VALID TRANSITIONAL REASONING

[euroclydon]

Contrary to what was suggested by a member of this forum, the term "variable" is not confined strictly to computer language.

Simply stated, a variable is a quantity or function that may assume any given value or set of values.

Valid Transitional Reasoning takes the following form:

P -> Q
Q -> R
Therefore P -> R

E.g. Jesus' first sermon plain or mount?

Mat 5:1. "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain"

Luk 6:17. "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain"

ERROR: No variable for "first" in either passage.

INVALID COMPLAINT.

But we will humor the humorists.

P: Jesus gave a sermon on a mountain.

Q: It was before they went to (Simon) Peter's House

R: Jesus gave a sermon on a plain.

IF Jesus gave a sermon on a mountain (P), THEN it was before they went to (Simon) Peter's House (Q). Mat 5:1; 8:14.

IF it was before they went to (Simon) Peter's House (Q), THEN it was before Jesus gave a sermon on a plain (R). Luk 4:38; 6:17.

THEREFORE, IF Jesus gave a sermon on a mountain (P), THEN it was before Jesus gave a sermon on a plain (R).


P -> Q
Q -> R
? P -> R

VALID REASONING.

[Gill]

Even if this passage is logical;  there's no independent sources to verify its truth!  (Illegal operation.)

[euroclydon]

Even if this passage is logical;  there's no independent sources to verify its truth!  (Illegal operation.)

ERROR: There is no variable for "verifying truth" in my post. You are out of order.

[Barracuda]

euroclydon, your use of the word variable is a bit confusing, and not necessary. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you arguing not for the truth of this bible story, but for it's consistency?

[euroclydon]

The argument points to its consistency.

[Barracuda]

Well without context (and I'm too lazy to look that up), yup looks like it's consistent, was anyone arguing otherwise?

[Emily]

Contrary to what was suggested by a member of this forum, the term "variable" is not confined strictly to computer language.

That member wasn't saying variables were strictly confined to computer languages. What I believe that member was getting at was that variables do jack shit for your argument. IDK, you could have said the same thing without using variables.

My problem with your variables is that your variables aren't meaningful to your argument. P Q R? What the fuck. If you want to use variables at least relate them somehow to what they are representing by giving them more meaningful letters as a form of representation.

For example, lets think of this as a computer program.

int main()
     int jesusonmt  // variable for Jesus
     int beforepeteshouse // variable for before they went to the mount (or some shit)
     int sermononplain // variable for sermon

     cout << "Was Jesus' first sermon on a plain or a mount";
     ::blah,blah,blah::

     if (int jesusonmt == t) && (int beforepeteshouse == t)
        {
               cout << "It never happened anyway!";
        }
        else
        {
              cout << "The bible account of this sermon most likely never happened";
        }

return jesus_because_he_never_will_return_otherwise;
}

I really don't understand what you are arguing here. It doesn't really seem like you are arguing much of anything in this post anyways.

As said before, was anying arguing otherwise?

-Em

[Grimm]

For the pure fun of it:

Yes, you're right, you can use variables anywhere - though they are not always contextually called 'variables', even if the fulfill the same function.  Heck, English has variables built into its very structure.

Take the phrase "If this then that."

"This" and "That" are, by any definition you care to name, variables.  If A then B.  If "Peanut Butter" then "Jelly".  If 7 then 14.  They're just called 'pronouns' to explain their usage and the rules that define them.

Now, you can use logical operands to define our english phrase:

? A -> B.   

Sure, that works- but you're substituting mathematical symbols for rhetorical statements.. recontextualizing the argument.   It has the advantage of being fairly universal, but it's also limiting - and a bit pointless if everyone's sharing a language.  It's easy enough to pick the "ITTT" statements out of an argument, and it's a fairly pointless exercise to reduce an argument to a sort of variable cypher when a simple reduction-to-premise is all that is necessary.

Of course, both the original argument and your argument are utterly wrong on fact, if not on premise:

You see, there's an additional source that points out Jesus's first sermon was neither on a mount nor out on a plain, regardless of the order of sermons here.  Specifically, Luke 4:16-21 (NIV) - Jesus's first sermon, according to Luke, was in the synagogue at Galilee.

.. of course,  that isn't mentioned in Matthew or Mark, despite Jesus explaining himself in reference to Jewish prophecy.

So.  According to the Bible, neither one of you got this one.

[Frank]

Contrary to what was suggested by a member of this forum, the term "variable" is not confined strictly to computer language.

Simply stated, a variable is a quantity or function that may assume any given value or set of values.

Valid Transitional Reasoning takes the following form:

P -> Q
Q -> R
Therefore P -> R

E.g. Jesus' first sermon plain or mount?

Mat 5:1. "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain"

Luk 6:17. "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain"

ERROR: No variable for "first" in either passage.

INVALID COMPLAINT.

But we will humor the humorists.

P: Jesus gave a sermon on a mountain.

Q: It was before they went to (Simon) Peter's House

R: Jesus gave a sermon on a plain.

IF Jesus gave a sermon on a mountain (P), THEN it was before they went to (Simon) Peter's House (Q). Mat 5:1; 8:14.

IF it was before they went to (Simon) Peter's House (Q), THEN it was before Jesus gave a sermon on a plain (R). Luk 4:38; 6:17.

THEREFORE, IF Jesus gave a sermon on a mountain (P), THEN it was before Jesus gave a sermon on a plain (R).


P -> Q
Q -> R
? P -> R

VALID REASONING.

My only problem with this is that I haven't got a fucking clue what you're blathering on about.

If you're planning on staying here for a while I suggest you try a new approach because at the moment all you are posting is gibberish.

[euroclydon]

I am not saying that anybody here argued otherwise.

But it has been argued, and if I am to provide an example, this one is sufficient.

As for the various usages of the term "variable", I suppose it was my hope that others would employ only one if at least for the sake of make sound statements.

A "variable", with reference to symbolic logic, is not as ambiguous as you would have the readers believe.

[Seppuku]

There's nothing in that logical picture that gives itself validity. We can tell what order this happens in the bible as we only need to read the bible and don't need to use a system of logic to figure this out. You need outside data to be able to verify this picture on whether it is true or not, you can't determine whether something is true or false through logic alone, logic can only offer you possibilities and from looking at a logical picture on its own there's no way of telling whether it's true or false. No logical picture is truly a priori.

My response on your use of logic can be found here. Before you try using this system of logic in future, I suggest that you respond to this.

[Poseidon]

Please excuse my ignorance. If so excused, then this question: Is it really a matter of importance that we determine which of the sermons was first, or where they might have taken place?

[Emily]

Is it really a matter of importance that we determine which of the sermons was first, or where they might have taken place?

I was thinking the same thing. I really don't care when or where or in front of whom when it comes to Jesus' sermons. The thing that matters the most is to whether or not they are actual events that took place, and is what was preached is real. I am not saying that they didn't because there could've been this cool hippy-like dude preaching the kingdom of god to at least a few people, but is there anything real about the message.

The sermon on the mount in Mat 5 claims a lot of things. For one thing it opens with eleven or twelve situations where people are 'blessed' perhaps by god for what they have done in their lives or whatever situation and stage they are in in their lives. Like the poor in spirit are said to be blessed, the meek, peacemakers, pure at hearts, etc. Then after 'jesus' finishes describing those who are 'blessed' ends

"Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you."

which is a pretty bold claim to be giving to a multitude of followers.

Whether or not these sermons happened is an important question to ask. Whether or not the main premise and underlying theme of the sermons actually exists is an even more important question.

*Jesus could've been telling the truth to these people and is truly their (and our) lord and saviour.
*He could've been lying to them all for some kind of personal gain, and was nothing but a fraud and a great oratorian.
*Or he could've deeply believed his thoughts and deeply believed he was the son of god, and is inspired by god, but what he has     
either witnessed, seen or knows regarding god is all in his head, though he truly believes to have some connection with this deity the christians call YHWH, thus making him a lunatic.

I'm sure we all know that's a variation of the Lewis Trilemma that is supposed to prove the divinity of Jesus.

I have a question for euroclydon. Since you come off as someone who very thoroughly understand logic, do you find anything illogical with Lewis' conclusions that jesus was Lord, and not a liar or lunatic?

-Em 

[Nam]

I don't know why I read these topics: they make little sense to me. I mean, I know what a "variable" is but the way they are used to argue for/against seems like pure baffling nonsense. Perhaps it has more to do with my ability of not being able to discern between all the technical aspects, or what not.

I don't know. I try to learn. I mean, there are topics in The Economist I don't read, not that I'm not interested, I just have no understanding of most of what is said. I just stick to the topics I know, and sometimes venture to these topics.

-Nam

[jdawg70]

I am not saying that anybody here argued otherwise.

But it has been argued, and if I am to provide an example, this one is sufficient.

As for the various usages of the term "variable", I suppose it was my hope that others would employ only one if at least for the sake of make sound statements.

A "variable", with reference to symbolic logic, is not as ambiguous as you would have the readers believe.

Could you post a link to the message regarding the word variable?  I think I need context to understand what's going on here.  Because your initial post in this topic basically has nothing to do with the semantics of, the etymological history of, the differing meanings of...basically, I haven't the slightest clue why the word 'variable' has anything at all to do with this topic.

Also, Emily, your code has a great many syntax errors in it.  And you neglected to flush your buffer from your cout calls.

[Grimm]

It behooves me to say, as I was in error:

- Euc's logical notation is correct; I, deep in codespace that morning, got stuck in my perl notation, which had me thinking 'machine' instead of 'logic'.

My apologies for being snarky there, Euc, but my statement of order still stands.

[Backspace]

ERROR: There is no variable for "verifying truth" in my post. You are out of order.

euroclydon, are you Nomad?


http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Nomad

[12 Monkeys]

I am not saying that anybody here argued otherwise.

But it has been argued, and if I am to provide an example, this one is sufficient.

As for the various usages of the term "variable", I suppose it was my hope that others would employ only one if at least for the sake of make sound statements.

A "variable", with reference to symbolic logic, is not as ambiguous as you would have the readers believe.

here is a variable for you....If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle