27 May 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo. I believe it all has to be true to be good logic.
Now that it has been explained to you, do you agree that the logic is not at fault, but rather the premise? ie do you understand that logic is not right or wrong depending on how true the conclusion, but rather by weather or not the conclusion follows from the premises?
Originally posted by PenguinOriginally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 7) "What's wrong with this argument?" (OP)
you mean this post of his?
I'd be happy to give you a rough summary in another thread, but I suspect you already know it all. I cannot give you the exact details of every life form that ever lived, because I simply do not know, nor should you expect me to know.
No, we don't. Certainly not at the moment to answer the questions we are currently looking into.
--- Penguin.
The argument's assumption of the presence of time. The nature, essence or essential being of God
includes the attribute of eternal life: His absolute existence outside the boundaries of time.
27 May 14
4 edits
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThought I had covered this, but on checking, no I hadn't... Watch this space, edits to come...
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 7) "What's wrong with this argument?" (OP)
The argument's assumption of the presence of time. The nature, essence or essential being of God
includes the attribute of eternal life: His absolute existence outside the boundaries of time.
Right, here we go.
Nowhere in the argument is there any mention or assumption of time, so your argument is invalid.
As was asked when you first posted this, are you arguing with the first premise, the second, or the logic that makes the conclusion inevitable if both premises turn out to be true. If it is the last one, please read through the last few pages where it was explained to RJ and I just hope you have a couple more brain cells than he does!
If it is one of the premises you are against, please read my rewording of RJ's attempt a few posts above (actually, to be fair, he did finally get a logically coherent version himself, more by luck than through having any clue what he was doing)
Thanks.
Originally posted by PenguinOriginally posted by Penguin
Thought I had covered this, but on checking, no I hadn't... Watch this space, edits to come...
Right, here we go.
Nowhere in the argument is there any mention or assumption of time, so your argument is invalid.
As was asked when you first posted this, are you arguing with the first premise, the second, or the logic that makes the conclusion inev oherent version himself, more by luck than through having any clue what he was doing)[/b]
Thanks.
Thought I had covered this, but on checking, no I hadn't... Watch this space, edits to come...
Right, here we go.
Nowhere in the argument is there any mention or assumption of time, so your argument is invalid.
As was asked when you first posted this, are you arguing with the first premise, the second, or the logic that makes the conclusion inevitable if both premises turn out to be true. If it is the last one, please read through the last few pages where it was explained to RJ and I just hope you have a couple more brain cells than he does!
If it is one of the premises you are against, please read my rewording of RJ's attempt a few posts above (actually, to be fair, he did finally get a logically coherent version himself, more by luck than through having any clue what he was doing)
Thanks.
______________________________________________
Originally posted by wolfgang59
1. Everything that exists has a cause [Assumes a time continuum within which the causal events of existence can occur.]
2. God exists [True]
3. Therefore God has a cause [False Ipso Facto: The nature, essence or essential being of God includes the attribute of eternal life: His absolute existence outside the boundaries of time.]
What's wrong with this argument? [Ignores the essence of God.]
[Note: Comparisons are odious, especially supercilious personality comparisons. You've changed.] [Argumentation: Arrogance complicates to make facts nebulous to enhance self importance. Antagonists think they're smarter than they are when the topic is out of focus. Objectivity clarifies. God's Perfect Plan is simple, too simple for arrogance.]
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"What's wrong with this argument?" (OP) The argument's assumption of the presence of time. The nature, essence or essential being of God includes the attribute of eternal life: His absolute existence outside the boundaries of time.
28 May 14
Originally posted by PenguinTell me what is the point of getting a logical conclusion, if the conclusion is false?
We can only explain something a limited number of times before we have to conclude that the person on the other side has no interest in understanding anything at all.
Such a shame.
28 May 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI got a little frustrated with his, seemingly willful, lack of comprehension and I am currently in a less lenient mood than normal for personal reasons. I will rephrase...
Originally posted by Penguin
Thought I had covered this, but on checking, no I hadn't... Watch this space, edits to come...
Right, here we go.
Nowhere in the argument is there any mention or assumption of time, so your argument is invalid.
As was asked when you first posted this, [b]are you arguing with the first premise, the second ...[text shortened]... d includes the attribute of eternal life: His absolute existence outside the boundaries of time.[/b]
Nowhere in the argument is there any mention or assumption of time, so your argument is invalid.
As was asked when you first posted this, are you arguing with the first premise, the second, or the logic that makes the conclusion inevitable if both premises turn out to be true. If it is the last one, please read through the last few pages where it was explained to RJ.
If it is one of the premises you are against, please read my rewording of RJ's attempt a few posts above (actually, to be fair, he did finally get a logically coherent version himself, although it is in amongst some logically incoherent attempts so my rephrasing is probably still the best place to look) and see if that uses premises to which you can subscribe.
Penguin.
28 May 14
Originally posted by Penguin to Grampy BobbyThis is an interesting take. I see it slightly differently. I see him as actually trying to disguise his inability to understand and his inability to engage you in discussion properly. He does this ~ as ever ~ with "wilful" non-sequiturs and red herrings or copy pasting irrelevant stuff or re-copy pasting previous posts. I don't think he is pretending to not understand. I think it is for real. I also get the impression he simply does not want to understand. 😉
I got a little frustrated with his, seemingly wilful, lack of comprehension...