The greatest error on bb

[webdog]

That's exactly what this post is designed for- and almost all of yours for that matter.

so now you are a self professed troll. Trolling is against BB rules.

 

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Benjamin
I’m not sure how you come to your conclusion that these people “get away with saying things that cannot be true.” You do realize that you haven’t presented a logical argument throughout your Op, correct? BTW, you seem to have missed HoS attempts of explaining to you (truth and logic) the differences in relation to your Op...

Let’s begin by defining what a logical “argument” consists of:

That said; let’s define the term “logical argument” from a philosophical perspective. IOW’s, you presented an “argument” in your Op, but a “philosophical argument” should begin with defining terms, involve deductive reasoning to believe a premise is true and then go about setting two premises which are followed by a valid conclusion to those premises, correct?

First, concerning your Op, I could make an “argument” that especially what you said concerning Scandelon, by my observations of his arguments (debate) against you his arguments are generally philosophically based and he is “trying” to set premises to draw out the truth toward coming to a conclusion. As a matter of fact I often sit back and chuckle at his efforts to hold you to more than one premise at a time so that a simple logical conclusion can be arrived at. I chuckle at the evasive tactics you use to avoid coming to a “philosophical logical conclusion” and I get a kick out of his patient demeanor with you. So then, in your Op you speak of frustration and lack of progress in debate and speak of logic. I find that statement hilarious especially after I dropped by the other day and read in another tread of you criticizing others that they need to take a class in philosophy and logic. You now offer an “argument” about logic, you add to that a conclusion, but in doing so you simply demonstrated once again that you have missed the point involving the use of the basic critical thinking skills learned along with basic logic 103 that gives one the tools to engage in a “true philosophical debate” (argument) which teaches of the goals to draw out the truth when presenting an argument. That is why I laughed at you starting this tread.

Above, I simply gave you my opinion, I added in a few horse laughs, some rhetoric, offered an explanation, some of it was personal and could even be considered Ad Hominem; I “argued” with you but none of this would be considered a philosophical logical argument. With a lot of work it and sticking to focusing on specific aspects of my reply it could be turned to one, or better said “several”, IF my opponent understood and adhered to the principles needed to do so. If I want to I could submit an argument suggesting that I could prove you don’t use a working knowledge involving philosophical principles of debate. But, I’m really not here trying to put you down, admittedly I take some pleasure in teasing and poking others at times, but what I would prefer is to actually make some progress in a debate. Frankly, you want to talk about frustration? I have given up the idea of making “progress” on this board because it is too easy to get caught up in “meaningless” argument, one that will not work towards the goals of logically drawing out the truth, but they merely end in (“then catch me if you can” because my opponents here seem to believe avoiding getting to a conclusion is a form of winning an argument. That is their goal! “Not losing an “argument” rather than getting to the truth in constructive argument” and they do NOT understand how to stay the course in “philosophical debate”…) this is not a “Debate Board” in the true philosophical sense, it is a “Board for Argument” with no guided, ethical, or meaningful purposes or in some cases it is simply a “Discussion Board”.

Concerning the error on this board, personally, I’m really not interested in the typical “fast back and forth meaningless argument” here (I remember when you PMed me once and asked me to respond faster, but I didn’t bother to address that request) because my goal is to take the time to think conclusions out, nail issues and claims down and get to the truths in the matter. I can fast-track argue with the best of them but such has little value. I don’t mind a good thought out simple discussion either, it doesn’t have to be a philosophical debate, but what I have learned I can expect to get in return for my efforts here are generally nothing more than cheap thoughtless comebacks completely disregarding the points I have taken the time to outline and address...

I’ve spent a lot of time on this board over 8 years but I’ve long realized it is well past time that I move on to a more productive format that understands, engages in and enforces ethical debate practices. I’ve recently discovered a board which does, although its main subject is more centrally focused on one theological interest, which offers to challenge me in that important area and gives an opportunity to grow in my goals of coming to understand and logically support and defend the truths behind my soteriological position.

Second, concerning your Op’s “conclusion” - It is often repeated by the Calvinist that, “God is Sovereign”.

Yet, I would suggest that both sides would agree that God is Sovereign. To begin with, it is not even logical to begin an argument and come to a conclusion from one premise. A true, “philosophical argument” would begin then with an issue over what does “God’s Sovereignty” involve in relation to His judgment? There is an obvious question regarding the definition of God’s Sovereignty. Otherwise it is meaningless to simply keep repeating that “God is Sovereign” as it often is! Why? It is being used ambiguously to avoid claims and issues and used to beg the question rather than establish premises in an argument on which the conclusion must rest though first defining and holding to that definition to maintain a truth regarding the conclusion.

So, let’s see some progress. Just take all the above FWIW. I want to see you be logical about the following. I want to see if you really “ have it figured out”?

Luke, are you willing to focus on a second premise to complete a logical argument regarding one of the favorite expressions of the Calvinist, “God is Sovereign”?

To draw out the truth in the MEANING from the statement “God’s is Sovereign”, IOW’s, to give “MEANING” to what God’s Sovereignty consists of involving His creatures abilities, truth and God’s judgment over them one might ask, “How does God’s Sovereignty relate regarding His Divine judgment over His creatures? (Deterministically or Providentially?)”

Is God “Deterministically Sovereign” over His creatures:

Necessarily, All of God’s ways are judgment in truth.
God holds man responsible for the actions He controls.
Therefore, God’s judgment involves holding man responsible for God’s controlled actions in truth.

Is God “Providently Sovereign” over His creatures:

Necessarily, all of God’s ways are judgment in truth.
God holds man responsible for his own volitional actions.
Therefore, God’s judgment involves holding man responsible for his own volitional actions in truth.

Luke, in order to logically draw out the truth in the meaning of God being Sovereign, - Can we define God’s Sovereignty as Deterministic or Providential? Or will you (try to) hold that both true?

The logical necessity here is, “All of God’s ways are judgment in truth.” (Deut 32:4)

Regard logical "truth" and God's nature - "God is Truth". Can God deterministically control the actions of man and His judgment of man is in truth?

You seem to be talking past me. Did you look at the link I posted in the op? It was significantly shorter than this post of yours.

You know...I'll just leave it to reader to discern whether your post,10 minutes after I posted, was a "meaningful" and ethical way to reply on a Christian "debate" board by someone in search for the logical truth or the type of reply one would expect from a "troll" (or as Scan more delicately put it "continued fruitless banter" ).

 

[quantumfaith]

I agree that we have the words of Jesus Christ and I also do not understand. That being said it is beyond reason to me to believe that there can be a breech in the Godhead. It is for this reason that I have argued on another thread that it was the human nature of Jesus Christ who cried out on the cross: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?. It is inconceivable to me that there could be a breech between God the Father and God the Son or that one person of the Godhead could know something the others did not!

It is my conviction, on the cross, there was no "abandonment" of the Son by the Father, rather Jesus was quoting from PS. 22 because in its entirety, PS 22 is a psalm of victory.

 

[Skandelon]

Do you not know what logic is?

Truth as defined by you?

If so can you demonstrate how the trinity violates any fundamental law of logic?

Naw, you're probably right, no need for faith, we should just depend on our own human understanding and reason.

Logic is truth.

Then stop using the word logic and only use the word truth.

Luke's Proof of Question Begging:
Truth = Logic
Truth cannot equal untruth
I believe what is true, therefore anyone who disagrees with me believes what is untrue and thus is not being logical.

Why don't you respond to Ben's logical construct?

A does not equal choice.

"A" is the variable and ANYTHING can be plugged into that variable to form a logical construct. You violate the law of non-contradiction by presuming that God's choices are not choices: A = not A

You are not being consistent with your OWN law of non-contradiction.

 

[OldRegular]

It is my conviction, on the cross, there was no "abandonment" of the Son by the Father, rather Jesus was quoting from PS. 22 because in its entirety, PS 22 is a psalm of victory.

i agree. Some years ago I had a retired pastor in my SS class. He expressed a view very similar to yours and also said that Jesus Christ quoted from Psalm 22 to show that he was the Messiah.

 

[Luke2427]

so now you are a self professed troll. Trolling is against BB rules.

Further trolling. I would be interested to see how few infractions Webdog has received compared to the average Reformed poster on this site.

It is no secret that webdog is the worst troll on baptistboard.

It is no secret that Reformed guys are sited more infractions than him on average either.

 

[Luke2427]

Truth as defined by you?

How about this since you are going to continue to be childish.

Let's make it very simple.

Do you agree that the three basic laws of logic- the law of identity, the law of the excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction- are TRUTH? Not just MY truth but truth PERIOD?

Naw, you're probably right, no need for faith, we should just depend on our own human understanding and reason.

Yea, okay- that's what I am saying.

 

[Luke2427]

You know...I'll just leave it to reader to discern whether your post,10 minutes after I posted, was a "meaningful" and ethical way to reply on a Christian "debate" board by someone in search for the logical truth or the type of reply one would expect from a "troll" (or as Scan more delicately put it "continued fruitless banter" ).

Syllogisms do represent truth if the premises are true.

But I am not talking about just syllogistic arguments. They are great and I love them and believe in them.

But the OP is about something much more encompassing than simple syllogisms.

That's why I responded the way I responded.

But, having thought about it, he did offer a substantial and thoughtful post to the conversation. I should have been more thorough.

I apologize.

But really all I know to say to it is that I agree with the syllogism and find it to be sound.

My argument would simply be, "So what?"

 

[preachinjesus]

Man, I have a busy weekend and come back to find this thread exactly where I thought it woould be...in shambles.

Luke,

I've stated and would be happy to follow up that you're being too dualistic in your own understanding and conception of God. By confining your theology proper, Christology, pneumatology, and such to God is ______, and must be ______, you are missing the point of nuance in theology.

Also, you claim that we who don't hold to your views are being "illogical" yet your own posts are rife with logical fallacies.

There are multiple examples of some reasonable folks attempting to engage you, critiquing you on firm points, and you are mischaracterizing them, evading them by claiming they aren't being specific enough, or simply missing their point.

I'd challenge you, again, that the issues here aren't about logical vs. illogical. My theology, and others, who disagree with are happily coherent logically. We simply ccome to different conclusions. This is why we must not be too dualistic in our argumentation.

Anyhoo, I hope this thread can get back on track...but it is far away from that. I'm not using an ad hominem here, but am simply appealing to reason to bring things back around.

 

[Benjamin]

But really all I know to say to it is that I agree with the syllogism and find it to be sound.

My argument would simply be, "So what?"

"So what" is not an argument, meaningful, or an ethical way to debate...

 

[Skandelon]

How about this since you are going to continue to be childish.

Saying that you "whipping me" is childish, but my pointing out your logical fallacy of question begging is not. I'm not trying to provoke you, insult you, demean you, or incite you. I'm simply attempting to point out your inconsistencies and your fallacies. You think anyone who disagrees with your 'truth' is not being 'logical' because to you truth = logic. That is a text book example of the Question Begging Fallacy, where by the debater presumes the very point up for debate. It is no different than saying, "You're wrong because I am right." Except now its, "You're not logical because I am logical."

It is childish to continue to practice this fallacy after it is pointed out numerous times as it is the lowest most child-like form of debate. My kids use it regularly... "Nuh, huh, you're wrong...because I just know..."

Do you agree that the three basic laws of logic- the law of identity, the law of the excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction- are TRUTH? Not just MY truth but truth PERIOD?

I do not have any issues with these laws of logic, in fact I've been clearly revealing how you violate the law of non-contradiction in your views concerning God's choices, but you've yet to rebut those arguments except to deny that the variable "A" cannot (for some arbitrary reason only known to you) represent "choice." Hmmmm

I'd point out your fallacy but I might be labelled childish again.

 

[Skandelon]

Syllogisms do represent truth if the premises are true.But I am not talking about just syllogistic arguments. They are great and I love them and believe in them.
But the OP is about something much more encompassing than simple syllogisms.

Can we deduce by this that you are affirming Ben's premises are true and logical?

My argument would simply be, "So what?"

So, you have two contradictory conclusions but both are "logically sound" arguments, which should reveal to you that one can make a logically sound argument but still be wrong in his conclusions.

I clearly show why I believed your 'syllogism' to be wrong as it relied on equivocation of the word 'responsible.'

Consider this argument:
Ten different Agents claim to be Agent X
There is only one Agent X
At least nine of the Agents claiming to be Agent X must be wrong

Is this proof logical and valid? If not, why not?

 

[12strings]

16 pages in 3 days!

Perhaps some moderator can tell us if that is some kind of record?

I stopped reading after 3 pages, but here's my take.

I agree most with with preachinginjesus Post #4...

There are logical problems with every calvinistic model.
There are logical problems with every arminian model.
There are logical problems with the molinist model.
There are logical problems with all the models that other have who don't want to be lumped into the categories above.

So...I disagree with the idea that a simple college course in logic would automatically convert everyone to the calvinist position (though on the Election issue, I agree with the calvinists).

That said, It is not totally incorrect to say that our problem is one of logic, in that each of us is very likely making logical errors at some point in our interpretation of scripture...and, that at the end of the age, when all is know, it will turn out that some of us have been closer to the true (more logically correct) understanding than others on various issues.

 

[Skandelon]

12Strings,

You are correct. There are perceived logical problems (apparent contradictions/paradoxes) in every system (including the true system) as our perspective is limited and at some point everyone must appeal to mystery at some point. After all, His way are higher than our ways and scripture is clear that we will not fully understand all things this side of glory.

That is why I argued the OP was shortsighted and not very well vetted.

 

[webdog]

Further trolling. I would be interested to see how few infractions Webdog has received compared to the average Reformed poster on this site.

It is no secret that webdog is the worst troll on baptistboard.

It is no secret that Reformed guys are sited more infractions than him on average either.

Unless you are a seer, you have no way of know any of this...and you are being quite childish to boot. Further trolling is right...stop doing it already. You are now insulting a moderator, get a grip.

The most illogical thing you have said to date is logic = truth. You might as well said mixer = cake. Both are merely tools used to arrive at the desired result. I'm surprised you would say something so ignorant in a logic thread you started accusing others of not knowing what it is. You might want to take some time off to reflect just how silly you sound...I'm embarrassed for you.

 

[quantumfaith]

Unless you are a seer, you have no way of know any of this...and you are being quite childish to boot. Further trolling is right...stop doing it already. You are now insulting a moderator, get a grip.

The most illogical thing you have said to date is logic = truth. You might as well said mixer = cake. Both are merely tools used to arrive at the desired result. I'm surprised you would say something so ignorant in a logic thread you started accusing others of not knowing what it is. You might want to take some time off to reflect just how silly you sound...I'm embarrassed for you.

I agree WD, Luke's statements here are purely anecdotal. I suspect whoever gets fractions and demerits here in BB most likely deserve the ones they.....no what their theological persuasion. Even "NON CALS" like me get demerits.

 

[Luke2427]

Can we deduce by this that you are affirming Ben's premises are true and logical?


So, you have two contradictory conclusions but both are "logically sound" arguments, which should reveal to you that one can make a logically sound argument but still be wrong in his conclusions.

I clearly show why I believed your 'syllogism' to be wrong as it relied on equivocation of the word 'responsible.'

Consider this argument:
Ten different Agents claim to be Agent X
There is only one Agent X
At least nine of the Agents claiming to be Agent X must be wrong

Is this proof logical and valid? If not, why not?

With respect this thread is not about syllogisms. As I said I believe in them. This thread from the OP forward is about the three basic laws of logic.

Discuss whether or not they represent truth or start another thread to talk about syllogisms. I like to talk about them so I will gladly meet you there.

But to highjack this the way you are doing is like taking a thread that is about the overall theme of Moby Dick and talk about the harm the whaling industry has done.

 

[Luke2427]

16 pages in 3 days!

Perhaps some moderator can tell us if that is some kind of record?

I stopped reading after 3 pages, but here's my take.

I agree most with with preachinginjesus Post #4...

There are logical problems with every calvinistic model.
There are logical problems with every arminian model.
There are logical problems with the molinist model.
There are logical problems with all the models that other have who don't want to be lumped into the categories above.

So...I disagree with the idea that a simple college course in logic would automatically convert everyone to the calvinist position (though on the Election issue, I agree with the calvinists).

That said, It is not totally incorrect to say that our problem is one of logic, in that each of us is very likely making logical errors at some point in our interpretation of scripture...and, that at the end of the age, when all is know, it will turn out that some of us have been closer to the true (more logically correct) understanding than others on various issues.

I did not say a simple college course in logic would make one a Calvinist.

I said a simple college course in logic would enlighten Webdog that walking on water is a violation of natural law not the laws of logic.

Furthermore, the point of the OP is that the guys named ABANDON logic.

That I believe Calvinism to be very logically consistent is a side note of the OP.

The THEME of the OP is that logic is from God. That something cannot be that something and at the same time NOT be that something is not MY TRUTH- it is TRUTH PERIOD.

 

[Luke2427]

I'm simply attempting to point out your inconsistencies and your fallacies. You think anyone who disagrees with your 'truth' is not being 'logical' because to you truth = logic. That is a text book example of the Question Begging Fallacy, where by the debater presumes the very point up for debate. It is no different than saying, "You're wrong because I am right." Except now its, "You're not logical because I am logical."

Show where I have done this.

I do not have any issues with these laws of logic,

Are they TRUE?

Are they from God?

Are they universally binding?

I don't care if you have issues with them or not. That's too ambiguous and thus a useless statement.

in fact I've been clearly revealing how you violate the law of non-contradiction in your views concerning God's choices, but you've yet to rebut those arguments except to deny that the variable "A" cannot (for some arbitrary reason only known to you) represent "choice." Hmmmm

No, you really have not- not at all.

 

[Luke2427]

"So what" is not an argument, meaningful, or an ethical way to debate...

Your contention is that the two syllogisms contradict each other.

I need you to show how they do.

What I suspect is that you think the second one allows for volition while you are under the impression that the first one does not.

I reject that premise.

It depends on how you define volition. If you define it as contracausal then you are begging the question.