|
|
Post by civic on Sept 11, 2022 5:32:41 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. no worries the christian apologist was unable to use the laws of logic to make his arguments and the atheist philosopher was trying to help him make a cogent argument but was unable to because the apologist could not grasp the basic concepts. |
|
|
|
Post by rickstudies on Sept 11, 2022 8:04:15 GMT -8
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. no worries the christian apologist was unable to use the laws of logic to make his arguments and the atheist philosopher was trying to help him make a cogent argument but was unable to because the apologist could not grasp the basic concepts. Logic is an important tool in the tool box but a smart person can make almost anything sound logical so it`s easily misused and/or misapplied by false teachers. |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Sept 11, 2022 8:10:08 GMT -8
no worries the christian apologist was unable to use the laws of logic to make his arguments and the atheist philosopher was trying to help him make a cogent argument but was unable to because the apologist could not grasp the basic concepts. Logic is an important tool in the tool box but a smart person can make almost anything sound logical so it`s easily misused and/or misapplied by false teachers. Agreed |
|
|
|
Post by TibiasDad on Sept 12, 2022 21:05:26 GMT -8
What do you guys / gals think of the use of logic with apologetics in this debate ?
Either God is responsible for or the source of, logic, or God is not responsible for or the source of, logic!
This is presented as an absolute statement of fact, and I find several points of muddiness.
1) We are assuming that God and logic both exist, which, logically speaking, may not be the case in reality.
2) But if we assume that logic and the biblical God are valid, then it is not a question, but an objective pronouncement of fact: Either God is responsible for logics existence, or he is not! This is not a premise to be proved or tested, but a factual statement. The question is not A or B, A or B is a logical reality. The question is which side is true.
The argument of the Syllogism is meaningless because what the philosopher terms a logical fallacy is not an assumption that P or non P must be solved, it is, in itself, a objective truth. It is true that either God is responsible for logic or God is not. The negation of one does not prove the other to be the correct answer.
If I were to say "either I am, at this moment, alive or I am not alive", the logical response is simply, yes that is true. The question then is what is the evidence for either side of the dilemma. To say, as the philosopher does, that the syllogism:
Premise 1) aa)Alive or bb) not alive
Premise 2) Negate one of the options, eg, to falsify aa) alive, necessarily means that bb) not alive is the only option, and therefore,
Conclusion) I am not alive at this moment!
is true, and is technically correct, but it does not tell us why aa) alive, is false. The question is not if the statement " I am, at this moment, alive or I am not alive/I am dead" is a true statement, that is an objective fact.
Thus to syllogize that:
1) Either God exists or God does not exist.
2) Negate that God exist
is to assume the arguments presented between 1) and 2) are valid. But that is the real question of the either/or dichotomy. We already know that either God exists or he doesn't exist; this is not the question! The real question is not placed in the syllogism, it is assumed to be answered when we enter premise two and negate or falsify one of the options.
The philosopher was/is correct, but the question that Matt was trying to answer in by use of the philosopher's syllogism was not the same question that the syllogism was meant to prove or answer!
Matt, and the theistic position aren't asking if P or non P is true, for that is self evident, we are asking which option is true, and why?
Doug
|
|
|
|
Post by civic on Sept 13, 2022 4:05:19 GMT -8
What do you guys / gals think of the use of logic with apologetics in this debate ?
Either God is responsible for or the source of, logic, or God is not responsible for or the source of, logic!
This is presented as an absolute statement of fact, and I find several points of muddiness.
1) We are assuming that God and logic both exist, which, logically speaking, may not be the case in reality.
2) But if we assume that logic and the biblical God are valid, then it is not a question, but an objective pronouncement of fact: Either God is responsible for logics existence, or he is not! This is not a premise to be proved or tested, but a factual statement. The question is not A or B, A or B is a logical reality. The question is which side is true.
The argument of the Syllogism is meaningless because what the philosopher terms a logical fallacy is not an assumption that P or non P must be solved, it is, in itself, a objective truth. It is true that either God is responsible for logic or God is not. The negation of one does not prove the other to be the correct answer.
If I were to say "either I am, at this moment, alive or I am not alive", the logical response is simply, yes that is true. The question then is what is the evidence for either side of the dilemma. To say, as the philosopher does, that the syllogism:
Premise 1) aa)Alive or bb) not alive
Premise 2) Negate one of the options, eg, to falsify aa) alive, necessarily means that bb) not alive is the only option, and therefore,
Conclusion) I am not alive at this moment!
is true, and is technically correct, but it does not tell us why aa) alive, is false. The question is not if the statement " I am, at this moment, alive or I am not alive/I am dead" is a true statement, that is an objective fact.
Thus to syllogize that:
1) Either God exists or God does not exist.
2) Negate that God exist
is to assume the arguments presented between 1) and 2) are valid. But that is the real question of the either/or dichotomy. We already know that either God exists or he doesn't exist; this is not the question! The real question is not placed in the syllogism, it is assumed to be answered when we enter premise two and negate or falsify one of the options.
The philosopher was/is correct, but the question that Matt was trying to answer in by use of the philosopher's syllogism was not the same question that the syllogism was meant to prove or answer!
Matt, and the theistic position aren't asking if P or non P is true, for that is self evident, we are asking which option is true, and why?
Doug
And you would of done a much better job by far in a discussion with the philosopher in the video.  |
|
|
|
Post by TibiasDad on Sept 13, 2022 8:02:14 GMT -8
I think there was a lot of equivocation: The original premise, if I am understanding things correctly, was
Either God is responsible for or the source of, logic, or God is not responsible for or the source of, logic!
This is presented as an absolute statement of fact, and I find several points of muddiness.
1) We are assuming that God and logic both exist, which, logically speaking, may not be the case in reality.
2) But if we assume that logic and the biblical God are valid, then it is not a question, but an objective pronouncement of fact: Either God is responsible for logics existence, or he is not! This is not a premise to be proved or tested, but a factual statement. The question is not A or B, A or B is a logical reality. The question is which side is true.
The argument of the Syllogism is meaningless because what the philosopher terms a logical fallacy is not an assumption that P or non P must be solved, it is, in itself, a objective truth. It is true that either God is responsible for logic or God is not. The negation of one does not prove the other to be the correct answer.
If I were to say "either I am, at this moment, alive or I am not alive", the logical response is simply, yes that is true. The question then is what is the evidence for either side of the dilemma. To say, as the philosopher does, that the syllogism:
Premise 1) aa)Alive or bb) not alive
Premise 2) Negate one of the options, eg, to falsify aa) alive, necessarily means that bb) not alive is the only option, and therefore,
Conclusion) I am not alive at this moment!
is true, and is technically correct, but it does not tell us why aa) alive, is false. The question is not if the statement " I am, at this moment, alive or I am not alive/I am dead" is a true statement, that is an objective fact.
Thus to syllogize that:
1) Either God exists or God does not exist.
2) Negate that God exist
is to assume the arguments presented between 1) and 2) are valid. But that is the real question of the either/or dichotomy. We already know that either God exists or he doesn't exist; this is not the question! The real question is not placed in the syllogism, it is assumed to be answered when we enter premise two and negate or falsify one of the options.
The philosopher was/is correct, but the question that Matt was trying to answer by use of the philosopher's syllogism was not the same question that the syllogism was meant to prove or answer!
Matt, and the theistic position aren't asking if P or non P is true, for that is self evident, we are asking which option is true, and why?
Doug
And you would of done a much better job by far in a discussion with the philosopher in the video. I don't know about that, but it was not a good impression of Matt. Doug |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Sept 13, 2022 8:31:23 GMT -8
And you would of done a much better job by far in a discussion with the philosopher in the video. I don't know about that, but it was not a good impression of Matt. Doug Agreed on the impression. |
|
|
|
Post by Bible Highlighter on Sept 20, 2022 14:14:59 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. |
|
|
|
Post by Bible Highlighter on Sept 20, 2022 14:19:34 GMT -8
|
|
slyzr
Full Member
Posts: 124
|
Post by slyzr on Sept 30, 2022 10:49:16 GMT -8
Seems like some one was trying to be to smart.
|
|
|
|
Post by Parker on Sept 30, 2022 11:50:00 GMT -8
Seems like some one was trying to be to smart. There be no trying. Either you be or you not be. Sometimes things seem to be but that can be deceiving. |
|
slyzr
Full Member
Posts: 124
|
Post by slyzr on Sept 30, 2022 18:16:45 GMT -8
Seems like some one was trying to be to smart. There be no trying. Either you be or you not be. Sometimes things seem to be but that can be deceiving. Ok ....... Sheesh .... it's like your stealing my material.
Ok .... maybe not. Were is that repentence thingy for not being? |
|
genez
Full Member
Posts: 130
|
Post by genez on Oct 19, 2022 9:37:22 GMT -8
Prop up a dead man on a chair at a table. Have an excellent cook create a delicious meal. One with with hunger inducing aromas. Prop his mouth open. Then tell him about all the wonderful ingredients, even placing a sample under his nose to smell. Will he eat and digest it? Unless some doctor hooks this dead man up to some device to cause his body to come alive? No logic will work from a human perspective. "Let the dead bury their own dead." Matthew 8:22
Though God may be always active around him, the unbeliever is DEAD to God. No human logic will work unless God's grace animates that soul as to have all the dead body around that soul momentarily stripped away from that soul, as to free up that soul to hear the truth his body would deny him from hearing about God. Then that soul will either choose life, or to go back to being dead..... On another note: I thank God that I got to know a few PhD's. They can know a lot about things. Yet, know nothing as they should. Its sad to see. |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Oct 19, 2022 9:58:59 GMT -8
Prop up a dead man on a chair at a table. Have an excellent cook create a delicious meal. One with with hunger inducing aromas. Prop his mouth open. Then tell him about all the wonderful ingredients, even placing a sample under his nose to smell. Will he eat and digest it? Unless some doctor hooks this dead man up to some device to cause his body to come alive? No logic will work from a human perspective. "Let the dead bury their own dead." Matthew 8:22
Though God may be always active around him, the unbeliever is DEAD to God. No human logic will work unless God's grace animates that soul as to have all the dead body around that soul momentarily stripped away from that soul, as to free up that soul to hear the truth his body would deny him from hearing about God. Then that soul will either choose life, or to go back to being dead..... On another note: I thank God that I got to know a few PhD's. They can know a lot about things. Yet, know nothing as they should. Its sad to see. The main difference between the Pharisees and the Sadducees was their differing opinions on the supernatural aspects of religion. To put things simply, the Pharisees believed in the supernatural -- angels, demons, heaven, hell, and so on -- while the Sadducees did not. In this way, the Sadducees were largely secular in their practice of religion. That's why they were so sad you see. |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Jan 30, 2023 6:47:43 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. He recently tried it on the other forum and I tuned in to listen to a question and it was avoided like the plague. The caller asked a question about 1 Tim 4:10 and he talked about everything else except the passage and went of on the meaning of world in another passage. The question was a bout the all people and of course it was dodged. Trying to keep it on topic, exegeting the passage, answering the direct question and not being condensating towards the questioner seems to be the exception and not the rule over there. I always say mud flows downhill from the top. And the thing with him on his platform is he makes the rules. There would need to be a neutral environment for such a discussion. 1 Tim 4:10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe. |
|
