|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted August 28, 2009 07:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
staying with the objective definition, after all, some people keep arguing what exactly are christ's teachings 
but that goes into another question "What's Christianity?", why complicate matters?
Quote:
Elodin, Back up your claims of "A christain never murders" with something more substantial than a bible quote and a dismissal of...
and repeat himself again?
What's so hard to get? It's like saying (in a country that murder is illegal): a law-abiding citizen never murders.
This is a FACT and it is true.. The moment he murdered, it is the moment he is no longer classified as law-abiding. Period.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted August 28, 2009 07:37 PM |
|
|
And we made it to page 200!
congrats everyone.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted August 28, 2009 08:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
This is a FACT and it is true.. The moment he murdered, it is the moment he is no longer classified as law-abiding. Period.
But I thought God is all knowing...so he always knows when a christian will turn into a non christian due to a murder/kill before action takes place.
But something different now...
The believers love to mention the "free will" thing more often than everything else.
Believers say God created the world and all it's "physical laws". Humans themselves may be guilty refering to the global warming and all nature catastrophes which may be caused due to the higher temperatures.
But what is with earthquakes? Plate tectonics? These things have NOTHING to do with how humans behave on earth and live their free will. But still thousands of people die due to those catastrophes.
Why does God let those innocent people die in these earthquakes?
Do those innocent deads automatically go to heaven?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 28, 2009 08:08 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 20:12, 28 Aug 2009.
|
Quote:
But I thought God is all knowing...so he always knows when a christian will turn into a non christian due to a murder/kill before action takes place.
I don't get what you're saying. We were arguing about how we classify people who believe in Christ or follow Christ or whatever (depending on who you ask, see the "debate"). What has it got to do with God?
Quote:
But what is with earthquakes? Plate tectonics? These things have NOTHING to do with how humans behave on earth and live their free will. But still thousands of people die due to those catastrophes.
Well I wouldn't be so sure as to say it isn't a human's decision. For example, if people go and climb a dangerous mountain and some avalanche happens, it doesn't mean that they are completely innocent, since they wanted to go there in the first place. And you are not "shielded" automatically from natural causes, since even "the devil" can have an effect -- in fact, even in Bible stories the devil can do some nasty things. (so why shouldn't natural causes either?)
The reason you find so many accidents and catastrophes is because there are humans almost everywhere on the globe. In fact, if you look at statistics and not intuitive which leads you to false illusions, you'll see it's kinda small compared to population.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 28, 2009 08:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That is nonsense - of course they can.
The Bible says no murderer has eternal life. What part of that don't you understand?
Quote:
1Jn 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
Quote:
Thing is that you may find your own definition better, but the people who form the dictionary are people whose entire purpose in life is to define life (this is an argument ebcause that makes them more qualified than you) and are also the most neutral source of defining words
That is ludicrous. The Oxford dictionary is not an authority on Christian theology and Biblical teaching. The word Christian came into being shortly after the death of Christ and can be found in the book of Acts.
The Bible defines Christianity, not the Oxford dictionary.
Quote:
this is beyond a joke.
Elodin, Back up your claims of "A christain never murders" with something more substantial than a bible quote and a dismissal of...
What is beyond a joke is atheists thinking they have the authority to define who is a Christian and who is not.
The New Testament writings are the writings that govern the New Covenant. They are what says who a Christian is, not the Oxford dictionary.
Quote:
You twist and turn words like an eel contorts it's body whilst you decry and verbally assault other posters who do the same. You ignore all facts that don't fit your arguement and when something does, you leap for it like a starved wolf. You play the victim shamelessly and when everyone is half convinced, you're back on your warpath against atheists, homosexuals and (now) muslims.
Could you please stop lying about me? I'm not on a warpath against anyone. When Christians were accused of being murderers I presented the atheist mass murderers of the past 100 years. Where have I been talking about homosexuals? I listed facts of the Muslims attacking Christians as what caused the crusades to start. I'm not on the war path against Muslims either.
I'm sorry but I haven't been verbally insulting anyone. In fact the only verbal assault I see going on is you assaulting me.
I've been presenting what the Bible says to counter what an unbeliever says the Bilbe says. I listed a number of things for him to back up and he could not because he had been making false claims.
Quote:
You are, in my eyes, the worst kind of believer, the ignorant one. The hate filled one's are bad, but at least I can laugh at them. the Ignorant one preaches the text and refuses to back down on any issue people might find at fault, claiming that they're wrong for suggesting it. Those people make me physically Sick!
Could you please stop insulting me and address the issues instead? If you want to claim the Bible says something back it up. I've backed up my points. Your "side" has been unable to back up theirs.
|
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
|
posted August 28, 2009 08:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The Bible says no murderer has eternal life. What part of that don't you understand?
The Bible also says that God forgives if you regret. Then you can have eternal life even if you're a murderer.
Also, define murder; intentionally taking away life? I think most people have intentionally killed an insect or plant in some point of their lives. There are exceptions like Buddhists but they don't believe in God so they don't get eternal life anyway...
Also, do you believe everything said in the Bible? It's written by humans.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2009 09:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
That is nonsense - of course they can.
The Bible says no murderer has eternal life. What part of that don't you understand?
[
The Bible says, EVERYONE has eternal life - the unrepentant sinners in hell and they who truly and honestly repent their sins and believe in JC will enter heaven.
Are you denying that now?
@ Death
A Christian is defined as a believer in JC being god's son and did a couple of important things for humanity. End of definition.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted August 28, 2009 09:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What is beyond a joke is atheists thinking they have the authority to define who is a Christian and who is not.
Elodin, stop this.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 28, 2009 09:43 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 21:53, 28 Aug 2009.
|
@Death
Quote:
If Elodin says "Christian", you KNOW what he is referring to (read: not your definition), so why argue over it?
Because, Death, the point of this place - I thought - was to have an engaging, intelligent discussion on an interesting topic.
The problem is that you cannot have a productive conversation with someone if you cannot come to a reasonable agreement over a definition. If two people are arguing their points based on differing definitions for a term under contention, then is it any wonder that the conversation goes nowhere and, indeed, looks rather ridiculous to those of us who are not actively participating? Furthermore, it is a rather silly, not to mention fallacious, tactic to (1) define a term specifically in such a way that it supports your conclusion (and only your conclusion), (2) present that definition as irrefutable owing to its alleged derivation from a non-contradictable authority source - handily delocalizing the burden of proof or defense in the process - and then (3) stubbornly declare victory in the argument. If victory is measured by whether or not someone can assail your position, then I suppose that is a victory of sorts, but it's a hollow one at best because your whole argument is based on a what the great philosopher and debater Aristotle called petitio principii - assuming the initial point. Essentially, Elodin relies upon a form of circular reasoning. He bases a conclusion on its own definition and then amusingly thinks that he's brilliantly won the day because nobody can refute it.
Consider:
The argument is that no murderer can be a Christian.
This conclusion is based on Elodin's definition of a Christian, which is that essentially, a Christian is (among other things) someone who doesn't murder.
In fact, I'll quote for you Elodin's "proof":
Quote:
The Bible specifically says that a person who hates or murders is not a Christian. Therefore I have proved my case.
In other words, no murderer can be a Christian because the Bible (supposedly) defines that a person who hates or murders is not a Christian. Which is really the same as saying that no murderer can be a Christian because that's what the Bible (or God) says.
I could be wrong, but I do not think that the Bible actually makes an overt definition of a Christian. In order for that to be the case, the Bible would have to actually use the phrase "A Christian is...", which I cannot seem to find in any of the passages Elodin quoted. Point of fact is that Elodin infers a definition from his reading of the scripture, which is fine of course, but it's rather subjective - just like forming a definition of ANY word. Language IS subjective. Perhaps God has some notion of what he thinks the definition of "Christian" is, but short of him coming down from heaven and telling us directly what it is, the best we can do is infer it from a lot of nebulous and archaic language tucked away in a book. A book which may or may not represent the opinion of God. A God which may or may not exist. Layers upon layers of subjectivity.
All this subjectivity makes Elodin’s approach rather useless as a method of discussion, because, among other things, it assumes that all parties have agreed upon the definition being used, which is far from the case. For instance, you can use the following argument:
A banana is a tasty fruit.
All tasty fruits are edible.
Therefore, all bananas are edible.
Well, there's certainly nothing wrong with the logic, but the argument is only as good as the premise on which the argument is built. Unfortunately, what is and what is not a tasty fruit is rather subjective, so though *I* might define a banana as being tasty, some people may assign the adjective "disgusting" to it instead. Though the logic is sound, it is only a useful argument for the purposes of discussion IF - and only IF - we accept the definition of a banana being a tasty fruit; and the word “proof” only applies IF, and only IF, tastiness as a quality can be shown to be scientific fact. What is and is not tasty is a matter of opinion because tasty is a quality judgment. Thus tastiness as an attribute is not something that can be proven because it cannot be objectively (say, quantitatively) evaluated. [The passage above also relies upon an additional false premise - that is, that all tasty fruits are edible, something which can be factually disputed, much like a lot of the other garbage posted here.]
However, for all the faults of the above hypothetical banana argument, Elodin's is even worse, because his argument has a logic problem as well. It is a circular argument. For instance, consider the following modification:
A banana is a tasty fruit.
Therefore, bananas are delicious.
There is no proof or logic in this statement - it is not an argument at all! Here we make a conclusion that bananas are delicious by assuming that they are delicious. Circular arguments are statements of opinion masquerading as arguments. And modifying the argument thusly -
According to Julia Child, a banana is a tasty fruit.
Therefore, bananas are delicious.
- doesn't change that. The inclusion of an authority figure is just a bit of added chicanery meant to fool the other party into acquiescence by way of a fallacious appeal to authority. No matter how much of an authority we may think Julia Child is (was) on matters of food, "tasty" is still subjective, and it's still a circular argument regardless of what authority is being used. I stress - even if the authority figure is speaking on a matter of fact, the fact that the statement came from an authority figure does not alone make the logic sound.
E.g.
According to Einstein, time slows down as velocity increases.
Therefore, time is relative.
It is certainly true that time is not constant, and time slowing down as velocity increases is certainly an example of this, but the argument is still fallacious. The mere fact that Einstein said something does not make the statement logical, even if the statement is correct. This is a point of technicality that a lot of people don’t quite understand, so I urge you to dwell on that for a few minutes if you’re not convinced. I’ve said it before – there is a subtle but important difference between what is logical and what is truth. An argument can be logical and wrong, as well as illogical and correct.
So: Logic doesn't care about whether God made the definition of Christian or not. It's not a logical argument to say that murderers cannot be Christian just because God (or the Bible) said that it is so - it is just a statement. A convenient one, too, I might add, since it unfairly exonerates the responsibility of Christianity for any Christian who has ever done anything wrong. Of course, this could very well be what God believes, but it is NOT a logical argument, or a proof of anything. At best it is a premise, but it’s not one that can be easily justified.
The point of all this is that for a formal discussion to be productive, there has to be common ground. A logical statement is only useful if we make the assumption that the underlying premises are correct. All premises are taken as axiomatic but are open to questioning. If they are questioned or a matter of debate, they must be justified, else no amount of quality logic that follows can or will move the discussion forward. Debate is all about understanding where you and your opponent agree, and where you disagree. Where are the points of contention? When there is a dispute of fact (of premise), then you must resolve that dispute in order to move forward toward a resolution, or you must agree to disagree and abandon the argument, or move to another part of the argument with the understanding that you and the other party do not agree on a certain point, and the ultimate resolution will be footnoted by this dispute. If there is a dispute of logic, then the argument needs to be rethought by the offender - or at least openly and honestly, without defensiveness, discussed - which usually requires new premises be offered, which themselves must be argued over. And etc. This is the way that civilized, constructive, productive debate ensues. This is also the way that disputes are settled in a court of law.
The current discussion is anything but civilized, constructive and productive, because these simple rules are not being followed. Here we have someone (Elodin) making an argument that both uses faulty logic and - more to the point - premises that are not agreed upon by both sides of the discussion. A number of people - sometimes not so patiently, probably due to frustration at his obstinancy - have disputed the underlying premises of Elodin’s argument, as well as the quality of his logic. The appropriate course of action would be to try to come to some compromise over the disputed facts or, failing that, simply agree to disagree. Compromise cannot occur, of course, if the author of the disputed facts is unwilling to present new arguments or justifications for his assumptions. Simply restating over and over again the same thing is like spinning wheels in mud. It gets you nowhere and makes a mess of everything, keeping everyone else who might offer a fresh viewpoint at a far distance for fear of getting covered in the filth you're throwing everywhere. It should be clear to Elodin now that people are not going to accept his interpretation of scripture as axiomatic truth; the only logical, honorable recourse would be to try to convince people of his position using a new argument not based upon personal Biblical interpretation, or to withdraw from the discussion and acknowledge that he's failed to convince the other side of his position, but that he maintains his opinion on the matter. A draw, so to speak, if you view this is a confrontation.
Of course, that’s not what will happen, not when the prevailing opinion around here seems to be that whoever screams “I’m right!” last and loudest is the person who speaks The Logical Truth. Well, to me that's not a route to an engaging, intelligent discussion. This place has been covered in so much mud from the metaphorical spinning of tires that it's a wonder my whole house isn't covered in brown, viscous muck.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted August 28, 2009 10:28 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 22:34, 28 Aug 2009.
|
But if Jesus said that no one that is a true follower of him should murder, then you can not both follow Christ and murder. Jesus did not define a Christian in one sentence, of course. And neither does the Bible. Yet nevertheless there are statements that show quite clearly what a true follower of Christ should - and would - never do.
The logical fallacy behind you drawing a parallel between Christ defining what's Christian and Einstein defining time is that Einstein did not invent time. He was an observer, a scientist, someone who did research on the subject - and he appeared to be rather good at that, but he wasn't the creator of time. The correct analogy would be that Einstein is to physics what, say, an archbishop is to Christianity.
Christ clearly presented his philosophy to people; and explained that those who follow him and his philosophy are followers of Christ (aka, Christians). Christ is, I think we can all agree, the father of what Christianity was supposed to be; and as such, based on what he said, we can draw a conclusion that a true Christian would not murder.
If I, for example, invent a sandwich with rubber, and call it the Baklavian Sandwich, it is not logically incorrect for me to define the Baklavian Sandwich as a sandwich containing rubber. I invented the term. If you come around with a regular ham sandwich and try to present it as a Baklavian Sandwich, people aren't making a logical fallacy when they tell you that it's not a Baklavian Sandwich since it does not contain rubber.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 28, 2009 10:34 PM |
|
|
|
I wasn't drawing a parallel between Einstein and Christ. I was trying to show why appealing to an(y) authority figure is fallacious.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted August 28, 2009 10:35 PM |
|
|
Not if the authority figure created the term and definition.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2009 10:46 PM |
|
|
No, Bak, that's not what a Christian is. A Christian is a believer in Jesus Christ as the son of god and the redeemer of humanity.
The only condition is that you repent your sins and believe in Christ. You don't have to live in any specific way provided you see the errors of your ways at some point.
I mean, most Mafia guys are Christians, right? 
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 29, 2009 01:03 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 01:04, 29 Aug 2009.
|
Baklava –
I think you’ve missed the point of my post, and you’re confusing a definition with a logical argument. A definition is not a logical argument; it's a simple statement. In terms of a logical argument, it is a premise.
You may take an authority figure as a justification for a premise, but as a premise it is also open to dispute. However, you cannot use an appeal to authority to support a logical conclusion.
Taking your example as a starting point:
Quote:
If I, for example, invent a sandwich with rubber, and call it the Baklavian Sandwich, it is not logically incorrect for me to define the Baklavian Sandwich as a sandwich containing rubber. I invented the term. If you come around with a regular ham sandwich and try to present it as a Baklavian Sandwich, people aren't making a logical fallacy when they tell you that it's not a Baklavian Sandwich since it does not contain rubber.
Here you issue a definition of a Baklavian sandwich – a poor definition as it turns out, as I’ll show below.
Consider the following:
A Baklavian sandwich is a sandwich containing rubber. (premise)
I made a sandwich with ham. (premise)
Therefore, I made a Baklavian sandwich. (conclusion)
Strictly speaking, it’s unclear whether this is fallacious or not because there’s not enough information to decide. After all, by your strict definition, a sandwich with ham can be a Baklavian sandwich if it also has rubber on it (a rubber and ham sandwich is Baklavian, ). Your definition did not specify whether a Baklavian sandwich has only rubber on it.
Perhaps a point of minutia, but it’s an illustration of the importance of precision when dealing with definition.
So let’s modify your definition as follows:
A Baklavian sandwich is a sandwich containing only rubber. (premise)
I made a sandwich with ham. (premise)
Therefore, I made a Baklavian sandwich. (conclusion)
The conclusion here is false, because a Baklavian sandwich, by definition, cannot contain ham. This is based upon the definition provided for Baklavian sandwich. Seeing as it is named after you, and you defined it, it would be rather silly to dispute the quality of this premise, but see (way) below for more on that. Keep in mind, the quality of the logic does NOT depend on the quality of the assumption.
Alright, so let’s make this more similar to the circular argument discussed in my original post.
Consider:
A Baklavian sandwich is a sandwich containing only rubber.
Therefore, a sandwich containing only rubber is Baklavian.
I think you’ll agree that this isn’t really an argument at all. The argument is circular because the conclusion is just a reformulation of the premise. It’s essentially just a statement of definition and it’s rather silly to portray it as a logical argument.
Now consider the following modification:
Baklava defines a Baklavian sandwich as a sandwich containing only rubber.
Therefore, a sandwich containing only rubber is Baklavian.
Doesn’t really improve the quality of the argument at all, does it? Just because you identify the source of the definition, it doesn’t change the fact that the argument is circular. I.e., this is still just a statement of definition.
Certainly, we can argue about the value of the definition, but the definition in itself is not a logical argument.
Consider the next example:
Someone who murders is not a Christian.
John murders.
Therefore, John is not a Christian.
This logic is sound. What that means is that John is not a Christian IF the premises are true. However, we may contest the premise (definition) that a Christian does not include a person who murders. Even more, we may contest what the definition of murder is, because it is not specified. Consider the following modification:
Someone who murders is not a Christian.
John kills Jack.
(Therefore, John murders.)
Therefore, John is not a Christian.
Is this logic sound? It’s unclear, because the word “kills” is subjective. Not enough information is included in the argument. The parenthetical statement is implied by the final conclusion.
Now, consider the next modification:
Someone who murders is not a Christian.
AND
Murder is killing someone intentionally not in self-defense.AND
John kills Jack after he sees Jack was having sex with his (John’s) daughter.
(Therefore, John murders.)
Therefore, John is not a Christian.
Alright, here it appears that the logic is sound, because I’ve thrown in a reason that John killed Jack, and a definition of murder. But, you’ll notice as a consequence that I’ve introduced another definition (premise) that can certainly be disputed. Furthermore, John’s motivation is still a little ambiguous. What if he caught Jack raping his daughter? Is that murder? If so, by the logic above, John would not be a Christian. While the argument might be logical in that case, is it true that John would not be a Christian if John killed Jack under these circumstances? The statement leaves open whether John was killing in self-defense. Technically, he kills Jack after seeing Jack having sex with his daughter. What really could have happened was that John saw Jack having sex with his daughter, Jack got scared and attacked John, and John killed Jack in self-defense, which would not conflict the statement above. So really the logic of the argument is a bit ambiguous.
Beyond that, the definition of Christian and murder are both a little temporally unclear. At what point does one cease to be a Christian? Or: At what point has a murder happened – when the victim is struck or when he dies? The definition isn’t really precise in that regard. If John shoots Jack in the belly, he doesn’t die right away. Does John cease being a Christian when he shoots Jack, or four hours later when he actually dies? It also doesn’t address the problem of perspective – one person may think a killing is a murder and another person may not. This goes back to the problem of definition, and I’m pretty sure such technicalities and all the possible permutations aren’t spelled out in the Bible; so even if we assume that the Bible did define a Christian as written above, there’s still a lot of room for interpretation.
Anyway, I could go on for hours refining this hypothetical logical argument, and that’s a fun exercise, but it all comes down to being precise about definitions and coming to an agreement over the definitions with the other party in the argument. It also goes to show that even if an authority provides a definition, and we agree to take the authority’s definition at face value, there’s STILL room for ambiguity and points of dispute for a logical argument, because language is subjective. Particularly when the definition was provided two millennia ago and written down in a book that has been translated and retranslated dozens of times.
However, I’d like to move on to the issue of authority for a moment, because that was your (Baklava’s) original point of contention.
The appeal to authority applies to any logical argument, regardless of who the authority is. If we go back to your sandwich example for a moment:
Quote:
If I, for example, invent a sandwich with rubber, and call it the Baklavian Sandwich, it is not logically incorrect for me to define the Baklavian Sandwich as a sandwich containing rubber. I invented the term. If you come around with a regular ham sandwich and try to present it as a Baklavian Sandwich, people aren't making a logical fallacy when they tell you that it's not a Baklavian Sandwich since it does not contain rubber.
(Ignoring the poor quality of your definition here.) If I make a sandwich made of ham and claim it’s a Baklavian sandwich, and you say, “No it’s not; a Baklavian sandwich only has rubber on it.”, that’s not a logical fallacy on your part because what we have is a dispute over definition (premise), not a dispute over logic.
However, if I ask you why a Baklavian sandwich can only have rubber on it, and you reply, “Well, that’s the way I’ve defined it.”, is that fallacious? Well, it’s really not much of a logical argument, but let’s answer the question indirectly. You’ve invented a sandwich which only has rubber on it. You’ve provided a label for such a sandwich: Baklavian. The label isn’t very specific, mind you. It doesn’t specify what kind of bread it can be on. Wheat? Rye? You could write a 500 page book of specifications detailing what the label Baklavian implies, and it happens in real life – you should see the FDA’s Code of Federal Regulations that lays out all the qualities of every sort of food you can imagine (i.e., what is butter?). Such labels are important in trademark laws. Anyway, for the moment let’s just say that you define a Baklavian as any sandwich having only rubber between two slices of any sort of bread. Fine.
Now I come along and invent a sandwich with only ham on it between any two slices of bread. I call it a Baklavian sandwich because I like the name.
So. What’s the definition of a Baklavian sandwich?
Do you have exclusive rights over the word “Baklavian”?
Like many words, perhaps Baklavian can mean more than one thing, depending on who you ask. Just because you create a term, even one based on your name, that doesn’t give you exclusive rights to define it for eternity.
You can also look at it another way. Your original definition of the Baklavian was rather weak, as I pointed out. Going back to this definition, suppose I come along and make a sandwich that has both rubber and cheese on it, but nothing else, and call it the Corribusian. Well, you say, that’s not a Corribusian; it’s already a Baklavian. Of course, you’d be right. All Corribusian sandwiches are Baklavian. But not all Baklavian sandwiches are Corribusian.
I think you get the idea. Definitions are complicated, it’s very important to be precise, and one person is not the ultimate authority on the meaning of a particular word. And to have a productive discussion with someone, it’s very important to be clear and to come to an understanding with the other party about the meaning of words.
So I hope you see that an appeal to authority is fallacious regardless of who the authority is. For example:
The Bible says that murder is evil; therefore murder is evil.
The Bible says a murderer cannot be Christian; therefore a murderer can’t be Christian.
Replace “The Bible” with “John” to see why this is fallacious.
John says that murder is evil; therefore murder is evil.
John says that a murderer cannot be Christian; therefore a murderer cannot be Christian.
The difference between “The Bible” and “John” is simply a matter of authority, and thus the statements are not logical, regardless of whether you believe in the conclusion or not. Perhaps these will be clearer:
John says that apples are fruits; therefore apples are fruits.
John says that an apple cannot be a pumpkin; therefore an apple cannot be a pumpkin.
They’re both circular arguments and appeals to authority. Certainly apples are fruits and apples cannot be pumpkins, but the mere fact that John says so does not make it so. Therefore, they are not logical statements, in addition to the fact that they are circular reasoning.
In a sense, appeal to authority is related to an ad hominem argument – the quality (truth or falsehood) of an argument is not related to the personal qualities of the person making the claim. Note that this doesn’t mean we cannot rely on judgments and opinions of experts to make decisions. There is no error of logic involved in arguing that a statement made by an authority figure is true. A fallacy only occurs when you claim that the authority is infallible in principle and is thus immune to criticism. In other words, if a dispute of a claim (fact, definition, whatever) occurs, then the authority’s credentials is not an argument for ignoring the criticism. Regardless of how much expertise the authority has.
Remember, logic is a mathematical formalism. We’re talking logic here; not truth. There’s also a distinction to be made here between the logical argument itself, and the quality of the premises (and definitions) that underpin it.
In any case, probably that’s not interesting to anyone, and my aim in the previous post wasn’t to argue minute points of logic. The point was that for a conversation to be productive, both sides have to be playing in the same ballpark, and this requires an open minded discussion of definitions. A conversation goes nowhere when one of the arguers defines a term absolutely, claims it’s immune to dispute, and refuses to budge on that point.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 29, 2009 01:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Consider the following:
A Baklavian sandwich is a sandwich containing rubber. (premise)
I made a sandwich with ham. (premise)
Therefore, I made a Baklavian sandwich. (conclusion)
Strictly speaking, it’s unclear whether this is fallacious or not because there’s not enough information to decide. After all, by your strict definition, a sandwich with ham can be a Baklavian sandwich if it also has rubber on it (a rubber and ham sandwich is Baklavian, ). Your definition did not specify whether a Baklavian sandwich has only rubber on it.
No that is a wrong conclusion, because there is not enough data. From the premise you have NO IDEA whether it has rubber or not, so it is impossible to draw the conclusion, hence the conclusion is uncertain.
And yes UNTIL it has rubber it is NOT a Baklavian sandwich. Just like UNTIL someone is found guilty, he is presumed innocent.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 29, 2009 01:44 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The Bible also says that God forgives if you regret. Then you can have eternal life even if you're a murderer.
Yep, if you are a murderer you can truly repent and be forgiven. Repentance means you see yourself for what you have done and agree that the sin is terrible. You resolve to turn away from the sin, ask God to forgive you, try to make things right with others, and ask God to help you in the future.
Quote:
Also, define murder; intentionally taking away life? I think most people have intentionally killed an insect or plant in some point of their lives. There are exceptions like Buddhists but they don't believe in God so they don't get eternal life anyway...
The Bible does not define killing plants or animals as murder. God gave plants and animals to man to eat and for other purposes. Now killing them for no good reason is sin.
Quote:
Also, do you believe everything said in the Bible? It's written by humans.
Yes, they wrote under the inspiration of the Spirit of God.
@JJ
Quote:
The Bible says, EVERYONE has eternal life - the unrepentant sinners in hell and they who truly and honestly repent their sins and believe in JC will enter heaven.
Are you denying that now?
Once again, you have proven you don't know the Bible. What the Bible calls eternal life is living an abundant and fulfilling life with God forever. Hell will be a miserable existence, not eternal life.
The word translated as mere life is "bios." "Zoe" is the eternal life in Christ.
Quote:
Joh 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
Joh 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
Joh 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
@ DagothGares
My use of the word joke was in response to one of your fellow atheists saying it is a joke to define being a Christian from the Bible. Sorry, atheists don't have the right to define who is a Christian and who is not.
Quote:
Essentially, Elodin relies upon a form of circular reasoning. He bases a conclusion on its own definition and then amusingly thinks that he's brilliantly won the day because nobody can refute it.
No, I rely on the Bible to define who is a Christian. And that seems to upset many atheists/agnostics because they want to say all sorts of false things about Christians which can't be said when the Bible says those people are not Christians.
If is obvious that the New Testament defines Christianity, not the Oxford dictionary. It is amusing that anyone would think that the Oxford dictionary is the authoritative source of Christian theology rather than the Bible.
On the other hand, many atheists/agnostics seem to rely on wishful reasoning. They wish someone to be a Christian and so just say he is even though the New Testament says he is not.
Quote:
Point of fact is that Elodin infers a definition from his reading of the scripture, which is fine of course, but it's rather subjective
What is so hard about understanding the verse that says no murderer has eternal life? There is not a lot there to subjectively interpret.
Quote:
The inclusion of an authority figure is just a bit of added chicanery meant to fool the other party into acquiescence by way of a fallacious appeal to authority.
The only chicanery is that of the atheists/agnostics who want to define Christianity rather than accepting what the New Testament says about who is and is not a Christian.
Quote:
I wasn't drawing a parallel between Einstein and Christ. I was trying to show why appealing to an(y) authority figure is fallacious.
No, it is quite reasonable to refer to the New Testament when defining who a Christian is. The New Testament is the authoritative work on what Christianity is.
Quote:
You don't have to live in any specific way provided you see the errors of your ways at some point.
I mean, most Mafia guys are Christians, right?
How very wrong.
Quote:
Someone who murders is not a Christian.
John murders.
Therefore, John is not a Christian.
This logic is sound. What that means is that John is not a Christian IF the premises are true. However, we may contest the premise (definition) that a Christian does not include a person who murders. Even more, we may contest what the definition of murder is, because it is not specified. Consider the following modification:
No, because the New Testament is what defines Christian theology and says that no one who is a Christian murders.
Since God says no one who is a Christian murders, no one who is a Christian murders. That is a simple logical conclusion.
Now, you can say say you accept the Bible. So? The Bible is what defines Christian doctrine. I don't care if you accpet it or not, it is the Christian holy book at sets forth the teachings given to us by God. You don't have to like it, but you can't deny that the Christian holy book is what defines Christianity, not the Oxford dictionary.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted August 29, 2009 03:28 AM |
|
|
@JJ
I think you guys are taking the whole repent thing far too easily.
In order to redeem yourself, according to Jesus' standards, you need to truly repent. That's a lot harder than you might think.
And I don't believe Jesus would classify most mafia guys as Christians.
@Corribus
*glances at Corribus' post and sighs deeply*
It is time.
Sooner or later, this was bound to happen. A small, hairy, third-world David facing the giant, well spoken, academically educated Goliath, the overlord of all the sensible arguments, the unchallenged ruler of discussions. The lone dessert standing solemnly in the shadow of the Corribusean juggernaut, his mind ready, his keyboard handy, certain doom only underlining his final resolve. A dance of words to the death - for honour would have it no other way. Audaces fortuna iuvat.
I am not afraid of you. Let us begin.
*puts on the monocle*
*takes off the monocle*
Hey, don't go too hard on me now, will ya?
*puts it on again*
Indeed, I never mentioned that the Baklavian sandwich may not contain ham. That's because the Baklavian sandwich MAY contain other things than rubber, too. However, I never said "sandwich with ham", but "ham sandwich", having in mind its official definition.
You say you may call anything a Baklavian sandwich. But following that logic, you may call Sandro Botticelli a cubist. You may call rock-worshipping "Islam". You may call Elodin a liberal.
And afterwards, you can say "Well that term is ambiguous and its meaning depends on who you ask".
Practically, that allows every single word in existence to completely lose its meaning unless someone paid to put a trademark on its definition. Where would that lead?
Of course it's not forbidden to define anything you want however you like. But there ought to be an original and official meaning of the word.
***
As for your continued examination of the Baklavian sandwich.
You said:
Quote:
A Baklavian sandwich is a sandwich containing rubber. (premise)
I made a sandwich with ham. (premise)
Therefore, I made a Baklavian sandwich. (conclusion)
As Death said, the problem here is not in my definition, but in your premise. A Baklavian sandwich may contain other things; or it may not. I could've written:
"A Baklavian sandwich is a sandwich containing rubber; it may or may not contain other ingredients"
but then the second part of the definition is unnecessary as a definition needs to be completely precise and concise, without these needless additions. Since, if there was no rule of that kind, we could add "it may or may not be purple" to any definition of a man-made object in the world.
In your quest to present me as a complete logical layman - though I, in no way, claim otherwise - you immediately assumed that I wanted to say that the Baklavian sandwich contains only rubber. That led to a chain of thought that distracted us even further from the main subject. So let me try to get us back on track.
Your premise, "I made a sandwich with ham", does not give enough information to be able to draw a conclusion when paired with my definition of the Baklavian sandwich as the first premise. The presence of ham, or lack thereof, is in fact quite unrelated when considering whether a sandwich is Baklavian or not. It is rubber that creates a distinction between a Baklavian and some other sandwich.
About authority, I remain convinced that philosophical or religious ideas with a human founder ought to be regarded as primarily what that founder defined them to be. As for other terms such as murder etc, it's up to the society to get a grip on how it defines them in order to discuss things rationally.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 29, 2009 04:23 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 04:37, 29 Aug 2009.
|
@Bak
Quote:
Practically, that allows every single word in existence to completely lose its meaning unless someone paid to put a trademark on its definition. Where would that lead?
That's absolutely correct, Baklava - where would it lead if everyone went through life trying to have productive conversations with other people when there was no consensus about definitions? I can tell you where it would lead: absolute chaos. Nobody could have productive conversations at all. That's why, to have a productive conversation with another person, you and that other person have to have an understanding about what your words mean. In common parlance, of course, this is not a problem - unless you're speaking to a person who speaks another language. Because, in a general sense, we understand the words that come out of other peoples' mouths. If I tell you I'm going to the grocery store, you understand what I mean because we both have a general (albeit unspoken and understood) agreement about what the words "grocery store" mean. But if you were to ask me to pick up a Jingarian Bagglefruit while I was there, I might rightfully look at you in some confusion, having no idea what a Jinarian Bagglefruit is. Without a common definition of a word, there's no way we can effectively communicate. So I ask you what the heck a J-B is and you say it's a little yellow fruit about the size of a small fist, quite acidic, used in iced-tea a lot. And I say, "Oh, you mean a lemon!" and Eureka! we have understanding. You, being from the remote jungle nation of Kokoboko, always called them Jingarian Bagglefruits; I call them lemons. They both turn out to mean the same thing. So I get you a lemon and we're all happy.
Amusingly enough, at lunch the other day someone was talking about how much they love "corn-holing". I nearly spat out my lunch when he said it. He spent a good five minutes telling me how it was always one of his favorite things to do at fairs and parties, and the kids love it especially. The whole time, I'm looking at the guy with a horrified look on my face, thinking "what kind of sick-ass pervert are you?" Because let me tell you, on the east coast of the US, corn-holing has a very specific meaning, and doing it with a kid would get you arrested. Turns out, in the Mid-west, corn-holing is a game where you try to throw some stupid bean-bag into a hole in a wooden target. And of course he didn't understand my initial revulsion and disgust when he shared his fond memories of childhood corn-holing with the neighbors. We had a good laugh over that, once the confusion cleared and we shared our very different definitions of the term, but clearly you can see that even in modern society, it's easy to have misunderstandings because one word can have two very different meanings, and if the two people in a conversation don't have an a priori mutual understanding (by consensus!) of what all their words means, it can lead to chaos.
Which was sort of my whole point from the beginning. Words are fluid and - especially when having a serious conversation - it's important that everyone is on the same page with respect to meaning and precise definition. I recently took a law course and I was amazed at how lawyers and judges can argue for days over the meaning of a word like "is". Seriously, we discussed a supreme court case where the decision was based on the fact that the law used the word "may" in a single specific sentence - and the law in question was over 600 pages long.
Quote:
Of course it's not forbidden to define anything you want however you like. But there ought to be an original and official meaning of the word.
As should be clear, I'm not advocating chaos. What I'm saying is that no single person is an immutable, perfect authority on what the meaning of a word is. A word is only a symbol for an emotion, thing, idea, concept, action; it has no absolute value. There are no "official" meanings, especially of abstract concepts like "murder". Certainly, our courts set a specific meaning for "murder" because it's necessary, but those definitions are constantly being redefined by those very same courts in response to challenges by lawyers, defendants, and etc. Frankly, I think it's important that our language remains flexible; otherwise how to you incorporate changes in Philosophy, Technology, Science, etc, into your language? If there was one authority on language that couldn't be criticized or argued with, it would lead to stagnation; it would stifle the beauty of prose; and probably it would cause more chaos than it would prevent. And beyond that: people cannot even agree over simple things - what makes you think people would agree on who this supreme authority on language is? Is it you? Me? Ok, so you say the Bible is the authority on all language related to Christianity. Well, the Bible is not a person, and there are as many interpretations of the Bible's language as there are people who read it, and wars have been fought over such matters. At one time for Christians it was universally the Pope, and you should be familiar with how well it worked out for History to have a single such absolute authority. You think it so simple to point at the Bible and say, "The Bible is the Original Authority on All Words Related to Christianity." Well that's great - so tell me, what is the Bible's definition of God? I'm fairly certain the Christian church rifted a few times over that very question.
As for all the other stuff about ham and rubber sandwiches and what exactly your language meant given the exact phrasing construction you used: well I hope you'll appreciate the irony of that given the overall point I've tried to get across here. 
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted August 29, 2009 06:45 AM |
|
|
|
This reminds me of a time when I was having a discussion with a self-proclaimed Christian. Gulf War I was approaching and so we touched on the topic of murder and war. We had already established that murder was unchristianlike and so I asked him what he would do if he was drafted into the military. He would clearly be out murdering people and thus would no longer be Christian. He said he go to war but would ask forgiveness for it afterwards. I suppose that was perfectly acceptable in the world of Christian logic but it left me shaking my head.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 29, 2009 07:22 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 07:25, 29 Aug 2009.
|
Quote:
Well that's great - so tell me, what is the Bible's definition of God? I'm fairly certain the Christian church rifted a few times over that very question.
The Bible describes God in quite a few different ways that describe different aspects of who he is. The fundamental "essence" is that he is a Spirit. He is self existent, eternal, all powervul, and fills and transcends all of time and space. He manifests himself in multiple ways at the same time. Jesus is God existing as a man.
Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
2Ch 2:6 But who is able to build him an house, seeing the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain him? who am I then, that I should build him an house, save only to burn sacrifice before him
Jer 32:17 Ah Lord GOD! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee:
Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Joh 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
Joh 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
Joh 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
@ FriendOfGunnar
Killing an enemy soldier is not murder. Murder is killing a known innocent person deliberately. The Bible talks about "lying in wait" for the person for example.
Yes, that person's idea was strange if he thought oh well, I'll sin and later repent. Repentance is more than words as I described a post or two ago.
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
