purpledawn responds to me:
quote:
Remember this is the Bible Study forum and the OP states that:
This will be a theological defense.
Irrelevant. All arguments, even those that propose incredible and extraordinary causes, must maintain logical correctness. It doesn't matter if you're argument is based upon your faith: If you commit a logical error, your argument is not justified.
quote:
quote:
Logical error: Slothful induction.
You're starting with the conclusion and doing everything you can to find evidence in favor of it, including denial of evidence against it.
Is this in relation to the one sentence made by jaywill or his entire theological defense?
It is in relation to the defense being based upon a logical error. There is a difference between showing an argument to be wrong ("Two plus two does not equal five") and showing an argument is not logically justified ("You are arguing: If A, then B. B, therefore A. That is not justified.") In the former, the claim cannot be true no matter what. In the latter, the claim might be true, but nothing the claimant has said can be used to justify it. False premises can lead to any conclusion you desire.
quote:
If it is his statement, then why not explain how, from a theological standpoint, his logic is in error.
Non sequitur. There is no "theological standpoint" when referring to logic. All arguments, whatever their basis, need to follow logical consistency. In fact, I am assuming that the theological points are all valid. The problem is that jaywill is only looking at some of them and engaging in a slothful induction that those few data points are sufficient to make a claim, ignoring all of the other equally valid theological points that show the claim to be something that isn't justified.
To tie back into the "All Crowes wear black shoes" argument of another thread, he's looking only at the three Crowes who he's observed wearing black shoes (which we are assuming were valid observations of real events) and ignoring the three dozen other Crowes who were not (again, which we are assuming were valid observations of real events).
It doesn't matter if we're talking about miracles.
quote:
If it is his entire theological defense of gap theory, again explain how his logic, from a theological standpoint, is in error.
Again, there is no such thing as "theological standpoint" or any other "standpoint" when it comes to logical errors. A logical error is a false premise and a false premise can lead to any conclusion you wish. Ergo, the conclusion is not justified. It might still be true, but nothing you have said lets us say it is.
quote:
Where has he denied evidence against his theory?
Did you not read his claim? "Contradict what is said in several major areas." His claim is that we are to ignore those contradictions in favor of the rest. Logical error: You don't get to exclude data points just because they go against your conclusion. You have to take them into account and explain why they are there. It is irrelevant what the specifics of the data are.
quote:
It doesn't help the discussion progress if you don't make it clear to jaywill where you feel his error lies.
But I was clear: Slothful induction. Do you not know what that means?
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
™ Version 4.2