Forum Settings
Forums

Jesus was not the son of God-- Logical Proof

Pages (4) « 1 [2] 3 4 »
Post New Reply
Jun 14, 2016 8:57 PM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 12178
It's religion for crying out loud
Logic does not logic


THAT'S LIFE
& I TELL YA I CAN'T DENY IT
.

 
Jun 14, 2016 9:10 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 848
Religion isn't meant to be logical.
Signature removed. Bro, can you please follow the signature rules? How many times do I have to tell you, 300kb MAX. You know we don't have the server space for your giant ass gifs. Site & Forum Guidelines (read them dumbass).
 
Jun 14, 2016 9:12 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 6844
dizzyur said:
It's religion for crying out loud
Logic does not logic


Nope, real logic applies to anything. At most we lack axioms or mistakenly use false axioms. But generally most logic should work and is 99.99999999% foolproof.

Unless, of course, it's like the one the OP used in this thread. That one is fundamentally flawed because it denies its own existence.
 
Jun 14, 2016 11:24 PM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 3876
Soren said:
Shaheen- said:
But, between K and L, there's the modus ponens; let's call it M: "If J and K are true, then L must be true''.
I've never heard of a modus ponens like this. Can you source where you got this from please?
As far as I know, modus ponen comes in the form of:
If P then Q
P
Therefore Q
And not what you said.


I can reword my modus ponens to:
"If J and K, then L".

Really, saying 'If P' only means: "If P is true''.

Chaiholic said:
This seems like a weird combination of modus ponen and Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the tortoise.

Shush! don't speak. Hide your post!

NeoVolt said:
Shaheen- said:




A prior principle is required to explain logical principles and once that principle is explained, another principle is required to explain that principle. It's logic saying, 'fuck you'.
If we go by the example you start with, and what you are saying here; then you appear to be arguing that it is impossible to make a logically valid argument. Or perhaps you take issue with material conditionals? Have you studied logic in an academic setting? I'm not trying to bait or offend. It's just that "validity" in relation to conditionals is a pretty basic principle.

Either way, your concept as what qualifies as logically valid is wrong.

-An argument is considered logically valid where: If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.

As you state it, if J & K are true then L must be true. Also, what you've failed to realize, is that this still holds true with the additional premises. If J, K, M, & G are True, the L must be true. So your extended version of the argument is still valid. You can add as many extended conditionals like M and G as you want, and the argument would still be valid.

It's relatively simple.

L is a conditional premise so I'll rephrase it for simplicity.

J: "If the Bible says a person is the son of God, then that person is the son of God''.
K: "The Bible says Jesus is the son of God''.
L: " Therefore, Jesus is the son of God''.
This argument takes a very basic logical form of:
L: If p then q
K: p
L: Therefore q

The original argument itself represents a complete modus ponens in its valid form, and in no way requires additional premises in order to be valid. The only issue you can take with it is a missing premise that establishes Jesus as a person.
But we can reasonably assume that in this case.

You have not logically proven anything, except that the christian argument IS valid. It's not true, but it is in fact valid.


We accept modus ponens as logically valid on faith only. If you subject it to logical proof, it churns out this paradox. It's quite simple: I'm not accepting modus ponens as a valid form of argument because it leads us into an infinite regression if it is subject to logical proof (as it should). Just using Christians as a scapegoat.


traed said:
Shaheen- said:


Quran says that Bible is lying. If you say Quran is lying, then you're saying Bible is true.


That would only be the case if I was saying the Quran lied about the Bible lying, which I did not.


But which I did in my first post replying to you and that which you are trying to counter since then.

Here-Hear said:
Sir, why are you bringing logic into religion? I don't think you know how religion functions.


Because the world follows logic? lol
No contradictions exist.
 
Jun 14, 2016 11:37 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 4904
Mywifesson said:
I don't think christians make that argument:


A: Bible is the word of God
B: Bible says that Jesus was the son of God
C: God has said that Jesus was the son of God
D: Therefore Jesus is the son of God

I don't believe in this stuff anyway but calling fairy tales is autistic fedora lord tier. christianity is objectively good, it unites people under a peaceful commonality.
Bullshit. Euros were fighting over it for years among themselves until they dropped it
 
Jun 15, 2016 12:08 AM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 1234
Fatalistic said:
Religion isn't meant to be logical.

this is the best answer for this thread
 
Jun 15, 2016 12:15 AM

Online
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 31915
Shaheen- said:
But which I did in my first post replying to you and that which you are trying to counter since then.


That doesn't invalidate what I said though if you know what I meant now. When you were saying what you said I thought you meant the entire Quran or Bible rather than specific parts. If Jesus was not a true prophet then neither the Quran or Bible would be correct. You tried to validate the Quran by saying if the Bible is false the Quran is true because the Quran says the Bible is false but just that one part would not be enough to prove all the Quran is true. So you have not really proven anything there. Also I'm not sure in what way you say the Quran says the Bible is not true because if it means the entire Bible you would be also invalidating various parts of the Quran because some things are the same in both. The Quran says all of the Quran is true, but if it claims all the Bible is false that would require parts of the Quran to be false which is a contradiction to the statement of all the Quran being true.
 
Jun 15, 2016 2:42 AM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 3876
traed said:
Shaheen- said:
But which I did in my first post replying to you and that which you are trying to counter since then.


That doesn't invalidate what I said though if you know what I meant now. When you were saying what you said I thought you meant the entire Quran or Bible rather than specific parts. If Jesus was not a true prophet then neither the Quran or Bible would be correct. You tried to validate the Quran by saying if the Bible is false the Quran is true because the Quran says the Bible is false but just that one part would not be enough to prove all the Quran is true. So you have not really proven anything there. Also I'm not sure in what way you say the Quran says the Bible is not true because if it means the entire Bible you would be also invalidating various parts of the Quran because some things are the same in both. The Quran says all of the Quran is true, but if it claims all the Bible is false that would require parts of the Quran to be false which is a contradiction to the statement of all the Quran being true.


This is where we abandon the syntax train and ride the semantics one. What Bible and the Quran have in common is the assertion that 'Jesus is the Prophet of God'. What the Bible has extra is the assertion that 'Jesus is the son of God'. You can imagine the Quranic assertion being a subset to the Biblical assertion because the son of God is also a Prophet of God. It's a screwed up Venn diagram. It doesn't make sense. Here's a paradox within a paradox within another paradox.
 
Jun 15, 2016 3:22 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 6844
Hillarious watching @Shaheen- still pretending he is using "logic", when I have shown that it's false. The logic can be applied to turn any reference to evidence into being "illogical". It literally proves the concept of "evidence" and "proof" to be illogical if you generalize it. But OP doesn't seem too concerned with this obvious flaw that this logic even deems our observation which is the source of pretty much our whole perception as "illogical".

Replace "bible" with "our personal observation" and it turns any reasoning based on what we perceive into being "illogical".

So remember: OP essentially claims that what you see with your own eyes right now cannot be true because believing your eyes would be "illogical".
Modified by Grey-Zone, Jun 15, 2016 3:26 AM
 
Jun 15, 2016 3:25 AM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 3876
Grey-Zone said:
Hillarious watching @Shaheen- still pretending he is using "logic", when I have shown that it's false. The logic can be applied to turn any reference to evidence into being "illogical". It literally proves the concept of "evidence" and "proof" to be illogical if you generalize it. But OP doesn't seem too concerned with this obvious flaw that this logic even deems our observation which is the source of pretty much our whole perception as "illogical".

Replace "bible" with "our personal observation" and it turns any reasoning based on what we perceive into being "illogical".


Aaaaand?

Yes I am basically highlighting a weakness of logic. Now then, what?
 
Jun 15, 2016 3:39 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 6844
Shaheen- said:
Grey-Zone said:
Hillarious watching @Shaheen- still pretending he is using "logic", when I have shown that it's false. The logic can be applied to turn any reference to evidence into being "illogical". It literally proves the concept of "evidence" and "proof" to be illogical if you generalize it. But OP doesn't seem too concerned with this obvious flaw that this logic even deems our observation which is the source of pretty much our whole perception as "illogical".

Replace "bible" with "our personal observation" and it turns any reasoning based on what we perceive into being "illogical".


Aaaaand?

Yes I am basically highlighting a weakness of logic. Now then, what?


You don't use axioms. For logic to work we NEED something as an anchor, i.e. an absolute we assume is true. You can't do anything with relative variables alone. Example: If you ask: say A is 3 times B -> what is A?, you cannot give any concrete answer because you have no basis on what A is. The argument loops and the answer becomes essentially the question itself, i.e. A is 3 times B.

Even Math for example wouldn't be working because "there is no proof that after 1 follows 2". It needs the axiom that you are talking about the established decimal system consisting of the digits 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and in that order and that after that you start over with the lowest number you raise the position in front of it, assuming that "nothing" in front is always considered 0, so after 9 which is technically 09 it starts counting up in this new hierarchy again -> 10, 11, etc.
without the axiom that you are using the decimal system there is no assurance that after 1 follows 2 because if you for example used the binary system it you would have 10 following (0)1 instead.

Your reasoning does not use any axioms so it it has no anchor it can base any valid argument on in the first place. Basically there is no "rule" or "system" that makes it possible for anything to be valid in the first place like the decimal system in math.


For your reasoning to even possibly have any credibility you need to answer following question: "What does it take for a claim to be valid?"

Your example lacks this. Right now there is NOTHING under your "logic" that allows anything to be valid. That makes it possible to even deny our observation of these forum posts or the existence of logic itself. And any logic that denies its own existence is invalid logic. Even in math we use (self-)contradiction as proof that a claim is wrong.
Modified by Grey-Zone, Jun 15, 2016 3:47 AM
 
Jun 15, 2016 3:47 AM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 3876
Grey-Zone said:
Shaheen- said:


Aaaaand?

Yes I am basically highlighting a weakness of logic. Now then, what?


You don't use axioms. For logic to work we NEED something as an anchor, i.e. an absolute. You can't do anything with relative variables alone. Example: If you ask: say A is 3 times B -> what is A?, you cannot give any concrete answer because you have no basis on what A is. The argument loops and the answer becomes essentially the question itself, i.e. A is 3 times B.

Even Math for example wouldn't be working because "there is no proof that after 1 follows 2". It needs the axiom that you are talking about the established decimal system consisting of the digits 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and in that order and that after that you start over with the lowest number you raise the position in front of it, assuming that "nothing" in front is always considered 0, so after 9 which is technically 09 it starts counting up in this new hierarchy again -> 10, 11, etc.
without the axiom that you are using the decimal system there is no assurance that after 1 follows 2 because if you for example used the binary system it you would have 10 following (0)1 instead.

Your reasoning does not use any axioms so it it has no anchor it can base any valid argument on in the first place. Basically there is no "rule" or "system" that makes it possible for anything to be valid in the first place like the decimal system in math.


That 2 follows 1 has a proof and that proof is based on intuition therefore it cannot be explained and accepted simply because it is so. Modus ponens is not intuitive, we just accept it as it is because, well, we see that there is no other way. Therefore, denying modus ponens as a rule of inference is justified.
 
Jun 15, 2016 3:49 AM

Online
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 31915
Shaheen- said:
traed said:


That doesn't invalidate what I said though if you know what I meant now. When you were saying what you said I thought you meant the entire Quran or Bible rather than specific parts. If Jesus was not a true prophet then neither the Quran or Bible would be correct. You tried to validate the Quran by saying if the Bible is false the Quran is true because the Quran says the Bible is false but just that one part would not be enough to prove all the Quran is true. So you have not really proven anything there. Also I'm not sure in what way you say the Quran says the Bible is not true because if it means the entire Bible you would be also invalidating various parts of the Quran because some things are the same in both. The Quran says all of the Quran is true, but if it claims all the Bible is false that would require parts of the Quran to be false which is a contradiction to the statement of all the Quran being true.


This is where we abandon the syntax train and ride the semantics one. What Bible and the Quran have in common is the assertion that 'Jesus is the Prophet of God'. What the Bible has extra is the assertion that 'Jesus is the son of God'. You can imagine the Quranic assertion being a subset to the Biblical assertion because the son of God is also a Prophet of God. It's a screwed up Venn diagram. It doesn't make sense. Here's a paradox within a paradox within another paradox.


Well if you're going to go into semantics you would have to clarify what "son of God" actually means. In some meanings of the term a son of god is someone who follows god's word. The bible in various parts says all are sons/children of God through their faith. In this interpretation whether Jesus is descended directly from god or is god in the flesh or not would not change whether or not he is a son of god in the way I described it to mean.
 
Jun 15, 2016 3:59 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 6844
Shaheen- said:
Grey-Zone said:


You don't use axioms. For logic to work we NEED something as an anchor, i.e. an absolute. You can't do anything with relative variables alone. Example: If you ask: say A is 3 times B -> what is A?, you cannot give any concrete answer because you have no basis on what A is. The argument loops and the answer becomes essentially the question itself, i.e. A is 3 times B.

Even Math for example wouldn't be working because "there is no proof that after 1 follows 2". It needs the axiom that you are talking about the established decimal system consisting of the digits 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and in that order and that after that you start over with the lowest number you raise the position in front of it, assuming that "nothing" in front is always considered 0, so after 9 which is technically 09 it starts counting up in this new hierarchy again -> 10, 11, etc.
without the axiom that you are using the decimal system there is no assurance that after 1 follows 2 because if you for example used the binary system it you would have 10 following (0)1 instead.

Your reasoning does not use any axioms so it it has no anchor it can base any valid argument on in the first place. Basically there is no "rule" or "system" that makes it possible for anything to be valid in the first place like the decimal system in math.


That 2 follows 1 has a proof and that proof is based on intuition therefore it cannot be explained and accepted simply because it is so. Modus ponens is not intuitive, we just accept it as it is because, well, we see that there is no other way. Therefore, denying modus ponens as a rule of inference is justified.


modus ponens ONLY works as an axiom (or whatever logical reasoning for modus ponens itself exists, I don't know and frankly I don't care). If you have to prove modus ponens within your reasoning itself you are doing it wrong. Defining your tools of reasoning should be a seperate issue, i.e. whether modus ponens is an axiom or a logically proven concept, you have to do it in a seperate "definition of modus ponens" segment, and NOT in an actual application of it, otherwise, as is the case here, it becomes an issue about the validity of modus ponen itself and not about whether or not Jesus being the son of god is "logical" or not. It's essentially a strawman argument, because you pretend it's about an instance of modus ponen when the flaw in the reasoning is actually based on the process itself.
Modified by Grey-Zone, Jun 15, 2016 4:06 AM
 
Jun 15, 2016 4:16 AM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 1287
Wooooooo!

That was one kooky spooky Jihad of the pen!

Very entertaining indeed.
idk about you but the closer a girl gets to looking like ronald mcdonald, the more aroused i become. CAV

where can we cast our eyes to @PoruMairu who thinks of himself a member of the true church. Helion.
 
Jun 15, 2016 6:37 AM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 3876
traed said:

Well if you're going to go into semantics you would have to clarify what "son of God" actually means. In some meanings of the term a son of god is someone who follows god's word. The bible in various parts says all are sons/children of God through their faith. In this interpretation whether Jesus is descended directly from god or is god in the flesh or not would not change whether or not he is a son of god in the way I described it to mean.


Doesn't that just destroy Christianity? the entirety of Christianity rests upon Jesus being the literal (biological + spiritual) son of God. If son of God merely is one who follows God, then there really isn't any difference between Christianity and Islam apart from there being one more Prophet in the Islamic canon.
Grey-Zone said:

modus ponens ONLY works as an axiom (or whatever logical reasoning for modus ponens itself exists, I don't know and frankly I don't care). If you have to prove modus ponens within your reasoning itself you are doing it wrong. Defining your tools of reasoning should be a seperate issue, i.e. whether modus ponens is an axiom or a logically proven concept, you have to do it in a seperate "definition of modus ponens" segment, and NOT in an actual application of it, otherwise, as is the case here, it becomes an issue about the validity of modus ponen itself and not about whether or not Jesus being the son of god is "logical" or not. It's essentially a strawman argument, because you pretend it's about an instance of modus ponen when the flaw in the reasoning is actually based on the process itself.


lol. Anything can work as an axiom if you just impose it like that.
 
Jun 15, 2016 7:11 AM

Offline
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 694
JackDuluoz said:
This 'logical proof' is called a syllogism. It's an ancient method, really. Actually, a lot of the arguments that atheists use today are not 'new'...they are ancient and from the 19th century. Look up Schopenhauer and Ludwig Feurbach. These guys were writing about things Dawkins and Hitchens were saying before it was cool on the Internet.
OP's "argument" is not syllogism. Syllogism deals with general and specific premises with a shared term (like a venn diagram). It is Modus ponens, which is a type of conditional (If...then).

Shaheen said:
We accept modus ponens as logically valid on faith only. If you subject it to logical proof, it churns out this paradox. It's quite simple: I'm not accepting modus ponens as a valid form of argument because it leads us into an infinite regression if it is subject to logical proof (as it should). Just using Christians as a scapegoat.
This is just wrong. You are misinforming the masses.

Reference on modus ponens for the kids out there:
Modus ponendo ponens, usually simply called modus ponens or MP is a valid argument form in logic. It is also known as "affirming the antecedent" or "the law of detachment". - From Philosophy-Index.com


At best your position might be considered "fringe" in regards to logic. What you are presenting is closer to Carrol's Paradox more so than Zeon's Paradox (specific focus on inference). Which does not apply to modern formal logic. In the context of formal logic, modus ponens is universally accepted as a valid form of argument. It's true that formal logic does not completely resolve all problems with inference. But this in no way leads to the conclusion that modus ponens is invalid or illogical.

Regardless of any of this, you're committing a pretty glaring non sequitur. Even if we concede the assumption that the structure of the Christian argument (modus ponens) is invalid.

All that proves, if true, is:
-The Christian argument can not prove that Jesus is the Son of God.

It in no way proves your conclusion that:
-Jesus is not the son of God.

You're essentially Denying the Antecedent here.

If you want to engage in a formal critique of modus ponenss and the rules of inference, by all means, go right ahead. I'd be an interested participant. But you won't arrive at the conclusion you are submitting here. And please stop misinforming the masses here at MAL. There is way too much misuse of logic floating around as it is.
Modified by NeoVolt, Jun 15, 2016 7:21 AM
 
Jun 15, 2016 7:30 AM
Offline
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 539
OP, you dont sound smart. You just sound like an ass.
See, I can troll too.

The problem with logic is its based on what we know. Until we understand the secrets of the Universe our 'logic' to a large degree, at least in the scientific sense, will always be fallible and untrustworthy.
 
Jun 15, 2016 7:59 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 6844
Shaheen- said:
Grey-Zone said:

modus ponens ONLY works as an axiom (or whatever logical reasoning for modus ponens itself exists, I don't know and frankly I don't care). If you have to prove modus ponens within your reasoning itself you are doing it wrong. Defining your tools of reasoning should be a seperate issue, i.e. whether modus ponens is an axiom or a logically proven concept, you have to do it in a seperate "definition of modus ponens" segment, and NOT in an actual application of it, otherwise, as is the case here, it becomes an issue about the validity of modus ponen itself and not about whether or not Jesus being the son of god is "logical" or not. It's essentially a strawman argument, because you pretend it's about an instance of modus ponen when the flaw in the reasoning is actually based on the process itself.


lol. Anything can work as an axiom if you just impose it like that.


No matter what you think about it, it's still necessary for the reasons I mentioned earlier as without axioms logical reasoning is not possible in the first place because logical reasoning itself would not even be a valid concept according to that very reasoning.

Also you still don't adress the fact that you blame an instance of implementation of modus ponens for the flaws of what you consider an error of the system (or "inner workings") of modus ponens itself.

And you seem to forget that the logic here is binary, it's only limited to two possible outputs: "true" and "false". Also your "making up" new variables is not part of the modus ponens system. And even if it was, you'd need to use recursion, i.e. you'd have to implement the new variable/function into one of the existing ones, i.e. "p", "q" and "p->q".

But recursion is not defined for modus ponens and there is frankly no place in the system that allows to insert a recursion, so adding it into the system means it's not modus ponens anymore but your own seperate new modus ponens 2.0, so that's where your argument already crashes.

However let's take it even further and suppose you actually have recursion and are, through some magical means, able to apply it to one of the variables/function. Even then there is nothing that can be used as a "flag" to stop the recursion (i.e. "endless loop", the result you have shown here) since there are no constants or variables available for that unless you bring even more things "from the outside" into this, which would then turn it into a system called modus ponens 3.0.

tl;dr you cannot even "physically" insert the new functions into the given system without modifying it. There is no place for recursion and there is only place for exactly two boolean variables and one function.


I'll be so nice and put modus ponens as a function into script language so you can see the problem more easily (simplified with a few liberties, enclosed in ### are comments):

boolean modusPonens(a) {

   boolean p = a;
   boolean q = false;

   ###modus ponens requires p to be known for it to work ("a"), as well as p->q to be considered valid, i.e. both have to be axioms, otherwise the system doesn't work in the first place and you are unable to execute the logical process###

   void p->q(p, q) {
      if(p == true) {
          q = true;
      }
      else {
         q = false;
         ###in this case q being false only shows that the claim is "not confirmed true" instead of being actually false###
      }
   return q;
}


As you can see this model of modus ponens does NOT allow any recursions within the system and contains absolutely no loops. From this I can conclude that your argument about creating additional (more specifically an infite amount of). What you demonstrated is not modus ponens since every modus ponens is self-contained. If a variable "a" actually enters the system of modus ponens it will ultimately deliver the result and will not loop. So the problem you demonstrated means whatever you did, the variable "a" never actually entered the original system. Instead you played around with confirming the state of p and p->q of which the former needs to be at least defined (else it enters in "null" state and you get a "false" for q as a result, could still be caught with other means if necessary but I don't bother with catching exceptions here) while the latter must be true, since it's a function and you cannot really use the modus ponem if the function is invalid. In the first place it makes the use of the modus ponens redundant since the logical bridge between p and q never gets created.
Modified by Grey-Zone, Jun 15, 2016 8:27 AM
 
Jun 15, 2016 8:08 AM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 3876
NeoVolt said:

At best your position might be considered "fringe" in regards to logic. What you are presenting is closer to Carrol's Paradox more so than Zeon's Paradox (specific focus on inference). Which does not apply to modern formal logic. In the context of formal logic, modus ponens is universally accepted as a valid form of argument. It's true that formal logic does not completely resolve all problems with inference. But this in no way leads to the conclusion that modus ponens is invalid or illogical.


Is Carrol's paradox not accepted based on Bertrand's solution or on what? I'm interested in hearing that.

And please stop misinforming the masses here at MAL


Ain't that the whole point of this thread?
 
Jun 15, 2016 8:21 AM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 4300
Bobby2Hands said:
Why am I reminded of this scene from the Simpsons.


This reminds me about how religion is basically one big propaganda.
Or rather a scam..

This gives me an idea for a thread..
 
Jun 15, 2016 8:22 AM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 3876
Gesu- said:
Bobby2Hands said:
Why am I reminded of this scene from the Simpsons.


This reminds me about how religion is basically one big propaganda.
Or rather a scam..

This gives me an idea for a thread..


Your thread is going to be sooooo original.. totally looking forward to it.
 
Jun 15, 2016 8:34 AM
I don't bite =3

Offline
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 530
Something that doesn't exist can't have a son in the first place.
 
Jun 15, 2016 9:17 AM

Offline
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 694
Shaheen- said:


Is Carrol's paradox not accepted based on Bertrand's solution or on what? I'm interested in hearing that.

It's still a paradox. It's just that the meaning is not nearly as relevant as it first appears. The issue that stopped Zeon, and Carroll, and other wasn't a contradiction. It was the insertion if infinity into the argument. To an ancient Greek, infinity is an impenetrable wall. And yet we know that in reality, Achilles could have beaten the Tortoise (as long as his Velocity was such to allow it), despite the fact that it required crossing infinity to do so.

Just as I've pointed out, that no matter how many modus ponens you've added to the original Christian argument, it remains valid. So you're position isn't really that the argument is invalid, it is just that they could never reach the conclusion because of an infinite number of premises. And this is where classical logic fails us. Stopped not by invalidity but by infinity. We know one thing can overtake another. We know we can cross a specific distance despite infinite halves being in our way. The root of these paradoxes is infinity.

And this is the key point. We now know in modern times that infinity isn't really that big a deal. The observable predictions of Quantum mechanics have shown us that reality ignores infinity all the time. In fact, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, basically, directly resolves infinity as it is presented in Zeon's Paradox (velocity vs. position in space). This tells us that the source of the problem in these Paradoxes isn't the framework in which they occur, but with our logical understanding of infinity.

So in regards to Logic and Carroll's paradox, Betrand Russell's solution now carries a lot more justification. Pre-Quantum Mechanics, it was a little uncomfortable to just accept that it was OK to just assert propositions and ignore the hypothetical. At face value, it's hard to argue that this is reasonable. However, we can now say that if a modus ponens argument is infinitely approaching validity we can ignore the problem of infinity and reasonably accept that it is valid. In the context of the mathematical concept of the "Quantum Leap" being proven to be scientifically true (subatomic particles moving immediately from probability to certainty), we can fully accept Russell's solution to be reasonable.

EDIT: And keep in mind that this only applies to classical logic. Formal logic isn't affected by Carroll's Paradox. Which is the point @Grey-Zone I think is making.
Modified by NeoVolt, Jun 15, 2016 9:30 AM
 
Jun 15, 2016 9:28 AM

Offline
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 344
zombie_pegasus said:
Originally he was just a good teacher, but over time the various authors of the bible started giving him new superpowers and wrote different origin stories for him. The bible isn't the word of god, the bible is the interpretation of god based on what specific humans thought might be the word of god. God can't actually communicate with humans directly so although what they say could be fairly accurate it could just as easily be complete bullshit that they made up on the spot. The first writing about Jesus wasn't until 30 years after he died and the writer hadn't met Jesus personally. The last writing about Jesus was hundreds of years after he died and naturally by that time his legacy had been obscured to the point that the character "Jesus" in the bible didn't really exist in real life.


Christians, and some others, believe in the Holy Trinity. That God, The Holy Spirit and Jesus are all the same technically, but in different form. In this case, God was able to communicate many times with man through Jesus (because He came in human form to the earth) and technically He is God as well. And there were many cases of God speaking to man not through Jesus as well. Maybe not necessarily through direct conversation, but through signs, and dreams (ex. when Mary was told in a dream that she would be the mother of Jesus). I don't know all the facts as far as the dates when the Bible was written, etc. But this response was more to your statement on "God can't actually communicate with humans directly."
 
Jun 15, 2016 9:43 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 6844
Carrol's Paradox is wrong because it can be used to deny Carrol's Paradoxon itself and denies any form of documentation (as I have demonstrated earlier), including the very existence of observers. It's a kind of flawed logic that essentially denies everything because it cannot be used to make anything to be considered "valid" in the first place, including itself.

You can hardly claim with logic that logic doesn't exist, but that's exactly what Carrol's Paradoxon does. It's like a black hole in logic, like divison through zero in mathematics. It's a dead end.

Well it IS an infinite loop after all. But it's definitly NOT Modus Ponens, because as I mentioned earlier there is no way to actually create an infinite loop like this with the given definition of it, since Modus Ponens doesn't even have any elements that could possibly loop or recurse infinitely. In other words, for a Carrol's Paradoxon to appear WITHIN Modus Ponens you need to modify it first, but that, as I mentioned before, turns it into something different, i.e. "Modus Ponens 2.0".
Modified by Grey-Zone, Jun 15, 2016 9:55 AM
 
Jun 15, 2016 9:55 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 12951
maiko_june said:
zombie_pegasus said:
Originally he was just a good teacher, but over time the various authors of the bible started giving him new superpowers and wrote different origin stories for him. The bible isn't the word of god, the bible is the interpretation of god based on what specific humans thought might be the word of god. God can't actually communicate with humans directly so although what they say could be fairly accurate it could just as easily be complete bullshit that they made up on the spot. The first writing about Jesus wasn't until 30 years after he died and the writer hadn't met Jesus personally. The last writing about Jesus was hundreds of years after he died and naturally by that time his legacy had been obscured to the point that the character "Jesus" in the bible didn't really exist in real life.


Christians, and some others, believe in the Holy Trinity. That God, The Holy Spirit and Jesus are all the same technically, but in different form. In this case, God was able to communicate many times with man through Jesus (because He came in human form to the earth) and technically He is God as well. And there were many cases of God speaking to man not through Jesus as well. Maybe not necessarily through direct conversation, but through signs, and dreams (ex. when Mary was told in a dream that she would be the mother of Jesus). I don't know all the facts as far as the dates when the Bible was written, etc. But this response was more to your statement on "God can't actually communicate with humans directly."
People may believe in the Holy Trinity, but the version of Jesus as he is shown in the bible is a fictional character. It's like if in 25 years people started writing about Steve Jobs based on what they had heard about him even though they hadn't existed at the same time and by 300 years in the future the legacy of Steve Jobs is that he created iWings that enabled him to fly and he delivered iPods to children in need on Christmas. Although there may be official records of how Steve Jobs actually lived his life, people who believed that he did those things would have no reason to question that as being anything but the truth. Although Steve Jobs was a real person the one they believe in is actually a fictional character.

As for God being able to communicate with humans directly through Jesus, even if Jesus did tell God's plan to the people there's no way they could have remembered enough of it to accurately transcribe it into an 800,000 word book. The book has also been translated several times and this always results in some loss of information.
 
Jun 15, 2016 10:49 AM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 387
I see a lot of people on here claiming that Jesus was a fictional character. Anyone want to actually substantiate their claims?

zombie_pegasus said:
People may believe in the Holy Trinity, but the version of Jesus as he is shown in the bible is a fictional character. It's like if in 25 years people started writing about Steve Jobs based on what they had heard about him even though they hadn't existed at the same time and by 300 years in the future the legacy of Steve Jobs is that he created iWings that enabled him to fly and he delivered iPods to children in need on Christmas. Although there may be official records of how Steve Jobs actually lived his life, people who believed that he did those things would have no reason to question that as being anything but the truth. Although Steve Jobs was a real person the one they believe in is actually a fictional character.

As for God being able to communicate with humans directly through Jesus, even if Jesus did tell God's plan to the people there's no way they could have remembered enough of it to accurately transcribe it into an 800,000 word book. The book has also been translated several times and this always results in some loss of information.


Probably the closest I've seen on here to any sort of substantiation, but this fails on a few accounts:

1) Your reasoning that the Jesus of the Bible vs the historical Jesus (you can't dispute that 1st century Palestinian Jew named Jesus from Nazareth was crucified for charges of blasphemy...I mean you can, but good luck showing otherwise) reflects outdated historical thought. Perhaps at one point, scholarship reflected your thinking, and in fact, the Jesus Seminar was founded for this purpose; to uncover the so-called historical Jesus. There's a reason why the Jesus Seminar is now defunct; namely because a lot of the claims they made and defended (for example, the disciples being deluded into thinking that Jesus resurrected, or that the disciples stole the body of Christ) simply didn't hold up to scrutiny. The claim that the Jesus of the Bible and the 'historical' Jesus are different was one of these claims. And while I will not lie and say that there is a consensus that the Jesus as described in the Bible (a man who had a divine sense of identity, who thought of himself as an exorcist, prophet, sent by God the Father and even God himself, etc) is the real Jesus, the amount of scholars that say that Jesus had this self-understanding are in the majority. Scholarship is, for the first time, taking seriously the New Testament account of Jesus, and we're finding out that given the Jewish context, Jesus is quite the unique character in terms of divine understanding, miracles, and even the role of resurrection (take that, Mithra and Horus and Dionysus!) and so our understanding of him is certainly more robust than it's ever been.

2) The problem with your Steve Jobs example is that you mentioned "official records". If those exist, then we would be forced to accept those documents as the truth, not the forged accounts of Steve Jobs delivering iPods to kids on Christmas with iWings! With Jesus, we have the New Testament. Scholars don't treat the New Testament as the inspired Word of God. They treat them like they're regular historical documents. Primary sources to be exact. How would one differentiate, then, between the official records and the forgeries? Well, textual criticism is a dedicated field in archeological thought that deals with determining the authenticity of the texts. Things like when the documents were written and who they were written by are crucial. And so just as the archeologist is able to date documents and compare writing style (which really isn't an issue in today's world, unless someone was claiming to be someone else), it can be taken for certain that if Steven Jobs ever had a myth like him being a hi-tech Santa Claus surrounding him, we would be able to know if it was true or not, especially since our method of storing data and information about a person has improved exponentially since the 1st century AD, lol.

3) Lastly, your comment about there being no way that they could have remembered enough of the information accurately is to grossly misunderstand Jewish culture. Jewish culture has been a historically oral culture. The skill of memorization was highly coveted in Jewish society, and so they would have taken extra care to faithfully and accurately pass down the information they'd received. Whatever errors that may have been introduced were very likely to be inconsequential and therefore not really worth thinking about. Your point of the book being translated several times doesn't do much either, because while we don't really own the original copies, the fact that they thing had been copied so many times coupled with the fact that these copies all corroborate eerily well also further strengthens their reliability, not call it into question. The only variances among them would be scribal errors, like spelling, certain grammar mistakes, idiomatic choice, etc. In fact, modern scholarship is within 99% certainty that the New Testament, as it is, of it's authenticity and faithfulness to the original texts.
Eminem meets Clannad
Just when you thought Clannad's OST was as sad as it could get ;_;

If you seen School Days, rewatch the ending while listening to A Little of Piece of Heaven by A7X. I guarantee laughs.
 
Jun 15, 2016 11:18 AM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 5763
traed said:
Ramkec said:
Ofc he wasn't, Islam confirmed that a long time ago, plus science has always been falling behind Quran, some things that are explained in there a long time ago are just now being discovered by science.


Damn right... everyone knows the sun rotates around the Earth, stars are missiles shot at devils, the moon is a source of light rather than reflecting it, stars are in the nearest heaven instead of deep space, the Earth was created entirely in six days, the Earth was created before the stars, the sun is so flat it folds up, the sky can fall down, the sky could be rolled up like a scroll, day and night are of equal time always, sperm comes from between the backbone and ribs, embryos are made from fluids rather than sperm and egg meeting, humans are formed from a clot of blood, bones are formed before all else,, the world is flat like a carpet, the Earth doesn't rotate, mountains prevent earthquakes, hail comes from mountains in the clouds, animals can speak to humans, humans life span is up to a thousand years, and space flight is impossible. Stupid scientists with their logic and evidence.

"A token unto them is night. We strip it of the day, and lo! they are in darkness. And the sun runneth on unto a resting-place for him. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the Wise."
36:37-38

"And verily We have beautified the world's heaven with stars/lamps, and We have made them missiles for the devils, and for them We have prepared the doom of flame."
67:5

"And hath made the moon a light therein, and made the sun a lamp?"
71:16

"Surely We have adorned the nearest heaven with an adornment, the stars"
37:6

"We created the heavens and the earth and all between them in Six Days, nor did any sense of weariness touch Us"
50:38

"When the sun (with its spacious light) is folded up"
81:1

"See they not what is before them and behind them, of the sky and the earth? If We wished, We could cause the earth to swallow them up, or cause a piece of the sky to fall upon them. Verily in this is a Sign for every devotee that turns to Allah (in repentance)."
34:9

"It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit."
36:40

"He is created from a drop emitted- Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs"
86:6-7

"Did We not create you from a liquid disdained? And We placed it in a firm lodging For a known extent."
77:20-22

"Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood:"
Quran 96:2
Narrated 'Abdullah bin Mus'ud: “Allah's Apostle, the true and truly inspired said, "(The matter of the Creation of) a human being is put together in the womb of the mother in forty days, and then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period, and then a piece of flesh for a similar period.”
Sahih Bukhari 4:54:430

"Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones then (not and) clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create!"
23:14

" He Who has, made for you the earth like a carpet spread out; has enabled you to go about therein by roads (and channels);"
20:53
"He Who has, made for you the earth like a carpet spread out; has enabled you to go about therein by roads (and channels); and has sent down water from the sky." With it have We produced diverse pairs of plants each separate from the others."
43:10

"Is not He (better than your gods) Who has made the earth as a fixed abode, and has placed rivers in its midst, and has placed firm mountains therein, and has set a barrier between the two seas (of salt and sweet water). Is there any ilah (god) with Allah? Nay, but most of them know not."
27:61

"And He has set up on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you; and rivers and roads; that ye may guide yourselves"
16:15

"Seest thou not that Allah makes the clouds move gently, then joins them together, then makes them into a heap? - then wilt thou see rain issue forth from their midst. And He sends down from the sky mountain masses (of clouds) wherein is hail. He strikes therewith whom He pleases and He turns it away from whom He pleases, the vivid flash of His lightning well-nigh blinds the sight."
24:43

"And when the Word is fulfilled against them (the unjust), we shall produce from the earth a beast to (face) them: He will speak to them, for that mankind did not believe with assurance in Our Signs."
27:82

"We (once) sent Noah to his people, and he tarried among them a thousand years less fifty: but the Deluge overwhelmed them while they (persisted in) sin."
29:14

"O ye assembly of Jinns and men! If it be ye can pass beyond the zones of the heavens and the earth, pass ye! not without authority shall ye be able to pass!"
55:33


And your point for quoting me is????
 
Jun 15, 2016 12:24 PM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 3876
NeoVolt said:
It's still a paradox. It's just that the meaning is not nearly as relevant as it first appears. The issue that stopped Zeon, and Carroll, and other wasn't a contradiction. It was the insertion if infinity into the argument. To an ancient Greek, infinity is an impenetrable wall. And yet we know that in reality, Achilles could have beaten the Tortoise (as long as his Velocity was such to allow it), despite the fact that it required crossing infinity to do so.

Just as I've pointed out, that no matter how many modus ponens you've added to the original Christian argument, it remains valid. So you're position isn't really that the argument is invalid, it is just that they could never reach the conclusion because of an infinite number of premises. And this is where classical logic fails us. Stopped not by invalidity but by infinity. We know one thing can overtake another. We know we can cross a specific distance despite infinite halves being in our way. The root of these paradoxes is infinity.

And this is the key point. We now know in modern times that infinity isn't really that big a deal. The observable predictions of Quantum mechanics have shown us that reality ignores infinity all the time. In fact, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, basically, directly resolves infinity as it is presented in Zeon's Paradox (velocity vs. position in space). This tells us that the source of the problem in these Paradoxes isn't the framework in which they occur, but with our logical understanding of infinity.

So in regards to Logic and Carroll's paradox, Betrand Russell's solution now carries a lot more justification. Pre-Quantum Mechanics, it was a little uncomfortable to just accept that it was OK to just assert propositions and ignore the hypothetical. At face value, it's hard to argue that this is reasonable. However, we can now say that if a modus ponens argument is infinitely approaching validity we can ignore the problem of infinity and reasonably accept that it is valid. In the context of the mathematical concept of the "Quantum Leap" being proven to be scientifically true (subatomic particles moving immediately from probability to certainty), we can fully accept Russell's solution to be reasonable.

EDIT: And keep in mind that this only applies to classical logic. Formal logic isn't affected by Carroll's Paradox. Which is the point @Grey-Zone I think is making.


Thanks for the explanation. I'm getting calculus implications here from the 'infinitely approaching validity'. Is Calculus applicable here?

PS I have no education in Formal Logic lol
Everything I know comes from wikipedia
 
Jun 15, 2016 12:33 PM

Online
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 31915
Shaheen- said:
traed said:

Well if you're going to go into semantics you would have to clarify what "son of God" actually means. In some meanings of the term a son of god is someone who follows god's word. The bible in various parts says all are sons/children of God through their faith. In this interpretation whether Jesus is descended directly from god or is god in the flesh or not would not change whether or not he is a son of god in the way I described it to mean.

Doesn't that just destroy Christianity? the entirety of Christianity rests upon Jesus being the literal (biological + spiritual) son of God. If son of God merely is one who follows God, then there really isn't any difference between Christianity and Islam apart from there being one more Prophet in the Islamic canon.

The Bible specifically says faith in Jesus in some parts rather than God so it does still claim he is something special basically although not clear what that is thus the opposing denominations. I was just saying if that were not true it would still be semantically true (if he existed). So if he existed, which Islam claims, then it can not be false that he is a son of God. So in that instance the Bible could not be false in that subject with that meaning of the term. If the Bible can not be false in accordance to the Quran's claim of it being then the Quran would be false in it's claim yet correct at the same time on it's view of Jesus but that would be paradoxically contradicting itself if that were the case.

"To some Christians the doctrine of the Trinity appeared inconsistent with the unity of God....They therefore denied it, and accepted Jesus Christ, not as incarnate God, but as God's highest creature by Whom all else was created....[this] view in the early Church long contended with the orthodox doctrine."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism

These aren't really around any more but they are the better examples.
"Adoptionism, sometimes called dynamic monarchianism, is a nontrinitarian theological teaching that Jesus was adopted as God's Son at either his baptism, his resurrection, or his ascension."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoptionism

"Psilanthropism is an approach to Christology which understands Jesus to be human, the literal son of human parents"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilanthropism

Ramkec said:
And your point for quoting me is????

You claimed Islam is ahead of science but it's not, it's thousands of years behind and has the common incorrect views of the cosmos present during it's time and some incorrect biological views.
Modified by traed, Jun 15, 2016 12:37 PM
 
Jun 15, 2016 12:41 PM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 3876
@traed

Then according to Adoptionism, my 'proof by contradiction' stands; there's one hypothetical scenario where it is true (i.e there's a contradiction) and since that scenario exists in reality, and reality is without contradictions, I stand corrected.
 
Jun 15, 2016 12:48 PM

Online
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 31915
Shaheen- said:
@traed

Then according to Adoptionism, my 'proof by contradiction' stands; there's one hypothetical scenario where it is true (i.e there's a contradiction) and since that scenario exists in reality, and reality is without contradictions, I stand corrected.


Well being an adopted son is not a biological son which is what words you chose to use at one point so I just felt like throwing it in.
Modified by traed, Jun 15, 2016 2:36 PM
 
Jun 15, 2016 12:56 PM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 17182
Lol. This thread is hilarious. Even stupider than I expected.
"Let Justice Be Done!"

My Theme
I conclude that this theme is in fact good!
 
Jun 15, 2016 1:01 PM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 11407
Like many other history books.. Bible is also fabricated across time... People changed it... of course no one will admit it now....

People will always say Jesus is and is not the son of God
 
Jun 15, 2016 1:13 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 2173
Jesus was not the son of God-- Logical Proof

>proofs nothing

better read some books about logic. i'm disappointed


 
Jun 15, 2016 1:26 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 694
Shaheen- said:


Thanks for the explanation. I'm getting calculus implications here from the 'infinitely approaching validity'. Is Calculus applicable here?

PS I have no education in Formal Logic lol
Everything I know comes from wikipedia
Short answer: Yes it is.

But the point is that you can't use Carroll's paradox to logically prove that Jesus is not the son of God in this case.

1. Because cutting edge logic is very close to completely resolving the paradox logically, AND it can already be resolved mathematically AND it's already "sort of" resolved (not applicable to) by formal logic.

AND more importantly,

2. Even if we assumed the Christian argument was invalid (which it isn't) it would still be a non sequitur (formal fallacy) to arrive at "Jesus was not the son of God." Validity is not equal to Truth. Invalidity does not equal a false conclusion. An argument can be invalid and still have a true conclusion. It would just mean that the argument can't prove the conclusion to be true, but it doesn't require that the conclusion be false.

In fact this whole Quran vs. Bible discussion is full of non sequiturs. Which is fine, I guess. You can discuss theology, faith, etc... all you want with certain reasonable leeway in regards to logic. But it's important to me that we're clear that no one is "logically proving" anything.
Modified by NeoVolt, Jun 15, 2016 1:31 PM
 
Jun 15, 2016 2:20 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 5763
traed said:
You claimed Islam is ahead of science but it's not, it's thousands of years behind and has the common incorrect views of the cosmos present during it's time and some incorrect biological views.


Man screw them scientists, they always been lacking and gonna stay lacking.

 
Jun 15, 2016 2:25 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 546
UnoPuntoCinco said:
Mywifesson said:
I don't think christians make that argument:


A: Bible is the word of God
B: Bible says that Jesus was the son of God
C: God has said that Jesus was the son of God
D: Therefore Jesus is the son of God

I don't believe in this stuff anyway but calling fairy tales is autistic fedora lord tier. christianity is objectively good, it unites people under a peaceful commonality.
Bullshit. Euros were fighting over it for years among themselves until they dropped it

Modern christianity is the most progressive and peaceful religion in existence. christianity is the real religion of peace. turn the other cheek? Beta as fuck but it means no chimp outs like muslims.
 
Jun 15, 2016 2:59 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 4904
Mywifesson said:
UnoPuntoCinco said:
Bullshit. Euros were fighting over it for years among themselves until they dropped it

Modern christianity is the most progressive and peaceful religion in existence. christianity is the real religion of peace. turn the other cheek? Beta as fuck but it means no chimp outs like muslims.
But "christians" aren't really devote or orthodox anymore, Christianity has long being dead in the west.
 
Jun 15, 2016 3:49 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1967
This was totally not what I expected when I read the title of this thread.
 
Jun 15, 2016 4:12 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 6844
RazielZero said:
This was totally not what I expected when I read the title of this thread.


Same here. And this particular argument of the OP has been disproven too from various angles already.
 
Jun 15, 2016 6:54 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 694
Grey-Zone said:
Carrol's Paradox is wrong because it can be used to deny Carrol's Paradoxon itself and denies any form of documentation (as I have demonstrated earlier), including the very existence of observers. It's a kind of flawed logic that essentially denies everything because it cannot be used to make anything to be considered "valid" in the first place, including itself.

You can hardly claim with logic that logic doesn't exist, but that's exactly what Carrol's Paradoxon does. It's like a black hole in logic, like divison through zero in mathematics. It's a dead end.

Well it IS an infinite loop after all. But it's definitly NOT Modus Ponens, because as I mentioned earlier there is no way to actually create an infinite loop like this with the given definition of it, since Modus Ponens doesn't even have any elements that could possibly loop or recurse infinitely. In other words, for a Carrol's Paradoxon to appear WITHIN Modus Ponens you need to modify it first, but that, as I mentioned before, turns it into something different, i.e. "Modus Ponens 2.0".
I want to point out that Carroll's Paradox is considered to be a reasonable criticism of classical logic, and that OP used it correctly. Modus ponens can be accurately considered as a regressive argument. Classical logic is essentially circular. Formal logic escapes this via functioning simply as symbol manipulation. But it's kind of a cop out because you're not resolving the paradoxes, your just creating a system in which they don't apply.

Traditionally the problems of classical logic have been mostly dealt with pragmatically. Which is a perfectly reasonable way of addressing paradoxes as a paradox represents an unsolved problem, not an unsolvable problem.

However, Modern Physics has some really interesting implications when applied to the circularity of logic. Particularly Wave Function Collapse and Quantum Indeterminacy. We may be able to prove, in specific cases that a regressive argument is mathematically equivalent to it's non-regressive, formal form. Or that, again in specific cases, proving that {assuming the base precept of an axiomatic argument to be true} is mathematically equivalent to {it actually being true}.

I think the issue is that some people erroneously assume that the paradoxes represent a failing of logic to be able to prove truth. I think Quantum Physics show us that these may just be perceived paradoxes, not actual paradoxes and that we just don't yet understand the nature of Truth.
Modified by NeoVolt, Jun 15, 2016 6:58 PM
 
Jun 15, 2016 7:20 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 6844
NeoVolt said:
Grey-Zone said:
Carrol's Paradox is wrong because it can be used to deny Carrol's Paradoxon itself and denies any form of documentation (as I have demonstrated earlier), including the very existence of observers. It's a kind of flawed logic that essentially denies everything because it cannot be used to make anything to be considered "valid" in the first place, including itself.

You can hardly claim with logic that logic doesn't exist, but that's exactly what Carrol's Paradoxon does. It's like a black hole in logic, like divison through zero in mathematics. It's a dead end.

Well it IS an infinite loop after all. But it's definitly NOT Modus Ponens, because as I mentioned earlier there is no way to actually create an infinite loop like this with the given definition of it, since Modus Ponens doesn't even have any elements that could possibly loop or recurse infinitely. In other words, for a Carrol's Paradoxon to appear WITHIN Modus Ponens you need to modify it first, but that, as I mentioned before, turns it into something different, i.e. "Modus Ponens 2.0".
I want to point out that Carroll's Paradox is considered to be a reasonable criticism of classical logic, and that OP used it correctly. Modus ponens can be accurately considered as a regressive argument. Classical logic is essentially circular. Formal logic escapes this via functioning simply as symbol manipulation. But it's kind of a cop out because you're not resolving the paradoxes, your just creating a system in which they don't apply.

Traditionally the problems of classical logic have been mostly dealt with pragmatically. Which is a perfectly reasonable way of addressing paradoxes as a paradox represents an unsolved problem, not an unsolvable problem.

However, Modern Physics has some really interesting implications when applied to the circularity of logic. Particularly Wave Function Collapse and Quantum Indeterminacy. We may be able to prove, in specific cases that a regressive argument is mathematically equivalent to it's non-regressive, formal form. Or that, again in specific cases, proving that {assuming the base precept of an axiomatic argument to be true} is mathematically equivalent to {it actually being true}.

I think the issue is that some people erroneously assume that the paradoxes represent a failing of logic to be able to prove truth. I think Quantum Physics show us that these may just be perceived paradoxes, not actual paradoxes and that we just don't yet understand the nature of Truth.


While all that may be the case, what OP did was still a strawman argument. It should be obvious by now that this is all about the Carrol's Paradox and not about an instance of its application that uses elements of the Christian religion as it's variables.


Escpacially that OP claims that the Christians who supposedly use that Modus Ponens use it in its "Classical Logic" form and not in its "Formal Logic" form.
Modified by Grey-Zone, Jun 15, 2016 7:24 PM
 
Jun 15, 2016 7:30 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 154
Duskie said:
I actually wrote the bible. It was during a shameful late mid-summer night acid-trip. I fell into a inter-dimensional bathtub time-machine and went back in time to write it.

^ This is soundly more logical than 99% of the bible itself.





like this.

I didn't know this was based on a true story
Modified by End_of_Summer, Jun 15, 2016 11:20 PM

More
Yummy
Flavors

TripHop
VGM
Hope
Trance
 
Jun 15, 2016 8:03 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 694
Grey-Zone said:


While all that may be the case, what OP did was still a strawman argument.
Yeah. Though I think it may be an accurate representation of part of the circular reasoning often associated with religious texts.

And also there's still his non sequitur in the form of {Invalid Argument therefore False Conclusion}, which is definitely not true.

But that being said, I think the kids got potential. Carroll's Paradox and the circular nature of classical logic is pretty heavy stuff for someone with no academic training in logic. He could just be regurgitating crap he read online, but it doesn't appear that way. He seems to have a flexible, if incomplete, understanding of the concepts.
Modified by NeoVolt, Jun 15, 2016 8:07 PM
 
Jun 16, 2016 10:18 PM
fanservice<3

Offline
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 9975
the only god that has been proven to exist is the ecchi god and he does not have a son, he just has profits such as me ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
 
Jun 16, 2016 10:42 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 257
Enough of this shit already...nobody is interested in it X@
 
Jun 16, 2016 10:59 PM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 3876
Euhin said:
Enough of this shit already...nobody is interested in it X@


Did I hurt your feelings? or do your feelings get hurt like this all the time?
 
Jun 16, 2016 11:50 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 257
xEmptiness said:
Did I hurt your feelings? or do your feelings get hurt like this all the time?

Its just that this is an anime/manga related site and there is no need to bring religious views into it...
And why would I get hurt?? I am not even Christian :P
 
Top
Pages (4) « 1 [2] 3 4 »