Author
|
Topic: Formal and Informal Logic
|
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3940 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: 07-23-2004
|
|
Message 181 of 191 (331499)
07-13-2006 12:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 177 by Faith 07-13-2006 12:21 PM
|
|
Re: Logic....
What you are talking about has nothing to do with my reservations about robin's argument. If you don't understand then try again or don't bother. I went back on my latest post to try to fix any grammar or spelling that I could find so it wouldn't further distract you from the content of my post. Take your comments about valid definitions of God to another thread like AdminJar suggested. My argument on this thread has nothing to do with the accuracy of your particular flawed and blasphemous definition of God. My argument is and has always been about the self-serving condition of robin's argument and his invalid claim of proof by the rigor of logic.
Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to: | | Message 177 by Faith, posted 07-13-2006 12:21 PM | | Faith has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 184 by Faith, posted 07-13-2006 12:54 PM | | Jazzns has not replied |
|
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
Message 182 of 191 (331501)
07-13-2006 12:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 176 by AdminJar 07-13-2006 12:19 PM
|
|
Re: need to move to another thread.
If it is off topic it is not off topic for THIS reason:
Only if there were such a historical universally accepted definition Faith, which is an issue under dispute.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 176 by AdminJar, posted 07-13-2006 12:19 PM | | AdminJar has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 183 by AdminJar, posted 07-13-2006 12:53 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
AdminJar
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 183 of 191 (331504)
07-13-2006 12:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 182 by Faith 07-13-2006 12:50 PM
|
|
What is it about forum procedures that you don't understand.
If you wish to comment on moderation, take it to the appropriate thread.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 182 by Faith, posted 07-13-2006 12:50 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
Message 184 of 191 (331505)
07-13-2006 12:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 181 by Jazzns 07-13-2006 12:49 PM
|
|
Re: Logic....
My argument is and has always been about the self-serving condition of robin's argument and his invalid claim of proof by the rigor of logic. Which you related to his perfectly correct definition of the Western view of God, and your objections are what's illogical besides historically ignorant and generally confused and muddled. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 181 by Jazzns, posted 07-13-2006 12:49 PM | | Jazzns has not replied |
|
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3940 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: 07-23-2004
|
|
Message 185 of 191 (331506)
07-13-2006 12:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 180 by Faith 07-13-2006 12:45 PM
|
|
Re: Global God vs Local God
It was a statement originally made by Robin that is under contention for its supposed illogic There is nothing about defining God a certain way that is illogical. You are completly missing the forest for the trees. This has nothing to do with what you and robin think God is. It is about the claim of proof absent of logic for the particulars of an individual's worldview.
Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to: | | Message 180 by Faith, posted 07-13-2006 12:45 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
AdminJar
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 186 of 191 (331507)
07-13-2006 12:56 PM
|
|
|
Closing thread
|
AdminJar
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 187 of 191 (331517)
07-13-2006 1:40 PM
|
|
|
reopened.
But let's head back towards Formal vs Informal logic folk.
|
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2921 days) Posts: 882 Joined: 06-22-2005
|
|
Message 188 of 191 (331521)
07-13-2006 1:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 162 by Jazzns 07-13-2006 10:02 AM
|
|
Dealing With Logic-Challenged People
deer writes: I do NOT equate "common sense" with good logic. Now, having said that, if someone disagrees that you have come to a logical conclusion, then you need to try again as I am doing now to explain how your thinking does result in that conclusion.
Jazz writes: 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. Well you said you wanted a response and maybe I am dense but I fail to see how your statement conflicts with mine. When I said "try again" I wasn't precluding discussion of the premises or explaining some of the finer points of logic to a logic-challenged person.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 162 by Jazzns, posted 07-13-2006 10:02 AM | | Jazzns has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 189 by Jazzns, posted 07-13-2006 2:55 PM | | deerbreh has replied |
|
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3940 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: 07-23-2004
|
|
Message 189 of 191 (331539)
07-13-2006 2:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 188 by deerbreh 07-13-2006 1:55 PM
|
|
Re: Dealing With Logic-Challenged People
I think I get what you are saying with regard to just general debate. It seemed like what you were saying though was that robin's claim of proof via logic had validity in the "common sense". That is where I originally had a problem with robin's argument and seemingingly what you were trying to say. Robin was pushing a strong position that a combination of beliefs was logical invalid. Regardless of what I or anyone else says he does not seem to be able to notice how that position has nothing to do with logic but rather his personal worldview of a sensibly derived nihilism. I have no problems arguing opinions. I just don't think something should be called logical when it most obviously is not. This is especially considering that I happen to hold the position that God is compatable with evolution. In the end all robin seems like he was trying to do is justify his particular worldview.
Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to: | | Message 188 by deerbreh, posted 07-13-2006 1:55 PM | | deerbreh has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 190 of 191 (331543)
07-13-2006 3:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 189 by Jazzns 07-13-2006 2:55 PM
|
|
Re: Dealing With Logic-Challenged People
Robin was pushing a strong position that a combination of beliefs was logical invalid. Regardless of what I or anyone else says he does not seem to be able to notice how that position has nothing to do with logic but rather his personal worldview of a sensibly derived nihilism. You've never understood the argument nor what sort of argument it is. It has nothing to do with nihilism. You don't seem to understand that it is quite valid to LIMIT what an argument is about.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 189 by Jazzns, posted 07-13-2006 2:55 PM | | Jazzns has not replied |
|
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2921 days) Posts: 882 Joined: 06-22-2005
|
|
Message 191 of 191 (331546)
07-13-2006 3:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 189 by Jazzns 07-13-2006 2:55 PM
|
|
What part of "Common Sense" is not Logic was unclear?
It seemed like what you were saying though was that robin's claim of proof via logic had validity in the "common sense". Well I am at a loss. I took great pains to be specific in saying that I do not accept the notion that "common sense" is logic. I don't know how I can put it any more clearly. I thought I could present some nuanced thoughts without being misunderstood if I added that disclaimer but apparently not so I'll let it go now.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 189 by Jazzns, posted 07-13-2006 2:55 PM | | Jazzns has not replied |
|