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.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The greatest error on bb
- Thread starter Luke2427
- Start date
- Status
Which law of logic does it violate, webdog?
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
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?
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
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?
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
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:
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.
2) All people's bodies exceed this surface pressure requirement.
3) Therefore people cannot walk on water.
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
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:
Last edited by a moderator:
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:
Last edited by a moderator:
I already answered that question.
Turning blubber into oil is a part of the book Moby Dick.
But it is not the theme.
The theme of this thread is not "Let's talk about everything that has to do with logic"
The theme is logic, specifically the three foundational laws of logic, is truth and the reason for the lack of progress with guys like you and Webdog and Winman and Van is because you feel no need to submit your theology to those laws.
Calvinists do feel the need to do so.
So discussion with you is like nailing jello to a wall.
Winman proved this with his responses in this thread.
God can know everything all the time and not know all kinds of things at the same time.
It is not true because it absolutely unabashedly violates laws of logic that come forth from the very nature of God himself- TRUTH.
So there is frankly NO POINT whatsoever for any of us to discuss with people who think that logic is bunk.
Exactly.
Looking back now, I wish I had left my assertion that Calvinism is logical and other systems are not out of the OP.
I wish this because I wanted this thread to be about the fact that some on here adhere to their theology (WHATEVER THEOLOGY THAT IS) without any concern WHATSOEVER with whether or not their theology is logically consistent.
But it seems that some of the guys I really thought a lot of don't understand basic logic at all.
It does not violate the law of noncontradiction.
It only violates the law of gravity.
A human does not HAVE to sink in water.
A jar of water cannot be pure wine AT THE SAME TIME that it is pure water. But it does not violate the law of noncontradiction for water to TURN to wine.
Your examples have nothing to do with the fundamental laws of logic.
You can't seem to differentiate between laws of logic and laws of nature.
I'll try to help you here.
The laws of nature are CREATED laws- they are not eternal.
They can change in an instant. For example a galactic catastrophe could change the gravitational force of the earth in the next five minutes and we ALL could walk on water.
What can and can't happen in nature DOES NOT EFFECT THE LAWS OF LOGIC AT ALL.
Regardless of what happens to nature and gravity A will never be able to BE A and NOT be A at the same time. A rock will never be a rock and NOT be a rock at the same time. A rock may CHANGE INTO something else that is not a rock. But when it does it will no longer be a rock so that it will STILL not violate this fundamental law of logic- that a rock cannot be a rock and not be a rock AT THE SAME TIME.
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
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 =
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 =
The idea is that the addition of a super-natural act of God's power places Aaron's rod into a different relationship as the relationship of the Egyptian sorcerors rods.....it exists in a different category. It would be "illogical" to think that Aaron's rod WITHOUT Divine interjection could be a serpent, but it is perfectly logical provided Divine interjection. It is "super-natural" and therefore not within the category of natural phenomenon.....but it is not "illogical" for the "super-natural" to be, well, "super-natural".
It's a subtle distinction perhaps, but a real one.
On a side-note:
C.S. Lewis' book "Miracles" discusses this in some fascinatingly eye-opening detail: He defends the proposition that miracles are rarely God even "breaking" or "super-ceding" natural law...but more accurately, imposing added information or influence. He describes (I'm paraphrasing) the Immaculate conception this way: (para)
"If a normal woman has a Divinely implanted seed than a normal and natural result will occur; namely, according to natural law, 9 months later, a child will be born". No laws are broken, God has super-naturally added influence into normal and natural law....."
It's a fascinating read and quite insightful. It would be more like (in mathematical terms) God isn't altering the value of 2 and 2 to equal something other than four (like 5)...but, rather adding a variable (like 1) so that what would other-wise be simply 2and2 is now 2+2+1=5....Maybe mathematicians like Quantum could appreciate that
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.
I wish I could have said it that well.
And please note for any reading- Heir and myself are basically on opposite ends of the spectrum soteriologically.
This thread is about the fundamental laws of logic.
EVERY ONE OF US ought to agree that they are invincible and that our theology should yield to them.
Christians throughout the ages have believed this.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status