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?

[Cathar1950]

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?

It might have more to do with psychology then logic. The formal name might be found in pathology. Confused might be more help then a logic book.
It seems interesting to watch a person be so subjective while claiming objective truth about a belief.

[Zorro1]

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 I were to disappear who would be here to expose you? The only game here is yours. Paul said, the person who thinks herself something, when she is nothing, fools only herself. You claim to know logic, but you continue to prove you have no clue of even the basics terms of the discipline. In your above paragraph, you show your ignorance once again. Premises can not be valid! “Valid” refers to an argument form and has nothing to do with the truth value of the premises. It also applies to deductive and not inductive arguments. Inductive arguments are not called “valid,” they are called “cogent.” I could go on, but this along with your previous posts should be sufficient. The fact that you felt the need to pretend you had a logic text book, and made one up, shows your level of game playing. You could have at least looked up a real book at Amazon, instead of making up a nonexistent title, with no authors or publisher, which was easily exposed. You made this far too easy for me.

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.

The reality of the situation is I have been presenting an argument in my posts to Goat. Since you don’t know what an argument looks like (this is the first thing they teach you in logic class, you should take one), you didn’t recognize it.

I saw the link to Price’s article and read it. This is where a basic knowledge of logic comes in handy. You just were not capable of recognizing the logical and factual errors that Price commits in his attack on Habermas’ article; so you fell for it. You wrote: “Darn, it even blatantly tells the fallacies.” If you read Habermas’ article and actually knew his position, you could have figured out (if you also knew something about logic), that Price was not telling you Habermas’ fallacies, but was committing his own. His first three “big problems,” are all either factually wrong or missed points. The fallacies he suggests are misapplied. You don’t need a PhD. in logic to figure this out. But, some training is needed.

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

Tantrum? Me? I am just sitting back laughing at you as you pretend to know logic, pretend you have a logic text book, pretend you know what logic terms mean as you misapply them right and left. Wait a minute, isn’t it 2 year old children that play pretend? Yea! They pretend they are Cowboys, Indians, Policemen, Nurses and, I guess, some pretend to be Logicians. Yea, that’s it!

Z

[Confused]

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?

It might have more to do with psychology then logic. The formal name might be found in pathology. Confused might be more help then a logic book.
It seems interesting to watch a person be so subjective while claiming objective truth about a belief.

I think it is a combination, though I don't think Lotan qualifies for either of which he claims he is lacking.

First off, if one is to use objective, historical methodology, then it would generally end in a "proof". This is done with deductive logic, not inductive logic, such as mr. zorro keeps trying to apply. While I have asked him this before, he ignored that post and instead tried to attack other components. However, since zorro never gave his "methodology" he never had one to abandon to begin with. He has instead given false premises, multiple fallacies, and multiple character or approach attacks in order to steer the conversation away from his assertion because he knows he can't prove his assertion. My guess, he thought everyone in here were a bunch of uneducated, backwoods, hillbillies. My guess, he took one logic class, or one critical thinking course and now thinks he can impress someone. While I am sure there is multiple disorders in the DSMIV that he might fit into, I couldn't choose one over the other just based on this. However, I do know there is a formal term for what he has done, I be darned if I can remember it though. I will have to pull out my books. Will have an answer by the end of the night.

[Confused]

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 I were to disappear who would be here to expose you? The only game here is yours. Paul said, the person who thinks herself something, when she is nothing, fools only herself. You claim to know logic, but you continue to prove you have no clue of even the basics terms of the discipline. In your above paragraph, you show your ignorance once again. Premises can not be valid! “Valid” refers to an argument form and has nothing to do with the truth value of the premises. It also applies to deductive and not inductive arguments. Inductive arguments are not called “valid,” they are called “cogent.” I could go on, but this along with your previous posts should be sufficient. The fact that you felt the need to pretend you had a logic text book, and made one up, shows your level of game playing. You could have at least looked up a real book at Amazon, instead of making up a nonexistent title, with no authors or publisher, which was easily exposed. You made this far too easy for me.

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.

The reality of the situation is I have been presenting an argument in my posts to Goat. Since you don’t know what an argument looks like (this is the first thing they teach you in logic class, you should take one), you didn’t recognize it.

I saw the link to Price’s article and read it. This is where a basic knowledge of logic comes in handy. You just were not capable of recognizing the logical and factual errors that Price commits in his attack on Habermas’ article; so you fell for it. You wrote: “Darn, it even blatantly tells the fallacies.” If you read Habermas’ article and actually knew his position, you could have figured out (if you also knew something about logic), that Price was not telling you Habermas’ fallacies, but was committing his own. His first three “big problems,” are all either factually wrong or missed points. The fallacies he suggests are misapplied. You don’t need a PhD. in logic to figure this out. But, some training is needed.

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

Tantrum? Me? I am just sitting back laughing at you as you pretend to know logic, pretend you have a logic text book, pretend you know what logic terms mean as you misapply them right and left. Wait a minute, isn’t it 2 year old children that play pretend? Yea! They pretend they are Cowboys, Indians, Policemen, Nurses and, I guess, some pretend to be Logicians. Yea, that’s it!

Z

Once again, prove your assertion. You make some wild claims. This is good. I needed a laugh. Tell you what, when you graduate from la la land, prove your assertion. Until you do so, you are everything I have claimed you to be. You say you are with Goat. Funny, no-one else seems to see it anymore than I do. Once again, I guess we are all just too uneducated for the likes of you. I can live with that.

[Cathar1950]

If I were to disappear who would be here to expose you? The only game here is yours.

You are playing a mindless game and the only one exposing themselves is you.
Despite you babbling on about validity Confused was clear on the questioning of the truth of your premises. “Are your premises true/valid?” was the question and validity might pertain depending how you came upon your premises.

Paul said, the person who thinks herself something, when she is nothing, fools only herself.

Considering Paul’s bragging and false sense of humility you have captured your attitude very well.

You have not only showed your ignorance but you have shown what a belligerent braggart you truly are. I question your validity, truthfulness of your premises and the soundness of your judgments.
I have no reason to question that she has a logic textbook, as there are many and hardly has a reason to make up or pretend one as you suggest. There are many explanations as to why you failed to find the book. Even a mistake in the title would be enough to make your words pure hostility on your part.




http://www.skepdic.com/begging.html

Begging the question
Begging the question is what one does in an argument when one assumes what one claims to be proving.
An argument is a form of reasoning whereby one gives a reason or reasons in support of some claim. The reasons are called premises and the claim one tries to support with them is called the conclusion.
If one's premises entail one's conclusion, and one's premises are questionable, one is said to beg the question.
The following argument begs the question.
We know God exists because we can see the perfect order of His Creation, an order which demonstrates supernatural intelligence in its design.
The conclusion of this argument is that God exists. The premise assumes a Creator and Designer of the universe exists, i.e., that God exists. In this argument, the arguer should not be granted the assumption that the universe exhibits intelligent design, but should be made to provide support for that claim.
The following argument also begs the question.
Abortion is the unjustified killing of a human being and as such is murder. Murder is illegal. So abortion should be illegal.
The conclusion of the argument is entailed in its premises. If one assumes that abortion is murder then it follows that abortion should be illegal because murder is illegal. Thus, the arguer is assuming abortion should be illegal (the conclusion) by assuming that it is murder. In this argument, the arguer should not be granted the assumption that abortion is murder, but should be made to provide support for this claim.
The following is another example of begging the question.
Paranormal phenomena exist because I have had experiences that can only be described as paranormal.
The conclusion of this argument is that paranormal phenomena exist. The premise assumes that the arguer has had paranormal experiences, and therefore assumes that paranormal experiences exist. The arguer should not be granted the assumption that his experiences were paranormal, but should made to provide support for this claim.
Here is a final example of begging the question.
Past-life memories of children prove that past lives exist because the children could have no other source for their memories besides having lived in the past.
The conclusion of this argument is that past lives exist. The premise assumes that children have had past lives. The arguer should not be granted the assumption that children have had past lives but should made to support the claim. (Saying the memories could have no other source than a past life is to assume that past lives exist. This should not be granted but argued for.)

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/log/terms1.htm

Basic Terms of Logic
Peter Suber, Philosophy Department, Earlham College
There are many definitions of logic as a field of study. One handy definition for Day One of an introductory course like this is that logic is the study of argument. For the purposes of logic, an argument is not a quarrel or dispute, but an example of reasoning in which one or more statements are offered as support, justification, grounds, reasons, or evidence for another statement. The statement being supported is the conclusion of the argument, and the statements that support it are the premises of the argument.
Studying argument is important because argument is the way we support our claims to truth. It is tempting to say that arguments establish the truth of their conclusions. But the study of logic forces us to qualify this statement. Arguments establish the truth of conclusions relative to some premises and rules of inference. Logicians do not care whether arguments succeed psychologically in changing people's minds or convincing them. The kinks and twists of actual human reasoning are studied by psychology; the effectiveness of reasoning and its variations in persuading others are studied by rhetoric; but the correctness of reasoning (the validity of the inference) is studied by logic.
To assess the worth of an argument, only two aspects or properties of the argument need be considered: the truth of the premises and the validity of the reasoning from them to the conclusion. Of these, logicians study only the reasoning; they leave the question of the truth of the premises to empirical scientists and private detectives.
An argument is valid if the truth of its premises guarantees the truth of its conclusion; or if the conclusion would necessarily be true on the assumption that all the premises were true; or if it is impossible for the conclusion to be false and all the premises true at the same time; or if the conclusion can be deduced from the premises in accordance with certain valid rules. It turns out that all these formulations are equivalent. (The last formulation is that of syntactic validity, the rest are formulations of semantic validity.) If an argument is not valid, it is invalid.
Note that only arguments can be valid or invalid, not statements. Similarly, only statements can be true or false, not arguments. Validity pertains to reasoning, not propositions, while truth pertains to propositions, not reasoning. The first fundamental principle of logic is the independence of truth and validity.
When the reasoning in an argument is valid and all its premises are true, then it is called sound. Otherwise the argument is unsound. If an argument is sound, then its conclusion must be true and we would be illogical to disbelieve it.
An argument is deductive if the premises claim to give conclusive grounds for the truth of the conclusion, or if the premises claim to support the conclusion with necessity. An argument is inductive if it makes the milder claim that its premises support but do not guarantee its conclusion. The black and white categories of validity and invalidity apply only to deductive arguments; inductive arguments are strong or weak. In a valid deductive argument with all true premises, the truth of the conclusion is necessary and its falsehood is impossible. In a strong inductive argument with all true premises, the truth of the conclusion is merely probable and its falsehood merely improbable. The kind of support that valid deductions provide their conclusions is not a matter of degree; it is "all or nothing". But the kind of support that strong inductions provide their conclusions is a matter of degree; it is "more or less". The conclusion of a valid deduction never contains more information than was contained the premises; the conclusion of an induction always does. That is why deductions possess certainty (they never tell us anything new) and why inductions are always uncertain in some degree.
Do not confuse inductions with bad deductions. The difference between deduction and induction is not the difference between good and bad reasoning, but between two ways to support the truth of conclusions. Deduction is the subject of a rigorous exact science; induction, unfortunately, is not.
A fallacy is a bad method of argument, whether deductive or inductive. Arguments can be "bad" (or unsound) for several reasons: one or more of their premises may be false, or irrelevant, or the reasoning from them may be invalid, or the language expressing them may be ambiguous or vague. There are certainly an infinity of bad arguments; there may even be an infinity of ways of arguing badly. The name fallacy is usually reserved for typical faults in arguments that we nevertheless find persuasive. Studying them is therefore a good defense against deception.

[Confused]

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 I were to disappear who would be here to expose you? The only game here is yours. Paul said, the person who thinks herself something, when she is nothing, fools only herself. You claim to know logic, but you continue to prove you have no clue of even the basics terms of the discipline. In your above paragraph, you show your ignorance once again. Premises can not be valid! “Valid” refers to an argument form and has nothing to do with the truth value of the premises. It also applies to deductive and not inductive arguments. Inductive arguments are not called “valid,” they are called “cogent.” I could go on, but this along with your previous posts should be sufficient. The fact that you felt the need to pretend you had a logic text book, and made one up, shows your level of game playing. You could have at least looked up a real book at Amazon, instead of making up a nonexistent title, with no authors or publisher, which was easily exposed. You made this far too easy for me.

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.

The reality of the situation is I have been presenting an argument in my posts to Goat. Since you don’t know what an argument looks like (this is the first thing they teach you in logic class, you should take one), you didn’t recognize it.

I saw the link to Price’s article and read it. This is where a basic knowledge of logic comes in handy. You just were not capable of recognizing the logical and factual errors that Price commits in his attack on Habermas’ article; so you fell for it. You wrote: “Darn, it even blatantly tells the fallacies.” If you read Habermas’ article and actually knew his position, you could have figured out (if you also knew something about logic), that Price was not telling you Habermas’ fallacies, but was committing his own. His first three “big problems,” are all either factually wrong or missed points. The fallacies he suggests are misapplied. You don’t need a PhD. in logic to figure this out. But, some training is needed.

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

Tantrum? Me? I am just sitting back laughing at you as you pretend to know logic, pretend you have a logic text book, pretend you know what logic terms mean as you misapply them right and left. Wait a minute, isn’t it 2 year old children that play pretend? Yea! They pretend they are Cowboys, Indians, Policemen, Nurses and, I guess, some pretend to be Logicians. Yea, that’s it!

Z

Does it really matter who or what I reference. According to you, it doesn't matter if I use my resources or yours, I am not applying them right, though I have explained every single fallacy in regards to what it is and how it pertains to you. I have backed up my assertions as to your "logic" and your "fallacies". You continue to fall back on your standard attack my understanding of these fallacies (though I find it amusing that I am the only one you attack when these fallacies are laid out, despite the others who have listed the same fallacies). I think you have to do this because you cannot back your assertion. Once again, no-one has seen you even start to present your case. You claim it is because I lack the understanding of how inductive logic works. That you and Goat are working together on this very thing. Funny. You wish to attack my character, my "false" fallacies, my references, etc..... Fine. I am not one with a big ego. So I will tell you what, either back up your assertion, or don't. Until you do, I am not going to continue to be your scapegoat. Prove your assertion, and you prove me wrong. Keep avoiding it, and you prove me right. It is as simple as that.

[Cathar1950]

I am not the only one that thinks Confused is holding her own very well.
While Zorro has yet to make his argument clear. I would imagine Confused would find more fallacies if some actual argument were presented.
Zorro has resorted to personal attacks that are unwarranted as well as against the rules.

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.

Maybe neither Joe or James saw a two car accident, they may have seen the cars and come to that conclusion or made up the fact they say it.
The two cars may have been left there by two different towing trucks and are unrelated. Or two other cars hit them and ran. Joe and Jim made up the story because they were drunk.

[Zorro1]

You are playing a mindless game and the only one exposing themselves is you.
Despite you babbling on about validity Confused was clear on the questioning of the truth of your premises. “Are your premises true/valid?” was the question and validity might pertain depending how you came upon your premises.

Perhaps you could tell me exactly which “premise” or “premises” she and you are referring to? Do you mean the criteria I listed that are used by professional historians? Do you mean the evidence I cited that is allowed in by those criteria? Do you mean the 12 statements that over 95% of all historians and scholars who write on the subject agree to?

You have not only showed your ignorance but you have shown what a belligerent braggart you truly are. I question your validity, truthfulness of your premises and the soundness of your judgments.

I guess you would call a math teacher who insists his students know that 2 + 2= 4 and accepts no other answer, a “belligerent braggart.” Since I haven’t really made any statements about myself or abilities, I don’t think you can call me a braggart. Belligerent? Perhaps. Confused and others have in many cases falsely accused me and others of fallacious arguments. I have pointed out their errors in great detail, providing concise definitions. Yet, they continue in their misunderstanding of logic.

I have no reason to question that she has a logic textbook, as there are many and hardly has a reason to make up or pretend one as you suggest. There are many explanations as to why you failed to find the book. Even a mistake in the title would be enough to make your words pure hostility on your part.

Well, I didn’t question it either, until I went to look it up. I wanted to see what it had to say on the subject we were discussing. I found there was no such title. I then asked her to give the quote from the book, she did not. I then asked for the authors and publishers, no answer again.

Given the above, I strongly suspect the book does not exist. At least, that is where the evidence leads me. I would suggest, your conclusion is not based on evidence, but faith.

Now let’s talk about your links. The one by Suber is spot on, and he verifies what I have been saying all along. You will find NO DISAGREEMENT between Suber and me.

In regards to begging the question, Confused’s definition was, “begging the question: occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached.” That by itself is wrong. The guy she plagiarized it from goes on in the next sentence to explain it fully, as does Carroll in your link. But, she just didn’t get the whole definition, and refused to recant, and instead, she made up a book, saying it agreed with her. So, here we are.

Z

[Zorro1]

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.

Maybe neither Joe or James saw a two car accident, they may have seen the cars and come to that conclusion or made up the fact they say it.
The two cars may have been left there by two different towing trucks and are unrelated. Or two other cars hit them and ran. Joe and Jim made up the story because they were drunk.

Thank you! You bring out the problem quite clearly. This is exactly the approach taken by many atheists and skeptics regarding the evidence for the resurrection. Any number of altenate explanations can be offered in any situation. Given that fact, how do you give a cogent argument and reach any strong conclusion?


Z

[Goat]

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.

Maybe neither Joe or James saw a two car accident, they may have seen the cars and come to that conclusion or made up the fact they say it.
The two cars may have been left there by two different towing trucks and are unrelated. Or two other cars hit them and ran. Joe and Jim made up the story because they were drunk.

Thank you! You bring out the problem quite clearly. This is exactly the approach taken by many atheists and skeptics regarding the evidence for the resurrection. Any number of altenate explanations can be offered in any situation. Given that fact, how do you give a cogent argument and reach any strong conclusion?


Z

Of course, there is a big difference between a car accident, and the so called 'resurrection'.

A more valid anaology would be

A) The national enquirer says Joe says he saw an alien space craft come down and make crop circles 30 years ago.
B) The national enquirer says James said he saw an alien space craft come down and make crop circles 30 years ago.
C) Not all crop circles have been shown to be made by men.

Conclusion .. Aliens made some crop circles.