J-D

You still have not explained how you decide what is credible and what is not.

It is not necessarily illogical to accept one part of a story and to reject another part of it.

PyramidHead

Avi, this is how it works: you can have a valid argument with false premises, so long as the conclusion would necessarily follow IF the premises were true.

For example:

All dogs are mammals.
William Shakespeare is a dog.
Therefore, William Shakespeare is a mammal.

The above is a valid argument despite the fact that Shakespeare is not a dog, because if he were, then given the premise "all dogs are mammals," it would follow by necessity that Shakespeare is a mammal. This is also a good example of a valid argument that produces a true conclusion even though one of its premises is false.

While the above example is perfectly valid (in the technical sense of logic we are using), it is not a sound argument. Soundness is a concept in logic that refers to valid arguments with premises that are actually true.

So, to summarize: valid arguments need not have true premises, or even true conclusions, as long as there is a deductive path from the former to the latter that abides by logical rules. A logical fallacy renders an argument invalid... in other words, it upsets the path from premises to conclusion. A logical fallacy is an error in movement from one statement to another-- it does not make any sense to say a statement ITSELF is a logical fallacy. It may be identified as the moment an argument COMMITS a logical fallacy, but saying "the HJ theory is a logical fallacy" makes the same amount of sense as saying "the taste of this dessert is yellow."

aa5874

You just have to PRODUCE the historical source or evidence for HJ and then the source or evidence will be EXAMINED for historical credibility, veracity and reliability.

You should KNOW that a credible source of antiquity may be interpolated so please FIRST provide the historical data for HJ of Nazareth who was ordinarily baptized by John and crucified under Pilate.

You CANNOT present any credible data from antiquity for HJ of Nazareth.

You should also know that the HJ theory has a history of FAILURE.

Which is the same as "it can be ILLOGICAL to accept one part of a story and reject another part of the same story".

It is ILLOGICAL for Scholars to REJECT the baptism story and accept the baptism WITHOUT any credible corroborating historical source of antiquity while simultaneously admitting the Gospels are UNRELIABLE.

1. Scholars admit that the Gospels are UNRELIABLE.

2. The HJ theory SEEKS to prove the Gospels are unreliable.

3. The historical Jesus of Nazareth has NO credible history and no corroboration.

4. A proper theory NEEDS credible data.

The HJ theory is ILLOGICAL since it is NOT based on credible historical sources..

ILLOGICAL deductions are products of logical fallacies and false dichotomies.

The HJ theory is a product of ILLOGICAL deductions produced by logical fallacies and false dichotomies.

J-D

You still have not explained how you decide what is credible and what is not.

aa5874

You have NOT presented any source for US to EXAMINE for credibility, historicity, veracity and reliability.

I told you already that you SIMPLY must FIRST present the evidence and then it would be SCRUTINIZED.

This is the LOGICAL thing to do.

If a person wanted to argue AGAINST the NT and state that Pilate was a FISHERMAN then it would be ILLOGICAL to use the NT as a primary source for the claim that Pilate was FISHERMAN.

It would be LOGICAL to use some other source of antiquity which SHOWS or states that Pilate was a Fisherman.

But, Scholars who ARGUE AGAINST the NT and claim Jesus was NOT the Child of a Ghost, Not God and not the Creator, but an ordinary man of Nazareth are ILLOGICALLY using the same source that they are arguing AGAINST and simultaneously admitting that the source, the NT, is UNRELIABLE.

The HJ theory is a LOGICAL fallacy, an ILLOGICAL deduction, a product of false dichotomies.

avi

Thanks, very well written, highly instructive. Nice post.

I appreciate your patience, attempting to elaborate the fundamentals of logic. You and J-D have displayed a very sincere effort here. I am grateful.

I continue, however, to believe that you and J-D err, or, at least, have thus far failed to persuade, with regard to this question, derived from two of your earlier posts, PyramidHead, labeled "A" and "B":


So, this issue remains thorny, for me.

Let me try again to explain what I perceive as the manner in which B contradicts A:

We agree, apparently on the ostensible equivalence of A and A-1. The problem, as outlined by J-D, is with B-1, which, he claims, has a different meaning from B.

So, then, it is a matter of clarifying why I believe that B-1 accurately portrays B.

"...if the premises are true..."
The condition, here, as one engages in untangling the rat's nest of wires, is an absolute: it is not a defective capacitor, or miscalculated resistance. Someone has inserted a zener diode.

This circuit WILL NOT FUNCTION, unless, and until, the problem is resolved: ONE MUST ascertain whether or not, the premise is true. There is no third path. Either the premise is true, in which case, something MAY happen (if the rest of the circuit is correct), else, the premise is not true, in which case something else will happen, where the "else" could easily be failure to conduct electricity, at all.

Point is: the word "if" indicates a requirement, an absolute requirement, to establish the veracity of the premise.

Therefore, in my opinion, J-D errs, in claiming that my rewriting of B to B-1 has changed the meaning of B. In my opinion, B-1, and B, have the same meaning, exactly the same meaning, with respect to the word: "if".

It is that word, "if", that dictates the logic, at least, in digital circuits.

avi

mountainman

The value of what evidence? Please be specific and cite the evidence to which you are referring. Or an example of such evidence.

PyramidHead

I don't know much about circuitry. My appraisal of the confusion is that A-1 and B-1 are vague. What does "everything to do with" mean in systematic terms?

If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true if the argument is valid. The premises do not need to be verified or checked for veracity; logic is interested in the reasoning that takes you from A to B, not what A and B actually mean, or whether they mean anything.

Appropriately, this is the reason logic can be translated into symbols. The rules of logic, including validity, soundness and formal fallacies, can all be expressed using syntax, with no need for semantics. Thus, the argument:

If A then B
A
Therefore B

is valid, without any need to check if A and B refer to true facts about the world or the events of fairytales.

PyramidHead

Not 100% certain. Do you think somebody has to be 100% certain of something in order to know it?

avi

....

Symbols employed:

! = NOT

validity: K

Premise : S

Definition, based upon sentence "A" above:

If S then K may be TRUE or FALSE;
If !S then K may be TRUE or FALSE;

Definition, based upon sentence "B" above:

If S, then K is TRUE;

To my way of thinking, there is accordingly a "sharp distinction" between A & B, above. One might even go so far as to label that distinction, a dichotomy.

At the very least, we ought to agree, based upon juxtaposing these two sentences, that the definition of K is ambiguous, depending upon the truthful character of S, according to "B", but, not according to "A", which explicitly repudiates a correlation between K and S.

avi