This is sound reasoning no matter who you ask, (except a fool, 'cause you can't tell him anything).
7 comments:
Anonymous
said...
"Matthew 5:22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire." Be careful. I speak to both sides. Be careful. Show Christ, not yourselves.
Barak, I stated a universal truth and stated the logical universal opposite; it was not hasty. The part about not being able to tell a fool anything is true also. I only said that fools do not think or speak logically. If you feel that you fit that category then, "so be it". Words can kill, but I did not curse you or call you a fool. You chose to accept that title for yourself.
Barak, if you are calling the Bible illogical then you can have it. You absolutely have the right to be wrong, but you will be held responsible for what you tell people.
Anonymous, you made an interesting comment. You said, "Show Christ, not yourselves". We are supposed to imitate Christ, correct? And Barak, you have been saying over and over that we should be in Christ's love, correct?
What is Christ's love I ask?
What should we be imitating exactly?
Barak, you said Christ died for His own glory and does everything else for Himself.
If Christ does everthing for Himself and for His own glory and I should be imitating Christ, then why shouldn't I be doing everything for myself and for my own glory?
FYI: a woman always has the last word in an argument, so anything said after that is a new argument.
Okay, pretty much any universal statements are either unprovable or logical fallacies if taken in conjunction with others. Let's take an example of the same form as yours.
Here's yours: Freewill (Universal concept of selfdetermination) = Responsibility (Universal Charicteristic of said concept)
Here's another: Oranges (Universal of concept of a particular fruit) = the color orange (Universal charicteristic of said fruit)
Things that are not oranges (Universal negative of the first statement) = any color but orange. (Universal negative of the charictaristic.)
The only problem is that there could in fact be other things that are orange.
In the same way, there could be other sources of responsibility other than personal responsibility. I just thought you might like to know that applying univerals in the contrapositive is in fact a hasty generalization. For the edification of both sides. That doesn't really mean anything other than that the logical statement is potentially fallible.
Are you kidding me? Is this guy saying because something besides oranges are orange, then even though we have no freewill we are still responsible for our actions? Or is he saying even though we have freewill we are not responsible for the things we do? I have known BS Artists in my life but I believe this guy must be the president of the club.
If you noticed, I refrained from making a judgement call on the truth of either side; I was merely critiquing the logic. It is fallible; that was the entire point. That doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong; it has the potential to be right, and it has the potential to be wrong... so logically, it's pointless. In order for it to be a deductive sylogism it would have to be structured and proven as follows.
Freewill is the only source of responsibility. (This would have to be proven) Without freewill there is no responsibility. (Also would have to be proven) Therefore, if we are to have responsibility, we must have freewill.
The only logical problem with that; is that neither of the first two have been proven. So yeah, have at it if you want.
"Logic Defender", You just said we cannot know the truth that I stated is absolute because we cannot prove it and that there might be some instance to which this truth might not apply.
Yes, Daylily, that was the point. However I'm also pretty sure that you're not going to try and philosophically prove the first two postulates; so it becomes a matter of absolute beliefs. As a result, if you take the first two statements to be true, then the statement will seem logical. If you take them to be false it will seem illogical. Therefore the logic potentially fits both sides. Thank you for listening.
7 comments:
"Matthew 5:22
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire." Be careful. I speak to both sides. Be careful. Show Christ, not yourselves.
Barak, I stated a universal truth and stated the logical universal opposite;
it was not hasty.
The part about not being able to tell a fool anything is true also. I only said that fools do not think or speak logically. If you feel that you fit that category then, "so be it".
Words can kill, but I did not curse you or call you a fool. You chose to accept that title for yourself.
Barak, if you are calling the Bible illogical then you can have it. You absolutely have the right to be wrong, but you will be held responsible for what you tell people.
Anonymous, you made an interesting comment. You said, "Show Christ, not yourselves". We are supposed to imitate Christ, correct?
And Barak, you have been saying over and over that we should be in Christ's love, correct?
What is Christ's love I ask?
What should we be imitating exactly?
Barak, you said Christ died for His own glory and does everything else for Himself.
If Christ does everthing for Himself and for His own glory and I should be imitating Christ,
then why shouldn't I be doing everything for myself and for my own glory?
FYI: a woman always has the last word in an argument, so anything said after that is a new argument.
Okay, pretty much any universal statements are either unprovable or logical fallacies if taken in conjunction with others. Let's take an example of the same form as yours.
Here's yours:
Freewill (Universal concept of selfdetermination) = Responsibility (Universal Charicteristic of said concept)
No-Freewill (Universal negative) = No-Responsibility (Universal negative characteristic)
Here's another:
Oranges (Universal of concept of a particular fruit) = the color orange (Universal charicteristic of said fruit)
Things that are not oranges (Universal negative of the first statement) = any color but orange. (Universal negative of the charictaristic.)
The only problem is that there could in fact be other things that are orange.
In the same way, there could be other sources of responsibility other than personal responsibility. I just thought you might like to know that applying univerals in the contrapositive is in fact a hasty generalization. For the edification of both sides. That doesn't really mean anything other than that the logical statement is potentially fallible.
Are you kidding me?
Is this guy saying because something besides oranges are orange, then even though we have no freewill we are still responsible for our actions? Or is he saying even though we have freewill we are not responsible for the things we do?
I have known BS Artists in my life but I believe this guy must be the president of the club.
If you noticed, I refrained from making a judgement call on the truth of either side; I was merely critiquing the logic. It is fallible; that was the entire point. That doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong; it has the potential to be right, and it has the potential to be wrong... so logically, it's pointless. In order for it to be a deductive sylogism it would have to be structured and proven as follows.
Freewill is the only source of responsibility. (This would have to be proven)
Without freewill there is no responsibility. (Also would have to be proven)
Therefore, if we are to have responsibility, we must have freewill.
The only logical problem with that; is that neither of the first two have been proven. So yeah, have at it if you want.
"Logic Defender",
You just said we cannot know the truth that I stated is absolute because we cannot prove it and that there might be some instance to which this truth might not apply.
Is that what you meant?
Yes, Daylily, that was the point. However I'm also pretty sure that you're not going to try and philosophically prove the first two postulates; so it becomes a matter of absolute beliefs. As a result, if you take the first two statements to be true, then the statement will seem logical. If you take them to be false it will seem illogical. Therefore the logic potentially fits both sides. Thank you for listening.
Post a Comment