Origin of Articles

[elunico13]

Murder? That's not what tentacles are for...

Indeed not, they are for making babies.

Being logical is important, especially in your own reasoning.

Yet going by incompetent use of logic and rational thought in your posts,you seem to consider yourself exempt.

So how do you manage to account for laws of logic and why should I follow them if truth is relative?

[Zen Badger]

Quoting Jason Lisle, that's fucking priceless
You might as well quote Kent Hovind.

[elunico13]

No logical answer can be given. When truth is relative you don't need to follow any logic. An evolutionist going to a debate expecting to win is an example of how inconsistent their beliefs are.

The only logical conclusion is that evolutionists hold on to their blind faith not because they are logical, but psychological.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

So how do you manage to account for laws of logic and why should I follow them if truth is relative?

(1) They are called 'the rules of inference',and are not laws.

(2) Logic does NOT guarantee truth.

A logical inference (conclusion) may be valid yet untrue. The conclusion is true IF AND ONLY IF the premise is true.

Neither logic nor science deals in absolute truths,( neither do I) In my experience it is only arrogant ,dogmatic believers who try to do such a thing. The rest of us assert "X is true as far as we can tell [now]" All question remain open for new evidence.

As for why 'you should'. Sorry,to tell you this,but you already do,in the very way you think, albeit badly. Eg your religious beliefs are based on syllogistic argument, but the premises have not be shown to be true.

Of course,you may continue to largely ignore the conventions of rational discussion used here. In that case, people here will continue to decline to take your seriously and continue to treat you as the fool you seem to be.


00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

In logic, a rule of inference, inference rule, or transformation rule is the act of drawing a conclusion based on the form of premises interpreted as a function which takes premises, analyses their syntax, and returns a conclusion (or conclusions). For example, the rule of inference modus ponens takes two premises, one in the form of "If p then q" and another in the form of "p" and returns the conclusion "q". The rule is valid with respect to the semantics of classical logic (as well as the semantics of many other non-classical logics), in the sense that if the premises are true (under an interpretation) then so is the conclusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_inference

A syllogism (Greek: συλλογισμός – syllogismos – "conclusion," "inference") is a kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two or more others (the premises) of a certain form. In antiquity, there were two rival theories of the syllogism: Aristotelian syllogistic and Stoic syllogistic.[1]

Basic structure

A categorical syllogism consists of three parts: the major premise, the minor premise and the conclusion.

Each part is a categorical proposition, and each categorical proposition contains two categorical terms.[4] In Aristotle, each of the premises is in the form "All A are B," "Some A are B", "No A are B" or "Some A are not B", where "A" is one term and "B" is another. "All A are B," and "No A are B" are termed universal propositions; "Some A are B" and "Some A are not B" are termed particular propositions. More modern logicians allow some variation. Each of the premises has one term in common with the conclusion: in a major premise, this is the major term (i.e., the predicate of the conclusion); in a minor premise, it is the minor term (the subject) of the conclusion. For example:

Major premise: All men are mortal.
Minor premise: All Greeks are men.
Conclusion: All Greeks are mortal.

Each of the three distinct terms represents a category. In the above example, "men," "mortal," and "Greeks." "Mortal" is the major term; "Greeks", the minor term. The premises also have one term in common with each other, which is known as the middle term; in this example, "man." Both of the premises are universal, as is the conclusion.

Major premise: All mortals die.
Minor premise: Some men are mortals.
Conclusion: Some men die.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

[elunico13]

[quote='padraic' pid='293355' dateline='1338599577']
[quote]So how do you manage to account for laws of logic and why should I follow them if truth is relative? [/quote]


(1) They are called 'the rules of inference',and are not laws.

(2) Logic does NOT guarantee truth.

A logical inference (conclusion) may be valid yet untrue. The conclusion is true IF AND ONLY IF the premise is true.

I appreciate your wiki reference which seems to be the defense for faith commonly used here.

This conclusion you made about logic being a rule is an arbitrary statement. (Especially coming from wikipedia)
i.e. The law of non contradiction will never be broken. You can't have A exist and not have A at the same time in the same relationship.

Logic not guaranteeing truth is irrelevant for you to bring up since you think truth is relative. I can make truth whatever I want it to be if I use your standards for truth. All I have to do is say I'm right and your wrong like many do on these forums.

Again you have not accounted for immaterial laws of logic in a strictly material universe.

Go ahead.

[libalchris]

So how do you manage to account for laws of logic and why should I follow them if truth is relative?

Oh I see you're going to try a "pressupositional argument" which is where you attempt to prove the existence of God... by assuming the existence of God.

The "laws of logic" are human creations don't "exist" they're tools we've made. Kind of like mathematics. Mathematics doesn't "exist" it's simply a tool we use to help us describe the world we live in.

[Erinome]

I think it's possible that you, elunico, don't have the foggiest clue what logic actually is. It's not surprising, but it does make for some hearty chuckling.

[genkaus]

No logical answer can be given. When truth is relative you don't need to follow any logic. An evolutionist going to a debate expecting to win is an example of how inconsistent their beliefs are.

The only logical conclusion is that evolutionists hold on to their blind faith not because they are logical, but psychological.

Truth is relative? What the fuck are you talking about?

[Angrboda]

We don't need no water
Let the motherfucker burn!

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

...

Logic not guaranteeing truth is irrelevant for you to bring up since you think truth is relative. I can make truth whatever I want it to be if I use your standards for truth. All I have to do is say I'm right and your wrong like many do on these forums.
...

Is it true that truth can be anything?