Canon and the Authenticity of Scripture

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Essentially, I think faith is BC's 'missing data'. Belief in the Bible is logical if you have Christian faith - otherwise it is illogical.

There are those, of course, who argue that faith itself is illogical (hard to justify), or more specifically that religious faith is illogical.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Excuse the 2nd post.
Here, the conclusion is "belief in the bible", and the premise is "having Christian faith". Is that a valid inference?
Well let's look at it a bit more.
Is the premise "having Christian faith" valid? How is that derived or is it an axiom? Well it's certainly not an axiom so how is it derived as a valid premise.

One possible way to derive it would be the premise "because it says it in the bible". However in this case the premise is already a conclusion, so the reasoning has become circular and invalidated.

So unless "having Christian faith" can be derived from an alternative valid premise the argument falls apart.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Excuse the 2nd post.
Here, the conclusion is "belief in the bible", and the premise is "having Christian faith". Is that a valid inference?
Well let's look at it a bit more.
Is the premise "having Christian faith" valid? How is that derived or is it an axiom? Well it's certainly not an axiom so how is it derived as a valid premise.

One possible way to derive it would be the premise "because it says it in the bible". However in this case the premise is already a conclusion, so the reasoning has become circular and invalidated.

So unless "having Christian faith" can be derived from an alternative valid premise the argument falls apart.

Here I would say that you've reached the limits of rationalism. "Having Christian faith" is an observed property of a person, which need not be deducible, any more than "having red hair", or "liking custard" would be.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Here I would say that you've reached the limits of rationalism. "Having Christian faith" is an observed property of a person, which need not be deducible, any more than "having red hair", or "liking custard" would be.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It's impossible for "Having Christian Faith" to be an axiom.
Someone had to tell them about Christianity and once that is put in, it's becomes circular again quite quickly.

I just don't see what Christians try to argue it is logical. I support the Irish Soccer / Rugby team, I admit there is an element of irrationality and illogical thinking in that, but I don't care. I just admit it and enjoy it.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

It's impossible for "Having Christian Faith" to be an axiom.
Someone had to tell them about Christianity and once that is put in, it's becomes circular again quite quickly.

I just don't see what Christians try to argue it is logical. I support the Irish Soccer / Rugby team, I admit there is an element of irrationality and illogical thinking in that, but I don't care. I just admit it and enjoy it.

As you say, someone must introduce the person to Christianity, and they must decide to adopt it. Whether logic is involved in that decision, I couldn't say - although Pascal's wager suggests that it could be - that is, someone could claim that the possibility of eternal torment, no matter how slight, is sufficient reason to 'believe'.

Having said that, I would hardly claim that the step of 'having faith' is logical, and I don't think most Christians would claim it either. As I said, 'liking custard', or liking a particular team, is hardly logical, but undeniably something that happens.

I think this is why I always find such arguments slightly ridiculous (no offence is intended). Approaching life as if it were a mathematical problem or a exercise in formal logic tends to prove nothing but that life is not either of those things. Neither maths nor logic are empirical sciences.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

I think this is why I always find such arguments slightly ridiculous (no offence is intended). Approaching life as if it were a mathematical problem or a exercise in formal logic tends to prove nothing but that life is not either of those things. Neither maths nor logic are empirical sciences.

Whereas I would say:
I find it ridiculous having an argument if logic is not used.
It's the equivalent of playing a game without rules.
Your point on Science is interesting. Science would be nowhere without Maths and Logic. Inductive reasoning is the basis for the scientific method and Maths is used extensively for example E = MC pow 2.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Whereas I would say:
I find it ridiculous having an argument if logic is not used.
It's the equivalent of playing a game without rules.
Your point on Science is interesting. Science would be nowhere without Maths and Logic. Inductive reasoning is the basis for the scientific method and Maths is used extensively for example E = MC pow 2.

Obviously, I don't deny that! As you point out, the operation of science is logical, although in general the life and earth sciences owe little to mathematics except a spurious appearance of precision.

My point is that the majority of sciences (my own, geology, particularly) are working from observation and measurement, and that observation and measurement have their limits.

If we take the shape of a particular rock outcrop, and the decision of an individual to have faith, we might say that both have almost certainly been shaped by millions of small chance events, which we cannot observe, or even assert, except in broad outline. The shape of a particular outcrop, then, may be the logical outcome of the processes that shaped it, but that we are so circumscribed in our ability to determine the exact circumstances and effects of those processes that the exact shape of the outcrop only ever enters the system of geology as a single, complete, input.

I would say, then, that it is certainly not a general axiom that an individual has faith, but that when dealing with a specific individual, we can only really treat their particular possession of faith as an observation. We can no more, in reality, tease apart the thousands of events that contributed to their having faith than we can determine exactly why a rock is the particular shape it is.

So, yes, when you are arguing with an individual about their faith, I think you have little choice but to treat their possession of faith as an observation, such that it enters the "system" of your discussion as an axiom.

It is convenient for the non-believer to insist that the believer 'logically justify' their personal faith, but it is equivalent to requiring them to 'logically justify' a liking for custard - both are the outcome of thousands of chance events, unrecorded at the time and no longer separately identifiable.

I am sure that many non-believers will find this conclusion uncomfortable, since it deprives us of an automatic win. However, I cannot see a way round it that does not involve blatant hypocrisy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Scofflaw wrote:

I am sure that many non-believers will find this conclusion uncomfortable, since it deprives us of an automatic win. However, I cannot see a way round it that does not involve blatant hypocrisy.

Good post, and I for one do agree with your reasoning.
Faith cannot be measured logically.

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

I don't deny that! As you point out, the operation of science is logical, although in general the life and earth sciences owe little to mathematics except a spurious appearance of precision.

Well maybe for geology, but for something like Physics, the dependency to Mathematics is very strong.

So, yes, when you are arguing with an individual about their faith, I think you have little choice but to treat their possession of faith as an observation, such that it enters the "system" of your discussion as an axiom.

I think you are contradicting yourself. In some parts of your arguments you are trying to say this is not logical, and in other parts you are trying to argue there is an axiom.
"faith" cannot be an axiom because faith is the relationship between the mind and a supernatural entity. Knowledge of the supernatural entity is a prequisite to this relationship, how can there be a prequisite for an axiom - it makes no sense?

(Note if we keep teasing this one out, I think we will come to an axiom at the mind, but that wshould probably be in the philosophy forum!).

It is convenient for the non-believer to insist that the believer 'logically justify' their personal faith, but it is equivalent to requiring them to 'logically justify' a liking for custard - both are the outcome of thousands of chance events, unrecorded at the time and no longer separately identifiable.

I don't argue that a believer should logically justify their belief; I argue that a beliefer should state that their faith is not logical. When they attempt to argue logically it just makes their faith look stupid.
Many Christians in this forum will attempt to argue logically but they just break the rules of logic consistenty as I have shown.

I am sure that many non-believers will find this conclusion uncomfortable, since it deprives us of an automatic win. However, I cannot see a way round it that does not involve blatant hypocrisy.

For me it's not about winning. All I am trying to point out, what some see as logic is actually not logic; I am sure if you saw someone using Geology which clearly is not Geology you would point that out.
I am also try to figure out why some Christians just can't admit it's not logical?

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well maybe for geology, but for something like Physics, the dependency to Mathematics is very strong.

Physics is pretty much the only science for which that's true, though.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I think you are contradicting yourself. In some parts of your arguments you are trying to say this is not logical, and in other parts you are trying to argue there is an axiom.
"faith" cannot be an axiom because faith is the relationship between the mind and a supernatural entity. Knowledge of the supernatural entity is a prequisite to this relationship, how can there be a prequisite for an axiom - it makes no sense?

Hmm. No, I'm arguing that faith cannot be logically justified by the believer, even if it is logically justifiable, because it is not the result of an identifiable chain of logical reasoning on the part of the believer.

Most clearly, the adoption of belief by an individual is primarily the result of a pre-disposition to believe. Both the theist and the atheist know about God, but one believes, and the other doesn't.

Faith is not, therefore, a "relationship between the mind and a supernatural entity", but straighforwardly a property of the mind requiring no knowledge of a supernatural entity. Indeed, to claim what you do only works well if God actually exists.

Finally, anything may enter a logical system as an axiom if it is adopted by that system as an axiom.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I don't argue that a believer should logically justify their belief; I argue that a beliefer should state that their faith is not logical. When they attempt to argue logically it just makes their faith look stupid.
Many Christians in this forum will attempt to argue logically but they just break the rules of logic consistenty as I have shown.

The condemnation of the theist position as illogical is entirely meaningless to the theist, since it effectively discounts faith a priori.

Essentially, they are operating within the bounds of a system in which faith is taken as axiomatic, and you are not. To you, their arguments must appear as illogical as yours do to them - but the differences between your systems are not in the use of logic within them, but in their essential assumptions.

When I say that faith is not logically justifiable by the believer, this is not the same thing as saying that it is not logically justifiable - it is only that it is practically impossible, since it is likely to be the logical outcome of thousands of events and decisions.

One can insist that the believer should have come to their belief by a simple and identifiable chain of logic, but frankly, that's just silly.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Physics is pretty much the only science for which that's true, though.

Statistical analysis and probability is used extensively in Science for exampe DNA analysis.

I'm arguing that faith cannot be logically justified by the believer, even if it is logically justifiable

Sounds like a contradiction...

[QUOTE
because it is not the result of an identifiable chain of logical reasoning on the part of the believer.
[/QUOTE]
...does not explain the contradiction

Faith is not, therefore, a "relationship between the mind and a supernatural entity", but straighforwardly a property of the mind requiring no knowledge of a supernatural entity.

Your definition of "faith" is meaningless. It's like saying it's a property of a mind that requires no knowledge of the PDs!
What is the point in defining something in terms of what knowledge is not required when you don't state what knowledge is required?

Finally, anything may enter a logical system as an axiom if it is adopted by that system as an axiom.

If you can define anything as an axiom you end up with some strange conclusions.
I know Lions can speak French - say that's my axiom. A young kid asks me for help to speak French, do I logically say: "go and speak to the Lions to work on your accent?"

The condemnation of the theist position as illogical is entirely meaningless to the theist, since it effectively discounts faith a priori.

Disagree, depends on the theist.

Essentially, they are operating within the bounds of a system in which faith is taken as axiomatic, and you are not. To you, their arguments must appear as illogical as yours do to them - but the differences between your systems are not in the use of logic within them, but in their essential assumptions.

Depends on the theist. Some have a clue of logic, e.g. Robert Pollack, Karen Armstrong and I doubt very much they would see my atheist position illogical or there position logical.
It's a pity we don't have a few more theists would a good understanding of logic it would lead to some interesting discussions.

One can insist that the believer should have come to their belief by a simple and identifiable chain of logic, but frankly, that's just silly.

Only someone who doesn't understand logic would say that.

BrianCalgary

Tim Robbins wrote:

Brian, I am not sure what your point is about the "elimanation of data".
You've lost me.

I didn't think you'd understand what I was getting at. You have attempted to discredit Christianity by employing the idea that it applies circular reasoning within the pages of scripture.

In doing so you have elimainated all the data that has arisen from historical analysis of the events contained in the Bible.

The events of the Bible are corroborated by sources outside the Bible. Historical writers support the Bible writers in their accounts. When the historical analysis is presented the only logical conclusion is that the Bible is accurate in it's historicity.

Jesus existed. The question then begs, who did He claim to be and was He? Since there are no writings to disclaim His resurrection, and since the Biblical writers made that challenge by making available witnesses to the risen Christ, the conclusion is that He rose. Since the whole of Christianity lies on the basis of the resurrection and the authorities could not produce the body, even when they had full control over the tomb, the conclusion is that the tomb was empty. Since The tomb was empty and since it was so well guarded and since so many saw Him risen the logical conclusion is that He rose.

That is only a portion of the data you have left out of your argument. Hope that helps.

With regard to the CS Lewis, what other possibilities are there for Christs identity?

robindch

> The events of the Bible are corroborated by sources outside the Bible.

Brian, at the risk of asking a question I've asked many times before, but never got an answer...

Can you point me please to the independent sources (ie, non-biblical) who say that Jesus lived after he died, or who say that his body disappeared?

JimiTime

Ok. I.ve just cut and pasted part of the wikpedia link you gave in your earlier post. From what I see, you have taken on a strict definition of what logic is, when truly its definition is still argued.

Now, if I may give premise for having Faith: I believe the testimonies of the Gospel writers as witnesses.
Now, a premise for believing the gospel writers. They concur with each other. I see no evidence to suggest they lied.

Now why is that not acceptable? By your definition of Logic, your atheism is illogical, as you really have no idea where we came from. As evolution just deals with things from the big bang onwards, you have no premise for being an atheist. You may have theories, or beliefs, but not a premise, unless we then get into a debate about what you define atheism as. Etc, Etc. All and all, i don't really see the point of this discussion anymore. You don't like how the word logic is used by some Christians. I don't see an issue with it, and still find my faith logical. Meaning its not unreasonable, it has a basis for belief and its teachings are wise. Now if you feel the word logic should not be used this way, fair enough, but there will be those who agree and those who disagree. Is there really a point to it?

Wikpedia wrote:

Rival conceptions of logic

Logic arose (see below) from a concern with correctness of argumentation. The conception of logic as the study of argument is historically fundamental, and was how the founders of distinct traditions of logic, namely Plato, Aristotle, Mozi and Aksapada Gautama, conceived of logic. Modern logicians usually wish to ensure that logic studies just those arguments that arise from appropriately general forms of inference; so for example the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says of logic that it "does not, however, cover good reasoning as a whole. That is the job of the theory of rationality. Rather it deals with inferences whose validity can be traced back to the formal features of the representations that are involved in that inference, be they linguistic, mental, or other representations" (Hofweber 2004).

By contrast Immanuel Kant introduced an alternative idea as to what logic is. He argued that logic should be conceived as the science of judgement, an idea taken up in Gottlob Frege's logical and philosophical work, where thought (German: Gedanke) is substituted for judgement (German: Urteil). On this conception, the valid inferences of logic follow from the structural features of judgements or thoughts.

A third view of logic arises from the idea that logic is more fundamental than reason, and so that logic is the science of states of affairs (German: Sachverhalt) in general. Barry Smith locates Franz Brentano as the source for this idea, an idea he claims reaches its fullest development in the work of Adolf Reinach (Smith 1989). This view of logic appears radically distinct from the first: on this conception logic has no essential connection with argument, and the study of fallacies and paradoxes no longer appears essential to the discipline.

Occasionally one encounters a fourth view as to what logic is about: it is a purely formal manipulation of symbols according to some prescribed rules. This conception can be criticized on the grounds that the manipulation of just any formal system is usually not regarded as logic. Such accounts normally omit an explanation of what it is about certain formal systems that makes them systems of logic

Tim Robbins

BrianCalgary wrote:

The events of the Bible are corroborated by sources outside the Bible. Historical writers support the Bible writers in their accounts. When the historical analysis is presented the only logical conclusion is that the Bible is accurate in it's historicity.

This is just ridiculous. Some events have been corroborated, but the significant ones have not. Some events have also been rubbished by Scientific method.
As for saying something as illogical as "the only logical conclusion is that the Bible is accurate", what type of logic are you using there?
Deductive or Inductive? What books on logic have you read?
What makes you think you are using logic correctly?
It appears you haven't a clue about logic.

With regard to the CS Lewis, what other possibilities are there for Christs identity?

Well if you can't figure that out you clearly don't have a clue about logic!
Right let me explain.

CS Lewis thinks there are three possibilities.
1. Christ was a lunatic
2. The history was inaccurate
3. Jesus was the son of God.

For a start there are only three possible outcomes if the outcomes above are mutually exclusive - but they are not.
It is possible for Jesus to a lunatic and for the history to be inaccurate for example.
It is also possible for some of the narratives or the "history" to be accurate and for some of it to be inaccurate. How does that fit into C S Lewis' analysis?

Furthermore, there is another outcome, Jesus was simple mistaken and not a lunatic. How does one define a lunatic?

And finally the number of outcomes is meaningless unless something is known to assign a probability to each one, this comes from probability theory.

C S Lewis writes kids books, he has no command of logic.

BrianCalgary

Tim Robbins wrote:

This is just ridiculous. Some events have been corroborated, but the significant ones have not. Some events have also been rubbished by Scientific method.
As for saying something as illogical as "the only logical conclusion is that the Bible is accurate", what type of logic are you using there?
Deductive or Inductive? What books on logic have you read?
What makes you think you are using logic correctly?
It appears you haven't a clue about logic..

I don't know Tim, you're statement This is just ridiculous. Some events have been corroborated, but the significant ones have not. Some events have also been rubbished by Scientific method. certainly doesn't show any examination of events, nor events that have not been corroborated.

As far as the conclusion of the bible being accurate is utilizing historical and biographical evidence to determine whether or not a particular event happend. You state that I don't know anything about logic, does the 80% + mark I got in logic 25 years ago in college not count? I now question your understanding on the determination of historical evidence to conclude whether or not events happened?

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well if you can't figure that out you clearly don't have a clue about logic!
Right let me explain.

CS Lewis thinks there are three possibilities.
1. Christ was a lunatic
2. The history was inaccurate
3. Jesus was the son of God.

For a start there are only three possible outcomes if the outcomes above are mutually exclusive - but they are not.
It is possible for Jesus to a lunatic and for the history to be inaccurate for example.
It is also possible for some of the narratives or the "history" to be accurate and for some of it to be inaccurate. How does that fit into C S Lewis' analysis?

Furthermore, there is another outcome, Jesus was simple mistaken and not a lunatic. How does one define a lunatic?

And finally the number of outcomes is meaningless unless something is known to assign a probability to each one, this comes from probability theory.

C S Lewis writes kids books, he has no command of logic.

Pretty judgemental on the intelligence of CS Lewis and myself here Tim, careful with the insults, as a student you are making yourself out to be quite arrogant and only a specialist in one line of thinking. round yourself out man, and learn how to debate. That advice is free.

You have CS Lewis wrong, by what I understand. I had his argument as such:

Jesus claimed to be God. There are two possibilities, He is or His isn't. If He is, then you accept Him or reject Him.

If He isn't, that makes Him a liar, because He said He was knowing He wasn't, in which case you can't take anything He says.

or If He isn't it makes Him delusional because He honestly though He was but He wasn't.

I don't see another possibility.

Tim Robbins

BrianCalgary wrote:

I don't know Tim, you're statement This is just ridiculous. Some events have been corroborated, but the significant ones have not. Some events have also been rubbished by Scientific method. certainly doesn't show any examination of events, nor events that have not been corroborated.

My statement is correct. I have elaborated several times in this forum that the miracles such as walking on water, loaf and fishes have not been corroborated by any other historian.
So have other debaters in this forum such as Robindch. Anytime that has been pointed out to you, you ignore it.

As far as the conclusion of the bible being accurate is utilizing historical and biographical evidence to determine whether or not a particular event happend. You state that I don't know anything about logic, does the 80% + mark I got in logic 25 years ago in college not count?

Well if you claim to know about logic, you should state what logical system you are using, deductive or inductive for exampe. Tell us why you ar using it, and how you are using it correctly.
But you have ignored that anytime you have been challenged to state what logical system you are using. You were also asked to pinpoint at what step the circular logic was broken and you avoided that with some longwinded argument.

I now question your understanding on the determination of historical evidence to conclude whether or not events happened?

You should always question.

Pretty judgemental on the intelligence of CS Lewis and myself here Tim, careful with the insults, as a student you are making yourself out to be quite arrogant and only a specialist in one line of thinking. round yourself out man, and learn how to debate. That advice is free.

Just because someone argues for Christianity, doesn't mean we can't challenge it. C S Lewis does write kids books that is correct.
He is not respected for logic, by anybody who knows anything about logic. He never wrote anything about Maths, Science, pure logic or anything to show he had an ability to think logically. He wrote kids books a few books on theology.
That is also correct. You are just straw manning me by making me out to someone who opts for facile insults when all I am doing is stating facts..

You have CS Lewis wrong, by what I understand. I had his argument as such:

I'll work through you wording of it (although it's basically the same argument).

Jesus claimed to be God. There are two possibilities, He is or His isn't. If He is, then you accept Him or reject Him.

Incorrect, there's another possibilty there, he did not claim to be God and some people were mistaken thinking he did claim to be God.
Or he claimed to be related to another God, not the God of the OT and he was misquoted.

If He isn't, that makes Him a liar, because He said He was knowing He wasn't, in which case you can't take anything He says.

Incorrect. He could have thought he was God, but was mistaken. This does not make him a liar.

or If He isn't it makes Him delusional because He honestly though He was but He wasn't.

Well a little bit of a straw man there. He may have been delusional about that but not delusional in general, in the sameway someone may be delusional about their ability as a Footballer but about everything else they are spot on.

I don't see another possibility.

Mistakes in your and CS lewis' logic have been pointed out.
What's more, there are several other possibilities:

For example, you can apply pretty much the exact same "arguments" to the Gospel authors:

* The people writting about Jesus were delusional or mistaken.
* The people writing about Jesus were liars

In fact, you can apply pretty much the exact same arguments to the people who now preach for Jesus:

* The people preaching about Jesus are delusional or mistaken.
* The people preaching about Jesus are liars

In fact you can apply this C S Lewis delusion / liar argument to anything.

* The people who say there is a Canada are delusional or mistaken.
* The people who say there is a Canada are liars.
or there is a Canada.

Or

* The people who say they can eat 500 steaks in a row are delusional or mistaken
* The people who say they can eat steaks are liars.
or the people can eat 500 steaks,

It should be clear these CS Lewis arguments are nothing but hairbrained meaningless logic which can be applied to something true or false, They tell us nothing so they are not even an argument IMO just a flirtation with rhetoric that is deceptively logic to those who don't understand logic.

And does it really cover "all possibilities". Well again this is ridiculous, because to cover all possibilities one has to include every possible case such as:

* Jesus started off as the son of God, but then God changed his mind and decided he wasn't the son of God.

* There are 58 Gods and they put it to a democratic vote to send someone down called Jesus and trick a few people into thinking there was only 1 God for the laugh.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Statistical analysis and probability is used extensively in Science for exampe DNA analysis.

Well, yes, but lab coats are used even more extensively, and I'm pretty certain science wouldn't grind to a halt without them. You seem to be mistaking 'used extensively' for 'dependency on' - the latter being your claim.

Tim Robbins wrote:

If you can define anything as an axiom you end up with some strange conclusions.
I know Lions can speak French - say that's my axiom. A young kid asks me for help to speak French, do I logically say: "go and speak to the Lions to work on your accent?"

Tck tck. If you put forward "lions can speak French" as an axiom, then it's an axiom. Let's have a look at "Axioms 101" from Wiki:

An axiom is any sentence, proposition, statement or rule that forms the basis of a formal system. Unlike theorems, axioms are neither derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by formal proofs. Instead, an axiom is taken for granted as valid, and serves as a necessary starting point for deducing and inferencing logically consistent propositions. In many usages, "axiom," "postulate," and "assumption" are used interchangeably.

Now, you may not have a clear idea of how science operates, but it's reasonably simple:

1. we observe a process, event, or something of interest
2. we put forward a hypothesis to explain it
3. the hypothesis consists of a number of assumptions - these are the axioms of the formal system of our hypothesis
4. following logically from our assumptions, we attempt to come to a point where a testable prediction is derived logically from our assumptions
5. we test the predictions
6. if the tests do not yield the predicted results, our assumptions, or our logical steps, are faulty
7. assuming our logical steps are good, we now know our assumptions are wrong

In the case of your postulate above - that lions speak French - we can readily derive a number of testable predictions (that lions should be able to 'speak', that they should have the necessary vocal equipment, that they should learn french from each other), and equally rapidly observe it to be false.

In other words, science is the empirical testing of postulates/assumptions/axioms by testing logically derived predictions.

So, your idea that "if you can define anything as an axiom you end up with some strange conclusions" is true - indeed, that's how science discovers the strange things it discovers. Taking it in context, you appear to be under the strange misapprehension that there are only certain things that can be used as axioms, and not others. Perhaps you are thinking of the following:

Wikipedia wrote:

In certain epistemological theories, an axiom is a self-evident truth upon which other knowledge must rest, and from which other knowledge is built up. An axiom in this sense can be known before one knows any of these other propositions. Not all epistemologists agree that any axioms, understood in that sense, exist.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Only someone who doesn't understand logic would say that.

Gosh. I'd be wounded, were it not for the excellent company I appear to be keeping:

Tim Robbins wrote:

C S Lewis writes kids books, he has no command of logic.

Of course, it's always a pleasure to find someone who's so much sharper than an renowned Oxford professor, lifetime scholar, and one of Western Christianity's best thought of apologists. I guess he was just lucky he'd died before you came along to debunk him.

Anyway, got to go - time to read The Screwtape Letters to the kids...I await your own publications with great interest, and hope that you'll do better than a few "kids books".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

You seem to be mistaking 'used extensively' for 'dependency on' - the latter being your claim.

Both "used extensively" and "dependency on" are both valid.

Tck tck. If you put forward "lions can speak French" as an axiom, then it's an axiom. Let's have a look at "Axioms 101" from Wiki:

Agree (my point is you can get all sorts of strange conclusions if anything is accepted as axiom).
What's more, in your argument where "faith" is an axiom, it isn't even clearly defined what faith is.
I also pointed that out.

Now, you may not have a clear idea of how science operates, but it's reasonably simple:

1. we observe a process, event, or something of interest
2. we put forward a hypothesis to explain it
3. the hypothesis consists of a number of assumptions - these are the axioms of the formal system of our hypothesis
4. following logically from our assumptions, we attempt to come to a point where a testable prediction is derived logically from our assumptions
5. we test the predictions
6. if the tests do not yield the predicted results, our assumptions, or our logical steps, are faulty
7. assuming our logical steps are good, we now know our assumptions are wrong

Believe it or not, I do understand the Scientific method, not a bad explaination there, although you left out the shift from hypotheisis to theory and how a theory remains valid.

In the case of your postulate above - that lions speak French - we can readily derive a number of testable predictions (that lions should be able to 'speak', that they should have the necessary vocal equipment, that they should learn french from each other), and equally rapidly observe it to be false.

In other words, science is the empirical testing of postulates/assumptions/axioms by testing logically derived predictions.

So, your idea that "if you can define anything as an axiom you end up with some strange conclusions" is true - indeed, that's how science discovers the strange things it discovers. Taking it in context, you appear to be under the strange misapprehension that there are only certain things that can be used as axioms, and not others. Perhaps you are thinking of the following:

Gosh. I'd be wounded, were it not for the excellent company I appear to be keeping:

You are now jumping from logic to the scientific method. We are debating logic right now.
The Scientific method is an expanded form of inductive logic which will include an error condition which will chuck out either the assumptions (or axioms) or the theory (the relationship between cause and effect). It is based on inductive logic but adds that extra bit on which makes it the Scientific method, not just simply "inductive logic".

Logic is purely concerned with if an inference is valid or not. It is not concerned with negating the axiom, the axiom is taken as a given, it is the job of the logician to determine if the inference is valid not the axiom.

You are straw manning me, by jumping over to the scientific method. I am discussing core logic, not the Scientific method. Someone brought up Science and I just pointed out that Science used both logic and maths. Although I agree you can
use other techniques to determine if the axiom is valid.
In the case where "faith" is an axiom, I challenged your meaning of the word to determine if it was valid.
In the case of Lion speaking French, you are using the Scientific method, not just inductive logic or deductive logic to determine if the axiom is valid.

Of course, it's always a pleasure to find someone who's so much sharper than an renowned Oxford professor, lifetime scholar, and one of Western Christianity's best thought of apologists. I guess he was just lucky he'd died before you came along to debunk him.

Anyway, got to go - time to read The Screwtape Letters to the kids...I await your own publications with great interest, and hope that you'll do better than a few "kids books".

And the sarcasm detector goes beep.
You are actually contradicting yourself here. One post you say

One can insist that the believer should have come to their belief by a simple and identifiable chain of logic, but frankly, that's just silly.

I agreed with this. C S Lewis does try to come to his "belief by a simple and identifiable chain of logic". His books are an attempt at insisting his Christian concluision is rational and logical.
So in your opinion, he should be "silly". But now you are having a go at me, for pointing out mistakes in his logic.

To get hung up on C S Lewis itself is a logical fallacy. His arguments are either logically valid or invalid irrespective of who wrote them.

But it doesn't surprise me, he wrote kids books and not Mathematical ones.

Tim Robbins

JimiTime wrote:

Ok. I.ve just cut and pasted part of the wikpedia link you gave in your earlier post. From what I see, you have taken on a strict definition of what logic is, when truly its definition is still argued.

Now, if I may give premise for having Faith: I believe the testimonies of the Gospel writers as witnesses.
Now, a premise for believing the gospel writers. They concur with each other. I see no evidence to suggest they lied.

Not bad.
There are two number of problems with your axiom which is the correctness of the gospel:

1. You refuse to consider the situation that they may have been mistaken. You think it is a boolean situation of them lieing or not. That's incorrect.

2. They don't concur with each other. There are two different genalogies given for Joseph. There are several other contradictions.

3. You are discounting the non canonical Gospels, The Gospel of Peter for example which also contradicts the canonical Gospels. There are several other non canonical Gospels which contradict the canonical ones.

4.
Your argument can apply to anything that is written down.
Pick up the Daily Mail and you may be told Britney spears is having affair with Colin Farrell. You may even be told it is written by a witnesses. It doesn't
mean all of a sudden that it is true because you have no evidence they were lieing. It can either be true, they are mistaken or they are lieing. You have no evidence to say which one is more likely so they all default to probability equal to unknown which is pretty much meaningless.

Now why is that not acceptable? By your definition of Logic, your atheism is illogical, as you really have no idea where we came from. As evolution just deals with things from the big bang onwards, you have no premise for being an atheist. You may have theories, or beliefs, but not a premise, unless we then get into a debate about what you define atheism as. Etc, Etc. All and all, i don't really see the point of this discussion anymore. You don't like how the word logic is used by some Christians. I don't see an issue with it, and still find my faith logical. Meaning its not unreasonable, it has a basis for belief and its teachings are wise. Now if you feel the word logic should not be used this way, fair enough, but there will be those who agree and those who disagree. Is there really a point to it?

You have a point here. There may be a God and I may be wrong, I accept that. There may also be tooth fairies and unicorns and I could be wrong on that too.

The best logic or evidence I can give you there is no God is the following:

Well first of all let's define what is meant by God. Obviously it varies between religion and theology but most at least the abrahamic traditions would say:
God is all caring, all able and all knowing.
Well then why does a kid get cancer?
That's not all able, all caring and all knowing.

It is impossible for a kid to get cancer and for there to be a God who is all caring all able and all knowing. If he exists he is either not all able, not all knowing or not all caring.
In which case he is not the definition of God we are using. So we must come up with an alternative definition.

If you wish to refute this with the free will argument, I suggest take it in a separate thread.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Both "used extensively" and "dependency on" are both valid.

The majority of sciences do not have a dependency on maths in the way that you have claimed - your claim that they do is simply incorrect.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Agree (my point is you can get all sorts of strange conclusions if anything is accepted as axiom).
What's more, in your argument where "faith" is an axiom, it isn't even clearly defined what faith is.
I also pointed that out.

In an argument about whether scripture is valid, the faith of the believer (say, BrianCalgary) is axiomatic. That is, the 'system' of the argument needs to assume that Brian has faith in God - that he believes that God exists, is worshippable, that the Bible is His word etc etc. Faith itself is not axiomatic.

In other words, I am saying that we have to take it at face value that Brian believes what he says he believes. This is not the same as claiming that God exists, or that the Bible is true.

What we are doing is testing whether Brian is right to believe what he believes by testing the logical outcomes of that belief. "Brian is right to believe the Bible is true" is the axiom we are testing.

You, as far as I can see, are simply assuming that Brian is incorrect to believe this, and have moved on to challenging why he believes the Bible to be true.

So, the circularity of the argument that "the Bible is the word of God because it says it's the word of God, and I believe it when it says it because I believe it's the word of God" is only apparent if you assume that it is incorrect to believe that it's the word of God.

If we wish to test whether Brian is correct to believe that the Bible is the word of God, we need to first assume that he is correct to do so, and test the logical outcomes of that assumption. We cannot do so by assuming that he is wrong to believe it, and that is what your argument requires.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Believe it or not, I do understand the Scientific method, not a bad explaination there, although you left out the shift from hypotheisis to theory and how a theory remains valid.

Yes, I did - because it is irrelevant here. However, for completeness - a hypothesis becomes, in scientific terms, a theory, through continued non-failure.

Tim Robbins wrote:

You are now jumping from logic to the scientific method. We are debating logic right now.

Not really. We are debating how to get to truth.

Tim Robbins wrote:

The Scientific method is an expanded form of inductive logic which will include an error condition which will chuck out either the assumptions (or axioms) or the theory (the relationship between cause and effect).

In general, the way that scientific hypotheses are tested is as indicated - by assuming that they are true, so that they becomes the axioms of the testable framework that derives from them. There is no separate 'theory' bit - a scientific theory is merely a well-tested hypothesis.

Tim Robbins wrote:

It is based on inductive logic but adds that extra bit on which makes it the Scientific method, not just simply "inductive logic".

Logic is purely concerned with if an inference is valid or not. It is not concerned with negating the axiom, the axiom is taken as a given, it is the job of the logician to determine if the inference is valid not the axiom.

You are straw manning me, by jumping over to the scientific method. I am discussing core logic, not the Scientific method. Someone brought up Science and I just pointed out that Science used both logic and maths. Although I agree you can use other techniques to determine if the axiom is valid.

The job of the logician is, as you have pointed out, to determine whether the inferences from the axiom are valid. I am not, for that reason, discussing 'core logic'.

What is under discussion here is your choice to dismiss the axioms of the argument because you have assumed them to be inferences. This is not a 'straw man'.

Tim Robbins wrote:

In the case where "faith" valid, I just used challenge your meaning of the word to determine if it was valid.
In the case of Lion speaking French, you are using the Scientific method, not just inductive logic or deductive logic to determine if the axiom is valid.

Indeed - perhaps because, as you point out above, "it is the job of the logician to determine if the inference is valid not the axiom".

In a system where 'lions speak French' is an inference, rather than an axiom, we would need to work back to determine your axioms.

The question is, is 'I believe the Bible to be the word of God' an inference (that depends on some other belief), or an axiom (a belief in itself)?

If Brian reaches his conclusion that the Bible is the word of God as a logical inference from his (separately established) belief in God, then the circularity of that argument is relevant.

However, if Brian believes that the Bible is the word of God, as well as believing in God, then his belief that the Bible is the word of God is an axiom, and it is irrelevant whether inferring one from the other is circular or not.

Now, if Brian believed in God, and believed that the Quran was the word of God, he'd be a Muslim. If he believed the Book of Mormon was the word of God, he'd be a Mormon. Belief that the Bible, rather than any other book, is the word of God, is an essential part of being a Christian.

So, that Brian is a Christian establishes his belief that the Bible is the word of God as axiomatic, not inferential. This being so, your argument in respect of the circularity of deriving 'belief that the Bible is the word of God' from 'belief in God' is irrelevant.

Tim Robbins wrote:

And the sarcasm detector goes beep.
You are actually contradicting yourself here. One post you say

I agreed with this. C S Lewis does try to come to his "belief by a simple and identifiable chain of logic". His books are an attempt at insisting his Christian concluision is rational and logical.
So in your opinion, he should be "silly". But now you are having a go at me, for pointing out mistakes in his logic.

Not really. Obviously, I don't find Lewis' arguments compelling myself, or I'd be a Christian!

Insofar as I am having a go at you, it because you appear to think that a quick dismissal of one of Lewis' arguments is sufficient to dimiss the entire body of his work....

Tim Robbins wrote:

To get hung up on C S Lewis itself is a logical fallacy. His arguments are either logically valid or invalid irrespective of who wrote them.

But it doesn't surprise me, he wrote kids books and not Mathematical ones.

...which as far as I can see you think consists of the Narnia series. Arrogance combined with ignorance is a particularly unappealing combination.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

The majority of sciences do not have a dependency on maths in the way that you have claimed - your claim that they do is simply incorrect.

Science relises on empiracle data which extensively uses statistics which is maths.

In an argument about whether scripture is valid, the faith of the believer (say, BrianCalgary) is axiomatic. That is, the 'system' of the argument needs to assume that Brian has faith in God - that he believes that God exists, is worshippable, that the Bible is His word etc etc. Faith itself is not axiomatic.

It depends on the theist. If you look at JimiTime, she does it the other way around, her faith is the conclusion not the axiom. If anything this shows how circular the reasoning is.
You still have not defined what you mean by faith!

In other words, I am saying that we have to take it at face value that Brian believes what he says he believes. This is not the same as claiming that God exists, or that the Bible is true.

What we are doing is testing whether Brian is right to believe what he believes by testing the logical outcomes of that belief. "Brian is right to believe the Bible is true" is the axiom we are testing.

You usually test conclusions and inferences not axioms in logic. You are jumping between the scientific method and core logic and it is difficult to follow your argument.

You, as far as I can see, are simply assuming that Brian is incorrect to believe this, and have moved on to challenging why he believes the Bible to be true.

???

So, the circularity of the argument that "the Bible is the word of God because it says it's the word of God, and I believe it when it says it because I believe it's the word of God" is only apparent if you assume that it is incorrect to believe that it's the word of God.

That was not the circular argument I put forward.

If we wish to test whether Brian is correct to believe that the Bible is the word of God, we need to first assume that he is correct to do so, and test the logical outcomes of that assumption. We cannot do so by assuming that he is wrong to believe it, and that is what your argument requires.

Where do I assume it is wrong to believe?

Not really. We are debating how to get to truth.

Well let's not jump between core logic and the scientific method as they are different or if you are state why you are jumping and why? Otherwise the debate turns into a diatribe.

In general, the way that scientific hypotheses are tested is as indicated - by assuming that they are true, so that they becomes the axioms of the testable framework that derives from them. There is no separate 'theory' bit - a scientific theory is merely a well-tested hypothesis.

No they are tested by testing a prediction which is falsiable not by assuming they are true.

The job of the logician is, as you have pointed out, to determine whether the inferences from the axiom are valid. I am not, for that reason, discussing 'core logic'.

Ok thanks for pointing that out, you are shifting the debate from core logic to the scientific method.

What is under discussion here is your choice to dismiss the axioms of the argument because you have assumed them to be inferences. This is not a 'straw man'.

How can an axiom be an inference?

In a system where 'lions speak French' is an inference, rather than an axiom, we would need to work back to determine your axioms.

Ok, well if you work to examine the validity of the axiom then you must be consistent you must also work back and examine the axiom of faith which you don't even bother clearly defining!

The question is, is 'I believe the Bible to be the word of God' an inference (that depends on some other belief), or an axiom (a belief in itself)?

Why use the definite article? That surely merits an indefinite article -ie a question not "the" question??

If Brian reaches his conclusion that the Bible is the word of God as a logical inference from his (separately established) belief in God, then the circularity of that argument is relevant.

That cannot be deductively valid

However, if Brian believes that the Bible is the word of God, as well as believing in God, then his belief that the Bible is the word of God is an axiom, and it is irrelevant whether inferring one from the other is circular or not.

????

Now, if Brian believed in God, and believed that the Quran was the word of God, he'd be a Muslim. If he believed the Book of Mormon was the word of God, he'd be a Mormon. Belief that the Bible, rather than any other book, is the word of God, is an essential part of being a Christian.

So, that Brian is a Christian establishes his belief that the Bible is the word of God as axiomatic, not inferential. This being so, your argument in respect of the circularity of deriving 'belief that the Bible is the word of God' from 'belief in God' is irrelevant.

Why not let Brian state what he thinks is his axiom?

Insofar as I am having a go at you, it because you appear to think that a quick dismissal of one of Lewis' arguments is sufficient to dimiss the entire body of his work....

Straw man. When do I say because I can dismiss one of his arguments I can dismiss his entire work?

[QUOTE
...which as far as I can see you think consists of the Narnia series.
[/QUOTE]
Incorrect, I know he has written several Christian books and kids books.

Arrogance combined with ignorance is a particularly unappealing combination.

That's actually a logical fallacy, you are trying to argue the identity arguer and not the argument.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Science relises on empiracle data which extensively uses statistics which is maths.

Science relies on observations, which are not maths. In a limited number of circumstances, statistical data is relevant.

Tim Robbins wrote:

It depends on the theist. If you look at JimiTime, she does it the other way around, her faith is the conclusion not the axiom. If anything this shows how circular the reasoning is.

That is a fair point. Different theists do indeed believe that they arrive at their "faith" in different ways. Usually, the closer to fundamentalist, the more likely they are to claim that their belief in the Bible is derived entirely from the "historicity" of the Bible, its "compelling logic", the "scientific truth of Genesis", or somesuch.

In general, such arguments are false, of course, and can be relatively easily shown to be so. If this is what you wish to do, I certainly wouldn't argue against it.

Tim Robbins wrote:

You still have not defined what you mean by faith!

'Having Christian faith' = 'believing that the God described by the Bible exists and is worshippable'.

Tim Robbins wrote:

No they are tested by testing a prediction which is falsiable not by assuming they are true.

Loose terminology on my part, perhaps. "Assume that the sun is a ball of gas" as an assumption would seem to be the same as "Assume it is true that the sun is a ball of gas".

Scofflaw wrote:

What is under discussion here is your choice to dismiss the axioms of the argument because you have assumed them to be inferences. This is not a 'straw man'.

Tim Robbins wrote:

How can an axiom be an inference?

It can't (within the same logical system anyway).I am saying that you have taken to be an inference what is actually an axiom.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Ok, well if you work to examine the validity of the axiom then you must be consistent you must also work back and examine the axiom of faith which you don't even bother clearly defining!

OK.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Why use the definite article? That surely merits an indefinite article -ie a question not "the" question??

It's probably the essential question here, if we want to put the debate on a logical footing.

Tim Robbins wrote:

That cannot be deductively valid

If you mean that "Brian reaches his conclusion that the Bible is the word of God as a logical inference from his (separately established) belief in God" cannot be deductively valid, then I would tend to agree.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

However, if Brian believes that the Bible is the word of God, as well as believing in God, then his belief that the Bible is the word of God is an axiom, and it is irrelevant whether inferring one from the other is circular or not.

????

What exactly puzzles you about this. If 'believes in Bible' and 'believes in God' are separate assumptions, there's no reason to try and establish the validity of one with reference to the other.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Why not let Brian state what he thinks is his axiom?

From long experience of creationists, I find that they usually claim that their belief in the Bible is established by the factual accuracy of the Bible. You need to press a creationist long and hard before they will admit that they believe in the Bible first, and establish by inference that it must therefore be true.

Again, if what you wish to argue here is that people who make such claims are talking illogical rubbish, I certainly agree.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Straw man. When do I say because I can dismiss one of his arguments I can dismiss his entire work?

Incorrect, I know he has written several Christian books and kids books.

That's actually a logical fallacy, you are trying to argue the identity arguer and not the argument.

Oh, please. These are neither straw men nor ad hominems.

If you are aware that Lewis wrote things other than "kids books", then your initial dismissal of him as "C S Lewis writes kids books, he has no command of logic" is particularly egregious. As to the other point, you haven't addressed any of CS Lewis' arguments except one, and you have certainly dismissed him.

You come across in this debate as both arrogant and ignorant. I am not dismissing your argument on that basis, and therefore it's not an ad hominem, although it's certainly an insult.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Science relies on observations, which are not maths. In a limited number of circumstances, statistical data is relevant.

Another contradiction.
You did say:
"The majority of sciences do not have a dependency on maths in the way that you have claimed - your claim that they do is simply incorrect."

Now you say:
"In a limited number of circumstances, statistical data is irrelevant."

That is a fair point. Different theists do indeed believe that they arrive at their "faith" in different ways. Usually, the closer to fundamentalist, the more likely they are to claim that their belief in the Bible is derived entirely from the "historicity" of the Bible, its "compelling logic", the "scientific truth of Genesis", or somesuch.

In general, such arguments are false, of course, and can be relatively easily shown to be so. If this is what you wish to do, I certainly wouldn't argue against it.

Ah come on! I've been pointing out throughout this debate out arguments based on scripture are not arguments, they are illogical and get circular quite quickly, now you are saying it is ok to rubbish this arguments but you have been having a go at me for going to some detail for trying to do that.

Another contradiction!

'Having Christian faith' = 'believing that the God described by the Bible exists and is worshippable'.

How can that be an axiom? It requires a knowledge of God and the Bible?
How can axiom have a prequisite?

It can't (within the same logical system anyway).I am saying that you have taken to be an inference what is actually an axiom.

Be more specific. Detail the axiom, the inference and why they are mixed up.


[/QUOTE]
What exactly puzzles you about this. If 'believes in Bible' and 'believes in God' are separate assumptions, there's no reason to try and establish the validity of one with reference to the other.

???
Since when do you not challenge the validity of something with reference to something else?

You simply chalenge the validity of something as many ways as you can.

From long experience of creationists, I find that they usually claim that their belief in the Bible is established by the factual accuracy of the Bible. You need to press a creationist long and hard before they will admit that they believe in the Bible first, and establish by inference that it must therefore be true.

What sort of logic is the sentence:
"You need to press a creationist long and hard before they will admit that they believe in the Bible first, and establish by inference that it must therefore be true."

You have an inference, but it is unclear what the premise and conclusion is.

Again, if what you wish to argue here is that people who make such claims are talking illogical rubbish, I certainly agree.

Well I'm glad we agree on something.

Oh, please. These are neither straw men nor ad hominems. You come across in this debate as both arrogant and ignorant. I am not dismissing your argument on that basis, and therefore it's not an ad hominem, although it's certainly an insult.

If you are aware that Lewis wrote things other than "kids books", then your initial dismissal of him as "C S Lewis writes kids books, he has no command of logic" is particularly egregious.

I did say he also writes theology books and went to some length to disect his logic for his most famous argument. Examing it step by step. Then when Brian reworded it, I went through that step by step. My emphasis has always been on logic and valid inferences, I don't think it's fair to label me as arrogant.

If you don't mind me saying, you remind of some of those religious folk who resort to name calling when in debate.

As to the other point, you haven't addressed any of CS Lewis' arguments except one, and you have certainly dismissed him.

I picked his most famous one.
I can pick another one. In another book (can't remember the name) he says that sometimes things that are unlikely are actually true. I don't even think that even warrants a logical disection, do you?
If you want we can create a separate C S Lewis thread and take them all apart there.

I confident I can challenge any C S Lewis argument for Christian faith, I'll let you or anyone pick it.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> The events of the Bible are corroborated by sources outside the Bible.

Brian, at the risk of asking a question I've asked many times before, but never got an answer...

Can you point me please to the independent sources (ie, non-biblical) who say that Jesus lived after he died, or who say that his body disappeared?

that's because I keep forgetting about you.

In doing historical analysis you read accounts by one author. If there is nothing written to dispute those accounts then they are assumed and taken to be true.

In the case of the NT, when put under such scrutiny we see that extrabiblical writings cooroborate certain aspects of Christ's life as ladi out in the gospel accounts, therefore the conclusion is made that on such a large event with far reaching consequences as the resurrection, there is not a single writing from that time that disputes the Biblical account.

With regard to His body, it is known how the Romans operated with respect to political prisoners and since Jesus was a political prisoner it is known how the guard on His tomb was set. It matches up with the NT.

You have a sect that is troublesome, that is based on the resurrection, many witnesses (over 500) are available for examination by the authorities. The Romans owned teh body, since they guarded it, yet they couldn't produce it. That is all they had to do to kill off Christianity, produce the body, deny His resurrection. But they couldn't produce the body, because they didn't have it, nor could they get it.

BrianCalgary

ax·i·om
–noun

1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.

2. a universally accepted principle or rule.

3. Logic, Mathematics. a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.

I am confused at you use of axiom? Are you arguing the truth of the Bible or the existence of God, or the the Deity of Christ?

Tim, another piece of free advice: your arrogance comes through loud and clear as you respond with any difficult question with the phrase: straw man. You dismiss us little serfs, who have absolutely no knowledge of logic as being stupid little beings whose thoughts and arguments have been easily dismissed and pushed aside by you. You, who are the expert on everything logic. That is how you come across.

I have spent over a year on these boards and although scofflaw, robin and wicknight disagree withg me in many areas, I have a healthy respect for them and look forward to reading their posts, it is interesting and enjoyable. I would have to say that I would look forward to the day when I could meet them face to face and share a pint and a laugh. At this stage you do not fit into that category. Careful.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Another contradiction.
You did say:
"The majority of sciences do not have a dependency on maths in the way that you have claimed - your claim that they do is simply incorrect."

Now you say:
"In a limited number of circumstances, statistical data is irrelevant."

Er, no, I don't. I say "in a limited number of circumstances statistical data is relevant". That's the opposite, wouldn't you say?

Tim Robbins wrote:

Ah come on! I've been pointing out throughout this debate out arguments based on scripture are not arguments, they are illogical and get circular quite quickly, now you are saying it is ok to rubbish this arguments but you have been having a go at me for going to some detail for trying to do that.
Another contradiction!

There is a difference between agreeing that something should be done, and agreeing that someone is doing it right!

You do find the most surprising things contradictory.

Tim Robbins wrote:

How can that be an axiom? It requires a knowledge of God and the Bible?
How can axiom have a prequisite?

Because. we're. not. talking. about. epistemological. axioms. Therefore. any. assertion. can. be. an. axiom.

Really, now, is there something I need to hit you with? Something in there needs a reset!

Tim Robbins wrote:

Be more specific. Detail the axiom, the inference and why they are mixed up.

'They' are not mixed up. Belief that the Bible is "God's word" is an axiom of the Christian belief system. You are treating it as an inference. You (that is, Tim Robbins, since you seem to have difficulty with this) are mixing up what is an axiom and what is an inference in the Christian faith.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

What exactly puzzles you about this. If 'believes in Bible' and 'believes in God' are separate assumptions, there's no reason to try and establish the validity of one with reference to the other.

???
Since when do you not challenge the validity of something with reference to something else?

You simply chalenge the validity of something as many ways as you can.

As you logically can, yes. To challenge one axiom by claiming that it cannot be derived from another axiom? What does that prove? If one was inferred from the other, it would be an inference, not an axiom.

Tim Robbins wrote:

What sort of logic is the sentence:
"You need to press a creationist long and hard before they will admit that they believe in the Bible first, and establish by inference that it must therefore be true."

You have an inference, but it is unclear what the premise and conclusion is.

Actually, I think you'll find that that's a sentence. Honestly, at this stage I'm worried you'll be calling for me to defend "cordially".

I will expand:

1. creationists claim that the Bible is scientifically and historically true
2. creationists claim that this is why they believe the Bible to be the word of God

This is a false position. Claim 2 is actually made to bolster claim 1, since claim 1 should be capable of proof without reference to claim 2, and the creationist feels that making claim 2 apparently depend on claim 1 is a stronger position.

In fact, the position is the reverse. Creationists believe that the Bible is scientifically and historically accurate because they believe it to be the word of God.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I did say he also writes theology books and went to some length to disect his logic for his most famous argument. Examing it step by step. Then when Brian reworded it, I went through that step by step. My emphasis has always been on logic and valid inferences, I don't think it's fair to label me as arrogant.

If you don't mind me saying, you remind of some of those religious folk who resort to name calling when in debate.

I don't mind you saying it - I am perfectly prepared to play kettle, since you're already playing pot.. It's a personal judgement on a poster who dismisses everyone with a position contrary to his own as clueless about logic - tellingly, you find it very difficult to understand the concept that you might be wrong, and you're very patronising (without any backing I've seen so far).

I will retract the 'ignorant', if you like, but since you were already aware that CS Lewis wote rather more than "kids books" when you wrote your sneering little dismissal, I'll replace it with 'patronising'.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I picked his most famous one.
I can pick another one. In another book (can't remember the name) he says that sometimes things that are unlikely are actually true. I don't even think that even warrants a logical disection, do you?
If you want we can create a separate C S Lewis thread and take them all apart there.

I confident I can challenge any C S Lewis argument for Christian faith, I'll let you or anyone pick it.

As I said, I never found Lewis' arguments compelling myself, so I'll pass. I'd go a thread on whether you're actually 'arrogant and patronising', but I think you've already hanged yourself.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

BrianCalgary wrote:

ax·i·om
–noun

1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.

2. a universally accepted principle or rule.

3. Logic, Mathematics. a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.

I am confused at you use of axiom?

Where? Why?
Be more specific.

Are you arguing the truth of the Bible or the existence of God, or the the Deity of Christ?

None, I am showing several logical fallacies, in several arguments to the above.

Tim, another piece of free advice: your arrogance comes through loud and clear as you respond with any difficult question with the phrase: straw man. You dismiss us little serfs, who have absolutely no knowledge of logic as being stupid little beings whose thoughts and arguments have been easily dismissed and pushed aside by you. You, who are the expert on everything logic. That is how you come across.

What should I say if someone straw man's one of my points?
I question your knowledge of logic, what's wrong with that?
I challenged you to tell me what logical system you are using? You ignore that question? Is that not arrogant.
I disected the C S Lewis argument and you ignored that too.
Is your argument and opinion immune from scrutiny.
Mine certainly are not. By all means challenge and question them. But if all you can do is call me arrogant, it's indicative to me you are incapable of challenging them so you are just resorting to name calling.

I have spent over a year on these boards and although scofflaw, robin and wicknight disagree withg me in many areas, I have a healthy respect for them and look forward to reading their posts, it is interesting and enjoyable. I would have to say that I would look forward to the day when I could meet them face to face and share a pint and a laugh. At this stage you do not fit into that category. Careful.

Well you are any of the aforementioned are welcomed to have pint with me.
Although I must say one thing it really bugs me when I can't challenge an opinion or an argument. By calling me arrogant you are sort of saying I am not entitled to speak my viewpoint.
You should clarify what part of my viewpoint I am not allowed speak. It appears I am not allow point out if someone is straw man'ing me. This doesn't seem fair as it means people are free to straw man in a debate whenever they feel like.
Also, if you are going to have rules, make them consistent. Put it in the charter, you are not allowed point out if you think someone is straw manning you.

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Er, no, I don't. I say "in a limited number of circumstances statistical data is relevant". That's the opposite, wouldn't you say?

Well then the last post had a typo. ok, you are not contradicting yourself on this point. I think we are going off the point we could have a debate in the Science forum how relevant Maths or / and logic is to Science if you want or we could agree to disagree. I am happy to do either.

There is a difference between agreeing that something should be done, and agreeing that someone is doing it right!

I think we should agree to disagree on that too. I am trying to obey rules of logic and disect arguments, I don't know what way you'd do it and why you think it is better?
How can one objectively say their way is better? Is it not arrogant to assume you can just do a better job?
Start a separate thread, have a go and explain to me why your way is better. I'd be curious and interested.
I have no problem admitting you can do a much better job if you can clearly demostrate that you can. I am always interested in better logical techniques.

Because. we're. not. talking. about. epistemological. axioms. Therefore. any. assertion. can. be. an. axiom.

Really, now, is there something I need to hit you with? Something in there needs a reset!

Well you can't have it both ways. If you want that "faith" is an axiom, well then "The Lion can speak French" is just as valid as an axiom and so are all sort of strange axioms that derived from other things which have no solid basis.

'They' are not mixed up. Belief that the Bible is "God's word" is an axiom of the Christian belief system. You are treating it as an inference. You (that is, Tim Robbins, since you seem to have difficulty with this) are mixing up what is an axiom and what is an inference in the Christian faith.

Do you speak for the entire Christian faith? I don't.
It would be interesting to run some logic by a sample set of Christians and see what they think is their axiom or they think one even exists.
Many christians argue there is no logic, no axiom no logical inference, it's all just faith.

In this thread, only one Christian Jimitime has given feedback so far on what she thinks is her base axiom. According to her it is the other way around and the scripture is the axiom, so in our sample set of 1 - it would be you who is mixed up not me.

As you logically can, yes. To challenge one axiom by claiming that it cannot be derived from another axiom? What does that prove? If one was inferred from the other, it would be an inference, not an axiom.

??? Does not make sense ???

Actually, I think you'll find that that's a sentence. Honestly, at this stage I'm worried you'll be calling for me to defend "cordially".

I will expand:

1. creationists claim that the Bible is scientifically and historically true
2. creationists claim that this is why they believe the Bible to be the word of God

This is a false position. Claim 2 is actually made to bolster claim 1, since claim 1 should be capable of proof without reference to claim 2, and the creationist feels that making claim 2 apparently depend on claim 1 is a stronger position.

In fact, the position is the reverse. Creationists believe that the Bible is scientifically and historically accurate because they believe it to be the word of God.

Sorry I don't understand you.

I don't mind you saying it - I am perfectly prepared to play kettle, since you're already playing pot.. It's a personal judgement on a poster who dismisses everyone with a position contrary to his own as clueless about logic - tellingly, you find it very difficult to understand the concept that you might be wrong, and you're very patronising (without any backing I've seen so far).

I have substantiated all my arguments in quite some detail, I haven't just called people clueless. It is unfair for you to make me out to be somebody I am not. Challenge the logic and avoid the name calling.

I have also said in response to a post by JiniTime:
"You have a point here. There may be a God and I may be wrong, I accept that." I stand by that. I may be wrong. That's one reason why I am here to see if someone can find a hole in my logic, I am not here for name calling.

I will retract the 'ignorant', if you like, but since you were already aware that CS Lewis wote rather more than "kids books" when you wrote your sneering little dismissal, I'll replace it with 'patronising'.

well it's factually accurate C S Lewis did write kids books and I have very little respect for him as a theologian.
I would prefer someone Robert Beckford (Christian), Karen Armstrong (General) or Robert Pollack(Jew) as a theologian. They don't use ridiculous logic, in fact they admit a lot of it has very little logical basis. I find once this is done, it's a lot easier to understand and even respect faith.

As I said, I never found Lewis' arguments compelling myself, so I'll pass. I'd go a thread on whether you're actually 'arrogant and patronising', but I think you've already hanged yourself.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well yourself and Brian (perhaps Jinitime) find me arrogant. Not sure why you do and whether others agree?
I don't find you arrogant. I just don't agree with your logic.
It would be interesting to find someone who was in logical agreement with me and if they thought I was arrogant. Then I'd be a bit more worried.

Bottom line, I have no intention to be arrogant, I am very passionate about logic that's all. I have opinions, but not the absolute infallable truth. Noone does.

robindch

> that's because I keep forgetting about you.

Awww, how could you?

> In doing historical analysis you read accounts by one author. If there is
> nothing written to dispute those accounts then they are assumed and
> taken to be true.

Good heavens! What kind of historian is going to read something and think it's true on the one and only condition that no contemporaneous account disagrees?

The Roman Historian Livy wrote about phantom armies marching in the sky. Caesar wrote about German deer standing up when they slept. Plato wrote about a land of conspicuous magnificence called Atlantis. Are you really saying that all of things these are real and they happened just because they have been written down and nobody disagreed?

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote:

Good heavens! What kind of historian is going to read something and think it's true on the one and only condition that no contemporaneous account disagrees?

The Roman Historian Livy wrote about phantom armies marching in the sky. Caesar wrote about German deer standing up when they slept. Plato wrote about a land of conspicuous magnificence called Atlantis. Are you really saying that all of things these are real and they happened just because they have been written down and nobody disagreed?

An excellant point very succintly put.
I tried to point the same out to JiniTime, using an analogy of Colin Farrell and Britney Spears having an affair just because somebody who claimed to be witness wrote it down that they had an affair.
Have you any tips for making points in this forum and not being blasted out as just being arrogant?

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

Good heavens! What kind of historian is going to read something and think it's true on the one and only condition that no contemporaneous account disagrees??

Depending on the context of everything else. In the case of the Bible, we have four historical accounts of a man named Jesus. The narratives tell of His life, His words and His actions.

The question arises and quite fairly; was there a Jesus? When the accounts outside of the Bible are examined we see that there was a Jesus, who was from Nazareth, who taught in Judea and Samaria for a time. He had followers, He was crucified. It is also reported that He performed acts of sorcery.

All of the above are right in line with the Biblical narratives. A historian concludes therefore that Jesus existed and that the gospels are an accurate account of His life.

Now the question about His resurrection? Since the rest of the gospels can be corroborated does it make sense that the event of the resurrection was accurate. Since it was such a huge event and necessary to the faith, a troublesome faith, the conclusion is that it happened, as no Roman or Jewish historian wrote to contradict the event.

The lack of written works to negate it, is a support of it being true.

robindch wrote:

The Roman Historian Livy wrote about phantom armies marching in the sky. ?

No familiar with this, so i won't comment.

robindch wrote:

Caesar wrote about German deer standing up when they slept. ?

Are there any other writings regarding German Deer that would corroborate Caesar's findings?

robindch wrote:

Plato wrote about a land of conspicuous magnificence called Atlantis. ?

Here there is no evidence outside of Plato to support the existence of Atlantis, just as there isn't any evidence of Joseph Smith's civilisation's existence in the America's, which makes his whole series of writings dubious.

robindch wrote:

Are you really saying that all of things these are real and they happened just because they have been written down and nobody disagreed?

No, it is one aspect of historical analysis that is used to determine what actually happened. The one event, in this case the resurrection, is never mentioned by other writers, but the rest of Christ's life is. The effect of the resurrection is observed by the growth of the faith by those who witnessed it, and the fact they were willing to die for being a witness to the event supports it happening.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well then the last post had a typo. ok, you are not contradicting yourself on this point.

Hmm. This is exactly the kind of thing that leads me to say you're arrogant. Look at the post where I said it. Now, look at the version you've quoted in your post, just in case I've changed mine.

They both say 'relevant' - and you're ascribing the fact that you didn't bother to actually read what I'd written to me making a typo in my post?

Try harder.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I think we should agree to disagree on that too. I am trying to obey rules of logic and disect arguments, I don't know what way you'd do it and why you think it is better?
How can one objectively say their way is better? Is it not arrogant to assume you can just do a better job?
Start a separate thread, have a go and explain to me why your way is better. I'd be curious and interested.
I have no problem admitting you can do a much better job if you can clearly demostrate that you can. I am always interested in better logical techniques.

No, I think I'm using the standard ones, and you think that you are. The entire discussion seems to revolve around whether "having Christian faith" is an inference or an axiom.

You think it's an inference, because it's not self-evident, but that doesn't apply.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well you can't have it both ways. If you want that "faith" is an axiom, well then "The Lion can speak French" is just as valid as an axiom and so are all sort of strange axioms that derived from other things which have no solid basis.

Sigh. Yes. Exactly. Any statement can be an axiom, and it remains to be seen whether the logical inferences made based on those axioms are (a) testable, and (b) true.

For example, we can state as an axiom "God exists exactly as described in the Bible".

As far as I can see, you'd simply dispute that this can be used as an axiom.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Do you speak for the entire Christian faith? I don't.
It would be interesting to run some logic by a sample set of Christians and see what they think is their axiom or they think one even exists.
Many christians argue there is no logic, no axiom no logical inference, it's all just faith.

Obviously I don't. In fact, I speak as an observer.

Tim Robbins wrote:

In this thread, only one Christian Jimitime has given feedback so far on what she thinks is her base axiom. According to her it is the other way around and the scripture is the axiom, so in our sample set of 1 - it would be you who is mixed up not me.

No. If JimiTime says that one of her axioms is that Scripture is true, she is doing no more than saying she is a Christian.

Tim Robbins wrote:

??? Does not make sense ???

What? Are you also assuming that there can only be one axiom in a system?

Tim Robbins wrote:

Sorry I don't understand you.

Well, I'm sorry too.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I have substantiated all my arguments in quite some detail, I haven't just called people clueless. It is unfair for you to make me out to be somebody I am not. Challenge the logic and avoid the name calling.

Well, so far you've dismissed me, Brian, and CS Lewis as not knowing anything about logic (you may need to read your posts). You've also said it's a pity that there are so few Christians who understand logic, and that it's a shame how few Christians understand how illogical their position is.

What's to like?

Tim Robbins wrote:

I have also said in response to a post by JiniTime:
"You have a point here. There may be a God and I may be wrong, I accept that." I stand by that. I may be wrong. That's one reason why I am here to see if someone can find a hole in my logic, I am not here for name calling.

Er, fine, that's nice. Fortunately, you are never ever wrong about logic.

Tim Robbins wrote:

well it's factually accurate C S Lewis did write kids books and I have very little respect for him as a theologian.
I would prefer someone Robert Beckford (Christian), Karen Armstrong (General) or Robert Pollack(Jew) as a theologian. They don't use ridiculous logic, in fact they admit a lot of it has very little logical basis. I find once this is done, it's a lot easier to understand and even respect faith.

If you had said that you had "very little respect for him as a theologian", that would have been fine. You didn't. You chose instead to use a genuine ad hominem argument - you dismissed his logical capabilities on the basis that he wrote children's books.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well yourself and Brian (perhaps Jinitime) find me arrogant. Not sure why you do and whether others agree?
I don't find you arrogant. I just don't agree with your logic.
It would be interesting to find someone who was in logical agreement with me and if they thought I was arrogant. Then I'd be a bit more worried.

Which is another cheap shot. It implies that we find you arrogant because we disagree with you, not for any other reason.

In fact, I agree with your conclusions overall (that Christian faith is not provable by logic) - my disagreement is with your methodology. You won't understand that, I imagine, since you're very certain you are using pure logic.

You keep hanging yourself here.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Bottom line, I have no intention to be arrogant, I am very passionate about logic that's all. I have opinions, but not the absolute infallable truth. Noone does.

Unfortunately arrogance is not an intention, but an attitude.

regards,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm. This is exactly the kind of thing that leads me to say you're arrogant. Look at the post where I said it. Now, look at the version you've quoted in your post, just in case I've changed mine.

They both say 'relevant' - and you're ascribing the fact that you didn't bother to actually read what I'd written to me making a typo in my post?

Try harder.

My mistake, I have just re read.
Apologies.

No, I think I'm using the standard ones, and you think that you are.

I'd like if you could pin point where I am not using standard logic and you are.

The entire discussion seems to revolve around whether "having Christian faith" is an inference or an axiom.

You think it's an inference, because it's not self-evident, but that doesn't apply.

I have said it can be axiom but then all sorts of strange stuff can be axioms.
It would be interesting if a Christian said that there was an axiom, so far none have.

Sigh. Yes. Exactly. Any statement can be an axiom, and it remains to be seen whether the logical inferences made based on those axioms are (a) testable, and (b) true.

For example, we can state as an axiom "God exists exactly as described in the Bible".

As far as I can see, you'd simply dispute that this can be used as an axiom.

Obviously I don't. In fact, I speak as an observer.

Fine, well then you can have all sorts of crazy axioms about the unicorns, fairies and elephants walkin on ceilings.
I pointed this out and then you changed your methodolgy to analyse the axiom i.e. the axiom about Lion speaking French must be analysed.

I said fine, but then you must be consistent and examine all your axioms.
I don't think you are consistent.
You are quite happy to change the rules for axiom that doesn't suit your argument but not for an axiom that does.
Surely consistency of methodolgy is important in logic?

No. If JimiTime says that one of her axioms is that Scripture is true, she is doing no more than saying she is a Christian.

I don't know how you deduce "no" there. Faith is Jimitime's conclusion not her axiom, you have put it the other way around.
Do you have any evidence for any Christian saying faith is their axiom or is that just your opinion?

What? Are you also assuming that there can only be one axiom in a system?

No, I just didn't understand your point.

Well, so far you've dismissed me, Brian, and CS Lewis as not knowing anything about logic (you may need to read your posts).

I didn't dismiss you as not knowing anything about logic.
I think your logic is definetly well above average, but I think you mix up your rules and are just a bit inconsistent with the application of them.
You also veer completly away from logic and go to name calling and insults the person analysing your logic when there is no need to.
That's just my opinion.

C S Lewis uses deceptive logic, he could have been an excellant barrister or journalist ( I mean excellant as in a commercial sense). There's no doubt he's a bit of a brain. It's only when you really analyse his arguments that you see the holes.

Brian uses strange logic and when I have challenged him he just seems to ignore, straw man or go onto to something different. Failing that he also just goes to name calling.

You've also said it's a pity that there are so few Christians who understand logic, and that it's a shame how few Christians understand how illogical their position is.

I'd prefer if you quoted me, when you make accusations like you that. You can change or put a word in a different place and drastically change meaning.

Now let me clarify, very few people understand logic. I include both atheists and theists in that. It's shame more people don't understand again it including atheists and theists. Many Christians try to claim their position is logically infallable. I dispute this. Many people who are passionate about logic find the misuse of logic very annoying. Bagginni for example.
I actually don't really mind anybody having an illogical supernatural belief, I have already pointed out I follow sporting teams which is also illogical in many respects. What I find annoying is when Football fans or Christians try to tell me their position is one of logic. This is probably annoying as I am passionate about logic. What are you passionate about? Geology? Would you find it annoying if someone told you something was Geology and it was not?

Er, fine, that's nice. Fortunately, you are never ever wrong about logic.

Of course I can be wrong in my logic, when did I say I am always right?
You are just trying to characterise me as a person of arrogance.

If you had said that you had "very little respect for him as a theologian", that would have been fine. You didn't. You chose instead to use a genuine ad hominem argument - you dismissed his logical capabilities on the basis that he wrote children's books.

That's a straw man. I didn't dismiss his arguments on the basis he wrote kids books, I summarized why I dismissed them first.

The first time I mentioned C S Lewis I gave a good summary of my position:
Post was at 10-02-2007, 00:13.
Here it is:

Many Christian writers for example C S Lewis use deceptive logic. They argue in a style that sounds logical and it would to a person who doesn't know much about logic.

For example, one thing C S Lewis says, is that there are three possible outcomes,
1. Christ was a lunatic, and was a normal man who was not the son of God
2. the writings about Christ are false or
3. Christ was who he said he was.

Anyone who knows more about logic would know there are actually more than three outcomes. Furthermore, the number of possible outcomes isn't actually that relevant unless you can assign some sort probability to each outcome.
This is counter intuitive unless you have studied probability theory.

So the sentence is meaningless. But many Christians think it's a brilliant argument, a minister tried to use on me once and I didn't know what to say but when I thought about it logically, I saw it fall apart.


Before I said the remark about kids books (which again is factually accurate, I said)

CS Lewis thinks there are three possibilities.
1. Christ was a lunatic
2. The history was inaccurate
3. Jesus was the son of God.

For a start there are only three possible outcomes if the outcomes above are mutually exclusive - but they are not.
It is possible for Jesus to a lunatic and for the history to be inaccurate for example.
It is also possible for some of the narratives or the "history" to be accurate and for some of it to be inaccurate. How does that fit into C S Lewis' analysis?

Furthermore, there is another outcome, Jesus was simple mistaken and not a lunatic. How does one define a lunatic?

And finally the number of outcomes is meaningless unless something is known to assign a probability to each one, this comes from probability theory.


You are taking one remark I made (which is factually accurate) and arguing as if it was a complete representation of my position at an arbitary stage, how could ever have been a complete representation when I said the above before I mentioned the "kids books".

Which is another cheap shot. It implies that we find you arrogant because we disagree with you, not for any other reason.

Well it's inductively valid as it is possible. It could be completly wrong and I could be arrogant, but it could also be a case that the human condition of not liking being wrong or challenged has manifested in this debate.

In fact, I agree with your conclusions overall (that Christian faith is not provable by logic) - my disagreement is with your methodology. You won't understand that, I imagine, since you're very certain you are using pure logic.

I would be interested if you could pin point mistakes in my methodology. I am not very certain I am using pure logic, I am doing my best to use pure logic but am fallable just like anybody else.

BrianCalgary

Tim Robbins wrote:

Brian uses strange logic and when I have challenged him he just seems to ignore, straw man or go onto to something different. Failing that he also just goes to name calling.


.

Let's go back to the beginning here Tim. You began this thread claiming that Christians believe the scripture based on circular logic. Then attempted to prove the theory by doing; the bible is true because it says it is and since it's true it must be, line.

I pointed out to you that your logic is faulty because you think that Christians use that line of reasoning, when in fact they don't. Using historical analysis we see that the events of the NT are supported by extant writings. We also see what is written in them, Jesus claims to be God. Is He or isn't He?

Another reason Christians are Christians is because they maybe met Christ through a supernatural event in their life. They then recognize the Bible as the authoritataive word of God and study it as such in order to come closer to the saviour. This makes your conclusion faulty also.

You can reduce any understanding to circular ogic by leaving out important facts as I did with age of rocks. Scofflaw agreed that it was a good example.

So I get back to my question: what exactly are you trying to argue?

this is what I posted:
ax·i·om
–noun

1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.

2. a universally accepted principle or rule.

3. Logic, Mathematics. a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.

I am confused at you use of axiom? Are you arguing the truth of the Bible or the existence of God, or the the Deity of Christ?

This is what you quoted me:

Originally Posted by BrianCalgary
ax·i·om
–noun

1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.

2. a universally accepted principle or rule.

3. Logic, Mathematics. a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.

I am confused at you use of axiom?

You left out the last line? Which is my question.

Tim Robbins

BrianCalgary wrote:

Let's go back to the beginning here Tim. You began this thread claiming that Christians believe the scripture based on circular logic. Then attempted to prove the theory by doing; the bible is true because it says it is and since it's true it must be, line.

No I began by saying "you cannot derive a logical argument for God from scripture as it becomes circular quite quickly".
This is correct. I showed step by step how the reasoning is circular. You go off on tangent about Jesus and NT and say you have rebutted it.

I pointed out to you that your logic is faulty because you think that Christians use that line of reasoning, when in fact they don't.

That is a straw man. I never generalised for all Christians. If you note I said I respect the Christian theologian Robert Beckford who does not use that line of reasoning.

Different Christians use different lines of reasoning, some rely heavily on scripture alone. JimiTime has shown when she expanded her logic and showed it was in her eyes an axiom for example. Scofflaw who kindly play devil's advocate and argues for his Christian friends, came up with another argument where "faith" was an axiom.

Using historical analysis we see that the events of the NT are supported by extant writings.

Robindch has rebutted your argument here.

We also see what is written in them, Jesus claims to be God. Is He or isn't He?

Well you have to establish there is a God first, which you haven't. You have skipped that step. You can't skip steps in logic.

Another reason Christians are Christians is because they maybe met Christ through a supernatural event in their life.

How do they know it is Christ they have met? Does he say I am Christ? and have they have never heard the word Christ before or have they read the Bible before the met Christ, or being told about Christ in which case the logic becomes quite circular again when analysed.

They then recognize the Bible as the authoritataive word of God and study it as such in order to come closer to the saviour. This makes your conclusion faulty also.

How does it make my conclusion invalid? How do they recongnize the Bible as authoritataive without avoiding circular logic?

You can reduce any understanding to circular ogic by leaving out important facts as I did with age of rocks. Scofflaw agreed that it was a good example.

You still haven't broken the circle.
I have numbered all the steps and you cannot state what step number the inference is invalid. You just go off on a tangent which has several logical fallacies of its own.

So I get back to my question: what exactly are you trying to argue?

Christianity is no more logical than talking to a sweeping brush or any other activity which is based on an ferociously dubious axiom which has been given immunity from investigation even though it could be investigated and shown to be dodgy.

If you think otherwise:
* Name your axiom(s)?
* Name which logical system are you using? Deductive, Inductive, Abductive, Scientific method etc?
* State why you are using it.
* Name every premise and every conclusion in your chain of logic.

I note I disected your version of the C S Lewis argument and you just ignored that.

BrianCalgary

Tim Robbins wrote:

No I began by saying "you cannot derive a logical argument for God from scripture as it becomes circular quite quickly".
This is correct. I showed step by step how the reasoning is circular. You go off on tangent about Jesus and NT and say you have rebutted it. .

I have because your logic has no point to it. it is far to simple.

Tim Robbins wrote:

That is a straw man. I never generalised for all Christians. If you note I said I respect the Christian theologian Robert Beckford who does not use that line of reasoning..

Ahh, I was typing this I considered pm'ing scofflaw to let him know that you would use those two words.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Different Christians use different lines of reasoning, some rely heavily on scripture alone. JimiTime has shown when she expanded her logic and showed it was in her eyes an axiom for example. Scofflaw who kindly play devil's advocate and argues for his Christian friends, came up with another argument where "faith" was an axiom...

And is it?

Tim Robbins wrote:

Robindch has rebutted your argument here....

I don't think so, he has questioned my thoughts, I don't think he has tried to refute them.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well you have to establish there is a God first, which you haven't. You have skipped that step. You can't skip steps in logic.....

You don't have to establish that at all. Jesus claims to be God, do His actions fit that of a God? That is the question. If yes then who is this God? Since Jesus is talked about in teh Christian Bible, it will probably be my authority on who god is, because that is where Jesus appears.

I agree, you can't skip steps at all, which you did in not examining the authority of the Bible and assuming that is was self revealing only, and basing that assumption on you attack of Christianity.

Tim Robbins wrote:

How do they know it is Christ they have met? Does he say I am Christ? and have they have never heard the word Christ before or have they read the Bible before the met Christ, or being told about Christ in which case the logic becomes quite circular again when analysed......

Scarecrow alert!!
Changing the subject here. Every ones experience of Christ is different. So this is a question that can not be answered universally, only individually.

Tim Robbins wrote:

How does it make my conclusion invalid? How do they recongnize the Bible as authoritataive without avoiding circular logic?......

Your concluson is invalid because you do not take into account all the information surrounding the premise of biblical authority. You assume that biblical authority comes form the Bible alone, which it doesn't. If it were the case then you would be right that it is circular. But since authority does not come from teh Bible alone your whole premise is false, which makes your conclusion false.

Tim Robbins wrote:

You still haven't broken the circle.
I have numbered all the steps and you cannot state what step number the inference is invalid. You just go off on a tangent which has several logical fallacies of its own.?......

Of course I have because I have added new information.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Christianity is no more logical than talking to a sweeping brush or any other activity which is based on an ferociously dubious axiom which has been given immunity from investigation even though it could be investigated and shown to be dodgy..

And here you are dead wrong. Christianity is very logical and makes great sense. You should study it.

Tim Robbins wrote:

If you think otherwise:
* Name your axiom(s)?
* Name which logical system are you using? Deductive, Inductive, Abductive, Scientific method etc?
* State why you are using it.
* Name every premise and every conclusion in your chain of logic.

I note I disected your version of the C S Lewis argument and you just ignored that.

Actually you didn't dissect CS Lewis.
I have also given you many reasons why I accept the Bible as being accurate, you can not add logic to the discussion because you are speaking of historicity and actions of people, to which logic does not apply.

Tim Robbins

BrianCalgary wrote:

And is it?

I have already answered and said what I thought of that.

I don't think so, he has questioned my thoughts, I don't think he has tried to refute them.

You inference is not valid deductively simple as that.

You don't have to establish that at all. Jesus claims to be God, do His actions fit that of a God? That is the question. If yes then who is this God? Since Jesus is talked about in teh Christian Bible, it will probably be my authority on who god is, because that is where Jesus appears.

That does explain why you do not need to establish who this God is.

I agree, you can't skip steps at all, which you did in not examining the authority of the Bible and assuming that is was self revealing only, and basing that assumption on you attack of Christianity.

What sort of argument is that? "not examing the authority of the Bible"?
How does one do that?

Scarecrow alert!!
Changing the subject here. Every ones experience of Christ is different. So this is a question that can not be answered universally, only individually.

That is not a straw man. It is relevant question. Has anybody experienced Christ who has had no information of Christ? Or is it just some innate supernatural feeling in their head which when someone comes along and plugs in hey that's Christ, or that's Mohammed looks at this scripture, they then go yes it is Christ / Mohommed or whoeever. In other words if you told them it was the magic tennis ball with some scripture for that they would probably believe it is that aswell.

Your concluson is invalid because you do not take into account all the information surrounding the premise of biblical authority. You assume that biblical authority comes form the Bible alone, which it doesn't. If it were the case then you would be right that it is circular. But since authority does not come from teh Bible alone your whole premise is false, which makes your conclusion false.

I don't know what you mean by authority. There is no magic button which makes scripture authorative or not.
You accuse me of not taking "into account all the information surrounding the premise of biblical authority", well in fact I do.
I look at some of the non canonical Gospels and see major contradictions. You appear not to like those contradictions.

I look at other historians, Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny and I check for any corroborating passages to the Jesus miracles in the Bible, I see none.

I check the Talmud and it says he was sorcere. Does this mean faith healer or he could actually walk on water?

I note other facts such as the critical analysis 2,000 years ago was nowhere near it was today. It would be quite easy for mistakes to be propagated and to be held as myths and beliefs.

I look at Science which rubbishes some of major claims made in the Old Testament.

I can't see 2 samples from 10 million different species fitting onto a boat, maybe you can.

Of course I have because I have added new information.

You should be still be able to number the step where it breaks.

And here you are dead wrong. Christianity is very logical and makes great sense. You should study it.

I have, it makes no sense.
You should study logic, what books have you read on logic? .

Actually you didn't dissect CS Lewis.

I dissected his famous argument step by step and showed where it was illogical. You ignored this.

Read back
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055046783&page=6
Posted at 23:01.

I have also given you many reasons why I accept the Bible as being accurate, you can not add logic to the discussion because you are speaking of historicity and actions of people, to which logic does not apply.

Logic applies to any argument. If you are trying to argue history logic applies.

Now you are just after saying
"Christianity is very logical", why can you use logic for Christianity and not on History? And then use History to argue Christianity?
Sounds strange.

If you are going to use logic to argue Christianity please:
* Name your axiom(s)?
* Name which logical system are you using? Deductive, Inductive, Abductive, Scientific method etc?
* State why you are using it.
* Name every premise and every conclusion in your chain of logic.

BrianCalgary

Tim Robbins wrote:

CS Lewis thinks there are three possibilities.
1. Christ was a lunatic
2. The history was inaccurate
3. Jesus was the son of God.

For a start there are only three possible outcomes if the outcomes above are mutually exclusive - but they are not.
It is possible for Jesus to a lunatic and for the history to be inaccurate for example
It is also possible for some of the narratives or the "history" to be accurate and for some of it to be inaccurate. How does that fit into C S Lewis' analysis? ..

The problem here with your logic is that the history is not inaccurate so any outcome that may come from that assumption is invalid.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Furthermore, there is another outcome, Jesus was simple mistaken and not a lunatic. How does one define a lunatic?.

How could He have been mistaken?

Tim Robbins wrote:

And finally the number of outcomes is meaningless unless something is known to assign a probability to each one, this comes from probability theory.

C S Lewis writes kids books, he has no command of logic.

Ah so now life is not logic alone, you wish to discuss probability?

Schuhart

BrianCalgary wrote:

When the accounts outside of the Bible are examined we see that there was a Jesus, who was from Nazareth, who taught in Judea and Samaria for a time. He had followers, He was crucified. It is also reported that He performed acts of sorcery.

I don't see a reason to doubt the Gospel authors were faithfully recording the traditions handed on to them. But you can probably guess the next round of questions that arise. Plenty of other Gospel accounts were written and, at the end of the day, it comes down to human judgement as to which were correct. Also, is there any reason to give a value to the Gospels on grounds that nothing contradicts them, and withhold the same value from the Quran which can make a similar claim.

BrianCalgary wrote:

The effect of the resurrection is observed by the growth of the faith by those who witnessed it, and the fact they were willing to die for being a witness to the event supports it happening.

Again, presumably a similar claim can be made for Islam on the grounds that no-one would have expected that a religion adopted by disorganised nomads could sweep across the world and found a significant civilisation.

You'll undoubtedly have seen this argument before, but it seems to stand. There is no argument that can be made in support of Christianity that cannot be made, in some form, for other faiths.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

My mistake, I have just re read.
Apologies.

No problem!

Tim Robbins wrote:

I'd like if you could pin point where I am not using standard logic and you are.

We both are. I am just treating as an axiom what you are treating as an inference.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I have said it can be axiom but then all sorts of strange stuff can be axioms.
It would be interesting if a Christian said that there was an axiom, so far none have.

Fine, well then you can have all sorts of crazy axioms about the unicorns, fairies and elephants walkin on ceilings.
I pointed this out and then you changed your methodolgy to analyse the axiom i.e. the axiom about Lion speaking French must be analysed.

I said fine, but then you must be consistent and examine all your axioms.
I don't think you are consistent.
You are quite happy to change the rules for axiom that doesn't suit your argument but not for an axiom that does.
Surely consistency of methodolgy is important in logic?

I'm pretty certain that we're at cross-purposes here. Let me restate my position:

1. any statement can be used as an axiom
2. a statement used as an axiom need not be separately justified
3. a statement used as an axiom need not be self-evident
4. a statement used as an axiom must be capable of generating inferences
5. a statement used as an axiom must not be reducible to several statements
6. a 'system' can have several axioms
7. we test the axioms by following through to testable inferences
8. if the testable inferences are false, the axiom is false

Now, I haven't actually got as far as step 7 in the case of 'having Christian faith' as an axiom. This is partly because it fails test 5, in that 'having Christian faith' I equate to ''believing that the God described by the Bible exists and is worshippable'', which can clearly be broken down into two statements:

a. the God described by the Bible exists
b. the God described by the Bible is worshippable

The other reason I haven't proceeded is that I am arguing with you about whether this statement (or its constituent parts) is an axiom or not. You have claimed that it cannot be an axiom, because it presupposes knowledge of the Bible - which I fail to see the relevance of, since there is no requirement for an axiomatic proposition to be self-evident outside epistemology.

Hopefully, that clarifies my position sufficiently that you can tell me exactly where our paths diverge.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I don't know how you deduce "no" there. Faith is Jimitime's conclusion not her axiom, you have put it the other way around.
Do you have any evidence for any Christian saying faith is their axiom or is that just your opinion?

I have it in writing from wolfsbane. Verbally, I have it from a lot of Christians. Indeed, if you consider the Nicene Creed, which is the basic statement of faith of the Catholic Church, you'll see that it conforms to what I am saying.

Indeed, the very existence of such a credal statement at all supports my position. If faith were the conclusion, rather than the axiom, then the credal statement should state (or at least mention) the axioms from which this conclusion derives.

What it says is:
"We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen. "

At no point is there a 'because'.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I didn't dismiss you as not knowing anything about logic.
I think your logic is definetly well above average, but I think you mix up your rules and are just a bit inconsistent with the application of them.

"Well above average". So kind. Do you perhaps see how that statement could be patronising?

Anyway, I think the rules I'm using are fairly clearly stated - I've stated them above. They are pretty much the standard scientific rules.

Tim Robbins wrote:

You also veer completly away from logic and go to name calling and insults the person analysing your logic when there is no need to.
That's just my opinion.

At no point have I claimed that I can dismiss your arguments simply because you come across as arrogant and patronising. I have tried to keep the insults and the argument separate as much as possible, but I preferred not to post twice every time.

Tim Robbins wrote:

C S Lewis uses deceptive logic, he could have been an excellant barrister or journalist ( I mean excellant as in a commercial sense). There's no doubt he's a bit of a brain. It's only when you really analyse his arguments that you see the holes.

Some of Lewis' logic is certainly deceptive. However, I'm not sure that you're right about how it is deceptive.

For example, one thing C S Lewis says, is that there are three possible outcomes,
1. Christ was a lunatic, and was a normal man who was not the son of God
2. the writings about Christ are false or
3. Christ was who he said he was.

If you restate your version (which is inaccurate) as:

1. Christ was a man who falsely claimed he was the Son of God
2. the history is inaccurate - Christ never claimed he was the Son of God
3. Christ was the Son of God, as he claimed

then you have three exclusive outcomes. You have stated that there are more possible outcomes, but have not said what they are (I can think of at least one more). You have also said that the probability of each is relevant, which I don't follow, I must admit.

However, the main thing is that you have missed the point of what Lewis was doing when he presented the 'trilemma':

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." (Lewis 1952, pp. 43)

That is, the trilemma is presented only to those who say "Jesus was a great moral teacher (based on what's written in the Bible about him), but not divine" - he is destroying one specific point of view. The proper form of the trilemma is:

1. Jesus was telling falsehoods and knew it, and so he was a liar.
2. Jesus was telling falsehoods but believed he was telling the truth, and so he was insane.
3. Jesus was telling the truth, and so he was divine.

Again, I think there is another possibility here - that Jesus was stating a truth, but that the truth is misunderstood.

I don't know whether you see it this way, but what Lewis is doing here is taking a position that can be described as follows:

a. I believe that Jesus said what is attributed to him in the Bible
b. based on what he said in the Bible, I believe that Jesus was a great moral teacher
c. I do not believe he was divine

...and knocking it down, by pointing out that if claim (c) is true, then Christ was either a liar or a lunatic, and someone who is a liar or a lunatic is not usually accepted as being a great moral teacher.

It's worth remembering that Christians are not, generally, arguing against atheists, but against other Christians - particularly 'back-sliders' and 'compromisers'.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Brian uses strange logic and when I have challenged him he just seems to ignore, straw man or go onto to something different. Failing that he also just goes to name calling.

Well, you are the first person to accuse Brian of such behaviour. Again, I have argued with him a lot, and Brian is a particularly honest opponent, even if his logic is sometimes a bit strange. I think he, like me, simply finds you arrogant and patronising.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

You've also said it's a pity that there are so few Christians who understand logic, and that it's a shame how few Christians understand how illogical their position is.

I'd prefer if you quoted me, when you make accusations like you that. You can change or put a word in a different place and drastically change meaning.

Hmm. To JimiTime:

Tim Robbins wrote:

Why not read up on logic before you use the word or debate whether something is logical?

To Christians in general:

Tim Robbins wrote:

I just don't see what Christians try to argue it is logical.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Many Christians in this forum will attempt to argue logically but they just break the rules of logic consistenty as I have shown.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Depends on the theist. Some have a clue of logic, e.g. Robert Pollack, Karen Armstrong and I doubt very much they would see my atheist position illogical or there position logical.
It's a pity we don't have a few more theists would a good understanding of logic it would lead to some interesting discussions.

Will that do?

Tim Robbins wrote:

Now let me clarify, very few people understand logic. I include both atheists and theists in that. It's shame more people don't understand again it including atheists and theists. Many Christians try to claim their position is logically infallable. I dispute this. Many people who are passionate about logic find the misuse of logic very annoying. Bagginni for example.

Indeed.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I actually don't really mind anybody having an illogical supernatural belief, I have already pointed out I follow sporting teams which is also illogical in many respects. What I find annoying is when Football fans or Christians try to tell me their position is one of logic. This is probably annoying as I am passionate about logic. What are you passionate about? Geology? Would you find it annoying if someone told you something was Geology and it was not?

I would find it annoying if someone set themselves up as arbiter of what was, and was not, Geology. I find it annoying that you have chosen to set yourself up as arbiter of what is, and is not, Logic.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Of course I can be wrong in my logic, when did I say I am always right?
You are just trying to characterise me as a person of arrogance.

I don't need to. You have done that yourself.

Tim Robbins wrote:

That's a straw man. I didn't dismiss his arguments on the basis he wrote kids books, I summarized why I dismissed them first.

The first time I mentioned C S Lewis I gave a good summary of my position:
Post was at 10-02-2007, 00:13.
Here it is:

Many Christian writers for example C S Lewis use deceptive logic. They argue in a style that sounds logical and it would to a person who doesn't know much about logic.

For example, one thing C S Lewis says, is that there are three possible outcomes,
1. Christ was a lunatic, and was a normal man who was not the son of God
2. the writings about Christ are false or
3. Christ was who he said he was.

Anyone who knows more about logic would know there are actually more than three outcomes. Furthermore, the number of possible outcomes isn't actually that relevant unless you can assign some sort probability to each outcome.
This is counter intuitive unless you have studied probability theory.

So the sentence is meaningless. But many Christians think it's a brilliant argument, a minister tried to use on me once and I didn't know what to say but when I thought about it logically, I saw it fall apart.


Before I said the remark about kids books (which again is factually accurate, I said)

CS Lewis thinks there are three possibilities.
1. Christ was a lunatic
2. The history was inaccurate
3. Jesus was the son of God.

For a start there are only three possible outcomes if the outcomes above are mutually exclusive - but they are not.
It is possible for Jesus to a lunatic and for the history to be inaccurate for example.
It is also possible for some of the narratives or the "history" to be accurate and for some of it to be inaccurate. How does that fit into C S Lewis' analysis?

Furthermore, there is another outcome, Jesus was simple mistaken and not a lunatic. How does one define a lunatic?

And finally the number of outcomes is meaningless unless something is known to assign a probability to each one, this comes from probability theory.


You are taking one remark I made (which is factually accurate) and arguing as if it was a complete representation of my position at an arbitary stage, how could ever have been a complete representation when I said the above before I mentioned the "kids books".

Well, let's consider your remark again:

Tim Robbins wrote:

C S Lewis writes kids books, he has no command of logic.

It really doesn't matter whether you summarised why you dismissed your misquoted version of Lewis' trilemma before you dismissed him as a writer of kids books. The clear inference from your remark is that Lewis does not have any command of logic because he is a writer of kids books.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

Which is another cheap shot. It implies that we find you arrogant because we disagree with you, not for any other reason.

Well it's inductively valid as it is possible. It could be completly wrong and I could be arrogant, but it could also be a case that the human condition of not liking being wrong or challenged has manifested in this debate.

It could also be both - nor need you be wrong.As far as the probabilities go, perhaps you should consider that I come here for debate and challenge - as do most other posters.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I would be interested if you could pin point mistakes in my methodology. I am not very certain I am using pure logic, I am doing my best to use pure logic but am fallable just like anybody else.

The only fault I can see is your insistence that faith cannot be treated as an axiom, but must be proven separately.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

You say:

Scofflaw wrote:

We both are. I am just treating as an axiom what you are treating as an inference.

But then you say:

I'm pretty certain that we're at cross-purposes here. Let me restate my position:

1. any statement can be used as an axiom
2. a statement used as an axiom need not be separately justified
3. a statement used as an axiom need not be self-evident
4. a statement used as an axiom must be capable of generating inferences
5. a statement used as an axiom must not be reducible to several statements
6. a 'system' can have several axioms
7. we test the axioms by following through to testable inferences
8. if the testable inferences are false, the axiom is false

Now, I haven't actually got as far as step 7 in the case of 'having Christian faith' as an axiom. This is partly because it fails test 5, in that 'having Christian faith' I equate to ''believing that the God described by the Bible exists and is worshippable'', which can clearly be broken down into two statements:

a. the God described by the Bible exists
b. the God described by the Bible is worshippable

The other reason I haven't proceeded is that I am arguing with you about whether this statement (or its constituent parts) is an axiom or not. You have claimed that it cannot be an axiom, because it presupposes knowledge of the Bible - which I fail to see the relevance of, since there is no requirement for an axiomatic proposition to be self-evident outside epistemology.

Hopefully, that clarifies my position sufficiently that you can tell me exactly where our paths diverge.

So if your "Christian faith" hasn't made it to step 7 because it fails step 5, then surely by your definition it is not an axiom.

Let me clarify my position. I would be reticent about using "Christian Faith" as an axiom as I don't think it is, but if we are told to anaylse something else and we must use it as axiom then we have to. But if that's the case, all sorts of strange axioms exist to the effect that the overgoal of establishing truth is almost meaningless.

Indeed, the very existence of such a credal statement at all supports my position. If faith were the conclusion, rather than the axiom, then the credal statement should state (or at least mention) the axioms from which this conclusion derives.

I would say the creed was a derived and the process of deriving it must be analysed for logical validity before it can be used as an axiom.

"Well above average". So kind. Do you perhaps see how that statement could be patronising?

No. I don't see how it is patronising.

Anyway, I think to rules I'm using are fairly clearly stated - I've stated them above. They are pretty much the standard scientific rules.

Well your own axiom test failed your own claim about the axiom of Christian faith unless I misunderstood.

Some of Lewis' logic is certainly deceptive. However, I'm not sure that you're right about how it is deceptive.

If you restate your version (which is inaccurate) as:

1. Christ was a man who falsely claimed he was the Son of God
2. the history is inaccurate - Christ never claimed he was the Son of God
3. Christ was the Son of God, as he claimed

then you have three exclusive outcomes. You have stated that there are more possible outcomes, but have not said what they are (I can think of at least one more).

I have in some detail in separate posts.

You have also said that the probability of each is relevant, which I don't follow, I must admit.

Well I will try to explain here.
If you have 10 possible outcomes in a system, they don't default just to 1 / 10 they default to probability unknown unless you have a good logical reason to put each one to 1 / 10.
Similar if you have 3 outcomes they default to unknown or two outcomes the default to unknown. so it doens't matter how many outcomes you have, unless you know something more meaningful the probability does not change.

However, the main thing is that you have missed the point of what Lewis was doing when he presented the 'trilemma':

That is, the trilemma is presented only to those who say "Jesus was a great moral teacher (based on what's written in the Bible about him), but not divine" - he is destroying one specific point of view. The proper form of the trilemma is:

1. Jesus was telling falsehoods and knew it, and so he was a liar.
2. Jesus was telling falsehoods but believed he was telling the truth, and so he was insane.
3. Jesus was telling the truth, and so he was divine.

My rebuttal applies to that version as well.
Jesus could have been telling some falsehoods (i.e. I am God) and he was just mistaken but not insane.

Again, I think there is another possibility here - that Jesus was stating a truth, but that the truth is misunderstood.

I don't know whether you see it this way, but what Lewis is doing here is taking a position that can be described as follows:

a. I believe that Jesus said what is attributed to him in the Bible
b. based on what he said in the Bible, I believe that Jesus was a great moral teacher
c. I do not believe he was divine

...and knocking it down, by pointing out that if claim (c) is true, then Christ was either a liar or a lunatic, and someone who is a liar or a lunatic is not usually accepted as being a great moral teacher.

It's worth remembering that Christians are not, generally, arguing against atheists, but against other Christians - particularly 'back-sliders' and 'compromisers'.

I have rebutted Brian's version of it in some detail. I don't know if you read that. If you wish to rebut it for another reason fair enough. If you wish to find fault with my rebuttal, refer to the version I already rebutted or to what is wrong with the way Brian's explained C S Lewis' argument.

Well, you are the first person to accuse Brian of such behaviour. Again, I have argued with him a lot, and Brian is a particularly honest opponent, even if his logic is sometimes a bit strange. I think he, like me, simply finds you arrogant and patronising.

You agree his logic can be strange.
But you disagree he straw man's or ignores. Well fine look at the evidence and draw your own conclusions.

I would find it annoying if someone set themselves up as arbiter of what was, and was not, Geology. I find it annoying that you have chosen to set yourself up as arbiter of what is, and is not, Logic.

An arbitrator of logic who says:

Tim Robbins wrote:

I am not very certain I am using pure logic, I am doing my best to use pure logic but am fallable just like anybody else.

and

Tim Robbins wrote:

Of course I can be wrong in my logic, when did I say I am always right?
You are just trying to characterise me as a person of arrogance.

and

Tim Robbins wrote:

I have opinions, but not the absolute infallable truth. Noone does.

You are just straw manning again

It really doesn't matter whether you summarised why you dismissed your misquoted version of Lewis' trilemma before you dismissed him as a writer of kids books. The clear inference from your remark is that Lewis does not have any command of logic because he is a writer of kids books.

Of course it matters, I dimissed his argument first. You can't have it both ways. When you attack me you dismiss my arguments and then you throw your subjective insults at me at the end your post and you defend your right to do that.
When I attack Lewis, I attack his argument and then I state a fact at the end which you have decided that I think is an inference. It's actually not an inference, it's just consistent with my view he has not demostrated ever a good command of logic i.e. they are kids books not Maths or Physics books.

If you read that as insult to C S Lewis, I can understand that.
But, I would ask apply the same rules to yourself that you apply to me giving my opinion about Lewis (which actually states a fact, your remark at me is subjective not an objective fact) for a start.

The only fault I can see is your insistence that faith cannot be treated as an axiom, but must be proven separately.

It can be taken as an axiom as I have stated but then all sorts of strange axioms can be taken just be taking as axioms. There just has to be consistency of rules and methodolgies.

JimiTime

Bloomin eck!! This is gone mad. Maybe a summary is needed.Tim, could you tell us:

What is the definition of Logic?
Is this definition disputible? or are there other definitions?
Is Christianity logical In your opinion? Why?

Here is my statement of Faith. I have always found it logical, but if the definition of logic is set in stone and the basis of my faith contradicts it, I could live with that, its only a word.

I believe in Christ because I believe the testimonies of the witnesses who told us of him. I believe in the sovreign God Yehowah(I shall prove to be, what I shall prove to be) I believe that Jesus is Gods Son (not God, I am not a trinitarian). I believe that the prophesies of the falling of Jeruselem, and the prophesies of the world powers in Daniel (which are not vague or open to interpretation) are a testimony to the Divinity operating through the scriptures. I believe that Jesus was the fulfillment of the covenant made by God to Abraham that the saviour would come from his seed. I believe that Jesus met all the criteria of the prophesised messiah. Jesus tells us to love God, love our neighbour and love our enemy. No wiser words have ever been spoken. If logic tells me not to believe Christ then I will hold up my hands and say, I want nothing to do with logic. The question is, does it?

PS: Im a he not a she:)

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

You say:

Scofflaw wrote:

We both are. I am just treating as an axiom what you are treating as an inference.

But then you say:

So if your "Christian faith" hasn't made it to step 7 because it fails step 5, then surely by your definition it is not an axiom.

I am trying to stop being snippy here, but I wonder do you actually read the posts?

I said that 'Christian faith' can be broken down into two separate statements. That's the only reason for rejecting it as a single axiom. Obviously we would use the two resulting statements as axioms instead of 'Christian faith'.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Let me clarify my position. I would be reticent about using "Christian Faith" as an axiom as I don't think it is, but if we are told to anaylse something else and we must use it as axiom then we have to. But if that's the case, all sorts of strange axioms exist to the effect that the overgoal of establishing truth is almost meaningless.

Again, you seem to have some defining quality for axioms that you have yet to reveal? Why are you reluctant to use 'Christian faith' as an axiom?

It's a truism in science that there are an infinite number of hypotheses to explain any phenomenon - despite this, science appears to be able to establish truth.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I would say the creed was a derived and the process of deriving it must be analysed for logical validity before it can be used as an axiom.

What a bizarre position. I'm really not sure how you come to that viewpoint at all!

I am not proposing the Nicene Creed as an axiom. I am not proposing the Nicene Creed as an inference. The Nicene Creed is a statement of faith.

I'm beginnning to think that you have a hammer, and everything looks like a nail.

Tim Robbins wrote:

No. I don't see how it is patronising.

OK. If you can't you can't. Essentially, by saying that someone has a 'better than average grasp of logic' you imply that you have the capacity to make such a judgement, which in turn implies that you have an even better grasp of logic - otherwise, how could you know?

Further, the "compliment" is actually a case of 'damning with faint praise' - since you have also stated that the average grasp of logic is very poor.

Your apparent compliment, then, is very faint praise that contains an implied statement of your own superiority. That's the essence of 'patronising', right there.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well your own axiom test failed your own claim about the axiom of Christian faith unless I misunderstood.

No problem - you did misunderstand.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I have in some detail in separate posts.

Well, those were kind of trivial. They were also based on a misquote of Lewis.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well I will try to explain here.
If you have 10 possible outcomes in a system, they don't default just to 1 / 10 they default to probability unknown unless you have a good logical reason to put each one to 1 / 10.
Similar if you have 3 outcomes they default to unknown or two outcomes the default to unknown. so it doens't matter how many outcomes you have, unless you know something more meaningful the probability does not change.

I'm fine on probability, thanks. I can't see why you're trying to apply it to a logic problem. The probabilities of each of the three outcomes are irrelevant to whether Lewis' trilemma contains all possible options in a mutually exclusive way.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I have rebutted Brian's version of it in some detail. I don't know if you read that. If you wish to rebut it for another reason fair enough. If you wish to find fault with my rebuttal, refer to the version I already rebutted or to what is wrong with the way Brian's explained C S Lewis' argument.

Looking back over the thread, it looks like you actually brought up Lewis' trilemma?

Tim Robbins wrote:

You agree his logic can be strange.
But you disagree he straw man's or ignores. Well fine look at the evidence and draw your own conclusions.

I have done so. Indeed, that is what I base my conclusions on - a year's worth of evidence.

Tim Robbins wrote:

An arbitrator of logic who says:
You are just straw manning again

See my remarks above as to how you have implicitly set yourself up as an arbiter of what is logical - also, your dismissal of virtually every other poster on this thread as knowing nothing about logic would tend to support my assertion.

In addition, I am not sure what you understand as being a 'straw man'. I have not set up a fallacious version of your argument here at all. I may be wrong about you setting yourself up as an arbiter of logic, and you may feel that this misrepresents you, but I am not misrepresenting an argument in order to knock it down, which is what the straw man technique is.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Of course it matters, I dimissed his argument first. You can't have it both ways. When you attack me you dismiss my arguments and then you throw your subjective insults at me at the end your post and you defend your right to do that.
When I attack Lewis, I attack his argument and then I state a fact at the end which you have decided that I think is an inference. It's actually not an inference, it's just consistent with my view he has not demostrated ever a good command of logic i.e. they are kids books not Maths or Physics books.

Well, as I said, I'm trying to stop being snippy with you - but you have those two the wrong way round.

I have been careful, I think, to treat your arguments as arguments. At no pont have I dismissed them, or suggested that they are in any way weakened, by what I consider to be your arrogance. I may say that your arrogance prevents you seeing where you are wrong, or even where you might be wrong - but I have not actually done so. Instead, I have adduced your arrogance from your inability to see where you might be wrong.

Tim Robbins wrote:

If you read that as insult to C S Lewis, I can understand that.
But, I would ask apply the same rules to yourself that you apply to me giving my opinion about Lewis (which actually states a fact, your remark at me is subjective not an objective fact) for a start.

An ad hominem is not dependent on falsity. It can be perfectly factually accurate, as long as it is (a) irrelevant, and (b) tends to diminish the stature of the opponent.

To point out that Lewis wrote childrens' books in the course of disputing his logic is to introduce an irrelevance that diminishes Lewis' stature as a logician. That is an ad hominem argument.

I have, unquestionably, been rude to/about you, but that is not an ad hominem argument - it is simply a series of personal remarks being made on the same thread. I haven't used it in the course of disputing your arguments - but I am certaily entitled to both hold, and express, an opinion of you.

Tim Robbins wrote:

It can be taken as an axiom as I have stated but then all sorts of strange axioms can be taken just be taking as axioms. There just has to be consistency of rules and methodolgies.

It is just as consistent to say "anything can be an axiom" as it is to say "only a self-evident truth can be an axiom", as long as either of these are applied consistently.

Again, you seem to be queasy at the idea that anything can be an axiom, but unwilling to divulge what, in your view, makes for a licit axiom?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

I am trying to stop being snippy here, but I wonder do you actually read the posts?

I said that 'Christian faith' can be broken down into two separate statements. That's the only reason for rejecting it as a single axiom. Obviously we would use the two resulting statements as axioms instead of 'Christian faith'.

Fine. Use whatever crazy stuff you want as an axiom.

Again, you seem to have some defining quality for axioms that you have yet to reveal? Why are you reluctant to use 'Christian faith' as an axiom?

Because it is as ridiculous as using the Lion can speak French as an axiom.
But you are correct, outside epistemogical logic, anything can be used as an axiom, but you should admit that if that is done the potential for all sorts of bizarre conclusions goes up.

I would favour challenging all axioms, in the same way, if you excuse the analogy, I would like to get my facts straight before giving an opinion.

I'm beginnning to think that you have a hammer, and everything looks like a nail.

What is your axiom for that?

OK. If you can't you can't. Essentially, by saying that someone has a 'better than average grasp of logic' you imply that you have the capacity to make such a judgement, which in turn implies that you have an even better grasp of logic - otherwise, how could you know?

Further, the "compliment" is actually a case of 'damning with faint praise' - since you have also stated that the average grasp of logic is very poor.

Your apparent compliment, then, is very faint praise that contains an implied statement of your own superiority. That's the essence of 'patronising', right there.

You are twisting my words and deriving your own meanings to make a point.

I said about you:
"definetly well above average", not "better than average".
You misquoted me.
What do you want me to say, the best person I have ever met?
And no matter what I say, how does that imply that I have a better grasp of logic?
I think people are definetly well above average at Football and they are also definetly better than me no matter how passionate I am about Football.

As for "how could I know?", I don't know, I never said I did.
I just give my opinions.

BTW, I don't respect this type of arguing it's not logical, it's just based on rhetoric and word twisting. You are definetly well above average on logic but higher again for rhetoric skills.

Well, those were kind of trivial. They were also based on a misquote of Lewis.

Which? I rebutted my version and Brian's. Are you saying that Brian also misquoted Lewis' argument?

I'm fine on probability, thanks. I can't see why you're trying to apply it to a logic problem.

Because, many people think that if there are only 3 outcomes, they know something about the probability of the outcome. That is one reason why I think Lewis's logic is deceptive he does this. He narrows down the outcomes and uses deceptive language to make some of those outcomes to sound ridiculous, for example calling Jesus insane, delusional or insane.
So he is using a rhetoric technique to make people intuitively think that it's a particular outcome - it's actually quite clever.

The probabilities of each of the three outcomes are irrelevant to whether Lewis' trilemma contains all possible options in a mutually exclusive way.

No disagreement there. It was a separate point.

See my remarks above as to how you have implicitly set yourself up as an arbiter of what is logical - also, your dismissal of virtually every other poster on this thread as knowing nothing about logic would tend to support my assertion.

Unfair, I went into quite detail about all my disagreements.

In addition, I am not sure what you understand as being a 'straw man'. I have not set up a fallacious version of your argument here at all. I may be wrong about you setting yourself up as an arbiter of logic, and you may feel that this misrepresents you, but I am not misrepresenting an argument in order to knock it down, which is what the straw man technique is.

Well pick a straw I have used and I will elaborate as to why I said it was.

To point out that Lewis wrote childrens' books in the course of disputing his logic is to introduce an irrelevance that diminishes Lewis' stature as a logician. That is an ad hominem argument.

I have, unquestionably, been rude to/about you, but that is not an ad hominem argument - it is simply a series of personal remarks being made on the same thread. I haven't used it in the course of disputing your arguments - but I am certaily entitled to both hold, and express, an opinion of you.

You have a humourous way of justifying your ad homien arguments (I am also sure you are comfortable with your ad homien 'arbiitrator of logic' argument as well) and going to great lengths to give out about what you percive are mine.

Perhaps you should apply an earlier statement

"I have adduced your arrogance from your inability to see where you might be wrong."

to yourself first mate.

It is just as consistent to say "anything can be an axiom" as it is to say "only a self-evident truth can be an axiom", as long as either of these are applied consistently.

Ok well don't give out about Lion speaking French axiom, I won't give out your Christian faith axiom.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Fine. Use whatever crazy stuff you want as an axiom.

Thanks. For some reason your permission seems begrudgingly given.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Because it is as ridiculous as using the Lion can speak French as an axiom.

I know you think that, but I don't know why, because you haven't said.

Tim Robbins wrote:

But you are correct, outside epistemogical logic, anything can be used as an axiom, but you should admit that if that is done the potential for all sorts of bizarre conclusions goes up.

I haven't claimed otherwise! Obviously one can use all kinds of silly things as axioms, and build all kinds of silly logical structures on top of them by logical inference. However, they either don't make testable inferences, in which case they are of no consequence, or they do, in which case they can be tested.

I can't see why this offends you.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I would favour challenging all axioms, in the same way, if you excuse the analogy, I would like to get my facts straight before giving an opinion.

In other words, rather than testing an axiom by deriving testable inferences from it, you would rather challenge the axiom itself by requiring that it be logically derived?

Unfortunately, this leaves us with an infinite recursion problem, since for the proposed axioms to be logically derived, it must be logically derived from some other axiom - which should also be tested.....and quite rapidly we are back at the position that the only acceptable axioms are the self-evident ones of epistemology. Essentially, that's a statement that all logic derives from epistemology (which is, I think, disputed), and requires a foundation of self-evident truths (which many philosophers claim don't exist).

Tim Robbins wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

I'm beginnning to think that you have a hammer, and everything looks like a nail.

What is your axiom for that?

That's quite funny, or possibly very Zen, or both!

In case you don't see why - there is a popular saying "to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail". In other words, some people have only one tool, or one approach, and try to fit absolutely everything into conformity with the tool, rather than utilising new tools. I have suggested this might apply to you (with respect to logic), and you have responded by asking me what my axiom for the remark is.

Tim Robbins wrote:

You are twisting my words and deriving your own meanings to make a point.

I said about you:
"definetly well above average", not "better than average".
You misquoted me.

That's really not very much of a twist. Exactly the same remarks apply to "definetly (sic) well above average", as "better than average" - it's still faint praise, and still implies your superior grasp of the subject. I found the remark patronising at the time, not after I had paraphrased it.

Again, your assumption here is that I am trying to score a point, not that I genuinely found the remark patronising. I genuinely found the remark patronising - and I think your unwarranted assumption that I am, instead, point-scoring, suggests that you simply cannot believe it of yourself that someone might find a remark of yours patronising.

Tim Robbins wrote:

What do you want me to say, the best person I have ever met?

It might be better not to make comments on other people's capabilities at all. To say that an argument is illogical is one thing, to say that the person who used it doesn't understand logic is another.

Tim Robbins wrote:

And no matter what I say, how does that imply that I have a better grasp of logic?
I think people are definetly well above average at Football and they are also definetly better than me no matter how passionate I am about Football.

Logic and football are not analogous. If you actually don't understand logic at all, then you cannot tell logic from nonsense. If your grasp of logic is poor, then you can't tell good logic from bad logic. By extension, you can never assess the real logical capabilities of someone who is better at logic than you are, because you cannot follow the better logic that they use.

Therefore, assigning someone else a competence in logic suggests that your competence is greater than theirs.

Tim Robbins wrote:

BTW, I don't respect this type of arguing it's not logical, it's just based on rhetoric and word twisting. You are definetly well above average on logic but higher again for rhetoric skills.

Again, for you to be able to tell which of my arguments are rhetoric, and which are advanced use of logic, requires that you have greater logical capabilities than me.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Which? I rebutted my version and Brian's. Are you saying that Brian also misquoted Lewis' argument?

Er, yours is the first reference to it on this thread. Was Brian using your version?

Tim Robbins wrote:

Because, many people think that if there are only 3 outcomes, they know something about the probability of the outcome. That is one reason why I think Lewis's logic is deceptive he does this. He narrows down the outcomes and uses deceptive language to make some of those outcomes to sound ridiculous, for example calling Jesus insane, delusional or insane.
So he is using a rhetoric technique to make people intuitively think that it's a particular outcome - it's actually quite clever.

Sigh. It's clever because it proves false the proposition Lewis set out to prove false - the proposition that "Jesus is acceptable as a great moral teacher but not divine".

He does so by reference to the fact that the Bible (which is our only source for Jesus' teachings) says that Jesus claimed to be divine. This fact is irreconcilable with the proposition that "Jesus is acceptable as a great moral teacher but not divine" - because he was either lying, deluded, didn't say it, or was speaking the truth.

If Jesus was lying or deluded, he can hardly be a 'great moral teacher'. If he didn't say it, the Bible is inaccurate - and it's our only source for Jesus' teachings, so if it's inaccurate about what he said we have no basis for claiming he said any of the things that cause us to consider him a 'great moral teacher'.

It is not, as you seem to think, a deceptive attempt to prove Jesus' divinity in general. Lewis' trilemma is not some sort of 'logical proof of Jesus being God', and no deception is involved. All he is proving is that you cannot claim that he was a great moral teacher and claim that he is not divine.

Personally, I don't accept that the Scriptural figure of Jesus existed (I think he's a synthesis of several people, plus some standard tropes), so I am unaffected by Lewis' claim. This is one way out of the trilemma - denial that Jesus existed as such. The other ways are to accept that he was lying or deluded, but nevertheless had some good ideas - sort of an accidental moral teacher (and why not? Wittgenstein was periodically mad, and you can learn some quite solid truths from liars) - or that he meant something other than the apparent meaning when he made his claims to divinity.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well pick a straw I have used and I will elaborate as to why I said it was.

I'm not quite sure how to take this. Do you mean that I should pick something I think is a straw man argument of yours? Or do you mean I should pick something I said that you think is a straw man argument of mine?

In the first case, I don't think you've used straw men - possibly excepting your misquote of Lewis' trilemma, but I think that's just a misquote.

In the second case, I think it would be better if you picked the argument. Otherwise, we are working off me picking something I said that I think you think is a straw man.

Tim Robbins wrote:

You have a humourous way of justifying your ad homien arguments (I am also sure you are comfortable with your ad homien 'arbiitrator of logic' argument as well) and going to great lengths to give out about what you percive are mine.

Perhaps you should apply an earlier statement

"I have adduced your arrogance from your inability to see where you might be wrong." to yourself first mate.

I try.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Ok well don't give out about Lion speaking French axiom, I won't give out your Christian faith axiom.

I didn't! I said it was a perfectly valid axiom which rapidly yields testable inferences.

So, we agree to differ?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

By the way, the reason for arguing all of that is that belief systems are founded on statements of faith.

If we deny that statements of faith can be the axioms of logical systems, then we deny that belief systems can be logical systems.

I'm perfectly willing to entertain the assertion that statements of faith cannot be axioms, if someone will explain why this is so.



I would also be interested to know what Christians regard as the minimum statements of faith that make someone a Christian - the axioms of Christianity.

My own attempt is as I said above:

a. the God described by the Bible exists
b. the God described by the Bible is worshippable

Any comments?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

I haven't claimed otherwise! Obviously one can use all kinds of silly things as axioms, and build all kinds of silly logical structures on top of them by logical inference. However, they either don't make testable inferences, in which case they are of no consequence, or they do, in which case they can be tested.

If you are looking for "testable inferences" you are using the Scientific method and not just logic. Unless you mean something different by "testable" than I think you do.

In other words, rather than testing an axiom by deriving testable inferences from it, you would rather challenge the axiom itself by requiring that it be logically derived?

You don't test an axiom in logic.

That's quite funny, or possibly very Zen, or both!

What is your axiom for that being funny ?


[/QUOTE]
That's really not very much of a twist. Exactly the same remarks apply to "definetly (sic) well above average", as "better than average" - it's still faint praise, and still implies your superior grasp of the subject. I found the remark patronising at the time, not after I had paraphrased it.
[/QUOTE]
Dsiagree.

It might be better not to make comments on other people's capabilities at all. To say that an argument is illogical is one thing, to say that the person who used it doesn't understand logic is another.

But it is obviously ok for you to call me arrogant or infer I am ignorant.

Logic and football are not analogous.
If you actually don't understand logic at all, then you cannot tell logic from nonsense. If your grasp of logic is poor, then you can't tell good logic from bad logic. By extension, you can never assess the real logical capabilities of someone who is better at logic than you are, because you cannot follow the better logic that they use.

Disagree. You can always offer an opinion. I can say Bertran Russell was better at logic than me irrespective of how much or how little I can follow.

Again, for you to be able to tell which of my arguments are rhetoric, and which are advanced use of logic, requires that you have greater logical capabilities than me.

I can reverse that argument: for you to give out about my logic, requires you to better at logic at me. So you who are patronizing me. I can you use your reasoning to cancel out your reasoning.

Er, yours is the first reference to it on this thread. Was Brian using your version?

No I initially argued against my version. Brian said I had the argument wrong, then he reworded it and I then argued against that.

It is not, as you seem to think, a deceptive attempt to prove Jesus' divinity in general. Lewis' trilemma is not some sort of 'logical proof of Jesus being God', and no deception is involved. All he is proving is that you cannot claim that he was a great moral teacher and claim that he is not divine.

I disagree. It uses deceptive logic (i.e. I mean something that sounds logically watertight and is not for all I guess he probably thought it was watertight too). As for your sentence:'All he is proving is that you cannot claim that he was a great moral teacher and claim that he is not divine.'
I disagree with that. One can think he was a great moral teacher and not think he is divine, the conclusion "being define" not is "deductively valid" from the premise being a great moral teacher.

In the first case, I don't think you've used straw men - possibly excepting your misquote of Lewis' trilemma, but I think that's just a misquote.

Like I said, I went through both my version of it and Brian's.

In the second case, I think it would be better if you picked the argument. Otherwise, we are working off me picking something I said that I think you think is a straw man.

Well you are the one saying I am using that term incorrectly. So point it out if you wish to substantiate your argument.

I didn't! I said it was a perfectly valid axiom which rapidly yields testable inferences.

Again you are jumping between logic and the Scientific method which I think is the major disagreement between you and me.
In core logic, something doesn't have to be empiracally testable as in the Lion does not have to observed. You don't need an observable testable condition to test the validity of it logically.

You are never trying to test an axiom in logic.
This is why the term axiom is used instead of premise or cause or inference.

If you are trying to test an axiom, don't call it an axiom.

In an different type of an argument, the Lion speaks French could be a premise, cause or precondition (but not an axiom) and you could test it by using abductive reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_reasoning

Of course, deductive and inductive reasoning could also be used in a logical analysis to test it, but then it's not an axiom which you are testing as axioms are not tested in logic.

So, we agree to differ?

I diagree with how you have trying to interject the scientific method into logic as if it was part of logic. It's the other way around. Science uses logic, Logic does not use Science.

We agree anything silly can be an axiom. But I say the role of logic is test an axiom. Because of this, you'd want to make sure you have reliable axioms not silly ones as then you end of will all sort of strange logical conclusions as it is not the role of logic to test an axiom, the axiom is a given in logical reasoning.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

We agree anything silly can be an axiom. But I say the role of logic is test an axiom. Because of this, you'd want to make sure you have reliable axioms not silly ones as then you end of will all sort of strange logical conclusions as it is not the role of logic to test an axiom, the axiom is a given in logical reasoning.

To a large extent this summarises my problem with what you're saying. Which of the bold highlighted statements are you claiming is actually correct?

Is it the role of logic to:

a. test an axiom
b. not test an axiom

puzzled,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

To a large extent this summarises my problem with what you're saying. Which of the bold highlighted statements are you claiming is actually correct?

Is it the role of logic to:

a. test an axiom
b. not test an axiom

puzzled,
Scofflaw

Sorry excuse my typo. I say b, not to test an axiom or more specifically, logic does not test axioms, it tests inferences, axioms are taken as a given.

And if I could just reply to JimiTime, who said;

What is the definition of Logic?
Is this definition disputible? or are there other definitions?
Is Christianity logical In your opinion? Why?

I don't think Christianity is logical. I was just reading a William Reville Science book last night who at the very end tried to argue Christianity and he said if you are just going to use logic, you will end up at the same conclusion as Bertran Russel i.e. not a Christian. If you want to be a Christian you have to use something else.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

If you are looking for "testable inferences" you are using the Scientific method and not just logic. Unless you mean something different by "testable" than I think you do.

You don't test an axiom in logic.

Of course, deductive and inductive reasoning could also be used in a logical analysis to test it, but then it's not an axiom which you are testing as axioms are not tested in logic.

I diagree with how you have trying to interject the scientific method into logic as if it was part of logic. It's the other way around. Science uses logic, Logic does not use Science.

I know what you're saying. If, in logic, we start off with a silly axiom, then we can logically arrive at silly inferences. As you say, that's why you need to start off with sensible axioms.

Unfortunately, there's no real test of what is, or is not, a sensible axiom, other than self-evidence, logical derivation from self-evident axioms, or self-contradiction. That essentially means that we cannot examine most axioms.

This is why formal logic has not gone as far in a couple of thousand years as science has in a couple of hundred. So, yes, I pretty much always use scientific logic.

Scientific use of logic allows us to test axioms by testing the inferences we make from them. And as you say, science uses logic, not vice-versa - but that does not mean that scientific logic is not logic.

The corollary of scientific testing of axioms is that any statement is allowable as an axiom - because it can be tested.

Tim Robbins wrote:

What is your axiom for that being funny ?

Phew.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

That's really not very much of a twist. Exactly the same remarks apply to "definetly (sic) well above average", as "better than average" - it's still faint praise, and still implies your superior grasp of the subject. I found the remark patronising at the time, not after I had paraphrased it.

Dsiagree.

I'm not sure how you can, except by calling me a liar?

Tim Robbins wrote:

But it is obviously ok for you to call me arrogant or infer I am ignorant.

Well, yes. If I was being rude or obnoxious you would have a perfect right to say so, and I would say that the same goes for arrogant and patronising - these are matters of opinion separate from any discussion. They may not be as obvious as someone simply calling another poster a f****** or whatever, but they are equally unpleasant in discourse, and no-one has to put up with them.

On the other hand, I still haven't commented on your logical capabilities.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Disagree. You can always offer an opinion. I can say Bertran Russell was better at logic than me irrespective of how much or how little I can follow.

I can reverse that argument: for you to give out about my logic, requires you to better at logic at me. So you who are patronizing me. I can you use your reasoning to cancel out your reasoning.

Not really. I haven't said anything about your capacity for using logic. We are each of us entitled to say "such and such an argument used by Poster X is poor logic, or illogical", but we are not really entitled to say "Poster X knows nothing about logic", except under dire provocation*. The former is a dismissal of an argument, the latter a dismissal of a person.

*see the Creationism thread. If you fancy saying that one of the posters couldn't tell a conclusion from concussion, be my guest.

Tim Robbins wrote:

No I initially argued against my version. Brian said I had the argument wrong, then he reworded it and I then argued against that.

Fair enough, although that means that Brian was using a version derived from yours.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I disagree. It uses deceptive logic (i.e. I mean something that sounds logically watertight and is not for all I guess he probably thought it was watertight too). As for your sentence:'All he is proving is that you cannot claim that he was a great moral teacher and claim that he is not divine.'
I disagree with that. One can think he was a great moral teacher and not think he is divine, the conclusion "being define" not is "deductively valid" from the premise being a great moral teacher.

Lewis doesn't try to deduce Jesus' divinity from 'being a great moral teacher'. He is simply observing that if you take the Bible as evidence for one (Jesus' moral teachings), you have to explain the other (Jesus' claim to divinity).

For what Lewis set out to do (and he states what it is in the quote I gave), his case is pretty watertight, and certainly not deceptive.

You have a firm grip of the wrong end of the stick in this particular case. I'm not getting at you, but if you're currently studying logic, or otherwise in a position to do so, please ask about Lewis' trilemma.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well you are the one saying I am using that term incorrectly. So point it out if you wish to substantiate your argument.

An arbitrator of logic who says:

I am not very certain I am using pure logic, I am doing my best to use pure logic but am fallable just like anybody else.

and

Of course I can be wrong in my logic, when did I say I am always right?
You are just trying to characterise me as a person of arrogance.

and

I have opinions, but not the absolute infallable truth. Noone does.

You are just straw manning again

This is not a straw man. If I say you are setting yourself up as an arbiter of what logic is, I am making an assertion about you. I can then offer evidence to support that assertion, and you can offer evidence to refute it, as above.

At no point do I set up a fake version of an argument of yours - which is what a 'straw man' would be.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Again you are jumping between logic and the Scientific method which I think is the major disagreement between you and me.
In core logic, something doesn't have to be empiracally testable as in the Lion does not have to observed. You don't need an observable testable condition to test the validity of it logically.

You are never trying to test an axiom in logic.
This is why the term axiom is used instead of premise or cause or inference.

One cannot avoid the use of logic in science!

Tim Robbins wrote:

If you are trying to test an axiom, don't call it an axiom.

In an different type of an argument, the Lion speaks French could be a premise, cause or precondition (but not an axiom) and you could test it by using abductive reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_reasoning

Well, if you prefer, I will call them premises. However, insofar as one erects a logical system of inferences on them, they are axioms. That we can then test those inferences (empirically or rationally) is not relevant - the process is identical.

cordially,
Scofflaw