txaq007's Inescapable Error

[Kripke]

Since formal logic as we know it was invented by Frege, there is no answer as to what 'logic' Euclid used. He did not use formal logic in his reasoning.

"The original poster was curious if mathmeticians accept things as true even if they can't prove it and the answer for all intents and purposes is no."

I think most mathematicians accept the Goldbach conjecture as being true despite noone being able to prove it. So of course there are things that mathematicians accept as true even though they cannot prove it.

- Kripke

[David Sklansky]

"I think most mathematicians accept the Goldbach conjecture as being true despite noone being able to prove it. So of course there are things that mathematicians accept as true even though they cannot prove it."

- Kripke

No Sir. There are probability arguments that strongly suggest that the conjecture is very very unlikely to be false. But mathmeticans, to my knowledge, have no logical problem with the possibility it is false.

[txag007]

"Here are some that txaq007 might look into checking out:
1) Subjectivist Fallacy
2) Hasty Generalization
3) Appeal to Ignorance
4) Equivocation"


Class dismissed? That's a bit arrogant, wouldn't you say?

As for my alleged logical fallacies:

1) Subjectivist Fallacy: Never have I stated or implied that truth is relative. In fact, I have emphatically argued here that truth is absolute. Now, I suppose you are referring to my statement that I am 100% certain about Jesus because of my personal experience and that if you knew Him as well, you would feel the same. That statement was not part of any type of logical proof and I explicitly stated so.

2) Hasty Generalization: Where have I committed this fallacy? Hasty Generalization deals with sample size. If anybody has committed this, it is Sklansky with his "90% of scientists" statistic.

3) Appeal to Ignorance: There are certain types of reasoning that are distinguished apart from this fallacy. I'm going to assume here that you are referring to my statement that there is no evidence that Jesus was some non-devine being who just had access to some type of advance science. The flaw in your thinking is that the burden of proof usually lies on the person making a new and improbable claim. If there is no evidence, that claim can be logically dismissed.

4) Equivocation: Where have I committed this?

[TheQ]

Maybe one reason, is because people with higher than normal IQ's tend to have more money, than stupid people. "For a rich man to enter heaven, is as difficult as passing a camel through the eye of a needle"

In order to accumulate money, you need to value it. In order to win at poker you need place value on playing correctly. In order to believe anything new, you need to change yourself. You need to edit your self.

Money brings tempation. I see it at my work. The average wage in my company is $25/hr. And it's unbelievable how many divorced alchoholics work there. How morally corrupt they are.

People with High IQ's have values contrary to those of God. In order to follow God you need to place value in things other than those those this world promotes.

In order to buy a nice house, and big cars, you edit yourself in such a way, as to have greedy tendancies. Greed is contrary to God.

Shall I continue?

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe one reason, is because people with higher than normal IQ's tend to have more money, than stupid people.

[/ QUOTE ].
Really? What evidence is there for this?

[ QUOTE ]
Money brings tempation.

[/ QUOTE ]

And so equally does a lack of money.

[ QUOTE ]
People with High IQ's have values contrary to those of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you suggesting that all those with deep faith and belief in a God have lower IQ's?

[ QUOTE ]
In order to buy a nice house, and big cars, you edit yourself in such a way, as to have greedy tendancies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is working hard to achieve these things greedy? What about a charity worker doing this?

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe one reason, is because people with higher than normal IQ's tend to have more money, than stupid people.

[/ QUOTE ]Only a stupid person would place commas where you have.

[ QUOTE ]
1) Subjectivist Fallacy: Never have I stated or implied that truth is relative.

[/ QUOTE ]
You dont understand how this applies to you even. The epitome of this poor reasoning is holding on to a belief in the face of strong evidence against it.

[ QUOTE ]

2) Hasty Generalization: Where have I committed this fallacy? Hasty Generalization deals with sample size. If anybody has committed this, it is Sklansky with his "90% of scientists" statistic.

[/ QUOTE ]
By definition, "faith" is a hasty generalization.

[ QUOTE ]

3) Appeal to Ignorance: There are certain types of reasoning that are distinguished apart from this fallacy. I'm going to assume here that you are referring to my statement that there is no evidence that Jesus was some non-devine being who just had access to some type of advance science. The flaw in your thinking is that the burden of proof usually lies on the person making a new and improbable claim. If there is no evidence, that claim can be logically dismissed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I agree, straw men are easily knocked down.

[ QUOTE ]

4) Equivocation: Where have I committed this?

[/ QUOTE ]
Your whole 100% shtick reeks of it.

txag007,

You say that if intelligent people were objectively given evidence they would conclude religion was the logical answer?

In what forum is this evidence given? I went to a primary school that insisted on saying Grace before lunch and the lord's prayer in assemblies, and I went to Sunday school briefly.

I had the advantage of my parents refusing to convey religious beliefs. NOT ATHEISM. They said they weren;t sure and I should make up my own mind.

As a child at school I decided that what I was being taught sounded like a rediculous load of rubbish.

Recently I gave it another chance as I was in hotel with nothing to do so I started reading a Bible.

Firstly, I was under the impression that this was Gods omnipotent word, so I didnt expect any logic errors, or any teaching biased by the culture at the time.

I read that we speak different languages because an omnipotent god became jealous about the growing power of man. Jealous!

I read the 10 commandments and continued to the next few paragraphs which detailed guidlines for correct treatment of Slaves. Why would God's word on 1 page be correct and God's word on the next page be incorrect? Should I draw the conclusion that if I become religous I should take a Hebrew slave, as long as I release himi after 7 years. Although I would still own his wife and children.

That book is drivel to anyone logical, intelligent and open-minded. Except as a commentary on times when humanity was less evolved.

So please txag007, point me in the direction of this evidence which would convert open minded intelligent people.

[txag007]

Alex-db,

Thanks for your post. I am happy to point you in the direction of evidence for Christianity. First, I'd like to try and clear up the fallacies you mentioned regarding the Bible.

Many seemingly logical fallacies can be solved by looking deeper into scripture or by looking at the context in which something was written. Please understand that while the Bible is God-breathed (or God inspired) it is a Book written by man. Cultural aspects unique to the author are evident in certain books. For instance, Luke was a physician. So, the explanations in his book contain more medical terms.

As for why the people of Earth speak different languages, you are right. God thought man was getting too powerful. That isn't to say, though, that He felt threatened by man or anything of that nature. The Bible does say that God is a jealous god. As our creator and giver of life, he demands our full attention. He desires our worship. Who are we to question His actions?

Regarding slavery, keep in mind that the Old Testament is basically a history of the Jewish people. The Jews are God's chosen people. God favored the Jewish nation above other men on Earth. It may make more sense when placed in this context.

In the Old Testament, the Jews had to keep God's Law in order to remain in fellowship with Him. To put it simply, Jesus came because the man had rejected God's Law and was no longer fulfilling it. Actually, man was abusing the Law.

Through the sacrifice of Jesus, He set man free from the Law. This is the Grace you hear so much about. Perhaps it has been simplified so much that at times it doesn't seem to make sense. To truly understand it, one has to study it.

As for evidence, I am going to point you in several directions:

For a discussion on whether the universe was created, see this thread.

For a discussion on whether the universe was created and whether the Bible is true, see this thread.

For a discussion on whether truth is absolute, see this thread.

For a discussion on the truth of the resurrection, see this thread (in which you participated).

As for more in-depth evidence on the web, you can start your search here:

www.rationalchristianity.net

www.godandscience.org

www.carm.org


There are also some books that do a good job of explaining this subject:

For scientific, historical, and archaelogical evidence, "A Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel is excellenct.

For a logical case for Christianity, see "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis.

Both of these authors are former athiests who have become Christians.

This should give you a good start. If you need anything else or have any questions, feel more than welcome to PM me.

"As for why the people of Earth speak different languages, you are right. God thought man was getting too powerful. That isn't to say, though, that He felt threatened by man or anything of that nature. The Bible does say that God is a jealous god. As our creator and giver of life, he demands our full attention. He desires our worship. Who are we to question His actions?"

Burn me up. I'd rather be cast into the fire than spend eternity stroking the almighty's bloated ego. But I guess some people find "meaning" in jacking off supreme beings with their groveling.