1. Joined
    23 Sep '05
    Moves
    11774
    18 Feb '06 21:46
    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?
  2. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    18 Feb '06 21:511 edit
    Originally posted by stocken
    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?
    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.
  3. Shetland Primary
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11829
    18 Feb '06 21:51
    Originally posted by stocken
    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?
    I 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.
  4. Joined
    23 Sep '05
    Moves
    11774
    18 Feb '06 22:04
    Originally posted by Halitose
    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.
    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.
  5. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    18 Feb '06 22:12
    Originally posted by stocken
    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.
    Basically your first premise was ambiguous, ergo your conclusion didn't follow.

    It is fun -- suddenly you're exposed to another world - the world of logic.
  6. Joined
    23 Sep '05
    Moves
    11774
    18 Feb '06 22:20
    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?.. 😳
  7. The sky
    Joined
    05 Apr '05
    Moves
    10385
    18 Feb '06 22:24
    Originally posted by stocken

    a) To be omniscient is to be in control of everything in time and space
    Nope. To be omniscient is to know everything.
  8. Joined
    23 Sep '05
    Moves
    11774
    18 Feb '06 22:282 edits
    Originally posted by Nordlys
    Nope. To be omniscient is to know everything.
    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 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). 🙂
  9. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    18 Feb '06 22:451 edit
    Originally posted by stocken
    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). 🙂
    Don'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.
  10. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    18 Feb '06 22:501 edit
    Originally posted by stocken
    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?
    It 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.
  11. Joined
    23 Sep '05
    Moves
    11774
    18 Feb '06 23:072 edits
    Originally posted by Halitose
    This is not much different to boolean logic -- the principles are the same.
    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...
    +----------------------------------------------------------+
    | 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
  12. The sky
    Joined
    05 Apr '05
    Moves
    10385
    18 Feb '06 23:21
    Originally posted by stocken
    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
    Grade 5 maths. 🙂
  13. Standard memberreader1107
    petting the cat
    On Clique Beach
    Joined
    23 Dec '05
    Moves
    28199
    19 Feb '06 00:06
    define image
  14. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    19 Feb '06 01:16
    Originally posted by Nordlys
    Nope. To be omniscient is to know everything.
    Nope , omniscient means infinitely wise and knowlege isn't the same as wisdom.
  15. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    19 Feb '06 01:35
    Originally posted by stocken
    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?
    Well, 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.
Back to Top