Formal and Informal Logic

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

No, I said it right first time. There are many distinguishing features besides their names. Heads and tails are indistinguishable apart from their names. Created by eternal being and eternal universe are not indistinguishable apart for their names.

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)

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

Sorry, Modulus, I don't understand this.

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)

No, the argument does not fall apart. As Paulk pointed out, I need not have even mentioned the Fall. I just did so as an anticipated answer to traditional Christian belief. I was saying that the normal definition of cruelty is subjective. You must not have grasped the argument. The definition of God is the standard Western definition. That was the only God being discussed. I was limiting the claim to that God.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

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)

God, for the sake of the argument, is being defined as all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing. It's a conditional idea, if you want to think of it like that.Now, there is an argument we have heard frequently which says that if God existed, he would be a cruel God--therefore, he doesn't exist (if we define God as above).But since our morality is subjective, this argument fails. That was the conclusion of my argument.

It seems to me that if morality is subjective then there is no such thing as cruel. If not then there is no such thing as good either - in which case God cannot be defined as good.It seems that God can be defined as good only if good objectively exists. The question is whether 'cruelty' is inconsistant with good. If for instance, God applys, by act of commission or omission, punishment to someone for their sin, is this cruel? Or is it justice?Which are we more likely to see it as? Well that depends completely on our worldview w.r.t. God

There might very well be goodness. But we can not make objective moral judgements. Our judgments are subjective and so cannot be evidence of anything but our own feelings.

Say we took God a absolutely good and gave his moral judgement a score of 100%. It is possible that all our admittedly subjective moral judgments refer to this 100% but only score 70 or 20 or 13. The argument from cruelty would fail - not because cruelty doesn't actually objectively exist (we have enought objectivity in our subjectivity to suppose it does) - but because we are not in a full enough position to say a particular action is cruel

It seems to me that your assumption would be incorrect. Cruel is causing me unneeded pain. (How is that for subjective there).What is 'cruel' and hwat is not is subjective. You will find disagreements between people on what is cruel and what is not. Some tings will be agreed upon, but there will be 'grey areas' that are disagreed upon. That means it is subjective.

That was answered by The Riddle of Epicurius in about 300 B.C.E.

quote:

---

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

​

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

​

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

​

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

---