Socrates is a man.
While it is true it is not logically valid.
Logic is a system and should not be used to determine truth in every case.
I look forward to hearing what you learn, maybe you'll come back and prove me wrong. I am not an expert in logic or philosophy I have simply been sharing my limited knowledge.
King of The Lands of Rhetoric, Lord Ruler of the Debate Vampires, and Duke of Quebec
"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
-
Pound Foolish
- Coffee Biscotti
- Posts: 3349
- Joined: June 2012
- Location: Kidsboro
- Contact:
All fascinating, but it seems we shall have to continue the question of logic a bit further unfortunately, if you'll please allow that, because I have some questions I simply cannot figure out. In order to proceed, there must be some clarifications.
According to you, logic is not always true. It is, in fact, the methodology humanity uses to determine what is, and peope sometimes make mistakes.
But your Fr. Lawrence Farley (wasn't it?) used Jesus' miracles as examples of God overcoming logic.
What's to overcome if there is no logic inherently in nature? By your own admittance, one can use the logical system and come to an incorrect conclusion.
What was Jesus overcoming if he overcame logic? The logic of humanity? Obviously not. For one thing, not everyone believes that miracles are logically impossible. Take CS Lewis, or me for that matter. For another, for a person to come to a logical conclusion does not in any way restrain reality. In other words, as you pointed out, if I logically prove Socrates is a cup, he still isn't a cup. God supposedly is not confined by logic, but isn't that a meaningless statement if logic is just a methodology people use, a methodology that be your admittance doesn't necessarily reflect reality? If someone believes you cannot walk to the grocery store, are you performing a miracle by walking to the grocery store?
So, how can Jesus overcome logic if there is no logic in nature? You have made it very clear that you disbelieve there is any inherent logic in the world. But if not, where is the triumph over logic in defeating death?
------------------------
So anyway, you will agree however, that the triumph you perceive over logic is not over false logic, which by definition has no bearing on reality, but what is true? (If you agree, this shall be my final question before I make my point.)
According to you, logic is not always true. It is, in fact, the methodology humanity uses to determine what is, and peope sometimes make mistakes.
But your Fr. Lawrence Farley (wasn't it?) used Jesus' miracles as examples of God overcoming logic.
What's to overcome if there is no logic inherently in nature? By your own admittance, one can use the logical system and come to an incorrect conclusion.
What was Jesus overcoming if he overcame logic? The logic of humanity? Obviously not. For one thing, not everyone believes that miracles are logically impossible. Take CS Lewis, or me for that matter. For another, for a person to come to a logical conclusion does not in any way restrain reality. In other words, as you pointed out, if I logically prove Socrates is a cup, he still isn't a cup. God supposedly is not confined by logic, but isn't that a meaningless statement if logic is just a methodology people use, a methodology that be your admittance doesn't necessarily reflect reality? If someone believes you cannot walk to the grocery store, are you performing a miracle by walking to the grocery store?
So, how can Jesus overcome logic if there is no logic in nature? You have made it very clear that you disbelieve there is any inherent logic in the world. But if not, where is the triumph over logic in defeating death?
------------------------
So anyway, you will agree however, that the triumph you perceive over logic is not over false logic, which by definition has no bearing on reality, but what is true? (If you agree, this shall be my final question before I make my point.)
- "Pound Foolish, I just adoreee arguing with you! Here, have an eyeball."
~Suzy Lou Foolish
As the founder of the E.R.K., may I say: Emily RULES!
-
Eleventh Doctor
- Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
- Posts: 4769
- Joined: February 2013
Yes, I agree
King of The Lands of Rhetoric, Lord Ruler of the Debate Vampires, and Duke of Quebec
"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
-
Pound Foolish
- Coffee Biscotti
- Posts: 3349
- Joined: June 2012
- Location: Kidsboro
- Contact:
You will remember we made the distinction awhile back that the premise of God being above logic itself is not above logic? Please keep that in mind now.
So, here comes this much-anticipated-point.
Let's review what we've established.
1. Truth is what is.
2. God is.
3. If God is above logic, He is only above logic that is.
You see the problem? A may be greater than B, but how can A be greater than A?
Something may be above something else, but how can something be above itself?
So, here comes this much-anticipated-point.
Let's review what we've established.
1. Truth is what is.
2. God is.
3. If God is above logic, He is only above logic that is.
You see the problem? A may be greater than B, but how can A be greater than A?
Something may be above something else, but how can something be above itself?
- "Pound Foolish, I just adoreee arguing with you! Here, have an eyeball."
~Suzy Lou Foolish
As the founder of the E.R.K., may I say: Emily RULES!
-
Eleventh Doctor
- Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
- Posts: 4769
- Joined: February 2013
No I don't see the problem, your logical formula is not valid. Read some logic, construct a valid logical formula and we'll talk.
King of The Lands of Rhetoric, Lord Ruler of the Debate Vampires, and Duke of Quebec
"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
-
Pound Foolish
- Coffee Biscotti
- Posts: 3349
- Joined: June 2012
- Location: Kidsboro
- Contact:
Good Dr., if it's flawed, you simply have to tell me how. That's the point of debating, isn't it? Besides, why are you so assured that a book on logic will address matters relevant to the premise? Is there some basic logical principle I'm missing that the book would address? If so, couldn't you simply explain it to me?
What exactly do you mean by formula anyway? Are you saying that in some math, or according to some logicians, either of which is news to me I believe, A can be above A? If so, I really don't care. Formula schormula. The point is logic is and God is.
But if you absolutely will not explain (and I suppose one must get tired of educating me at some point) you still have a very big problem that has nothing to do with logical formulas.
If God is above logic, the world leads away from Him.
What exactly do you mean by formula anyway? Are you saying that in some math, or according to some logicians, either of which is news to me I believe, A can be above A? If so, I really don't care. Formula schormula. The point is logic is and God is.
But if you absolutely will not explain (and I suppose one must get tired of educating me at some point) you still have a very big problem that has nothing to do with logical formulas.
If God is above logic, the world leads away from Him.
- "Pound Foolish, I just adoreee arguing with you! Here, have an eyeball."
~Suzy Lou Foolish
As the founder of the E.R.K., may I say: Emily RULES!
-
Eleventh Doctor
- Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
- Posts: 4769
- Joined: February 2013
Yes, you're missing the basic information of how to create a valid formula. But you clearly don't care about the formulas, you said yourself that if the formula proves you wrong then who cares? If that's the case then you have placed yourself above logic and there's no point in discussing logical formulas.
King of The Lands of Rhetoric, Lord Ruler of the Debate Vampires, and Duke of Quebec
"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
-
Pound Foolish
- Coffee Biscotti
- Posts: 3349
- Joined: June 2012
- Location: Kidsboro
- Contact:
*smiles* Very well done. Alright, my apologies. If the formula is invalid, I would be genuinely interested in learning how.
However, the point of the attempted refutation wasn't the formula. Though that is the proper name for it I suppose, the attempted formula was more of an aside. I realize now I don't think I've ever tried to write a strictly logical formula as pertinent to an argument rather than algebra, so yes, it is liable to be rather sloppy. That was a slip on my part. One shouldn't try to do a pirouette at one's first ballet practice.
On the other hand, now you say it actually proves me wrong? I really would like to know how.
Still, whether you address the attempted formula or not, if you could address the argument itself, that a God that is truth cannot be above truth, that would be lovely.
However, the point of the attempted refutation wasn't the formula. Though that is the proper name for it I suppose, the attempted formula was more of an aside. I realize now I don't think I've ever tried to write a strictly logical formula as pertinent to an argument rather than algebra, so yes, it is liable to be rather sloppy. That was a slip on my part. One shouldn't try to do a pirouette at one's first ballet practice.
On the other hand, now you say it actually proves me wrong? I really would like to know how.
Still, whether you address the attempted formula or not, if you could address the argument itself, that a God that is truth cannot be above truth, that would be lovely.
- "Pound Foolish, I just adoreee arguing with you! Here, have an eyeball."
~Suzy Lou Foolish
As the founder of the E.R.K., may I say: Emily RULES!
-
Eleventh Doctor
- Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
- Posts: 4769
- Joined: February 2013
It doesn't prove you wrong, more doesn't provide me with a valid formula to then focus on whether your premise and inference is correct. This is very hard, I remember my college logic class being one of the hardest classes for me, besides biology. I'm actually attempting to find my old logic textbook so I can post some valid formulas but I have not had any luck yet.
God is not just truth, He created truth. But we are not discussing truth we are discussing logic, my point is that using logical formulas one cannot explain miracles and Christ's nature because they exist outside the normative rules and laws of our universe. Logic is not truth it is a series of principals for right reasoning not for explaining everything, precisely because it is principals that are about man's reasoning. God is not like a man so He does not follow the rules of man's reasoning. We are not able to reason out miracles.
God is not just truth, He created truth. But we are not discussing truth we are discussing logic, my point is that using logical formulas one cannot explain miracles and Christ's nature because they exist outside the normative rules and laws of our universe. Logic is not truth it is a series of principals for right reasoning not for explaining everything, precisely because it is principals that are about man's reasoning. God is not like a man so He does not follow the rules of man's reasoning. We are not able to reason out miracles.
King of The Lands of Rhetoric, Lord Ruler of the Debate Vampires, and Duke of Quebec
"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
-
Pound Foolish
- Coffee Biscotti
- Posts: 3349
- Joined: June 2012
- Location: Kidsboro
- Contact:
Alright, it seems we shall have to wait on one another then, Helios.
Now then, I agree this is quite hard. So, all this about what logic is and formulas aside (as much as possible) for the time being...
God is not truth alone, but He is truth in part.
But that argument assumes rather than proves that God is above logic. God did make a world full of logical truths. However, that does not prove that the maker of those truths is not logical Himself. On the contrary, as logic is good, and all good things come from God, one might suppose that is evidence that God is in fact logical. Be that as it may, you are using the premise to prove the premise. To say God made a logical world is not to say that God is not logical. I can make a drawing of a human, but that does not mean I am not human.
In other words, to make something in one way is not to prove that one does not have that quality. God can easily have made a logical world from nothing and still have been logical. The premises that God made a logical world and that God is logical Himself are compatible.
Now then, I agree this is quite hard. So, all this about what logic is and formulas aside (as much as possible) for the time being...
God is not truth alone, but He is truth in part.
Now to address the premise you've put forth a few times that because God made logic, He is therefore above it.Yes, I'll even agree with you that God is truth.
But that argument assumes rather than proves that God is above logic. God did make a world full of logical truths. However, that does not prove that the maker of those truths is not logical Himself. On the contrary, as logic is good, and all good things come from God, one might suppose that is evidence that God is in fact logical. Be that as it may, you are using the premise to prove the premise. To say God made a logical world is not to say that God is not logical. I can make a drawing of a human, but that does not mean I am not human.
In other words, to make something in one way is not to prove that one does not have that quality. God can easily have made a logical world from nothing and still have been logical. The premises that God made a logical world and that God is logical Himself are compatible.
Last edited by Pound Foolish on Sat Dec 28, 2013 1:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- "Pound Foolish, I just adoreee arguing with you! Here, have an eyeball."
~Suzy Lou Foolish
As the founder of the E.R.K., may I say: Emily RULES!
-
Eleventh Doctor
- Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
- Posts: 4769
- Joined: February 2013
Let me give three definitions of logic.
Definition 1: The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
Definition 2: The system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
Definition 3: Reason or sound judgement.
I have been talking about definition one, that narrowest definition. The specific science of principals that govern inferences. I feel like you have been talking about definition two, the principals that can be applied to every area of knowledge. I think that God is above the first two definition but that miracles and Christ's nature fit within a reasonable or sound understanding of the universe, i.e. the third definition of logic.
Definition 1: The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
Definition 2: The system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
Definition 3: Reason or sound judgement.
I have been talking about definition one, that narrowest definition. The specific science of principals that govern inferences. I feel like you have been talking about definition two, the principals that can be applied to every area of knowledge. I think that God is above the first two definition but that miracles and Christ's nature fit within a reasonable or sound understanding of the universe, i.e. the third definition of logic.
King of The Lands of Rhetoric, Lord Ruler of the Debate Vampires, and Duke of Quebec
"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
-
Pound Foolish
- Coffee Biscotti
- Posts: 3349
- Joined: June 2012
- Location: Kidsboro
- Contact:
Thank you for providing that clarity so briefly and smartly.
It helps clear some things up, and now I look at your premise that way, it seems I have unnecessarily complicated this but plenty.
Your premise is God is above our concepts of logic and inference,be it in relation to philosophy or the world in general. More or less correct?
a) There are many things humanity cannot explain. Love, for example.
refutation: Man cannot fully explain atoms but they are not above man, but yes indeed, humankind can explain little of the world or theology, let alone God. What of it?
Logic and reason evolve as we discover new truths through divine revelation and new theologians. It's not as if all theological knowledge has been handed to us.
Let's look at the ultimate, basic, unquestionable logic, the very essence of reason and law: mathematics. Yes, as I said, I am unskilled in this area myself. (I am still struggling through Algebra 1.) That aside, consider the huge advances that are made in it. For centuries, we did not even have the concept of zero. As for negative numbers, they are practically a new development. We make new discoveries even about supposed absolutes. Things we are taught since childhood. Yet, you claim that because we cannot fully explain God himself, who is so incredibly more complicated than math, there must be no logical answer!
b) The truth of God's nature was divinely revealed. Yes, not all divine revelation is entirely reliable, but the multitudes of the past church witness to the truth of the revelation.
refutation: Well, a billion people witness against it.
There you are. Those seem to be the two arguments on which the foundation of your premise rests. If man's lack of a full explanation for God and His Son means nothing, or if the divine revelation to which your beliefs trace themselves is false, down it falls.
It helps clear some things up, and now I look at your premise that way, it seems I have unnecessarily complicated this but plenty.
Your premise is God is above our concepts of logic and inference,be it in relation to philosophy or the world in general. More or less correct?
a) There are many things humanity cannot explain. Love, for example.
refutation: Man cannot fully explain atoms but they are not above man, but yes indeed, humankind can explain little of the world or theology, let alone God. What of it?
Logic and reason evolve as we discover new truths through divine revelation and new theologians. It's not as if all theological knowledge has been handed to us.
Let's look at the ultimate, basic, unquestionable logic, the very essence of reason and law: mathematics. Yes, as I said, I am unskilled in this area myself. (I am still struggling through Algebra 1.) That aside, consider the huge advances that are made in it. For centuries, we did not even have the concept of zero. As for negative numbers, they are practically a new development. We make new discoveries even about supposed absolutes. Things we are taught since childhood. Yet, you claim that because we cannot fully explain God himself, who is so incredibly more complicated than math, there must be no logical answer!
b) The truth of God's nature was divinely revealed. Yes, not all divine revelation is entirely reliable, but the multitudes of the past church witness to the truth of the revelation.
refutation: Well, a billion people witness against it.
There you are. Those seem to be the two arguments on which the foundation of your premise rests. If man's lack of a full explanation for God and His Son means nothing, or if the divine revelation to which your beliefs trace themselves is false, down it falls.
Last edited by Pound Foolish on Sat Dec 28, 2013 1:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- "Pound Foolish, I just adoreee arguing with you! Here, have an eyeball."
~Suzy Lou Foolish
As the founder of the E.R.K., may I say: Emily RULES!
You're welcome, Poundy, ma'am. 
To Eleventh: I concede. The laurels are yours in our debate. Thank you for being so pleasant to talk to on here.
I hope we can meet again under less-debated circumstances.
To Eleventh: I concede. The laurels are yours in our debate. Thank you for being so pleasant to talk to on here.
I hope we can meet again under less-debated circumstances.