|
David:Thank God one cannot construct a syllogism
vis a vis God and Humankind. Why? someone may ask? The Grace of God and formal
logic are incompatible. Obviously God understands formal logic. Happily, He is
not bound to/by it as you appear to be.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: April 03, 2005 08:22
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Eternal
Judgment
In a message dated 4/2/2005 9:03:15 PM Pacific
Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
David Miller wrote:
>>Simple, John.
...
>>Major premise: John is comfortable keeping his
sin
>>Minor premise: The phrase "keeping his sin" is
equivalent
>>to the phrase "in sin"
>>Conclusion:
John is comfortable in sin
John wrote:
>Try this again.
This not a syllogism, David.
>There is only one conclusion in a
syllogism.
>Your minor premise is a conclusion.
>This is false
logic.
John, please go take a class in logic or brush up by reading
many of the web
pages out there that will help you understand deductive
logic. There are
many different types of logical syllogisms and
you seem to have trouble with
even the most common of them. The
form this one takes is classic. It is
known in mathematics as the
principle of transtivity. Look it up. It
states that if two
different things are equal to the same thing, then those
two different
things must also be equal to each other. Following is the
mathematical representation of the syllogism that I constructed
above:
A equals B
B equals C
Therefore, A equals
C
Substitute A with "John is comfortable" and B with "keeping his
sin" and C
with "in sin." Now do your substitution and what do you
get?
John is comfortable keeping his sin.
"Keeping his sin" is
equivalent to saying "in sin."
Therefore, John is comfortable in
sin.
It is a shame that your hostility in this forum toward Judy has
hinged upon
your deficiency in logic and reason. We would be glad
to help you
understand how to apply reason better, but it would be
helpful if you ask
for help rather than blasting us with ex-cathedra
declarations and dogma
that have no basis in logic. The way to
show the conclusion in this
syllogism to be false is to show one of the
premises to be false. If the
premises are true, then the
conclusion must be true. This is why I did not
hammer on the
misrepresentation issue until Gary said, "so what," indicating
his
acceptance of the minor premise as being true.
David Miller.
There are so many things wrong with this essay that I
hardly know where to begin. I actually took a course on logic and
debate in college. Really. Maybe my instructor was screwed
up. But I don't think so. There is only ONE correct
syllogism, David, and something like 13 or 17 (I forget) ways of writing a
syllogism poorly. You have a major and minor premise and a
conclusion. The major premise is the larger of the two considerations
and is a fact without debate. The minor prmise is more specific
and is related to the major premise. The CONCLUSION is forced upon the
author or student as the two premises are combined and presents no new
information to the reader. The CONCLUSION is the comgining of the
major and minor premise -- period. There is so much more
regarding the major and minor premise -- but I have to dig
up my notes. They are somewhere in this "study" of mine. Let's
consider your "syllogism:"
John is comfortable keeping his
sin.
"Keeping his sin" is equivalent to saying "in sin."
Therefore, John
is comfortable in sin.
Both the major and minor premise are
unture. The first is a lie. The second is a conclusion not related
to the major premise. The notion that I am comfortable in the
keeping of my sin (a lie) is not related to the conclusion "keeping " is
equivalent to "saying."
Try it again, David.
|
