18 Feb 06
Reading about deductive arguments from a link supplied by Hal (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/index.html), I shall now attempt to show you that God is not omniscient:
a) Humans are made in Gods image
b) Humans are not omniscient
Therefore:
c) God is not omniscient
That's a deductive argument, right? If the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. Yes?
18 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by stockenHumans are reflections of God, not visa versa.
Reading about deductive arguments from a link supplied by Hal (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/index.html), I shall now attempt to show you that God is not omniscient:
a) Humans are made in Gods image
b) Humans are not omniscient
Therefore:
c) God is not omniscient
That's a deductive argument, right? If the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. Yes?
Edit: But yes, this is an example of a deductive argument -- one I was hoping Cog would supply.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
18 Feb 06
Originally posted by stockenI can carve a man out of a stump. "He" can be made in my image. That does not mean he can do what I can do.
Reading about deductive arguments from a link supplied by Hal (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/index.html), I shall now attempt to show you that God is not omniscient:
a) Humans are made in Gods image
b) Humans are not omniscient
Therefore:
c) God is not omniscient
That's a deductive argument, right? If the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. Yes?
18 Feb 06
Originally posted by HalitoseSo the error I made was not in the deductiveness of the argument, but in failing to understand what it means to be in someone's image? 🙂
Humans are reflections of God, not visa versa.
Edit: But yes, this is an example of a deductive argument -- one I was hoping Cog would supply.
This is fun.
18 Feb 06
Originally posted by stockenBasically your first premise was ambiguous, ergo your conclusion didn't follow.
So the error I made was not in the deductiveness of the argument, but in failing to understand what it means to be in someone's image? 🙂
This is fun.
It is fun -- suddenly you're exposed to another world - the world of logic.
18 Feb 06
a) Humans are reflections of God
b) There are many humans
c) There is only one God
d) No human is the other totally alike
Therefore
d) There are many sources* reflecting God and,
e) Humans are distorted** reflections of God
* Are humans the sources reflecting God, or the reflections themselves?
** Are different humans reflecting different aspects of God?
---
a) To be omniscient is to be in control of everything in time and space
b) Humans are distorted reflections of God
c) A distortion is an unwanted effect in essence*
d) If you have an unwanted effect you are not in control
Therefore
e) God is not omniscient
* I'm sensing that this is where I fail this time, eh?.. 😳
18 Feb 06
2 edits
Originally posted by NordlysAaaahh... :
Nope. To be omniscient is to know everything.
http://dict.die.net/omniscient/
Thanks. 🙂
So, God being omniscient doesn't necessarily mean He is in control. Of course, that means that even my second attempt (the first one with the mistakenly posted thread doesn't count) at deductive logic falls down too.
But, I'm having fun nonetheless. 😀
[Edit:]
Oh, and of course it also means that it's impossible for me to show that God is not omniscient, since I can't possibly know what he knows. After all, I'm not omniscient.
Well, a short-lived thread this. Sorry to have wasted your time (to whomever actually read it all). 🙂
18 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by stockenDon't worry, you're getting there. If I remember correctly you do programming?? If so, this is not much different to boolean logic -- the principles are the same.
Aaaahh... :
http://dict.die.net/omniscient/
Thanks. 🙂
So, God being omniscient doesn't necessarily mean He is in control. Of course, that means that even my second attempt (the first one with the mistakenly posted thread doesn't count) at deductive logic falls down too.
But, I'm having fun nonetheless. 😀
[Edit:]
Oh, and of course it also t-lived thread this. Sorry to have wasted your time (to whomever actually read it all). 🙂
18 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by stockenIt is difficult to know what to make of the argument. You would need to properly define what it means to be 'made in God's image'. It seems to me that the claim that we have been 'made in God's image' is just some more anthropomorphic rigamarole. There is a quote somewhere that states (paraphrasing) that if triangles had a God, He would have three sides.
Reading about deductive arguments from a link supplied by Hal (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/index.html), I shall now attempt to show you that God is not omniscient:
a) Humans are made in Gods image
b) Humans are not omniscient
Therefore:
c) God is not omniscient
That's a deductive argument, right? If the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. Yes?
18 Feb 06
2 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseYes, the true/false nature of it all. Deductive logic seem to be specifically related to the and operator of boolean logic:
This is not much different to boolean logic -- the principles are the same.
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| A......| B.....| A OR B.| A AND B...| A Exlusive OR B...| >... So many more operators here, but that's besides the point...
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| true..| true..| true.....| true........| false..................|
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| true..| false.| true.....| false.......| true...................|
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| false.| false.| false...| false.......| false..................|
+----------------------------------------------------------+
- A equals true. B equals true. Then:
A or B is true
A and B is true
A exclusive or B is false
18 Feb 06
Originally posted by stockenGrade 5 maths. 🙂
Yes, the true/false nature of it all. Deductive logic seem to be specifically related to the and operator of boolean logic:
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| A......| B.....| A OR B.| A AND B...| A Exlusive OR B...| >... So many more operators here, but that's besides the point...
+------------------------------------------- ...[text shortened]... A equals true. B equals true. Then:
A or B is true
A and B is true
A exclusive or B is false
19 Feb 06
Originally posted by stockenWell, that's an argument, but it certainly isn't deductively valid. I have a sculpture made in the image of the Buddha, but my sculpture doesn't possess any of the cognitive faculties of the Buddha.
Reading about deductive arguments from a link supplied by Hal (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/index.html), I shall now attempt to show you that God is not omniscient:
a) Humans are made in Gods image
b) Humans are not omniscient
Therefore:
c) God is not omniscient
That's a deductive argument, right? If the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. Yes?