Formal and Informal Logic

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.

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)

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.

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)

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.

It would be an error to judge all informal reasoning as either valid or invalid. Some is valid, some is not. Some informal arguemtns are equivalent to a formal logical argument, differing only in presentation. Others may be completely specious.Formal logic has advantages of clarity and rigour. A valid argument in formal logic can only be challenged on it's premises.Informal logic is less rigourous. Sometimes this is benign. So long as the argument is not represetned as a logical proof when it i s not logically valid the argument may still be strong and worth taking note of. Arguments from authority - when an appropriate authority is referenced fall into this category.Sometimes it is less benign. Crucial assumptions may be left out, argument s that have no value other than rhetorical effectiveness may be used, errors may go unnoticed.As pointed out at the time, the referenced post contains an error of reasoning. The argument is meant to establish the non-existence of "God", yet an objectio n is predicated on the non-existence of God. Such an objection can carry no weight since it denies the propostion it seeks to defend. However,as later discussion carried on the objection was refined to a valid point - that the original argument made the unstated assumption of an objective morality.Thus it illustrates some of the pitfalls of informal reasoning that might have been avoided had the argument been expressed in a more formal way.(For those interested in the basics of formal logic, ther e is my post on the subject here or a similar - but better - post at Good Math, Bad Math. Other entries in that blog have more detail for those who are truly interested)
d

The reason you were called on this kind of logic is that you were using the Principle of Indifference without justifying its use. Indeed, I don't believe its use is justified at all. Created by eternal being and eternal universe are not indistinguishable except for their names. Examples of things that are include the numbers on a die, cards and coins.Now, the application of the Principle of Indifference is basically subjective ('I judge that it is warranted in this case'). Many people would agree that it is useful when it comes to dice, but it can still turn out to be wrong (we later learn that the die is loaded). The argument that there is a 50% chance that God exists is an old one, and I've never seen any formal justification for it.Does it being informal make it invalid? Not necessarily, but it doesn't make it illuminating or interesting either. And the case hasn't been logically demonstrated, it was not deductively determined.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

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

I have to suppose you meant "are indistinguishable" or "are not distinguishable" ...?Discussions of the origin of the universe I've run across usually come down to variations on the two options Robin gave plus a third: 1) an eternal conscious being made it, 2) it has always existed, 3) it started at some point on its own -- and all other options people think of are easily enough reduceable to one of these three.These are certainly distinguishable options. I doubt this has anything to do with this so-called Principle of Indifference at all.http://www.leaderu.com/...llcraig/docs/ultimatequestion.htmlCosmological argument - Wikipedia

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)