|
|
Post by civic on Sept 8, 2022 9:10:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Redeemed on Sept 8, 2022 12:06:30 GMT -8
Well, The video certainly does not help in the Study of Biblical Logic. I don't understand how Matt could say He's Just Not That Into logic because he's a theologian.
Like all things that exist before the face of God, we can only fully understand truth and logic from within God’s covenantal plan for man. God’s covenants always include five points: God, Man, Law, Consequences, and Inheritance. We must consider how truth and logic relate to each point—how they affect each point, and how each point affects our understanding of them. We can easily develop such an understanding by formulating questions about truth in relation to each covenantal point. In this way, we will show that the distortion of truth and logic in any particular covenantal area creates specific, discernible types of fallacies.
For me any good apologetics should have a good understanding of Biblically logic and all that entails. Especially the terminology which Matt also said he was not well schooled on. So, I think he was definitely in over his head which is unusual. But hey we all have off days. And he did admit he needed to learn more about this topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Parker on Sept 8, 2022 12:58:14 GMT -8
Well, The video certainly does not help in the Study of Biblical Logic. I don't understand how Matt could say He's Just Not That Into logic because he's a theologian. Like all things that exist before the face of God, we can only fully understand truth and logic from within God’s covenantal plan for man. God’s covenants always include five points: God, Man, Law, Consequences, and Inheritance. We must consider how truth and logic relate to each point—how they affect each point, and how each point affects our understanding of them. We can easily develop such an understanding by formulating questions about truth in relation to each covenantal point. In this way, we will show that the distortion of truth and logic in any particular covenantal area creates specific, discernible types of fallacies. For me any good apologetics should have a good understanding of Biblically logic and all that entails. Especially the terminology which Matt also said he was not well schooled on. So, I think he was definitely in over his head which is unusual. But hey we all have off days. And he did admit he needed to learn more about this topic. Discernment and biblical logic are something we all need. But where do we turn for this logic? Isn't logic the domain of scholars and philosophers? John Locke condemns this common misconception: “God has not been so sparing to men to make them barely two-legged creatures and left it to Aristotle to make them rational.” In other words, Locke recognized that logic existed, and people reasoned and used the critical faculties of their minds before any philosopher came along to teach about it. God created logic and reasoning as he created man, and he created it for man, so, we should find it reasonable that God’s Word has something to say—if not a lot to say—about logic, rationality, and good judgment. “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.” —Genesis 1:31 I think of All That’s Good as a vision of what our lives might look like were we to be changed by wisdom—if we were to become people who know the difference between what’s bad and what’s good, what’s good and what’s better. That's the kind of Discernment and Biblical Logic I'm talking about. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2022 5:37:52 GMT -8
Before beginning I will remind all the BAM members who are also CARM members about the CARM rules and terms of use. Rules 12.3 specifically states, " Do not post any message that harasses, insult, belittle, threatens, or flames another guest personally. Using other websites/forums/chat to attack CARM users if documented to admin will result in immediate Suspension to all parties involved in bullying and gossip of any CARM user." Anyone and everyone found to attack CARM may end up being suspended (and that suspension may be permanent). I will, therefore, not post anything critical of Matt Slick. I have had personal, individual one-to-one agreement and disagreement. Despite the episodes of disagreement, I have a lot of respect for Matt and what he does, and I will ask civic and the other admins of BAM to think about what they will think and how they will feel if and when they are put on trial in another forum. That being said, I have often posted about logic most of you have read me say things like, " God is a God of reason," or " God can be extra-rational but God is never irrational." Most of you have experienced the response " That's just the rules of men," used to dismiss a very valid and true point or case you've made. Often times have I cited logical fallacies found in a post, and often times have I linked to one of the websites on basic (or advanced) logic in an effort to aid others so they can clear out their thinking and improve performance. Often have I cited God inviting others to reason with Him, or the many examples in scripture when a person is said to reason with others (such as (Isa. 1:18). The Bible is filled with such examples. It is, therefore, neither scriptural nor logical to dismiss logic. I've posted that statement on many an occasion, too. And I can say all that without criticizing Matt, Andrew, or Eric personally. I find both men's logic faulty in various places. Therefore, the op should frame the discussion to be about logic in general and have all arguments up for examination. The chief fault of the argument is not properly framing the topic of discussion. Perhaps the topic was defined but it was edited out of this YouTube video. The debate appears to be about one of the most basic laws of logic, the law of non-contradiction, but the premise "God or Not-God" first must be established as relevant to the specific sub-topic, which is the existence of intelligence (presumably human). The discussion breaks down, logically, because of red herrings like "toast or not toast," or whether or not chocolate or vanilla ice cream accounts for logic. Those are red herrings and false analogies, not false dichotomies. No one thinks toast or the lack thereof is a logical basis for the existence of human intelligence and (ad hominem coming) no intelligent or logical person thinks that way  . It also appears the matters of evidence and proof are being confused and conflated. The existence of intelligence does not prove any existence of God (or lack thereof) but it could be evidence of an intelligent source (depending on the case made to justify that claim). I watched/listened to about half the video and found several flaws in reasoning on both main parties' part. I'll leave it at that. If a video is posted of two people and one of them is not the head of a board in which I am a member I'll critique its logic, but I will ask for clarified goals before doing so. I debate my peers to learn from them and improve my thoughts, words, and practice. When opportunity avails itself I endeavor to return the favor. My citing flaws in the arguments of people like Sam Harris or Daniel Dennet, or William Lane Craig or Francis Schaeffer doesn't affect them one bit. My doing so with people I know, or those with whom I have agreements not to discuss, might cause harm. Some of that harm might be them but the harm of gossip and violating the many scriptures about how to speak about others is something I choose to avoid. For the record: All religions that have a God or gods are theisms. They all, therefore, fall under the category of God versus Not-God. The former may not all apply equally (despite the atheists protest to the contrary) but they do all apply categorically. Therefore, this debate about God versus no God as a source for intelligence is more accurately about what kind of God or god might prove a logical source for the existence of intelligence. That's a much longer video. One last note. I learned logic in college when my major was philosophy. Durning that time I considered attending seminary and most of the seminaries I investigated taught specific course series on logic. The field of logic is very complex and rigorous, but the basics are easy to learn. I've forgotten most of what I learned. What really cemented the value of logic for me was homeschooling my children. One of the courses we taught was logic. It wasn't college-level but children becoming adults don't need college-level or professional-level logic. The basics, especially how to avoid logical fallacies common in everyday life and avoid being persuaded by them in others are very important, especially for any Christian not wanting to be persuaded by false teaching. Gotta know what "false" means. Despite my intelligence and my education and training, I would be lost if I went to a philosophy forum and dove in. I would likely relearn forgotten material and learn new material and in the due course of time become an able participant but that is not the degree of logic involved in this video. No one here needs that degree of knowledge in order to have a functional and reasonable and rational conversation. Off to work. You all have a blessed day. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2022 5:39:06 GMT -8
Why is this an Arm v Cal concern?
|
|
|
|
Post by civic on Sept 9, 2022 5:53:39 GMT -8
Why is this an Arm v Cal concern? I will ask for it to be moved into the controversial topics area. I also edited the topic in the OP at your suggestion. |
|
|
|
Post by rickstudies on Sept 9, 2022 11:14:38 GMT -8
I use logic quite a bit. It`s man`s ability to reason whether you like that def or not. It is what it is. Often helpful but when I`ve seen it used in a strict sense of the word it`s been used for a humanistic type of reasoning rather than as a supplement to Biblical spiritual discernment.
When someone deviates from determining the meaning of the words of the gospel in favor of philosophical logic you lose that vital spiritual component to studying the gospel, in my opinion. When that happens the discussion becomes better suited for a snowflake college class than for a meaningful exchange of opinions on the gospel.
Many topics of the gospel go beyond the logic of this present world, or maybe this world`s illogic depending on your point of view.
|
|
|
|
Post by civic on Sept 9, 2022 11:18:50 GMT -8
I use logic quite a bit. It`s man`s ability to reason whether you like that def or not. It is what it is. Often helpful but when I`ve seen it used in a strict sense of the word it`s been used for a humanistic type of reasoning rather than as a supplement to Biblical spiritual discernment. When someone deviates from determining the meaning of the words of the gospel in favor of philosophical logic you lose that vital spiritual component to studying the gospel, in my opinion. When that happens the discussion becomes better suited for a snowflake college class than for a meaningful exchange of opinions on the gospel. Did you get to watch the video ? I would be interested in your comments |
|
|
|
Post by rickstudies on Sept 9, 2022 11:31:29 GMT -8
I use logic quite a bit. It`s man`s ability to reason whether you like that def or not. It is what it is. Often helpful but when I`ve seen it used in a strict sense of the word it`s been used for a humanistic type of reasoning rather than as a supplement to Biblical spiritual discernment. When someone deviates from determining the meaning of the words of the gospel in favor of philosophical logic you lose that vital spiritual component to studying the gospel, in my opinion. When that happens the discussion becomes better suited for a snowflake college class than for a meaningful exchange of opinions on the gospel. Did you get to watch the video ? I would be interested in your comments I watched some of it. It`s too far removed from discussion of scripture to hold my interest. It makes me wish Cormack was here to listen to it, he loves humanistic logic. They seem to be debating logic rather than the gospel. You can waste a lot of time if you let a discussion drift away from the gospel and would be theological opponents will even think it a victory to push on non Biblical issues. Having said that I consider the Bible very logical but you have to get on the same page as God to get it. |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Sept 9, 2022 12:05:25 GMT -8
Did you get to watch the video ? I would be interested in your comments I watched some of it. It`s too far removed from discussion of scripture to hold my interest. It makes me wish Cormack was here to listen to it, he loves humanistic logic. They seem to be debating logic rather than the gospel. You can waste a lot of time if you let a discussion drift away from the gospel and would be theological opponents will even think it a victory to push on non Biblical issues. Having said that I consider the Bible very logical but you have to get on the same page as God to get it. Yes the one on the Christian side couldn’t get passed the basics of logic and the philosopher had to keep telling him how to make a logical argument. It was comical . |
|
|
|
Post by rickstudies on Sept 9, 2022 12:36:01 GMT -8
I watched some of it. It`s too far removed from discussion of scripture to hold my interest. It makes me wish Cormack was here to listen to it, he loves humanistic logic. They seem to be debating logic rather than the gospel. You can waste a lot of time if you let a discussion drift away from the gospel and would be theological opponents will even think it a victory to push on non Biblical issues. Having said that I consider the Bible very logical but you have to get on the same page as God to get it. Yes the one on the Christian side couldn’t get passed the basics of logic and the philosopher had to keep telling him how to make a logical argument. It was comical . Yes, the Christian should have reviewed rules of logic before doing a video. Probably why it doesn`t hold my interest because it`s pretty much an effort to explain logic to someone who has some problem with the abstract thinking involved. I lose interest in having a religeous dialogue once we stop discussing scripture. My rule tends to be if it`s not scripture it`s a waste of time. I just don`t care about putting out anything fancy, being right is the extent of my concerns. |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Sept 9, 2022 12:45:39 GMT -8
Yes the one on the Christian side couldn’t get passed the basics of logic and the philosopher had to keep telling him how to make a logical argument. It was comical . Yes, the Christian should have reviewed rules of logic before doing a video. Probably why it doesn`t hold my interest because it`s pretty much an effort to explain logic to someone who has some problem with the abstract thinking involved. I lose interest in having a religeous dialogue once we stop discussing scripture. My rule tends to be if it`s not scripture it`s a waste of time. I just don`t care about putting out anything fancy, being right is the extent of my concerns. I agree with you for sure . Colossians 2:8 comes to mind . |
|
e v e
Full Member
Posts: 214
|
Post by e v e on Sept 9, 2022 15:11:04 GMT -8
His words don’t function by human logic
|
|
e v e
Full Member
Posts: 214
|
Post by e v e on Sept 9, 2022 15:13:04 GMT -8
esau tries to force his logic on souls.
what’s new…
|
|
|
|
Post by makesends on Sept 10, 2022 16:15:09 GMT -8
What do you guys / gals think of the use of logic with apologetics in this debate ? I didn't find the video particularly revealing. The excerpts seemed out of context and I couldn't even tell what they were doing or what they were after. I gave up after two or three minutes. |
|
. 
