The Love of Logic

[sonofarthur]

It seems that the other thread I started has started to die down... so I thought I would bring up another topic close to my heart...

I think a lot of times students of the Bible make mistakes in their reading of the Bible on certain topics because of the false logic that they employ in their studies. We need to remember, that logic itself is manmade and thus fallible. That being said, there are certain things that are inherently true that can be determined from the proper use of the laws of logic.

What is logic.

The word itself derives from a word many of us here have studied, "logos" (greek).

Logos generally means a communication or transmission of information about a particular topic. For example, as THE LOGOS of God, Jesus is the communication from God of Himself to mankind.

The laws of logic, which in their foundation are truely mathematical, are the standards by which men can draw conclusions from their assumptions. When the laws are followed, the conclusion is valid. If the assumptions are wrong, then the conclusion might be wrong even though the conclusion is VALIDLY drawn. On the other hand, IF the assumptions are correct, then valid conclusions are correct. Conclusions that are valid based solely upon correct assumptions, are called SOUND conclusions.

By studying this very issue, I was able to find the errors in TWI's teaching regarding the deity of Jesus.

The problem with VPW's JCING is that his conclusions ARE valid, but his assumptions are flawed. Many people from a WAY background have an extremely HARD time discarding TWI teaching on this topic. I believe that this is because they cannot find the logical errors within JCING. The problem is that they are examining the logic, and not evaluating the assumptions underlying the book. VPW, never laid out his assumptions. I am not even sure that he realized that he was making certain extrabiblical assumptions.

[DrtyDzn]

We need to remember, that logic itself is manmade and thus fallible.

I don't think that logic is man made any more than mathematics is man made. I actually took a class in begining logic in college offered by the math department. Not that I remember much of it anymore, but by reducing statements to letter symbols, you could determine the validity of conclusions drawn by using the laws of logic. The only place where human fallibility came into the picture was assigning statements an incorrect letter value(the assumptions part of your examination of JCING).

An example would be that "the word was made flesh" doesn't necessarily mean "All the word was made flesh". It could mean "Some of the word was made flesh and some was not".

Jerry

[sonofarthur]

actually, mathematics is man-made too. I am a math teacher so let me explain.

The laws of arithmetic are not man-made, so 1 plus 1 always equals 2 (according to how we have generally agreed to express that truth).

Mathematics though, or the way in which we solve problems and express said solutions, IS man-made.

Logic, as a concept that reflects how the world NORMALLY operates, i.e. cause and effect, was not man-made but natural (God-made). Logic though is not a concept, but the communication or expression of this interaction.

When I say "man-made logic" I am referring to the way we describe the cause and effect, whys, and wherefores of ideas. This is kind of abstract. I'm sorry. It has been a long idea.

There are three methods of reasoning (proof) that are conventional (agreed upon generally) within logic.

They are: Deductive Reasoning, Inductive Reasoning, and Proof by contradiction.

Deductive Reasoning is solid. When it is used it is easy to test its validity.

Inductive Reasoning predicting the behavior of the whole by observing the parts; finding a trend.

The problem with inductive reasoning is that it is built upon the assumption that what is being tested in uniform and unchanging, which is not always the case. When using inductive reasoning, one has to make sure that the system being tested is closed.

Proof by contradiction is especially tricky. But, it is my favorite. This kind of proof is the only way that you can test your assumptions. If your assumptions logically derive two statements that exclusive (both can't be right simultaneously) then there is some flaw in your set of assumptions. The difficulty in this type of reasoning is that it can be suprisingly difficult to identify a true contradiction.

All three methods of reasoning are built upon underlying assumptions. If those assumptions are off, then the whole building is suspect.

[Cynic]

Sonofarthur,

If you haven't come across these guys, you might find typing the following Christian philosophers’ names into a search engine interesting:

Cornelius Van Til

John Frame (John M. Frame)

Greg Bahnsen (Greg L. Bahnsen)

Alvin Plantinga

[DrtyDzn]

Logic, as a concept that reflects how the world NORMALLY operates, i.e. cause and effect, was not man-made but natural (God-made). Logic though is not a concept, but the communication or expression of this interaction.

When I say "man-made logic" I am referring to the way we describe the cause and effect, whys, and wherefores of ideas.

I don't get it. You say logic as a concept is not man made and then turn around and say logic is not a concept. Could it be that what you are calling man-made logic is simply another term for reasoning? Reasoning being the communication or expression of cause and effect.

Jerry

[cman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead

[markomalley]

The problem with VPW's JCING is that his conclusions ARE valid, but his assumptions are flawed.

I believe that you would not find unanimity around here with that assertion.

[cman]

sonofarthur-you make a lot of assumptions about a lot of people, including Jesus Christ.

Now is this thread about logic or what your logic is.

[Oakspear]

Is logic cultural? That is, could something that is considered logical in one culture be considered illogical in another? (Even the mathematical representation of logic wasn't handed down on stone tablets, some person codified and systematized it)

[year2027]

God first

Beloved sonofarthur

God loves us all my friend

you ask about Logic but which kind of Logic because there are at least three kinds

There is growth Logic the logic that plants, animals, mankinds, winds, sun-rays and the list is endless use to grow

There the natural Logic the logic that animals, mankind, and anything that thinks fleshly uses to live with natural desires

There spiritual Logic the logic that mankind with a spirit, Christ, and God use to talk

But our spiritual Logic is only in part because we are not ready for a complete spiritual Logic

Now there is more in one kind of assumptions

the assumptions a plant might have to grow toward a light

the assumptions a natural animal might have to look in a hole or run after another animal

the assumptions we have when we receive spiritual knowledge in part

then there is assumptions we make while only see in part

Now I like numbers too

one may say 1 plus 1 = 2 but what if the person who gave 2 its name and number was wrong and 2 is really 3 and 3 is really 2

numbers are only as good as there names

now we say we are three parts body, soul, and spirit

but the body has many parts - try counting your bones

but the soul to be alive takes the work of many parts and a endless supply of air

what about the spirit I just do no know enough about its parts

so the body is many parts as is the soul -- but look we are way more than three

I will stop here

thank you

with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy

[Cynic]

The following example of a valid argument should help get at what sonofarthur is talking about:

If it has rained in the past month, G-rth is involved sexually with two geese and 15 male llamas;

It has rained in the past month;

Therefore, G-rth is involved sexually with two geese and 15 male llamas.

The above argument is logically valid. It is in the form of a syllogism known as Modus Ponens. Although the argument is valid, it is not necessarily sound. The problem with it is that its major premise is questionable.

Similarly, Wierwille’s argument against the meaning of John 1:1 implicitly involved the following syllogism:

If the Word actually existed in the beginning, Genesis 1:1 would have made mention of the Word as well as making mention of God.

Genesis 1:1 does not make mention of the Word as well as making mention of God.

Therefore, the Word did not actually exist in the beginning.

The above syllogism is in a form known as Modus Tollens. As sonofarthur has pointed out, the problem with such an argument is not in the chain of inference. The problem is that the major premise (which Wierwille implicitly asserted) was flagrantly contrived and without any real basis.

See:

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/m9.htm#mp

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/m9.htm#mt

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/s7.htm#sound

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006030717964

http://papyr.com/hbp/logic5.htm

Edited February 3, 2007 by Cynic

[GarthP2000]

If it has rained in the past month, G-rth is involved sexually with two geese and 15 male llamas;

It has rained in the past month;

Therefore, G-rth is involved sexually with two geese and 15 male llamas.

...

The problem with it is that its major premise is questionable.

In more ways than one, chief. <_<

Is this kind of infantile example the best you can do? And based on nothing more significant or noteworthy than you still being pi**ed at me?

Doesn't say much for you as a logical example now, does it?

(Edited to remove uncalled for 'trinity fetish' remark. ... In any event Cynic, please keep me out of your conversations, will you? I've been staying away from taking more shots at you lately.

I take it that you believe in being morally decent, ... right?)

Edited February 3, 2007 by GarthP2000

[def59]

Couldn't John 1:1 be

In the beginning was A and A was with God and A was God?

There's nothing to suggest that the Word has three meanings.

[sirguessalot]

for what its worth...a lot of old old legends and lore point to notions like:

"in the beginning" = "every present moment"..."all of this now"..."as it is becoming"...in a sense, pointing at the nature of "everpresent causality" ...as it begins in every moment fresh and new

"the Word" = ALL form...The One and The Many...that which simply forms and is manifest, in all its wholes and in parts...the whole universe is more or less made of sound

"God" - formlessness...that which Witnesses form...the UNmanifest...which our original and final nature

and how this singular dance of form and formlessness is a cha cha cha of many subjective and objective relationships...where zero is finally a hero again

and the happy couple collapses into one...and the edge of logic never stops moving away from us

and ya gotta love that

Edited February 3, 2007 by sirguessalot

[Cynic]

Similarly, Wierwille’s argument against the meaning of John 1:1 implicitly involved the following syllogism:

If the Word actually existed in the beginning, Genesis 1:1 would have made mention of the Word as well as making mention of God.

Genesis 1:1 does not make mention of the Word as well as making mention of God.

Therefore, the Word did not actually exist in the beginning.

The above syllogism is in a form known as Modus Tollens. As sonofarthur has pointed out, the problem with such an argument is not in the chain of inference. The problem is that the major premise (which Wierwille implicitly asserted) was flagrantly contrived and without any real basis.

My attempt to construct a syllogism representing Wierwille’s explanation of John 1:1 was quite flawed. I did not think of the identity-switch that Wierwille used to base his denial of the eternal existence of Jesus Christ. Wierwille’s PFAL reasoning concerning John 1:1 seemed predominately focused on circumventing the “In the beginning was the Word” clause, and could be syllogistically stated as follows:

If the Word who existed in the beginning as a divine actor was the Son of God, Genesis 1:1 would not make mention of God only [as a divine actor].

Genesis 1:1 makes mention of God only [as a divine actor].

Therefore, the Word who existed in the beginning as a divine actor was not the Son of God.

Wierwille’s major premise was a monument to the impressionableness of TWI’s religious teenyboppers. Their acceptance of Wierwille's explanation of John 1:1-3 placed a number of New Testament scriptures behind an interpretive veil through which they did not communicate to Wayfers in language as language is normally understood.

Edited February 5, 2007 by Cynic