General Discussion

longship

(40,416 posts)

33. Tell that to William Lane Craig.

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 03:53 PM

Nov 2013

He loves this kind of stuff. And his logic always ends up with God exists, Jesus is God, hallelujah! Typical apologetics.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

72 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Is there anyone here who is good with Symbolic Logic? Here's a challenge.. [View all] truth2power Nov 2013 OP

Begin with a false assumption ..... Coyotl Nov 2013 #1

Either I am a bad person or I am god. WTF? nt kelliekat44 Nov 2013 #59

False Premise but logically valid Vox Moi Nov 2013 #2

logically valid? 2banon Nov 2013 #11

Not so fast. immoderate Nov 2013 #14

I mean that sound logic can be applied to a false premise Vox Moi Nov 2013 #23

The problem is that the original premise contains a fallacy. It is not valid or sound. immoderate Nov 2013 #24

Fishwax - Poster #15 - is working the same idea Vox Moi Nov 2013 #41

Fishwax set me straight. We're all friends here. immoderate Nov 2013 #56

The premise is faulty. MineralMan Nov 2013 #3

A pantload indeed! arcane1 Nov 2013 #4

It assumes that because the gospels attribute to Jesus claims of divinity... antigone382 Nov 2013 #5

All authoritarian arguments are rooted in a false premise, and this one is an easy example. Egalitarian Thug Nov 2013 #6

The first sentence violates "the law of the excluded middle." immoderate Nov 2013 #7

+1, n/t RKP5637 Nov 2013 #12

Christ, where to start? EOTE Nov 2013 #8

The premise is ridiculous and hence the contrived result. n/t RKP5637 Nov 2013 #9

false premise AND possibly false assertion lapfog_1 Nov 2013 #10

Love is blind FatBuddy Nov 2013 #13

Now, that is logic! riqster Nov 2013 #26

But Stevie Wonder! hootinholler Nov 2013 #39

it's a valid argument, but that doesn't make it sound fishwax Nov 2013 #15

Logic police here: NO! It violates the "law of the excluded middle." immoderate Nov 2013 #19

The first premise is flawed, to be sure, but that doesn't change the validity of the argument fishwax Nov 2013 #25

OK, I get you. immoderate Nov 2013 #34

Thanks, Fishwax Vox Moi Nov 2013 #60

Jesus is either a can of tuna or a bad man. Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2013 #16

Is this a comment on transubstantiation? longship Nov 2013 #30

At least it wouldn't be cannibalism....unless those indulging are also tuna. Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2013 #31

You can apply a second logical tautology showing Person A is not a bad man and is not God Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #17

I like it better this way. postulater Nov 2013 #18

Then you don't know what it's like to be the bad man, to be the sad man. riqster Nov 2013 #27

You're right. I have brown eyes. postulater Nov 2013 #50

Excellent. riqster Nov 2013 #51

Where to begin but it has already been answered mynaturalrights Nov 2013 #20

Faulty premise. Ain't no god. nt valerief Nov 2013 #21

Everything relys on the first premice which needs proof before upaloopa Nov 2013 #22

There's a bit of begging the question, too. longship Nov 2013 #28

It is a trick question, logic cannot be used to prove or dissprove faith. Rex Nov 2013 #29

Tell that to William Lane Craig. longship Nov 2013 #33

By his logic Rex Nov 2013 #35

Evil Spock was ALMOST good FiveGoodMen Nov 2013 #42

Well then Jesus was ALMOST God. Rex Nov 2013 #46

If evil Spock is almost good, does that mean good Spock is nearly evil? JVS Nov 2013 #57

The latter FiveGoodMen Nov 2013 #70

Where to begin. Cleita Nov 2013 #32

If that's logic Aerows Nov 2013 #36

In the real world there is no "either/or" Dan de Lyons Nov 2013 #37

"In the real world there is no "either/or"" ithinkmyliverhurts Nov 2013 #38

That's called disjunctive syllogism: it's generally been considered a valid argument form struggle4progress Nov 2013 #40

Is the intial premise a complete statement of all the real possibilities? Dan de Lyons Nov 2013 #45

I merely said it's considered a valid argument form: I made no claim about the truth struggle4progress Nov 2013 #47

This message was self-deleted by its author Recursion Nov 2013 #65

God is not an agreed upon fact. Logic requires fact to function seveneyes Nov 2013 #43

Boy oh boy..... Sheepshank Nov 2013 #44

This is an excellent example of a "Forced Dichotomy or Dilemma" Sivafae Nov 2013 #48

Where does boosh's 'they hate us for our freedoms' fall?…seems to me it was never logically... Tikki Nov 2013 #52

What Bush said was worse FiveGoodMen Nov 2013 #72

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren Stupidity Nov 2013 #49

It appears to be a use of False Dichotomy Agnosticsherbet Nov 2013 #53

This also falls under the logical fallacy "begging the question" Agnosticsherbet Nov 2013 #54

Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #55

No God. No good or bad. Concepts. All human concepts. RagAss Nov 2013 #58

Either I am a banana or I am on an airplane. Warren DeMontague Nov 2013 #61

Therefore, you're all my sockpuppets. nt bananas Nov 2013 #62

DANCE, LITTLE MAN, DANCE! Warren DeMontague Nov 2013 #68

This message was self-deleted by its author Recursion Nov 2013 #63

This is essentially the argument used by C.S. Lewis to prove Christ's divinity. Sognefjord Nov 2013 #64

D'oh. I read it wrong the first time. It's a perfectly valid syllogism Recursion Nov 2013 #66

Warm beer is better than nothing. Iterate Nov 2013 #67

Proud of DU... I have a Master's in Philosophy (though not focused on symbolic logic)... Democracyinkind Nov 2013 #69

I wonder if that goober believes that himself or is just brainwashing the kids. bemildred Nov 2013 #71