Formal and Informal Logic

Jazzn makes a distinction between "reason" and "logic."So I suppose we can call reason "informal logic" and what he's referring to as "formal logic." Not being versed in formal logic, I can't speak of it.But I and everyone else knows what I mean when I speak of "informal logic" or Reason. The question is whether the sort of reasoning I habitually employ has any validity, and if not, why not? Here's a sample:
Brute or BlackguardI am well aware that there are some puzzles in the above argument, but one does what one can. This is a sample of what I call "informal logic."My reasoning is the reasoning of people in general, not of someone who specializes in "logic." What makes it seem so important to me is that I think of it as a handle on reality. If this handle is broken, then I am out of touch with reality. This is why I reacted so strongly to the idea that I "don't understand logic." If I don't understand logic, then I am living in a mad maze. I have no handle on reality. Informal logic has to have some validity in order for the handle to be real.

I don't see why informal logic need be subjective. I suppose a standard syllogism is objective (though perhaps outmoded formalism), and informal logic uses deduction in this syllogistic fashion, though written in an informal style.ABE: If a flawed syllogism is written, one can easily recognize it without any training in "formal logic." Surely that recognition is not subjective.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

I've already given you an example in the link in the OP.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

There's that "odds of God existing" thread which I took such grief about. But when I do a search I can't seem to find it. I'll look some more.Here it is:I said in another thread: So according to my scheme, there is a 50/50 chance that God exists.
Another poster said: I would really like to see this scheme layed out (perhaps in a new thread?)So here it is: Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

The point about FSM had to do with what kind of entity FSM was supposed to be. In order for the satire to work, FSM had to be a concept on the same level as the concept of God (possibly non-extraneous). If FSM is the Creator, then he's just another name for God, and so the satire would seem pointless. If FSM is without question extraneous (not possibly necesssary), then the comparison would not hold.

None of that is subjective. It's definitional. The reason I mentioned the Fall was to take it into account--since that's how a Christian would answer the problem of suffering.I didn't have to mention it. I might have just said that the prevalence of suffering indicates no God (in the traditional Western sense of God). This God need not have been specifically Christian. The only requirement was that he be defined as not cruel.You seem to have an odd sort of definition of "subjective."

You don't seem to understand the argument, Jazzn. The point was that the moral judgement against God IS subjctive. That was my point, that the moral argument against God is flawed. The subjectivity you mention wasn't MINE--it was the subjectivity of those who set forth the moral argument against God. I was refuting it.

Now here you might have something. It's problematic. But I went through an example of showing how all moral judgments are ungrounded, that the reasons given for their validity is always another ungrounded moral judgment.

No, it's not. It's a limitation put on the argument. I'm not talking about some vague Eastern God or some unusual God. I'm talking about the God of Western tradition. No, it's not. The "God of Western tradition" did not come from my mind. It means a God that is all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing. It's a standard definition. I didn't make it up.

bump.Okay, see message 14 above.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

What commotion? There wasn't much. Paulk made the point that there was no need to bring in the Fall (his view is that the concept of the Fall is illogical in itself, apart from evolution. I'm not sure.) This is nonsense. Nothing subjective about it. I was just limiting my argument to the God of Western tradition.If someone wants to say, "Well, my God is a cruel God," then the argument will be irrelevant. But I think I am justified in saying that no one--or almost no one--believes in such a god. Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

That was just the God I was talking about. In the world of informal logic, we call that an enthymeme. Whether it's accurate theology or not, I don't know. I was anticipating an argument by Christians: their argument is that the Fall explains the suffering.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

I agree completely. The problem I had with Jazzn's comment was his sweeping condemnation of all informal logic as subjective.

Why, you said it in this very thread above: See Message 4.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Link to Msg 4

Seems condemnatory to me. An argument which is subjective is invalid. Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.