Do Christians apply logic consistently?

[Cmass]

Do Christians engage in the same depth of reasoning, apply the same thinking skills and invite the same level of skepticism when reading claims made by the Bible as they do when reading any other claims that they encounter?

I don't think so.

As I read through page after page of this forum, I watch otherwise highly articulate, logical people (albeit with "faith problems") create more and more elaborate - often bizarre - stories to hold together utterly nonsensical claims. There is no consistency in what they chose to believe and not believe.

One bible story is just a metaphor while another is literal - it all depends upon the debate and who is debating.

It comes across as a silly, fragmented belief system in desperate search for some way to justify it's existence and find evidence that it is real.

If you were to replace "Christianity" or "Jesus" or "God" with any other subject, would you treat it with the same level of "faith"? The claims made by the bible are absolutely astounding to say the least. If I was to make such claims, you would be very skeptical. No?

[Zorro1]

Now, I presented 12 facts that are thought by a wide range of otherwise diverse historians to be well-established (criteria #6). Instead of just leaving it there and telling you to go ahead and answer all the arguments presented by these hundreds of historians and scholars, I am taking it a step further for your benefit. I am presenting some of their arguments, so that you can see for yourself how they have come to their conclusions.

The 1 Cor and Galatians materials show that the I Cor 15:3ff. is early, and is by an eyewitness and has the corroboration of other eyewitnesses (criteria # 1 and #2).

This material supports the following facts from our list:

1.Jesus died via crucifixion.
2. Jesus was buried.
3. James, a skeptic & brother of Jesus, experienced what he believed was the resurrected Jesus and then James was converted.
4. Paul, an adversary, experienced what he believed was the resurrected Jesus and then Paul was converted.
5. Disciples experienced what they believed was the resurrected Jesus
7. The resurrection was the disciple’s central message…

Z

No, you haven't shown anything. You have just made more and more unsubstantiated claims.

As pointed out above, the six facts listed are allowed in by several criteria. If you choose to close your eyes, plug your ears and bury your head in the sand, there is nothing I can do about it.

This is how inductive logic is done. If you have to reject induction, my point has been proven. The question for you is, can you hold your position without rejecting logic?

You claim the burden has shifted... but you have yet to make your case at all. I don't see anything of substance from you yet.

For example, in your list of 'facts' (I.e. unsubstantiated claims), you said "Jesus was buried". However, this goes against the historical fact that Romans left the corpses on the cross to have the body decay. In other words, the historical record on what the Romans did with the bodies of those executed is in conflict with the christian assumption that Jesus's body was treated differently.

By Roman law, the body was left on the cross, unless someone (usually a family member) requested it for burial. It was Jewish tradition that the dead—righteous or unrighteous—be properly buried (for details and documentation, see Barbet P: "A Doctor at Calvary," Earl of Wicklow (trans). GardenCity, NY, Doubleday Image Books,1953, pp 12-18, 37-147, 159-175, 187-208. Also see Drumwright, “Crucifixion,” 1:1041. Also see Craig A. Evans, “Jewish Burial Traditions and the Resurrection of Jesus,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, Vol. 3, No. 2, 233-248 (2005)).

And you have not substantiated the claim about James "the brother of Jesus" either. There is the claim by the new testament, but decades after the execution of James the Just, and non-biblical evidence about what his theology was.

I am sorry, this is so badly written that I am not really sure what your point is, other than it has something to do with James. Are you saying that James, the leader of the Church in Jerusalem, didn't believe in the resurrection? Can you try again?

Z

Do you have any book that is written BY James, (and not a pseudographical work from years later) that show what he believed in? I am not talking about claims that other people claim he believed decades later, but something that HE wrote?

Or , something that was contemporary to James written by someone without a strong theological axe to grind?

Instead of trying to change the subject, why don't you answer my above response to you or recant your above false positions?

Z

[Goat]

Instead of trying to change the subject, why don't you answer my above response to you or recant your above false positions?

Z

I don't have false positions.It is you that asked the question 'Didn't JAME's believe in the resurrection.

Well, I don't know if he did or not. That is your claim, you give evidence for that.

[Confused]

Confused wrote:

Lets see: begging the question: occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached. You do this every time you try to get one to agree on a premise that can't be verified any more than the assertion you have made:

Actually, begging the question is part of the fallacy, Petitio Principii or the vicious circle. It is committed when the conclusion is asserted, in some form, as one of the premises.

Wrong- in circulus in demonstrado the conclusion is the same as the premise. It is a form of Petitio Principii, but not. The definition and example I gave would be correct.

I don't know what to do with you. Can you quote one logic text book that agrees with you?

You can have arguments with questionable premises and conclusions, that are not question begging. Most non-cogent inductive arguments have questionable premises and, therefore, questionable conclusions; that is why they are considered non-cogent. But they are not necessarily question begging. They could be, and in a few cases they probably are, but they don’t have to be.

So, "begging the question: occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached," is not the definition of "begging the question."

Do you even read what I wrote before you answered?

I didn't say that, "the conclusion is asserted as one of the premises," as you wrongly suggest by your reference to the circulus. What I did say is, "the conclusion is asserted, in some form, as one of the premises." That is absolutely correct. It can even be an unstated or hidden premise, as well as a stated premise.

Here are a few links to logic web sites that may help you get you’re thinking straight:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... stion.html
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

You have the same problem with “shifting the burden.” You simply don’t understand the concept. Get a book dealing with inductive logic and actually read it!

Until you get a real logic textbook or take a class in logic, I don’t think it is worth my time talking to you. I don’t have time to continually debate definitions in logic that have been set for many centuries, simply because you refuse to get and read a logic textbook.


Here is another good example of this type of nonsense:

Second, from Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: ir•re•gard•less
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s
Function: adverb

usage: Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose.

And I will say this yet again, it is a double negative, therefore violates the rules of English. People still try to justify ebonics. Want to claim it is valid to?

So, you don’t like the word. Who cares? It is in the Merriam-Webster, the Webster Unabridged, and the Oxford dictionaries. I don’t care if you don’t like it. Go cry to someone else about words you want removed from the dictionary. Perhaps, if you were to read the dictionary and a logic text or two, you wouldn’t be so confused!

Until you get that logic text and read it, I bid you Adios!

Z

how about http://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html
how about :Critical thinking and Logical Analysis , 6th edition

[Cathar1950]

Z, are you going to keep playing mind games or show your evidence?
All I see is a list of things the stories tell and no reason for believing them.
They are all questionable and vary according to the writers.
Even the meanings of your alleged "facts" were disputed from the very beginning.
Would you please get on with it so we can keep counting your fallacies?

[Zorro1]

how about http://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html
how about :Critical thinking and Logical Analysis , 6th edition

So, your sources are a guy named Matthew, (who actually agrees with me, if you would bother to read his whole definition of "begging the question") and a book that can't be found on Amazon or Buy.com or Borders or Barnes and Noble. You might want to give the author's names. How about quoting the section on "begging the question" from the book, so we can all see what it says.

Z

[Confused]

how about http://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html
how about :Critical thinking and Logical Analysis , 6th edition

So, your sources are a guy named Matthew, (who actually agrees with me, if you would bother to read his whole definition of "begging the question") and a book that can't be found on Amazon or Buy.com or Borders or Barnes and Noble. You might want to give the author's names. How about quoting the section on "begging the question" from the book, so we can all see what it says.

Z

Ok, lets start with shifting the burden of proof using your own source Nixkor project:

Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")

Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:


Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

Many times now you have attempted to shift the burden back to Goat by making a claim and then without providing evidence, you have said it is now up to him to agree with the premises. If he doesn't, then he must now show the burden of why. No, he doesn't. If your present valid premises it might be different, but you don't. You present irrelevant and questionable premises and provide unreliable resources for your "evidence".

Now Begging the Question: also from your own source:

Description of Begging the Question
Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.


Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."

Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.

All of your premises have been related to your conclusion. Here is a sample of your premises:

Zorro:
1.Jesus died via crucifixion.
2. Jesus was buried.
3. James, a skeptic & brother of Jesus, experienced what he believed was the resurrected Jesus and then James was converted.
4. Paul, an adversary, experienced what he believed was the resurrected Jesus and then Paul was converted.
5. Disciples experienced what they believed was the resurrected Jesus
7. The resurrection was the disciple’s central message…

All of these premises are your conculsion. And all your premises claim your conclusion to be true. no, no, no. Not allowed.

Now: circulus in demonstrado from http://www.ncpa.org/debate2/fallacies.html

Circulus in demonstrando (circular argument). Circular argumentation occurs when someone uses what they are trying to prove as part of the proof of that thing.

Once again, another form of begging the question in which you are using your premises as proof of your conclusion.

Anything else. Really this is getting quite the bore. You claim to know what you are talking about etc.....Yet all you seem to be doing now is attacking me or Goat and diverting the attention away from the fact that your assertion has been debunked and everyone knows it. You attack definitions that are accepted and in the same terms as the sites you listed because of the title of the source. This really is quite pathetic. Get over it. Either prove your assertion or quit.

[Zorro1]

Instead of trying to change the subject, why don't you answer my above response to you or recant your above false positions?

Z

I don't have false positions.It is you that asked the question 'Didn't JAME's believe in the resurrection.

Well, I don't know if he did or not. That is your claim, you give evidence for that.

Your false position was that the Romans always left the dead on the cross, that is not true, as I pointed out and documented.

Regarding James, happy to give you the facts.

Here is what we know about James from all sources.

1) The most important statement to our discussion is from Paul, as we have discussed. 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 lists an appearance of the risen Jesus to James: "then He appeared to James." This is important because Paul is early, and he personally knows James. His discussion of James in Galatians is also consistent with his 1 Cor statements and the data given by other later sources.

2) Even though we haven’t used them till now, the Gospels also give us some information that our criteria will allow in. The Gospels report that Jesus' brothers, including James, were unbelievers during his ministry (Mark 3:21,31; John 7:5) These are allowed in under the following criteria (3) Multiple independent sources, and (4) The principle of embarrassment. This second criteria is especially important. In the Jewish community, if your own family was against you or thought you were crazy, you were seen by the whole community as one who can not be trusted. This is not seen by historians or scholars as something that would have been “made up.” In fact, if you were going to create a story that you wanted others to believe, you would make up just the opposite details. In other words, if you are making up a story, and you want someone in the Jewish community to believe the person you are writing about is the Son of God, you don’t say that his family thought he was nuts.


3) Josephus – “Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent.”

4) Hegesippus – Has a more lengthy and detailed account. Although the details differ in some areas the basics are the same: James the Just, the brother of Jesus, is held in high regard in Jerusalem, then accused and killed because of his beliefs. Although, we don’t have any of Hegesippus’ works extant, we do have extensive quotes in Eusebius.

Now here is what you need to understand. The data that we have on James, although limited, is as good and in some ways better that the data we have for most of history.

So, if you want to reject the fact that “James, a skeptic & brother of Jesus, experienced what he believed was the resurrected Jesus and then James was converted,” you must also reject all of history that has equal or less attestation. This is why you will find that over 95% of historians and scholars who study this topic agree with the facts. In other words, historians accept as fact events with less and less documentation from more distant sources than this. The honest historian is forced to accept the data about James, or commit intellectual suicide.

[Zorro1]

how about http://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html
how about :Critical thinking and Logical Analysis , 6th edition

So, your sources are a guy named Matthew, (who actually agrees with me, if you would bother to read his whole definition of "begging the question") and a book that can't be found on Amazon or Buy.com or Borders or Barnes and Noble. You might want to give the author's names. How about quoting the section on "begging the question" from the book, so we can all see what it says.

Z

Ok, lets start with shifting the burden of proof using your own source Nixkor project:

Why don't we start by getting the authors and publishers of "Critical thinking and Logical Analysis , 6th edition." You wouldn't be making this up would you?

Now Begging the Question: also from your own source:

Description of Begging the Question
Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.


Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."

Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.

All of your premises have been related to your conclusion. Here is a sample of your premises:

Zorro:
1.Jesus died via crucifixion.
2. Jesus was buried.
3. James, a skeptic & brother of Jesus, experienced what he believed was the resurrected Jesus and then James was converted.
4. Paul, an adversary, experienced what he believed was the resurrected Jesus and then Paul was converted.
5. Disciples experienced what they believed was the resurrected Jesus
7. The resurrection was the disciple’s central message…

All of these premises are your conculsion. And all your premises claim your conclusion to be true. no, no, no. Not allowed.

There is an old saying, it is one thing to be thought a fool, it is quite another to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Let's make this our test case for your logical astuteness. I'll make it easy for you. I'll make it multiple choice.

Consider the following inductive argument:

1) Joe says he saw a two car accident at the corner of Main and 2nd St.
2) James says he saw a two car accident at the corner of Main and 2nd St.
3) There are two wrecked cars at the corner of Main and 2nd St.

Conclusion: there was a two car accident at the corner of Main and 2nd St.

Is this argument:

A) a cogent inductive argument.
B) An example of begging the question
C) None of the above.

We will all be waiting for your answer.

Z

[Confused]

how about http://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html
how about :Critical thinking and Logical Analysis , 6th edition

So, your sources are a guy named Matthew, (who actually agrees with me, if you would bother to read his whole definition of "begging the question") and a book that can't be found on Amazon or Buy.com or Borders or Barnes and Noble. You might want to give the author's names. How about quoting the section on "begging the question" from the book, so we can all see what it says.

Z

Ok, lets start with shifting the burden of proof using your own source Nixkor project:

Why don't we start by getting the authors and publishers of "Critical thinking and Logical Analysis , 6th edition." You wouldn't be making this up would you?

Now Begging the Question: also from your own source:

Description of Begging the Question
Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.


Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."

Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.

All of your premises have been related to your conclusion. Here is a sample of your premises:

Zorro:
1.Jesus died via crucifixion.
2. Jesus was buried.
3. James, a skeptic & brother of Jesus, experienced what he believed was the resurrected Jesus and then James was converted.
4. Paul, an adversary, experienced what he believed was the resurrected Jesus and then Paul was converted.
5. Disciples experienced what they believed was the resurrected Jesus
7. The resurrection was the disciple’s central message…

All of these premises are your conculsion. And all your premises claim your conclusion to be true. no, no, no. Not allowed.

There is an old saying, it is one thing to be thought a fool, it is quite another to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Let's make this our test case for your logical astuteness. I'll make it easy for you. I'll make it multiple choice.

Consider the following inductive argument:

1) Joe says he saw a two car accident at the corner of Main and 2nd St.
2) James says he saw a two car accident at the corner of Main and 2nd St.
3) There are two wrecked cars at the corner of Main and 2nd St.

Conclusion: there was a two car accident at the corner of Main and 2nd St.

Is this argument:

A) a cogent inductive argument.
B) An example of begging the question
C) None of the above.

We will all be waiting for your answer.

Z

I was so hoping you had disappeared. Ok, for inductive reasoning this would be a cogent inductive argument if and only if the truth of the premises given make the conlusion probable. Of course the criteria for probable makes the validity of the conlcusion questionable. So the question is: are your premises true/valid? Regardless, I tire of your stupid little games. If you wish to address your assertion, then do so. Period. There is no negotiating terms to be agreed on etc..... You state your methodology, your premises, and then back your conclusion. You seem to be confusing reasoning with debating. In presenting a logical assertion (inductive or deductive), you present it first. Then it is open for scrutiny. But you must first persent your argument, show your methodology, and show your premises to back your conclusion. It is then and only then open for debate. But you know all this right. And really, it isn't relevant anyways because your entire assertion has been debunked. The process and claims you imply bare a striking resemblance to an argument already given in the past and debunked. It was made reference to several pages back. Amazing how you ignored that. Instead you continue to seek to divert the attention away from you assertion (because you lack the ability to prove it) by attacking the knowledge of those who challenge you. When you are ready to present your info: great, I will listen. Until then, you deserve no more attention than a 2 year old toddler throwing a temper tantrum in the middle of the grocery store because mommy won't buy you that candy bar.
With no regards.

Michelle

[Lotan]

Since it has been asserted that I'm so lacking in "logical astuteness" this is probably an 'absurd" and "irrational" question...

Could someone explain to me, in the simplest of terms, whether it is logical to propose the criteria for what one considers to be an "objective, historical methodology" and then to abandon that same methodology as soon as one begins their argument? Is there a formal name for this?