Formal and Informal Logic

Help me remember the context here robin. What was the thread that motivated you to start The problem with EVC? I would like to see if we can look at some more examples.In general: The problem is that informal logic is subjective. Informal logic may subjectivly tell us that Galois theory is totally crazy. It allows us to abstract down the entire known universe of number spaces into a few well understood parts that you might say shouldn't be done because we "loose our handle on reality". Formal logic though allows us to prove that such an abstraction is valid though and by doing so we use this to map mathematics to the known universe with somtimes suprising accuracy.Also, as soon as you introduce a subjective (ie. informal logic) assumption into the discussion you can no longer speak with the authority that your conclusions are supported by the process. A subjective assumption might be made on the basis of the universe making sense but sometimes reality DOES NOT make sense.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Lets see if we can work with an example. Can you help me remember what thread came before the "Problem with EvC" thread?Alternativly, can you rehash your argument for the equivalency between God and FSM?

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

we can work on that one too. I had in mind the ones that motivated the Problem at EvC thread because that is where all this started. I just didn't remember what the original thread was. That MAY be it. Can you confirm.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

That sounds more familiar. I had in mind the discussion of the equivalence of God and FSM. I seem to recall that that is where I got my motivation to reply in the Problem at EVC thread.I am working on your OP link now.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Hopefully this will be an accurate summary of the argument at the link in the OP.1. Starting from a belief/acceptance in evolution.
2. Given the Christian God and the concept of the fall.
3. Evolution and the fall are incompatable because if not then God is cruel.
4. God being cruel is equivalent to God not existing.
5. Without the existance of God, morality is subjective.
6. Without an objective morality we cannot judge if God is cruel.
7. Therfore to judge that God is cruel requires that God exists.
8. Thus if God does exist he must be cruel.Somehow I don't think I captured it right because 8 seems out of place considering 4. I guess I don't really see a conclusion here. I see more of a quandry then anything that we could call informl logic leading us to a conclusion.Beyond that most of everything in there is TOTALY subjective. Maybe you can how me how if anything in there IS ACTUALLY objective.1. Evolution may be wrong, but that is a small point and unlikely.
2. Has many subjective elements.

• God may not be the Christian God.
• The concept of the fall may not be true.
• Christian theology does not require the concept of the fall.
  

3. This entire premise is subjective and you even outline it as such later in 8.
4. Also entirely subjective as you also show specifically to be in 8.
5. Entirely subjective on its own. There very well may be a logical way to construct a morality without God depending on what "morality" is defined as.
6.
7.
8. All depend on the previous.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Your right in that it was a premise. But it certainly IS a subjective premise. If you cannot start from an agreed upon premise then the rest of the entire argument becomes flawed.You cannot just define God as the Christian God and the particular incarnation of the Christian God a the one regarded in the theology of the fall.Nevermind, I take that back. You certainly CAN do that but it means exactly what I said it means which is that your entire argument is nothing more than you presenting your opinion of sound reasoning.It IS subjective by definition. You are starting from the assumption of what God can be. Since you cannot point to God in the external world to verify your assumption, you simply cannot logically make it.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

There was no argument presented. Only a quandry. Your post left the conclusion open. Assuming there is no God right? One step in your reasoning that is based on totally subjective initial conditions. Why don't we look at and example of your reasoning then when it IS your premises? Lets look at the argument of the equivalence between God and the FSM. There I believe you DID reach a conclusion. Perhaps you could present that argument so we could examine it.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Certainly not posed as such. You could have phrased your argument with the basic assumptions of1. God is the God of western tradition.
2. The fall is accurate theology for the religion of that God.That way anyone who disagreed with your two basic assumptions could simply dismiss your argument for their purposes. It would have only applied to those who agreed with the assumptions such as Faith. Then what was all the commotion about?I don't think anyway was disputing that the God of tradition was incompatable with evolution. The only counter point was the the God of tradition is not necessarily God.You seemed to take that argument to the next level to mean there is no God period. That is where your logic breaks down. At the point you try to make the claim that God is non-existant, the assumption that God must be the one of western tradition IS 100% subjective.Edited by AdminPD, : Fixed quote box.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Maybe you could show us all where I said any such thing?I certainly was criticizing YOUR "logic" as subjective which it specifically is.I would appreciate it if you would stop putting "sweeping condemnation" in my mouth.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

That is a far cry from condemnation. What I was condemning that caused you to get all wired about this was YOUR PARTICULAR use of it. I happen to agree with some things that are not logical. Like the existence of God.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Posted too soon.Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

No Robin. Plainly and simply an argument which is subjective implies that you cannot claim the conclusion as logical. I never said anything about validity.I ALSO happen to think that your arguments are invalid but that is because of their content.You can take all of those subjective elements and make them premises to your argument but then all you are really saying is equivalent to, "Assuming the sky is orange and pigs fly....".You can turn almost anything into a logically acceptable statement. You can prove logically all kinds of crazy stuff, but if your basic assumptions are subjective or wrong then it holds no weight.The theology of the fall is not a sound assumption. Without it your whole argument falls apart. Similarly with the definition of cruelty. Similarly with the definition of God.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Actually, framed correctly you defined the standard western definition of God to be one that is incompatable with evolution. You then defined God as the only source for objective morality.You are welcome to agree with both of those definitions. I, and it seems many others, do not. That is of course once your argument, with whatever fuzzy conclusion one could gather (did you even have a conclusion?), has those assumptions stated so that it becomes logically sound. But then you loose your one claimed source of reason, your handle on reality.You could equivalently have started your argument defining the sky as orange.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

I have a big problem with this. What if what "seems" logical to you doesn't "seem" logical to everybody else? Logic has two outcomes, proof or contradiction. In your, and robin's description of logic, you have neither.My main problem was that robin wanted to claim the finality of proof yet all he had was "that seems logical". If he wants to claim that his beliefs and thought process are valid personal interpretations of reality I have no problem with that. Once he decides to claim that he has "proven" that it is illogical to believe in evolution and God then he has to bring the noise or else he is going to get called on it.It is not logic. It is his opinion. It is only the height of arrogance for one to assume that yours is the one and only objective and logical worldview based on nothing more than what it "seems to be.Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Of course not. I don't think anybody has claimed otherwise so far. It was never about robin not BEING ABLE to form a logical argument. It was about that he WAS NOT forming a logical argument yet claiming that he was. I disagree. If an argument is logically sound, a disagreement based upon logic can only be because there was no agreement on the premises or one person does not understand logic.For example, even though there is a formal construction of the integers, it is tiresome to produce that every time in a math class. Most of the time people take the premise that N = {...,-2,-1,0,1,2,...} is infinite. It is well accepted. With that premise you can PROVE that N is congruent to P the set of primes. This is a totally non-intuitive result but it is proven by logic as long as you accept that definition of N.Robin started with premises and definitions that were not accept or not objective. It is kind of hard to disagree with the integers but it is not obvious that the All-knowing/loving/powerful God of western tradition is the one that robin constructs in order to fit his reasoning. In the basic sense, he defines God to be a contradiction to exactly what he is trying to contradict.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)