Jesus was not the son of God-- Logical Proof

dizzyur said:
It's religion for crying out loud
Logic does not logic

Soren said:
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.

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

NeoVolt said:
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.
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.

traed said:


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

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

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.

Fatalistic said:
Religion isn't meant to be logical.

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

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.

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".

Shaheen- said:


Aaaaand?

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

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.

Shaheen- said:


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.

Shaheen- said:


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Shaheen- said:


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

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;
}

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.

And please stop misinforming the masses here at MAL

Bobby2Hands said:
Why am I reminded of this scene from the Simpsons.

Gesu- said:

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

This gives me an idea for a thread..

Shaheen- said:


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

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.

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.

traed said:


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

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.

Shaheen- said:

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.

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

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.

Jesus was not the son of God-- Logical Proof

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

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.

UnoPuntoCinco said:
Bullshit. Euros were fighting over it for years among themselves until they dropped it

Mywifesson said:

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.

RazielZero said:
This was totally not what I expected when I read the title of this thread.

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".

NeoVolt said:
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.

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.

Grey-Zone said:


While all that may be the case, what OP did was still a strawman argument.

Euhin said:
Enough of this shit already...nobody is interested in it X@

xEmptiness said:
Did I hurt your feelings? or do your feelings get hurt like this all the time?

Minnim said:
Isn't this reasoning valid if you believe that the word of the bible is entirely unadulterated?

Absolute faith in the bible results in this reasoning being perfectly valid.