Featured The greatest error on bb

false dichotomy, it violates both.

This is a riot :laugh: Its perfectly logical to jump out of a boat and expect to stand on the water.

No, it is what YOU perceive to be truth as has been pointed out to you a number of times.

 

Syllogisms are a form of logic...deductive reasoning, Luke. How does that not apply to a thread about logic?

Yet when I present a clear violation of the law of non-contradiction by which you believe:

A= not A
choice = not choice

Your rebuttal virtually amounts to nothing more than, "Nuh-huh," and you want to lecture us as being the ones unwilling to engage you in logic?

 

Luke, we are speaking about the logic of natural laws being violated. So, while the principle of logic itself may not be violated by a supernatural miracles, like walking on water, it certainly presumes the existence of a Being who is able to carry out such acts. In other words, the violation of natural law is not illogical for a Christian because we presume (by faith) One exists who is able to violate such laws. That is why I kept referring you back to the eventuality of the appeal to faith, not logic.

Your denial of the logical possibilities of an contra-causally free moral choice is on the basis that it is an 'uncaused cause' (something you deem illogical), yet when pressed you must eventually accept the existence of an uncaused Cause by faith...NOT LOGIC.

Understand my point?

 

Continued from above...

I just wanted to add that natural physical laws are actually the products of logic themselves, formed by reason from observable/measurable facts that are well established and uncontroversial. Thus, violating these physical laws is also a violation of logic (unless, as I noted, there is an accepted premise that One exists who is able to violate these physical laws).

One could easily construct a logical proof to support the FACT that people cannot walk on water:

1) People fall into water when their surface pressure exceeds the ability of surface tension to support their weight.

2) All people's bodies exceed this surface pressure requirement.

3) Therefore people cannot walk on water. ​

 

HOS, I'm not disagreeing with you on this point, but did you read my last few posts of explanation?

Just as there are different takes on 'truth' there are different takes on 'logic,' much of which has to do with accepted premises of those discussing various views. Two Christians who concede to the existence of God and the truth of scripture have a different foundation of their logic than would an unbeliever.

 

The law of non contradiction for one. A piece of wood cannot be both a rod and a reptile. A human cannot sink in water and walk on top of it. A jar of freshly filled water cannot be both H2O and fermented juice from grapes. The Bible tells us with men these things are impossible, but with God ALL things are possible. This just proves that from our vantage something can be illogical, but from Gods vantage point it is perfectly logical. We accept Gods vantage point by faith, not our own logic. This is where you err. You appeal to this same law oddly enough when you speak of what God can and cannot do...yet dismiss it when dealing with this. By this very law, your very own logic violates the laws of logic :laugh:

 

My my! :smilewinkgrin: Look at you dance and evade! I’m just trying to see if you REALLY want to make some “PROGRESS” and after explaining what logic and philosophical argument is I merely asked you if you were willing to begin by defining terms. You’ve gone from – “I’m talking past you.” – to – “So what?” – from “sound” – to - “contradicting” – to – currently “suspicion” and “rejection” of my premises… - to – that it all “depends how I define volition” (Duh!, read my signature line) – to - that “I’m begging the question” if I were to contend two opposite views were not the same thing!

You’re fighting like a cat being held over a bucket of ice water with this “argument” of yours rather than someone who wants to make some progress in “logical debate”.

I’m beginning to think the “logical” truth here might just be you’re – CHICKEN! :smilewinkgrin: – to - even begin a logical argument by defining terms.

Yeah! You better be like a scared little rabbit and start finding some holes– I’m well known by the some of the Calvinist around these parts to be the kind of hunter who will “set these kinds of A or B, true or false... traps”!!!

:laugh:

 

I spoke in generallizations... I did not specifically mean your posts. Generally, I think there is a serious lack of understanding about the definition and parameters of what logic is and what it is capable of.

 

Maybe this will help:

Luke, it seems as if to get anywhere ("make progress") in regards to “logical truth” maybe we should start at the beginning so let’s start with the basics and see where your objection to my logic begins, okay? Can we test your logical expertise and see how far you are willing to go? Will you answer the following?

Given:
T = True
F = False

I’ll even give you the first one:

T + T = T

What does:

T + F =
F + T =
F + F =

Now, assuming your correct and that you’re warmed up now let’s start with some easy premises?

Given:
A = Man’s choice
B = Not Man’s choice

A + A =
A + B =
B + A =
B + B =

Should be easy enough, correct?

Question: Will you reject the following premises?

Let me know when and if you’re feeling trapped now and we’ll see if we can fix the problem!

Given:
Man is responsible for the choices which he makes = A
Man is responsible for the choices which God makes = B

A + A =
A + B =
B + A =
B + B =

 

What logic did I break? You asked me if Jesus did not know the exact day and time he would return. That is exactly what Jesus told us.

Mar 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

How can I be illogical if I am simply repeating what Jesus said? Explain this to me.