Canon and the Authenticity of Scripture

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

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

Both are the starting foundations of Christianity. Even Satan affirms the existence of God and His worshipability (don't even know if that's a word?).

Christianity comes in when you have the foundation of the above statements then take action on them by putting your faith in the hands of the God of the Bible.

By putting your faith in Him, I mean allowing Him to guide and control your life. Once your faith is in Christ then you become a Christian.

JimiTime

Tim Robbins wrote:

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

Jimitime wrote:

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.

Could you answer the first 3 questions, and the last one also? Cheers.

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

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.

If you mean Scientific method when you say Scientific logic you should say that. "Scientific logic" is your terminology, "Scientific logic" is not a logical system. Common logical systems:
Syllogistic logic, Predicate logic, Modal logic, Deduction and reasoning, Mathematical logic, Philosophical logic.
I can't find something called "Scientific logic".
So when you say "I pretty much always use scientific logic" it would appear to me you are using the scientific method in a debate note about the scientific method but 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.

Strickly speaking you are not testing axioms in Science. I just reread the wikipedia entries for Karl Popper and Scientific method and I can't even find the word axiom.
Do you have reference where it states clearly that the Scientific method tests axioms (i.e. not just hypotheisis or theories)?

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

Well I can't agree with that due to my comment above and the fact that not everything can be tested, ID for example is not Science because it cannot be tested.

I'm not sure how you can, except by calling me a liar?

I wouldn't say liar I would say word twister.

On the other hand, I still haven't commented on your logical capabilities.

Disagree. You made a sarcy comment:
"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."

Or this one here.
"Er, fine, that's nice. Fortunately, you are never ever wrong about logic."

Fair enough, although that means that Brian was using a version derived from yours.

Why not ask Brian if derived his version from me or C S Lewis?

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.

Well if you look at it that way, it's still not much of argument. It's not watertight. You can explain it as he was mistaken, or the people who wrote it were. Or he was a cool hippie nut who said nice things. It would only be a big deal if that was difficult to explain.

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.

You only looked at some of the evidence to draw a conclusion which is impossible to draw if you look at all the evidence. You do this to make an argument that cannot be made by looking at all the evidence.

That's my take.

One cannot avoid the use of logic in science!

Agree, but you injected the scientific method into a debate about logic when you felt like it as if they were both the same as far as I am concerned. You kept using the word axiom which is not used (from I can see) in the Scientific method it is used in logic.

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

If you find a good reference where it states logic tests or evaluates axioms (i.e. not inferences) then I will agree you are correct to say logic tests axioms.

Similarly, unless you find a good reference where it states the scientific method tests or evaluates axioms (i.e. not just hypothesis or theories) then I will agree you are correct to say the Scientific method tests axioms.

I am not using the terminology: "Scientific logic" as it not clearly defined anywhere as I far as I can see.

It's impossible to have a debate if either of us invent terminology, methodology or mix up methodology when it suits us.

Tim Robbins

JimiTime wrote:

Could you answer the first 3 questions, and the last one also? Cheers.

Q.1. What is the definition of Logic?
A valid inference. The role of the logician is determine whether an inference is valid or not.

Q.2.
Is this definition disputible? or are there other definitions?
I would say every defintion is disputable, but most people would agree with above.
There are different forms of logic.

Q.3.
Is Christianity logical In your opinion? Why?
Well yes and no.
Yes: If you come up with a strange axiom you can deduce some arguments where the inference is valid.
But (No) the axiom would be disputable.
So it is no more or no less logical than the Lion speaks French argument I put earlier.

I have never seen Christianity argued logically. The closest is C S Lewis, but he is not using strict logic. What I mean by 'Strict logic' is if you use strict logic, there are all sorts of special symbols for AND and OR etc. so that an argument looks like an algerbraic equation. This algerbraic equation has strict rules and a logican can determine by these rules if the inference is valid.

Now, I have never seen that done for Christianity.

The difficulty that caused logicans the most difficulty refuting w.r.t. Christianity apparently was the ontological arguement.

BTW I am not an expert. I would suggest reading a good book and obviously making up your mind.

JimiTime

Tim Robbins wrote:

Q.1. What is the definition of Logic?
A valid inference. The role of the logician is determine whether an inference is valid or not.

Q.2.
Is this definition disputible? or are there other definitions?
I would say every defintion is disputable, but most people would agree with above.
There are different forms of logic.

Q.3.
Is Christianity logical In your opinion? Why?
Well yes and no.
Yes: If you come up with a strange axiom you can deduce some arguments where the inference is valid.
But (No) the axiom would be disputable.
So it is no more or no less logical than the Lion speaks French argument I put earlier.

I have never seen Christianity argued logically. The closest is C S Lewis, but he is not using strict logic. What I mean by 'Strict logic' is if you use strict logic, there are all sorts of special symbols for AND and OR etc. so that an argument looks like an algerbraic equation. This algerbraic equation has strict rules and a logican can determine by these rules if the inference is valid.

Now, I have never seen that done for Christianity.

The difficulty that caused logicans the most difficulty refuting w.r.t. Christianity apparently was the ontological arguement.

BTW I am not an expert. I would suggest reading a good book and obviously making up your mind.

Thanks for that. So by the explainations you give, Atheism would be against strict logic also, yes? As the axiom, 'God does not exist', cannot be logically argued?

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

I am not using the terminology: "Scientific logic" as it not clearly defined anywhere as I far as I can see.

It's impossible to have a debate if either of us invent terminology, methodology or mix up methodology when it suits us.

Sigh. That might be the case if any of our disagreements had any real relevance, but they don't.

If what you really want to say is that Christianity cannot be established as logical because it is not a formal logical system - fine. I don't see it in your list.

If the above constitutes pretty much your entire claim that Christianity is "not logical", then you're just juggling words, because a similar dismissal applies to science.

If that's not your claim, then quibbling about whether something should be called an 'axiom' or a 'premise' is a huge waste of everyone's time.


EDIT: I see from your answer to JimiTime that it is the former. Frankly, I wish you had made that clear right back at the beginning, because I certainly wouldn't have bothered arguing about it.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I have never seen Christianity argued logically. The closest is C S Lewis, but he is not using strict logic. What I mean by 'Strict logic' is if you use strict logic, there are all sorts of special symbols for AND and OR etc. so that an argument looks like an algerbraic equation. This algerbraic equation has strict rules and a logican can determine by these rules if the inference is valid.

That Christianity hasn't been established as a formal logical system in the way you describe is such a narrow claim as to be entirely pointless.

From most people's point of view, you are saying pretty much the same as "Christianity isn't mathematically valid". What a huge waste of time.

Young man (or woman), you're an ass.

regards,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Sigh. That might be the case if any of our disagreements had any real relevance, but they don't.

Well a significance of a lot time spent and a major divergence from the OP.

If what you really want to say is that Christianity cannot be established as logical because it is not a formal logical system - fine. I don't see it in your list.

Well what I was trying to show that it is quite hard to argue Christianity logically as the logic gets quite circular quite quickly. I can't find a decent axiom in it. So I would agree with many theologians and many Christians who say Christianity is not logical.

If the above constitutes pretty much your entire claim that Christianity is "not logical", then you're just juggling words, because a similar dismissal applies to science.

As I have Science is not part of logic it is derived from it. There is no such logical system called "Scientific logic".
The Scientific method is derived from logic, inductive reasoning to be more precise. Inductive reasoning, is trying to determine the rule or relationship between premise and conclusion. Inductively reasoning is part of logic.
The Scientific method adds extra steps such testing, observation, falsiablity.
This is because it know inductive reasoning can lead to inaccurate conclusions so it does it best to minimize the chances of this happening.
Something can be inductively valid, but not be deductively valid.

I don't see any good logical argument in Chrisitanity, unless of course a strange axiom is introduced, which by the definition of an axiom is immune from testing.
My own views is that Christianity and theology is outside the remit of logic and belongs to mythos not logos as Karen Armstrong would say.

I notice certain Christian arguments fall apart when scrutinised logically or become circular the basis of this thread.

If that's not your claim, then quibbling about whether something should be called an 'axiom' or a 'premise' is a huge waste of everyone's time.

Which is it?

I don't follow your argument here.
Conclusion: I am wasting people's time
Premise: Quibbling about whether something should be called an axiom or premise based on the claim what you really want to say is that Christianity cannot be established as logical because it is not a formal logical system - fine. I don't see it in your list.

I get lost in the premise so I cannot decide what I think of the validity of the inference
[/QUOTE]
If you don't mind me saying I think time was wasted because I was talking about logic and you introduced the Scientific method, or "Scientific logic" and the concept of testable axiom and moved the axiom from one over to the other and over and back.

Do you have a link to says an axiom can be tested in logic or the scientific method?

And as I have said earlier in this debate, I don't see the point in having a debate unless we are agreement over the rules or the laws of logic and that means the word "premise" is correctly used and the word "axiom" is correctly used and the laws pertaining to them are adhered to.

Tim Robbins

JimiTime wrote:

Thanks for that. So by the explainations you give, Atheism would be against strict logic also, yes? As the axiom, 'God does not exist', cannot be logically argued?

Good question.
I used to think like that and was parked in the agnostic camp for a long time.
Then for various reasons including this argument I decided to go for atheism.

Conclusion: There is no all caring, all loving, all powerful God
Premise: Kids get cancer

I thought that was a deductively valid and a valid inference.
All I needed was an axiom. I am happy that my mind hasn't played a trick on me and kids do get cancer so the premise is an axiom and inference is 100% valid cannot be rebutted.

I checked the free will argument, and the rebuttals the free will argument and I was still happy enough to go with my conclusion.

Note, the following are inductively valid (the inference may true or false, we don't know, we can't rule the inference out)

Conclusion: There is a God who is an all knowing, all loving, but not an all able.
Premise / Axiom : Kids get cancer

or

Conclusion: There is a God who is all knowing, all able, but not an all caring.
Premise / Axiom : Kids get cancer

or

Conclusion: There is a God who is all able, all loving, but not an all knowing.
Premise / Axiom : Kids get cancer

So yes logically there could be a God, but in my opinion he is not like the one we are thought about - at least the abrahmic God, who is supposed to be all able, all knowing, all loving. The evidence has refuted that claim.

So then I became an agnostic deist / atheist.
For other reasons, I swung over to atheism completly or say 90% atheist, 10% agnostic Deist.
Cheers mate.

BrianCalgary

Tim Robbins wrote:

Good question.
I used to think like that and was parked in the agnostic camp for a long time.
Then for various reasons including this argument I decided to go for atheism.

Conclusion: There is no all caring, all loving, all powerful God
Premise: Kids get cancer

I thought that was a deductively valid and a valid inference.
All I needed was an axiom. I am happy that my mind hasn't played a trick on me and kids do get cancer so the premise is an axiom and inference is 100% valid cannot be rebutted.

I checked the free will argument, and the rebuttals the free will argument and I was still happy enough to go with my conclusion.

Note, the following are inductively valid (the inference may true or false, we don't know, we can't rule the inference out)

Conclusion: There is a God who is an all knowing, all loving, but not an all able.
Premise / Axiom : Kids get cancer

or

Conclusion: There is a God who is all knowing, all able, but not an all caring.
Premise / Axiom : Kids get cancer

or

Conclusion: There is a God who is all able, all loving, but not an all knowing.
Premise / Axiom : Kids get cancer

So yes logically there could be a God, but in my opinion he is not like the one we are thought about - at least the abrahmic God, who is supposed to be all able, all knowing, all loving. The evidence has refuted that claim.

So then I became an agnostic deist / atheist.
For other reasons, I swung over to atheism completly or say 90% atheist, 10% agnostic Deist.
Cheers mate.

And here you leave out a very important piece of information.

There is a God, who is all knowing, loving and caring.
Kid gets cancer. Why because sin exists in an imperfect world.
Result: The all-loving God reaches down His hand to offer grace to the sick kid.
Next step: The kid refuses to take the helping hand.

Or corporately: God reaches out His hand to a sick world, the world refuses to take it.
Next step: Blame God for allowing it to happen.

It is like a drowning man, you toss him a line and he refuses to take it, then you get blamed for not rescuing him.

For someone who is very logical you illogically leave out huge pieces of information that are important factors.

robindch

> Kid gets cancer. Why because sin exists in an imperfect world.

Out of interest -- do you tell this kind of thing to impressionable people (kids etc)?

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Good question.
I used to think like that and was parked in the agnostic camp for a long time.
Then for various reasons including this argument I decided to go for atheism.

Conclusion: There is no all caring, all loving, all powerful God
Premise: Kids get cancer

I thought that was a deductively valid and a valid inference.
All I needed was an axiom. I am happy that my mind hasn't played a trick on me and kids do get cancer so the premise is an axiom and inference is 100% valid cannot be rebutted.

Your argument as stated is invalid. It contains no step in which you show why an "all caring, all loving, all powerful God" would prevent kids getting cancer.

The argument might be better stated:

Premise 1: kids get cancer
Premise 2: an "all caring, all loving, all powerful God" would prevent this from happening
Conclusion: There is no all caring, all loving, all powerful God

Except that as you can see, Brian disagrees with premise 2.

If you feel that I have mis-stated your argument, please show how you would connect "all caring, all loving, all powerful God" to "prevents kids getting cancer".

regards,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> Kid gets cancer. Why because sin exists in an imperfect world.

Out of interest -- do you tell this kind of thing to impressionable people (kids etc)?

I teach High School kids and generally I hang out with kids 14 and up, and if they were to ask me the question of why things like cancer exists, yes that is exactly what I would tell them.

When my daughter was in hospital last spring, she fully understood that her life was in the hands of God. If God took her to heaven at that time, she was OK with it. She also understood that it was sheer accident what happened as part of life and physics etc. So yeah, I would.

Out of interest what would you tell them?

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Your argument as stated is invalid. It contains no step in which you show why an "all caring, all loving, all powerful God" would prevent kids getting cancer.

The step is implicit inthe definition. There is no step that the kid is inhaling oxygen either.

The argument might be better stated:

Premise 1: kids get cancer
Premise 2: an "all caring, all loving, all powerful God" would prevent this from happening
Conclusion: There is no all caring, all loving, all powerful God

Except that as you can see, Brian disagrees with premise 2.

The original way was fine using deductive logic.

Doing it your way you would have to include and logical AND between premise 1 and premise 2, (which you omit) otherwise it is unclear the relationship between the two premises and your conclusion, it could be logical OR or a disjunction and not a logical AND for example.

, because premise 2 is dependent on premise 1.

Well then you must show that in some way. If something is dependent on a it is usually called a conclusion and then used as a premise.

If you feel that I have mis-stated your argument, please show how you would connect "all caring, all loving, all powerful God" to "prevents kids getting cancer".

What do you mean by "connect"? I don't think "connect" is logical terminology. Can you use logical terminology for example "deductively valid"?
I think we have wasted enough time over a misunderstanding of axiom and the "scientific logic" already.

regards,
Scofflaw

You ignored my other post which was to you. That was meant for JimiTime, it would easier if finished off out other debate if that's ok your side.

Tim Robbins

BrianCalgary wrote:

And here you leave out a very important piece of information.
There is a God, who is all knowing, loving and caring.

I didn't leave that out.

loving => caring.

Read again I said,

Conclusion: There is a God who is an all knowing, all loving, but not an all able.
Premise / Axiom : Kids get cancer

I said that was inductively valid and it is.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

The step is implicit inthe definition. There is no step that the kid is inhaling oxygen either.

You have gone from your premise to your conclusion without showing how you arrived at the latter. This is not an acceptable course of action, because a hand-waving claim that "it's implicit" is the oldest pseudo-logician's trick in the book.

The step is not implicit in the definition, unless you assume that an all-loving, all-caring God would prevent cancer in kids.

Now, can we assume that? Well, do 'loving' or 'caring' have definitions that imply particular courses of action?

Virtually every parent accepts that they have a duty to love and care for their children - but one parent feels that harsh physical punishment is required for discipline, another feels that only verbal discipline is allowable, a third feels that children should only be encouraged, never punished, and a fourth feels that discipline itself is unnecessary and outmoded.

All of these people agree that they care for and love their children, but each one follows an entirely different course of action.

Clearly, therefore, 'loving' and 'caring' cannot be held to imply a particular course of action.

You have assumed that they do, and this is the flaw in your argument.

So, again, show how your premise leads to your conclusion. If you cannot do so, please accept that your argument is flawed.

Tim Robbins wrote:

You ignored my other post which was to you. That was meant for JimiTime, it would easier if finished off out other debate if that's ok your side.

I haven't yet answered it, which is not the same thing. Your invalid logic caught my eye rather more than your misunderstandings of my position!

regards,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

You have gone from your premise to your conclusion without showing how you arrived at the latter. This is not an acceptable course of action, because a hand-waving claim that "it's implicit" is the oldest pseudo-logician's trick in the book.

The step is not implicit in the definition, unless you assume that an all-loving, all-caring God would prevent cancer in kids.

Now, can we assume that? Well, do 'loving' or 'caring' have definitions that imply particular courses of action?

Virtually every parent accepts that they have a duty to love and care for their children - but one parent feels that harsh physical punishment is required for discipline, another feels that only verbal discipline is allowable, a third feels that children should only be encouraged, never punished, and a fourth feels that discipline itself is unnecessary and outmoded.

All of these people agree that they care for and love their children, but each one follows an entirely different course of action.

Clearly, therefore, 'loving' and 'caring' cannot be held to imply a particular course of action.

You have assumed that they do, and this is the flaw in your argument.

So, again, show how your premise leads to your conclusion. If you cannot do so, please accept that your argument is flawed.

I haven't yet answered it, which is not the same thing. Your invalid logic caught my eye rather more than your misunderstandings of my position!

regards,
Scofflaw

I repeat:
Premise: Kids get cancer
Conclusion: There is no all caring, all able, all knowing God

(note all three characteristics there, you argued in your last post against a version with less than these 3 characteristics).


Inference = Premise + so + Conclusion (Source: Chapter 1, Graham Priest, Logic, A very short introduction).

=>

inference = Kids get cancer so there is no all caring, all able, all knowing God.

'A Deductively valid inference is one for which there is no situation in which all premises are true but the conclusion is not' (Source: Chapter 1, Graham Priest, Logic, A very short introduction).

The inference is deductively valid because there is no case where a kid could get cancer and the conclusion of there being no all caring, all able, all knowing God is false.

BrianCalgary

Tim Robbins wrote:

I repeat:
Premise: Kids get cancer
Conclusion: There is no all caring, all able, all knowing God

(note all three characteristics there, you argued in your last post against a version with less than these 3 characteristics).

i.e.
Inference = Premise + so + Conclusion (Source: Chapter 1, Graham Priest, Logic, A very short introduction).

=>

inference = Kids get cancer so there is no all caring, all able, all knowing God.

'A Deductively valid inference is one for which there is no situation in which all premises are true but the conclusion is not' (Source: Chapter 1, Graham Priest, Logic, A very short introduction).

The inference is deductively valid because there is no case where a kid could get cancer and the conclusion of there being no all caring, all able, all knowing God is false.

you fail to show how they are related.

Kids get cancer
Conclusion: Cancer exists and kids can get it.

Kids getting cancer have absolutely nothing to with whether or not their is a God.

Tim Robbins

BrianCalgary wrote:

you fail to show how they are related.

Kids get cancer
Conclusion: Cancer exists and kids can get it.

Kids getting cancer have absolutely nothing to with whether or not their is a God.

With the greatest of respect, that part is just common sense. If there was an all caring, all knowing, all able, God the kid would not get cancer.

Unless you think all caring, all knowing, all able involves letting a kid get cancer, if that's the way you think we'll never agree.
If that's the case, I find that a bit disturbing and I would prefer if we just agreed to disagree on that, if that's possible.

BrianCalgary

Tim Robbins wrote:

With the greatest of respect, that part is just common sense. If there was an all caring, all knowing, all able, God the kid would not get cancer.
.

Why? What evidence do you have to support this statement?

Tim Robbins

BrianCalgary wrote:

Why? What evidence do you have to support this statement?

???
Evidence of what?
1. It's common sense - ask several people
2. Kids get cancer - go to your local hospital
3. It is logically impossible for there to be an all knowing, all caring, all able God and for kid to still get cancer - this is not a matter of evidence it's just a logical argument. It's like saying it's logically impossible for me to run from Dublin in Cork in under an hour as the fastest I can run is 10K per hour.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

With the greatest of respect, that part is just common sense. If there was an all caring, all knowing, all able, God the kid would not get cancer.

All that you mean here is that your definition of 'all-caring' and 'all-loving' includes 'not letting kids get cancer'.

While there's nothing invalid about such a definition, it is personal, and therefore your argument cannot be used to disprove anything but your own personal definition of an 'all-caring', 'all-loving', and 'all-powerful' god.

You cannot reach any general conclusion based on a personal definition.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Unless you think all caring, all knowing, all able involves letting a kid get cancer, if that's the way you think we'll never agree.
If that's the case, I find that a bit disturbing and I would prefer if we just agreed to disagree on that, if that's possible.

Well, if he does so, he does so. Your logic implies that you do not agree that such a god fits your definition of 'all-loving' and 'all-caring' - and presumably therefore would not worship such a god.

That is a line of logic which I am entirely behind. The same reasoning leads me to find Brian's God offensively unworshippable (no, I don't know whether the word exists either, but I think it's pretty clear what I mean by it).

However, it doesn't mean that Brian's God doesn't exist.

Tim Robbins wrote:

(note all three characteristics there, you argued in your last post against a version with less than these 3 characteristics).

Yes, because I have no problem with it. Clearly God would get an out from preventing cancer if he were less than all-powerful.

You still haven't shown how you get from your premise to your conclusion, and you seem to feel that is unnecessary to do so.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Doing it your way you would have to include and logical AND between premise 1 and premise 2, (which you omit) otherwise it is unclear the relationship between the two premises and your conclusion, it could be logical OR or a disjunction and not a logical AND for example.

This kind of pedantry would be acceptable from someone who actually bothered to show the steps between their premise and their conclusion. From someone who doesn't bother, not so much.

For the moment, you may take it that the AND is implied.

Tim Robbins wrote:

It is logically impossible for there to be an all knowing, all caring, all able God and for kid to still get cancer - this is not a matter of evidence it's just a logical argument.

No - it's an assertion.

regards,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

By the way, maybe we should move this discussion over to this thread:

A Reasonable Faith?

since this one is theoretically about the authenticity of Scripture. It's Tim's, so it's up to him.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Tim Robbins wrote:

???
Evidence of what?
1. It's common sense - ask several people
2. Kids get cancer - go to your local hospital
3. It is logically impossible for there to be an all knowing, all caring, all able God and for kid to still get cancer - this is not a matter of evidence it's just a logical argument. It's like saying it's logically impossible for me to run from Dublin in Cork in under an hour as the fastest I can run is 10K per hour.

Evidence that an all-knowing loving, caring God would prevent kids from getting cancer?

I know kids get cancer, my daughter spent 3.5 weeks in hospital last spring (not with cancer) so I saw it.

I have asked people and it makes no sense that you would come to that conclusion.

Now your last piece of logic makes sense, you have given all the information.

You can run 10k/hr. I can look on a map and see the distance from Dublin to Cork and can then conclude that at 10k/hr, you aren't going to make it in an hour.

But your initial statements:
Kids get cancer
therefore there can not be an allknowing, loving and caring God.

The two do not show any semblance of relationship nor have you established relationship betwixt (how's that for a word:)) the two.

You are leaving out relevant information, just as you did at the beginning of this thread regarding the authenticity of scripture, and the circular reasoning that the only authority for scripture is scripture itself. If that were the case then you argument would be correct, yet it is not the case so your argument is pointless.

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

All that you mean here is that your definition of 'all-caring' and 'all-loving' includes 'not letting kids get cancer'.

While there's nothing invalid about such a definition, it is personal, and therefore your argument cannot be used to disprove anything but your own personal definition of an 'all-caring', 'all-loving', and 'all-powerful' god.

You cannot reach any general conclusion based on a personal definition.

Well then you are saying it is a subjective thing if a kid getting cancer is a bad thing or not?
I think most people would just say it is a bad thing. And by my definition loving or caring would mean, if you can stop someone a kid getting cancer you would. You are correct there.

If somebody else thinks "caring" is letting the kid have cancer when are able to prevent it, well quick frankly it ridiculous and we end up in all sorts of strange arguments.

I would prefer to leave that argument. I find it a bit sick to think and debate that caring is letting someone have cancer even if you can prevent it.

However, it doesn't mean that Brian's God doesn't exist.

You seem to agree with me cancer is a bad thing and a loving entity would prevent a kid getting it if he / she / it could.
I covered the cases where God could be 2 out 3 of the characteristics I mentioned and still exist. There are three different cases where God has 2 out of 3 characteristics and they are all inductively valid but not deductively valid.

You still haven't shown how you get from your premise to your conclusion, and you seem to feel that is unnecessary to do so.

Correct, I think my version is fine. Have you read chapter one of that book? What have you read on deductive validity as a matter of interest?

This kind of pedantry would be acceptable from someone who actually bothered to show the steps between their premise and their conclusion. From someone who doesn't bother, not so much.
For the moment, you may take it that the AND is implied.

Well if you think your version is fine and does not need to clarify what I pointed out - fine that's your opinion, I disagree.
I'm still a bit confused.
You say there is an AND between premise 1 and premise 2, and in a previous post "because premise 2 is dependent on premise 1".
This is confusing. It seems strange to have an AND between two premises where one is dependant on the other.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well what I was trying to show that it is quite hard to argue Christianity logically as the logic gets quite circular quite quickly. I can't find a decent axiom in it. So I would agree with many theologians and many Christians who say Christianity is not logical.

You "can't find a decent axiom in it"? What relevance does that have, if axioms are only used in systems of formal logic?

No-one is claiming that Christianity is a system of formal logic. Therefore it's hardly surprising that there is "no decent axiom in it".

However, not being a system of formal logic is not the same as being illogical - unless one mixes up two different definitions of logic.

Tim Robbins wrote:

As I have Science is not part of logic it is derived from it. There is no such logical system called "Scientific logic".
The Scientific method is derived from logic, inductive reasoning to be more precise. Inductive reasoning, is trying to determine the rule or relationship between premise and conclusion. Inductively reasoning is part of logic.
The Scientific method adds extra steps such testing, observation, falsiablity.
This is because it know inductive reasoning can lead to inaccurate conclusions so it does it best to minimize the chances of this happening.
Something can be inductively valid, but not be deductively valid.

Weird. It's as if you know a lot about logic, but have no actual grasp of how to use it.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I don't see any good logical argument in Chrisitanity, unless of course a strange axiom is introduced, which by the definition of an axiom is immune from testing.
My own views is that Christianity and theology is outside the remit of logic and belongs to mythos not logos as Karen Armstrong would say.

The distinction between mythos and logos is not simply the distinction between logic and illogic (otherwise we would simply use those terms). they are differences in world-views. As far as it goes, Christianity is a 'logos' religion, although it contains elements of 'mythos'.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I notice certain Christian arguments fall apart when scrutinised logically or become circular the basis of this thread.

That's often true. Many Christian arguments have gaping holes in their logic (I haven't forgotten about you, Brian) - but all that proves is that Christians are often bad at logic, as are most people.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I don't follow your argument here.
Conclusion: I am wasting people's time
Premise: Quibbling about whether something should be called an axiom or premise based on the claim what you really want to say is that Christianity cannot be established as logical because it is not a formal logical system - fine. I don't see it in your list.

I get lost in the premise so I cannot decide what I think of the validity of the inference.

Premise: what you really want to say is that Christianity cannot be established as logical because it is not a formal logical system

1: Christianity is not a formal logical system (Observation)

therefore

2: Christianity is not logical, in the restricted sense of not being a formal logical system

BUT

3: I haven't said Christianity is a formal logical system (Observation)

therefore

4: You are arguing with me about something I haven't said

therefore

Conclusion: you are wasting my time

Tim Robbins wrote:

If you don't mind me saying I think time was wasted because I was talking about logic and you introduced the Scientific method, or "Scientific logic" and the concept of testable axiom and moved the axiom from one over to the other and over and back.

Do you have a link to says an axiom can be tested in logic or the scientific method?

And as I have said earlier in this debate, I don't see the point in having a debate unless we are agreement over the rules or the laws of logic and that means the word "premise" is correctly used and the word "axiom" is correctly used and the laws pertaining to them are adhered to.

Tim - when you actually use some logic these points may become relevant.

regards,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

BrianCalgary wrote:

Evidence that an all-knowing loving, caring God would prevent kids from getting cancer?

I know kids get cancer, my daughter spent 3.5 weeks in hospital last spring (not with cancer) so I saw it.

I have asked people and it makes no sense that you would come to that conclusion.

Now your last piece of logic makes sense, you have given all the information.

You can run 10k/hr. I can look on a map and see the distance from Dublin to Cork and can then conclude that at 10k/hr, you aren't going to make it in an hour.

But your initial statements:
Kids get cancer
therefore there can not be an allknowing, loving and caring God.

Straw man, that's not what I said.
I said:

"Kids get cancer so there is no all caring, all able, all knowing God."

That was the inference which is deductively valid.

You left out "all able" there so you have gone to the case where only two of the three characteristics which I said is inductively valid but not deductively valid.

[This is the second time you have straw man'd me on this issuem read my post from 20:46, I don't think you are reading my posts correctly.]

I appreciate I have swapped "all loving" and "all caring" but I meant the same thing. Key point there is no God who is all caring (or all loving), all able and all knowing otherwise why do kids get Cancer?

You are leaving out relevant information, just as you did at the beginning of this thread regarding the authenticity of scripture, and the circular reasoning that the only authority for scripture is scripture itself. If that were the case then you argument would be correct, yet it is not the case so your argument is pointless.

I am not leaving out relevant information, it's just a simple logical argument.
According to logic, there is no all caring (or all loving), all able and all knowing God. The argument is deductively valid.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well then you are saying it is a subjective thing if a kid getting cancer is a bad thing or not?
I think most people would just say it is a bad thing. And by my definition loving or caring would mean, if you can stop someone a kid getting cancer you would. You are correct there.

If somebody else thinks "caring" is letting the kid have cancer when are able to prevent it, well quick frankly it ridiculous and we end up in all sorts of strange arguments.

I would prefer to leave that argument. I find it a bit sick to think and debate that caring is letting someone have cancer even if you can prevent it.

That is your personal view. But that's all it is.

Tim Robbins wrote:

You seem to agree with me cancer is a bad thing and a loving entity would prevent a kid getting it if he / she / it could.
I covered the cases where God could be 2 out 3 of the characteristics I mentioned and still exist. There are three different cases where God has 2 out of 3 characteristics and they are all inductively valid but not deductively valid.

Yes, I know you did. That's because 'all-powerful' is pretty well-defined, so I'm not arguing about it.

I already said that. But, just to be clear, my argument relates to an 'all-loving', 'all-caring', and 'all-powerful' God.

What's at issue is that 'loving' and 'caring' are being personally defined by you. 'Powerful' is not at issue.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Correct, I think my version is fine. Have you read chapter one of that book? What have you read on deductive validity as a matter of interest?

Well if you think your version is fine and does not need to clarify what I pointed out - fine that's your opinion, I disagree.

I'm beginning to think you really are doing this just to be annoying - but then, I sometimes feel that about JC - and the evidence suggests he really is what he says on the tin, so I'll assume you are too.

You think your version is fine, because you have defined 'loving' and 'caring' in such a way that they include 'not letting kids get cancer'.

You cannot see how this is a logical fallacy.

It is the same as saying that 2+2=5 (where I have personally defined 2 as 2.5).

Tim Robbins wrote:

I'm still a bit confused.
You say there is an AND between premise 1 and premise 2, and in a previous post "because premise 2 is dependent on premise 1".
This is confusing. It seems strange to have an AND between two premises where one is dependant on the other.

That may be because I didn't say the latter ("because premise 2 is dependent on premise 1"). The only place I can find it is in your post.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

You "can't find a decent axiom in it"? What relevance does that have, if axioms are only used in systems of formal logic?

That's an excellant question, because the conclusion from the logic can be deceptive. What is formal logic - why not just say logic?

No-one is claiming that Christianity is a system of formal logic. Therefore it's hardly surprising that there is "no decent axiom in it".

I don't think Christianity being "a system of formal logic" is the question but more is Christianity or any parts of it, the faith, the belief in scripture actually logical. I'm interested that you say "no decent axiom in it", do you think faith is not a decent axiom, I got the impression you originally did think it was one?

However, not being a system of formal logic is not the same as being illogical - unless one mixes up two different definitions of logic.

Don't get your point here.

Weird. It's as if you know a lot about logic, but have no actual grasp of how to use it.

Well excuse me, Mr. Infallable,how's that reference going for testing an axiom

The distinction between mythos and logos is not simply the distinction between logic and illogic (otherwise we would simply use those terms). they are differences in world-views. As far as it goes, Christianity is a 'logos' religion, although it contains elements of 'mythos'.

Well I'd agree with Karen Armstrong, who says Christianity and all religions or theologies are pretty much mythos.
(reference: KAren Armstrong, A History of Myth)
I never said logos and mythos was the distinction between logic and illogic, I said it was different way of thinking.

That's often true. Many Christian arguments have gaping holes in their logic (I haven't forgotten about you, Brian) - but all that proves is that Christians are often bad at logic, as are most people.

Agree, even including some aethists!

Premise: what you really want to say is that Christianity cannot be established as logical because it is not a formal logical system

What do you mean by "formal logical system"? It sounds like "Scientific logic"?
Could you differentiate between logic and formal logic with reference please?

Conclusion: you are wasting my time

I wish we clarified the "testing axiom" thing earlier.

Tim - when you actually use some logic these points may become relevant.

Is that a sarcy comment on my logical ability?
What books on logic have you read as a matter of interest?

Scofflaw

Tim, seriously, you're not reading my posts. You don't even seem to be reading your own, there are several different people posting under your username, or you have Alzheimer's.

Now, try to follow. These quotes are in order:

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well what I was trying to show that it is quite hard to argue Christianity logically as the logic gets quite circular quite quickly. I can't find a decent axiom in it. So I would agree with many theologians and many Christians who say Christianity is not logical.

Scofflaw wrote:

No-one is claiming that Christianity is a system of formal logic. Therefore it's hardly surprising that there is "no decent axiom in it".

Tim Robbins wrote:

I'm interested that you say "no decent axiom in it", do you think faith is not a decent axiom, I got the impression you originally did think it was one?

What is this? A Monty Python sketch?

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

That is your personal view. But that's all it is.
Yes, I know you did. That's because 'all-powerful' is pretty well-defined, so I'm not arguing about it.

I already said that. But, just to be clear, my argument relates to an 'all-loving', 'all-caring', and 'all-powerful' God.

Why are you leaving out all knowing?
Accident or straw man?

What's at issue is that 'loving' and 'caring' are being personally defined by you. 'Powerful' is not at issue.

First up it's all able, not "powerful", but that is trivial in fairness.
It's also actually all loving, not just loving or all caring not just caring.

Not removing cancer when you can from a kid and when you know the kid has it, is
not all loving or all caring it is the absence of all loving and all caring. It is definetly the incapacity to be all loving / all caring.

If an adult let a kid get cancer when he or she knew they could prevent it, would you say the adult is all loving / all caring? Or the adult it entitled to their opinion?
I would say the common perception would be the adult is nuts and has no concept of the concepts of love and care and is most definetly not all loving / all caring.

I use normal dictionaries for words like love and care, I don't just invent caveats like not letting someone get cancer when you know you can do something about it, because there is no need, it's implicit in the main definition.

You cannot see how this is a logical fallacy.

There's no logical fallacy, your argument is based on a very strange and disturbing intrepretation of all loving and all caring which I categorically dispute.

It is the same as saying that 2+2=5 (where I have personally defined 2 as 2.5).

Incorrect, poor analogy. 2 + 2 is based on objectives mathematical rules. Your point about loving / caring is not based on objective rules but on subjective definitions at best associated with a strange group sadists or lunatics -
people who should not to be anywhere near kids. Letting kids have cancer and still claim to be all loving / caring! That is not all loving / all caring.

You are disturbing me.

That may be because I didn't say the latter ("because premise 2 is dependent on premise 1"). The only place I can find it is in your post.

Scofflaw

Weird - I wonder did God come in and delete it from one of your earlier posts.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Why are you leaving out all knowing?
Accident or straw man?

There's an explanation already given.

Tim Robbins wrote:

First up it's all able not powerful, but that trivial in fairness.

If you are going to say not removing cancer when you can from a kid can and and when you know the kid has it, and subjectively that can be still be all loving / caring, I don't think you have reinvented the word caring and loving.

If an adult let a kid get cancer when he or she knew who could prevent it, would you say the adult is all loving, would anybody who is mentally sane?

Well, personally I wouldn't. As I said, my personal view of the God of the Bible is that He is insane or malicious.

That said, it's not proof that He doesn't exist, which you seem to think it is.

Mainly, your argument, like many arguments that seem rational to the atheist, doesn't impress Brian at all, because his definition of 'all-loving', 'all-caring', and 'all-able' does apparently include letting kids get cancer.

Rather than try to disprove his argument, you've simply implied that he's sick.

Tim Robbins wrote:

There's no logical fallacy, your argument is based on a very strange intrepretation of all loving and all caring most people unless they were mentally ill would say is simply say is not all loving or all caring.

Name me one person who thinks all loving can include letting someone have cancer?

Brian. Also wolfsbane, JC, probably Excelsior - most of the theists on this board.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Incorrect, poor analogy. 2 + 2 is based on objectives mathematical rules. Your point about love is not based on objective rules but subjective definitions of sadists or lunatics people who should not be anywhere near kids - letting kids have cancer = love is more like say 2 + 2 = 5.

Yes. That's why it's an analogy.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Weird - I wonder did God come in and delete it from one of your earlier posts.

No - I actually think it's a completely misplaced quote from several pages back, and applying to a totally different pair of premises.

Where you have it posted:

Tim Robbins wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

The argument might be better stated:

Premise 1: kids get cancer
Premise 2: an "all caring, all loving, all powerful God" would prevent this from happening
Conclusion: There is no all caring, all loving, all powerful God

Except that as you can see, Brian disagrees with premise 2.

The original way was fine using deductive logic.

Doing it your way you would have to include and logical AND between premise 1 and premise 2, (which you omit) otherwise it is unclear the relationship between the two premises and your conclusion, it could be logical OR or a disjunction and not a logical AND for example.

Quote:

Scofflaw wrote:

, because premise 2 is dependent on premise 1.

Well then you must show that in some way. If something is dependent on a it is usually called a conclusion and then used as a premise.

it looks like it follows on from a previous comment - and that's certainly how you have interpreted it.

However, if you look at the grammar, you can see that this:

, because premise 2 is dependent on premise 1.

can't follow on from this:

Except that as you can see, Brian disagrees with premise 2.

because the latter ends with a full stop.

So, personally, I think this is what's usually called an 'interpolation' - and I think you should have removed the full stop, if you wanted it to look like that's what I'd actually said.

Now, I'm reluctant to call you a liar, because that's against the forum rules, but I think you haven't just 'accidentally mistinterpreted' me here. I think this is a deliberate fake on your part, and you then have the effrontery to imply that I removed it from a post only when you drew my attention to it.

Since my opinion of you can hardly go lower at this stage, and there's little point in debating with someone who would pull such a stunt, I will withdraw from this thread - you may consider yourself the 'winner', if you like that kind of thing.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

What is this? A Monty Python sketch?

Scofflaw

Don't get your point, my question was are you changing your mind about the Christian faith being an axiom?
Because you argued with this for a while and then you said - "Therefore it's hardly surprising that there is "no decent axiom in it"."

It would have made it a lot easier if you said at the beginning you thought it wasn't a decent axiom.

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

There's an explanation already given.

The argument and the logic changes if you leave out one of any of the three characteristics.

Well, personally I wouldn't. As I said, my personal view of the God of the Bible is that He is insane or malicious.

That said, it's not proof that He doesn't exist, which you seem to think it is.

No,I said it was possible for there to be a God, who was all knowing, all able or in fact any of two of three characteristics but not all three.

Mainly, your argument, like many arguments that seem rational to the atheist, doesn't impress Brian at all, because his definition of 'all-loving', 'all-caring', and 'all-able' does apparently include letting kids get cancer.

Rather than try to disprove his argument, you've simply implied that he's sick.

Brian. Also wolfsbane, JC, probably Excelsior - most of the theists on this board.

Well I am not here to imply that, it's just meant to be a tough argument.
Some theists, conclude that maybe God is not all powerful or all knowing and hence they are definetly not sick.
If you think you can disprove Brian's argument better the me, go ahead. I don't think I've implied his sick I think he got the wording of it wrong and I just pointed that out to him.
People can take it or leave it.
It would be interesting to hear what others think of it?

Yes. That's why it's an analogy.

The analogy is not valid, Maths is based on objective rules not freaky subjective ones.

No - I actually think it's a completely misplaced quote from several pages back, and applying to a totally different pair of premises.

Sorry, looks like my mistake so. Do you think premise 2 is dependent on premise 1 if it says "prevents premise 1 from happening"?

Since my opinion of you can hardly go lower at this stage, and there's little point in debating with someone who would pull such a stunt, I will withdraw from this thread - you may consider yourself the 'winner', if you like that kind of thing.

Scofflaw

If you have a low opinion of me I don't understand why you bother wasting your time exchanging views / logic etc.
I'd be interested what books of logic you have read and if you find any references to testing axioms in logic or the scientific method.
Cheers