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.
The greatest error on bb
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Luke2427, Jan 18, 2013.
Page 9 of 14
-
-
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? -
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. -
HeirofSalvation Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
HeirofSalvation said: ↑:thumbs: YUP!!! There are obviously some serious mistaken notions about what logic IS and ISN'T.Click to expand...
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. -
Luke2427 said: ↑Which law of logic does it violate, webdog?Click to expand...
-
Originally Posted by Benjamin
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?
Click to expand...Luke2427 said: ↑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.Click to expand...
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! :cool: 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: -
Skandelon said: ↑Syllogisms are a form of logic...deductive reasoning, Luke. How does that not apply to a thread about logic?Click to expand...
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. -
HeirofSalvation said: ↑:thumbs: YUP!!! There are obviously some serious mistaken notions about what logic IS and ISN'T. Miracles in no way violate laws of logic. In fact...it is logic which let's us understand that what we are observing is, in fact, a miracle. In point of fact I believe absolutely no laws are MORE fundamental and un-breakable than the laws of logic. I believe logic is what we observe to be the consistency and order in a consistent and unchanging and non-chaotic God. Logic is something I believe which actually eminates From God. God MADE the natural laws, the Bible teaches Christ sustains them actively. Without God's intentionally sustaining them, natural law would decay and result in chaos. God can break or not break laws of Chemistry Physics etc... all day, he concieved of them in his mind. Logic IS his mind. The status of being a supremely logical being is (I believe) a property that God possesses more than anything else.
What God cannot do, is break the laws of logic. They are a facet of WHO HE IS. God cannot create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it. God cannot make a married bachelor. In short, God is incapable of non-sense in the same way he is incapable of lying or sinning. It is not WHO he is, and he cannot DO or BE anything other than who and what he is.
The worst thing to happen to an understanding of logic is Star Trek...I love the show, but half the time some vulcan claims that something IS or IS NOT logical, I scratch my head and think: What does logic have to do with that question?? I honestly believe whoever initially began writing those scripts had no idea what logic is and isn't.Click to expand...
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. -
webdog said: ↑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:Click to expand...
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. -
HeirofSalvation Well-Known MemberSite Supporterwebdog said: ↑The law of non contradiction for one. A piece of wood cannot be both a rod and a reptile.Click to expand...
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.Click to expand...
This just proves that from our vantage something can be illogical, but from Gods vantage point it is perfectly logical.Click to expand...
We accept Gods vantage point by faith, not our own logic.Click to expand...Click to expand... -
HeirofSalvation Well-Known MemberSite SupporterSkandelon said: ↑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.Click to expand... -
HeirofSalvation said: ↑Logically, yes he absolutely can....he cannot be both a rod and a reptile WITHIN THE SAME RELATIONSHIP....which is why philosophy cares about categories. But piece of wood can be a rod and a reptile in the same sense that you can be both a father and a son (in different relationships). That is how the law of non-contradiction reads. Something cannot be BOTH true and not-true in the same relationship....not universally.Click to expand...
I have ZERO faith in anything God claims to do, if that thing is illogical. If God claimed to do something illogical, I wouldn't believe that it was a work of God...."Super-natural" yes, "illogical" no.Click to expand...
Faith is NEVER illogical...it is supremely logical.... There is no such thing as "blind faith". Blind faith is more accurately and succinctly called "stupidity". Children have faith because their faith is inductively reasoned to trust in a person whom they trust....they don't trust absolute strangers...they fear them. That would be illogical. We come to God with the faith of a child, not because children are ignorant or stupid or illogical, but because what children have faith in is not a set of propositions, they have faith in a person. The children came to Christ not because they had such enduring agreement with Jesus' propositional teaching (which was WAY over their heads) they came to him because they had supreme trust in HIM as a person.Click to expand...Click to expand... -
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 = -
HeirofSalvation Well-Known MemberSite SupporterLuke2427 said: ↑Looking back now, I wish I had left my assertion that Calvinism is logical and other systems are not out of the OP.Click to expand...
Your initial Op....was somewhat reactionary...you had been debating on all sides, taking salvos from Arminians and wussy sunshine and roses single-predestinarian/infra-lapsarian Calvies (who hold their positions illogically because of that "reprehensible" feeling you hate so much).
You were like a cat in a bag after two to three days of dual broadsides....it will ever be your lot if you are consistently and logically Calvinist....which isn't the wussyfied neo-sort normally peddled on this board.
So..... you were perhaps a little over-reached with your statements about other theological systems. I over-looked it, and didn't harshly call you on it because, well, you pretty much exist on a complete island; and you had been defending that island single-handedly for several active days in a row....Your Op would have been more well thought out had you waited a day or two first :laugh:
I wasn't ticked though....I could feel your blood boiling through the PC.. and knew why you were somewhat unfair to your loyal opposition. :thumbs:Click to expand... -
HeirofSalvation Well-Known MemberSite Supporterwebdog said: ↑HeirofSalvation said: ↑Aaron's staff became a reptile which violates this law.
The thing is from our vantage it is illogical, but we place faith in God knowing from His perspective it is. Our faith is placed in the supernatural, not the logical.
Agreed :thumbs:Click to expand...
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 :)Click to expand... -
Luke2427 said: ↑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.Click to expand...
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. -
HeirofSalvation said: ↑Logically, yes he absolutely can....he cannot be both a rod and a reptile WITHIN THE SAME RELATIONSHIP....which is why philosophy cares about categories. But piece of wood can be a rod and a reptile in the same sense that you can be both a father and a son (in different relationships). That is how the law of non-contradiction reads. Something cannot be BOTH true and not-true in the same relationship....not universally.
Not within the same relationship, no, they can't but in a differing relationship, they can, namely, the set of humans who are presently super-naturally empowered by God at any moment in time vs. those who do not stand in that relationship.
I have ZERO faith in anything God claims to do, if that thing is illogical. If God claimed to do something illogical, I wouldn't believe that it was a work of God...."Super-natural" yes, "illogical" no.
Faith is NEVER illogical...it is supremely logical.... There is no such thing as "blind faith". Blind faith is more accurately and succinctly called "stupidity". Children have faith because their faith is inductively reasoned to trust in a person whom they trust....they don't trust absolute strangers...they fear them. That would be illogical. We come to God with the faith of a child, not because children are ignorant or stupid or illogical, but because what children have faith in is not a set of propositions, they have faith in a person. The children came to Christ not because they had such enduring agreement with Jesus' propositional teaching (which was WAY over their heads) they came to him because they had supreme trust in HIM as a person.Click to expand...
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.
Page 9 of 14