avi

Here, the key word, is VALIDITY.

Let me rewrite this sentence, so that all of us can understand it:

In order for an argument to have merit, the premises can be perceived as either true or false.

Sorry, I don't accept this notion, as valid.

From my perspective, In order for an argument to have merit, the premises MUST either be true, or acknowledged to be false. An argument based on premises of uncertain validity is without merit, as far as I am concerned.

avi

aa5874

People here seem not to understand the difference between TRUTH and FACTS.

1. It is a FACT that there are gospels called according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

2. It may NOT be the TRUTH that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote any gospel.

3. It is a FACT that in gMatthew it is claimed that mother of Jesus was found with child of the Holy Ghost and that Jesus lived in Nazareth, was baptized by John and crucified under Pilate.

4. It may NOT be the TRUTH that Jesus was a Child of a Holy Ghost that lived in Nazareth, was baptized by John and was crucified under Pilate.

5. It is a FACT that in gMatthew characters are introduced as angels, unclean spirits, devils, demons, gods, and a Holy Ghost.

Now, if it is suggested that Jesus in gMatthew was ACTUALLY an ordinary man then the claimant has DISCREDITED the author of gMatthew.

It LOGICALLY follows that if Jesus was an actual ordinary man then many events about Jesus in gMatthew are FICTION and also IMPLAUSIBLE.

It LOGICALLY follows that gMatthew is NOT a credible source for those who claim there was an actual ordinary man of Nazareth.

What source of antiquity show that there was an ordinary man/woman of Nazareth who was ordinarily baptized by John and was crucified under Pilate?

1. What are the historical FACTS, the DATA from antiquity about HJ of Nazareth?

2. Who has the historical FACTS, the DATA from antiquity about HJ of Nazareth?

3. Where are the historical FACTS, the DATA from antiquity about HJ of Nazareth?

What is the NEXT LOGICAL process if there are NO historical FACTS, No DATA from antiquity about HJ?

The HJ theory must be abandoned. It has been abandoned before.

Once there are NO historical FACTS, NO DATA about HJ then it is LOGICAL that no HJ theory can be developed on FICTION and IMPLAUSIBILITIES found in gMatthew.

Proper theories are NOT developed on FICTION and IMPLAUSIBILITIES.

It is a FACT that Scholars use gMatthew, a source of Fiction and Implausibilities, as a PRIMARY source for their HJ.

How illogical!!!!

PyramidHead

No, actually, I don't. Could you give me an example of a fact that is not true, or a true statement that is not a fact??

Which logical fallacy did I commit? Be specific.

:constern02:

I find this utterly bizarre.

Multiple choice time! How many people live in the state of Rhode Island?

a. 1 million
b. 1.3 million
c. 32

Now, I'm assuming you don't know exactly how many people live in Rhode Island. You're telling me that you CANNOT RULE OUT the possibility that 32 people comprise the entire population of that state?

PyramidHead

I just replaced the words "the truth" with "a fact" in your above statement. Yet, the meaning is exactly the same... :huh:

aa5874

I will show you again.

A perfect example of a Logical fallacy.

mysteriousworld

Is the argument here that you have to believe everything an ancient text says or reject it completely as a source of any kind of information?

Does any historian actually work like that when reading ancient texts? Does any ancient historian actually think that either I believe everything this text says or I have to ignore it completely?

PyramidHead

That's not actually the correct way to rewrite it. Validity means something very specific in logic: that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.

I see the problem now; you are using a different sense of the word 'valid' than the one in my quote. A valid argument is one that has a true conclusion as long as all its premises are true. It therefore makes no sense to say a premise is valid or invalid; the relationship of those premises to the conclusion is all that matters in logic.

Of course, the colloquial sense of 'valid' can be a perfectly good substitute for 'true' or 'believable,' just as 'logical' can mean something like 'reasonable' or 'rational.'

But 'false dichotomy' is a technical term that can only mean one thing, hence the continual barrage of corrections being flung at aa, who does not know what a false dichotomy actually is (but presumably thinks it sounds serious enough that it's probably something bad).

And Toto, I agree this thread is pretty much out of steam as far as BC&H is concerned, but over in Philosophy we go on like this all the time!

PyramidHead

Okay, but which fallacy? There is no such thing as a blanket Logical Fallacy that applies to any statement you can't comprehend. There are types of fallacies, each one corresponding to a different error in reasoning. Be specific!

aa5874

What!!!! What logical fallacy???? I just showed you that you made an illogical statement.


Logical fallacies fall under the blanket of False DILEMMAS.

PyramidHead

First of all, I didn't. To understand why, see my post with the multiple choice example.

Secondly, not all illogical statements are logical fallacies.

Finally, I said 'which', not 'what'. Meaning, which KIND of logical fallacy did I commit. If somebody says to you, "My car has a color!" you would probably want to know WHICH color.


What gave you that notion? It's the other way around. False Dilemma is a kind of logical fallacy.