Invalid characterset or character set not supported Time for a logic lesson





Time for a logic lesson
February 24, 2009

Okay yeah, my two proofs are flawed. Duh. Like you can use logic to make theological statements at all.

But so far, all anybody's objected to is a premise. What the objections amount to is a discussion of semantics, but that's beside the point; if the only problem with the proof is with a premise, then the logic must be sound.

As I discussed earlier with Wolfqueen on AIM, I find it curious so far that nobody has correctly identified the logical flaw in these proofs. Again, I stress that rejecting a premise is not the same as pointing out a flaw in the logic. Perhaps there is some vague sense that something is wrong, but without the proper cognitive tools to work with the lay mind seizes the first apparently irrelevant statement it sees as a sort of one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-others reflex; i.e. "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition".

So I issue a challenge. The first person (not counting WQ because I told her, or EmP because he's English) to correctly identify the logical flaw in the previous two proofs (it's the same flaw in each) will get...something...befitting their achievement. Bonus points if you find flaws I did not anticipate, though for either task you'll need to contend with my counter-arguments. :)

I'll let Pup take the first shot. Should be easy, since you spotted "quite a few" flaws in the second one.

Hint: The flaw has not to do with terms like "nobody". That's a question of vocabulary, not logic.

Most recent blog posts from Will Roy...

Feedback
overdrive overdrive - February 24, 2009 (05:50 AM)
It has to do with one sort of fallacy. My freshman year of college, I took a Philosophy of Logic class that discussed a number of different sorts of fallacies. Unfortunately, it was an 8 a.m. class during winter quarter and I was partying a lot during that time, so for me to actually name what sort of fallacy it is without taking the time to look it up would be impossible.

But at least I should have some enterprising soul who's willing to put the effort needed to answer this question on the right track! Which should start as half credit.
JANUS2 JANUS2 - February 24, 2009 (08:31 AM)
Syllogies cannot prove existence. You assume god exists in your premise therefore your conclusion is based on inductive reasoning that cannot assert a truth?

I dunno. I hated having to study Western Thought.
WilltheGreat WilltheGreat - February 24, 2009 (05:35 PM)
Ah, but consider: My premise that God exists is either true or false. If false, then, well he doesn't exist. But if true, the proof demonstrates that he couldn't exist anyway. Thus, both possibilities entail the nonexistence of God.

Assuming the logic were sound, that is. OD gets half a cookie, by the way.

eXTReMe Tracker
© 1998-2024 HonestGamers
None of the material contained within this site may be reproduced in any conceivable fashion without permission from the author(s) of said material. This site is not sponsored or endorsed by Nintendo, Sega, Sony, Microsoft, or any other such party. Opinions expressed on this site do not necessarily represent the opinion of site staff or sponsors.