Author Topic: Logic. Luke 21:15. [#2613]  (Read 740 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4350
  • Darwins +206/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappĂ©
Logic. Luke 21:15. [#2613]
« on: November 04, 2011, 06:34:14 AM »
Hello.

Mat 12:28  But IF I cast out devils by the Spirit of God (P), THEN the kingdom of God is come unto you. (Q)

Mat 21:43A The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, (Not Q)

Therefore, Christ is not casting out devils by the spirit of God. (Not P) Modus tollens.

Luk 10:3a  Go your ways:

Luk 10:9  And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The Kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.

Mat 12:30  Exclusive disjunction. (p XOR q)

Therefore, do not go your ways and heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, "The Kingdom of God is come nigh unto you."

Mat 21:43B But R.

Psa 22:30 But R.

IF Psa 22:30 (R), THEN Psa 22:28 (S).

Dan 9:25-26 "Messiah the Governor" is "cut off". (Not S)

Therefore, not R.

Rev 12:10. But X.

From any text of the Bible LOGICALLY CONCLUDE that God should heal amputees TODAY...
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10559
  • Darwins +264/-33
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Logic. Luke 21:15. [#2613]
« Reply #1 on: November 04, 2011, 07:07:50 AM »
...I'm not sure what it is that I've just read. I get the "If/Then", et cetera thingies, but I just don't see why we would present this argument in such a manner.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline C

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Counter-Theist Taskforce
Re: Logic. Luke 21:15. [#2613]
« Reply #2 on: November 04, 2011, 07:30:39 AM »
Quote
Hello.

Mat 12:28  But IF I cast out devils by the Spirit of God (P), THEN the kingdom of God is come unto you. (Q)

Mat 21:43A The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, (Not Q)

Therefore, Christ is not casting out devils by the spirit of God. (Not P) Modus tollens.


...Devils exist? God exists? Proof? Oh right, just listing verses from the Bible.

Quote
Luk 10:3a  Go your ways:

Luk 10:9  And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The Kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.

Mat 12:30  Exclusive disjunction. (p XOR q)

Therefore, do not go your ways and heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, "The Kingdom of God is come nigh unto you."

Mat 21:43B But R.

Psa 22:30 But R.

IF Psa 22:30 (R), THEN Psa 22:28 (S).

Dan 9:25-26 "Messiah the Governor" is "cut off". (Not S)

Therefore, not R.

Rev 12:10. But X.

What the hell? I don't understand what you're trying to get at.

Quote
From any text of the Bible LOGICALLY CONCLUDE that God should heal amputees TODAY...

Okay. I can wait for a day and see if any amputees will regrow their limbs.
The Second C

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4624
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Logic. Luke 21:15. [#2613]
« Reply #3 on: November 04, 2011, 01:23:12 PM »
I can't tell if this letter is arguing for the concept of God healing amputees or against it.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4350
  • Darwins +206/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappĂ©
Re: Logic. Luke 21:15. [#2613]
« Reply #4 on: November 04, 2011, 01:30:35 PM »
I can't tell if this letter is arguing for the concept of God healing amputees or against it.

I think the OP is trying to say that there is no reason to expect God to heal amputees, but I'm not positive.  I guess the only way we'll know for sure is if s/he starts to participate here.  (And maybe not even then.)
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Logic. Luke 21:15. [#2613]
« Reply #5 on: November 04, 2011, 02:13:29 PM »
Luke 14:26:

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

-Nam
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: Logic. Luke 21:15. [#2613]
« Reply #6 on: November 04, 2011, 04:23:19 PM »
I had a course in symbolic logic in college.  I passed it.  I don't remember it.  Way too abstract for me.

It's based on a mistaken meme in Western culture:  That logic is somehow mathematical.  I agree with Indian culture that it is grammatical and semantic.

I'll give it another stab.

Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: Logic. Luke 21:15. [#2613]
« Reply #7 on: November 04, 2011, 06:15:16 PM »
Mat 12:28  But IF I cast out devils by the Spirit of God (P), THEN the kingdom of God is come unto you. (Q)

Mat 21:43A The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, (Not Q)

Therefore, Christ is not casting out devils by the spirit of God. (Not P) Modus tollens.
ERROR #1:  WTF, does attaching A or (below) "B" or "a" or "b" mean to a verse number?  Speech has 2 functions:  Communicating a thought or structuring a thought.  You have failed at the first function.  None of us know what you mean, even me, the guy who once took a course in this.

Cxu vi estas certa ke vi volas kontinui angle?  Esperanto estas pli logike, cxu ne?  Gxi havas neniun homografojn kaj pli malmultajn homofonojn ol la angla.  Do you know what I just said?  Trust me, it was a logical proposition.

ERROR #2:  In my symbolic logic class we were taught to use meaningful variables.  We would have used D or C would be good for Cast out Demons.  K for the Kingdom of God whatever.

ERROR #3:  Logic -- and indeed science -- is based on modeling. It is based on the theory that you can make a model, that is a reduced version of the whole which can be more easily manipulated and then applied back to reality with good results.  One qualification is that all models simplify.  A model can be oversimplified.

You never defined your model Q.  You never said, "Let Q = 'The Kingdom of God exists'" nor did you say it meant "Let Q = 'The Kingdom of God is present'."

Then you did not define "not Q".  Did it mean "The Kingdom of God was present but has been taken away", "The Kingdom of God is not present" or "The Kingdom of God does not exist now" or "The Kingdom of God never existed".

I mention the logicians of the Indian subcontinent as a model.  They spent a long time on the various implications of the concept of "not".

Your fallacy is called Slippage of Meaning or if you look in a book on magic[1] you will find it is called Magician's Choice.

There is a standard trick where I lay out 2 or more crosses of 4 cards.  I know where the Ace of Hearts is.  I will prove to the sucker that she is telepathic or clairvoyant but just hasn't realized it.  I divide the groupings by twos asking her to "select", "indicate", "have a feeling about", etc, half of the cards at a time.  Each time she does I interpret that she "indicated those should be rejected" or "indicated we'll stay with this group".  By imposing my meaning on the ambiguity I will quickly get down to the Ace of Hearts.  Surprisingly, by having people stare at the cards and try to get a vibe (misdirection) they don't remember what I said the was a manipulation.

Quote
Luk 10:3a  Go your ways:
Luk 10:9  And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The Kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
Mat 12:30  Exclusive disjunction. (p XOR q)

Therefore, do not go your ways and heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, "The Kingdom of God is come nigh unto you."
ERROR #4.  Just repeating the error above, but amplifying it that healing of physical illness also means that the Kingdom of God has become present as well as it did.

I know what XOR (exclusive or) means.  It means one or the other but not both.  Or that "p" and "q" are mutually exclusive. Jargon like "exclusive disjunction" does not communicate anything[2]  Kial vi ne simple skribas tion en angla?  I've already forgotten what your P and Q meant.  Do I have to decode your switch to lower case?

As far as I can see you've made your case such as it is: There ain't no Kingdom of God so God doesn't heal mental illness (possession) or physical illness (including we can suppose amputees).  But you continue on.  Can anyone tell why?

Quote
Mat 21:43B But R.
Psa 22:30 But R.
I can't tell what you mean by "but".   No one but you has any idea what the "B" is doing there.  This is a repeat of ERROR #1 (Non communication).

ERROR #6:  You have not given any indication of what proposition R is.   If Psalm 22 is so essential to your case, why not quote it?  I'm not going to look it up because since I have no way of knowing what "But R" could mean so i can't judge the truth value of it.

Quote
IF Psa 22:30 (R), THEN Psa 22:28 (S).
Dan 9:25-26 "Messiah the Governor" is "cut off". (Not S)
Therefore, not R.
ERROR #7:  What does S stand for?  I'm not going to chase after the quote.  Why?  Let me express it in your own language"

    Let G mean "A Guru is to be respected and obeyed by his students and they must fulfill all tasks he sets before them."
    Let C mean the quote from Confucius, "If I show a student one corner of something I expect him to find the other 3 corners himself."
    Let S stand for "I am your student, Oh Great Guru."

    G and S implies C.  (Hypothetical)
    Not S.
    (G and not S) implies not C.  (Real situation)

Quote
Rev 12:10. But X.
ERROR #8:  X not defined.  Repeat of ERROR #7.

ERROR #9. I looked this one up because Revelations gives me a drugless high.
Quote
12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
The error here is good old non sequitur. I thought that the quote would be some general proposition about conditions of healing or something.  It's about what God will do at the End of the World.  What does this have to do with anything said before? For one thing the question is "why hasn't and why doesn't God heal amputees?"

ERROR #10:  A little one.  You never stated that healing amputees is included under healing.

Quote
From any text of the Bible LOGICALLY CONCLUDE that God should heal amputees TODAY...
ERROR #11:  Major non sequitur!!!  "any text"??????  Let's try that:
Quote
Joshua 9:26 And so did he unto them, and delivered them out of the hand of the children of Israel, that they slew them not. And Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of the LORD, even unto this day, in the place which he should choose.
Yup, that sure sounds like a text about miraculous healing.  Not.[3]

IIRC, I got something between a 3.0 (B grade) and a 4.0 in my symbolic logic class.  What did you get?
 1. Which Penn defines as conning people.
 2. Except an attempt to sound like a member of the erudite elite.
 3. Following the Indian logicians let me state that the definition of "not" here is an indication of sarcasm.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2011, 06:17:56 PM by Historicity »

Offline mrbiscoop

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
  • Darwins +29/-2
  • Faith is not a virtue!
Re: Logic. Luke 21:15. [#2613]
« Reply #8 on: November 04, 2011, 09:39:32 PM »
I got about 5 lines in and gave up. :?
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
              -Emo Philips

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4624
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Logic. Luke 21:15. [#2613]
« Reply #9 on: November 04, 2011, 11:16:10 PM »
I have to have a reasonably good understanding of logic to be able to write computer programs that, you know, actually run and don't do utterly weird things, and I was able to recognize that he was trying to use logic, but I still don't quite get what his conclusion is supposed to be, at least from the logic.  Upon a second reading, though, his challenge at the end makes it clear that he thinks the Bible says nothing about when any such healing will take place, and presumably that there's no point in asking "Why Won't God Heal Amputees?"  In other words, it boils down to "God works in his own ways".

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2553
  • Darwins +206/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburger™
Re: Logic. Luke 21:15. [#2613]
« Reply #10 on: November 05, 2011, 03:41:54 AM »
The only thing I can see in that tract of crap that would appeal specifically to amputees, is "cut off" in Daniel. This is a novel interpretation.

Since it does not appeal to amputees specifically, I thought I could Google where this joker had posted it before.

His "logic" appears to pivot around quotes that are taken out of context.
I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Online Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5657
  • Darwins +49/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Logic. Luke 21:15. [#2613]
« Reply #11 on: November 05, 2011, 06:35:56 AM »
Thank you historicity for making sense out of this for me.... +1

Turns out this dude is PrinceWalter on youtube. He's also so Alex Jones nut, I guess. He posted on the Ten Questions video on youtube

Here's another gem (from his recent activity list on his channel)

""Matthew 21:22, which states that believers will receive whatever they ask for in prayer"

INCONCLUSIVE

1. The Kingdom was taken away afterward. Matt 21:43. The Twelve had new orders: to wait until they received power. Luke 24:29; Act 1:4.

2. We are not among the Twelve.

3. If ye have faith (P), THEN ye shall say... it shall be done. (Q)

Ye said and it wasn't done. (Not Q)

Therefore, ye did not have faith. (Not P)

Knowing what to have faith in helps. Amos 3:3" 


Just one dude who likes to quote mine the bible...

For example:
Matt 21:20 opens with "and the deciples saw it and they marveled" When Jesus is talking about the kingdom of god being taken away he is clearly talking to the cheif preists and Phaisees, as is evidence from two lines after Matt 21:43 - Matt 21:45 "Now when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables...(not to mention that section right after the murder of the fig tree is titled "Jesus Questions Authority which opens with Matt 21:23 "Now when he came into the temple (blah, blah, blah...)"

and...

PART 2

FACT: "formed eth Ha Adam", not "created". 2:7.

FACT: "to dress it and to keep it" "every tree OF THE GARDEN, thou mayest freely eat" AGRICULTURE.

CONCLUSION: Foraging PRECEDES Agriculture in human history.

FACT: Adam does NOT call Eve the mother of all "mankind".

From any text of the Bible, and from the facts of Anthropological and Archeological? research, LOGICALLY CONCLUDE that the first humans were Agriculturists...

Um, yeah, sure....

« Last Edit: November 05, 2011, 06:43:11 AM by Emily »
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4624
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Logic. Luke 21:15. [#2613]
« Reply #12 on: November 05, 2011, 07:24:17 AM »
Yeah, Adam and Eve would have been foragers.  Agriculture is about growing and maintaining your own food supplies.

Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: Logic. Luke 21:15. [#2613]
« Reply #13 on: November 05, 2011, 07:39:08 AM »
I have to have a reasonably good understanding of logic to be able to write computer programs that, you know, actually run and don't do utterly weird things,
Actually that's why I took the symbolic logic course: to (maybe) enhance computer programming skills (sort of).

I got a compliment from the teacher as he taught the half dozen axioms of symbolic logic.  He would give a concrete example for each but had always been stymied by finding an application for this one (I'm using ">" to mean implies):

      a & b & c & d & e  >  a

I immediately said, "That's the solution to the 'Murders in the Rue Morgue'."  He said he sort of remembered the story but would I explain.  I answered that Poe gave a huge amount of weird facts among which was the literally inhuman strength of the killer.  Despite having no explanation for much of it (and some were never) explained, none of these things contradicted the literally inhuman strength of the killer.  Then if it was literally, not figuratively, superhuman strength, it couldn't have been done by a human.  I assume he used that example in his teaching afterwards.


Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: Logic. Luke 21:15. [#2613]
« Reply #14 on: November 05, 2011, 07:48:25 AM »
Turns out this dude is PrinceWalter on youtube. He's also so Alex Jones nut, I guess. He posted on the Ten Questions video on youtube

Oh, I thought he was a Randroid.  Ayn Rand has a "proof" that morality is selfish and should be.  It's in symbolic logic.  By using symbolic logic she makes some oversimplifications and then employs the Argumentum ad Nivem[nb]My term for snow job[/b].  When you are tired of decoding each statement over and over as she belabors the obvious and adds an irrelevant statement she slips in some new premises as if they were conclusions.

Her disciples worship her for that.  His misuse is similar.

Oh and, Nice research, Emily.

« Last Edit: November 05, 2011, 08:21:20 AM by Historicity »

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1250
  • Darwins +369/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Logic. Luke 21:15. [#2613]
« Reply #15 on: November 15, 2011, 12:04:35 AM »
ERROR #1:  WTF, does attaching A or (below) "B" or "a" or "b" mean to a verse number?

As I understand it, the a or b after a verse number (always lower case, so the OP is getting it wrong here) refer to the first part or second part of a verse, respectively.  This is used in Bible commentaries, etc. to separate out a specific thought in a verse that contains more than one distinct idea.  Matthew 21:43:

Quote
Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.

He's snipping out "Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you" from the rest by labeling that "Matthew 21:43a" and the rest "Matthew 21:43b."  It seems rather disingenuous to use that here because the second half indicates that the Kingdom isn't just disappearing (so nobody works miracles...if that was what he was trying to argue), but it was being transferred to a new group.  So, if he's trying to use Matthew 21:43a to explain away the absence of miracles because "the Kingdom has been taken away" he is violating the clear intent of the passage (taken in context with 21:43b), that "the Kingdom" has been given to people who will produce its fruit--Jesus' followers.

As for the rest of the OP...  I kinda get a kick out of it whenever a philosopher tries to use mathematical variables and equations.  It always makes me think, "D'awwwwww, poor widdle philosopher has Physics Envy!"
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina