Formal and Informal Logic

I have to suppose you meant "are indistinguishable" or "are not distinguishable" ...?Discussions of the origin of the universe I've run across usually come down to variations on the two options Robin gave plus a third: 1) an eternal conscious being made it, 2) it has always existed, 3) it started at some point on its own -- and all other options people think of are easily enough reduceable to one of these three.These are certainly distinguishable options. I doubt this has anything to do with this so-called Principle of Indifference at all.http://www.leaderu.com/...llcraig/docs/ultimatequestion.htmlCosmological argument - Wikipedia

I don't see where he said that the Fall DID happen.

Not at all. He's just saying what the Christian view is. He doesn't share it. To him it's completely hypothetical. Not at all. It's all hypothetical.Or as he said, a conditional statement. He doesn't accept the Fall. He believes in evolution.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Of course. This whole problem is made up by you. Robin has no problem with it. Gad you're patronizing. Insulting.He DOES accept that either the fall is true or that evolution is true and never both. At the moment he believes evolution is true.Can't you follow a hypothetical train of thought?

The argument that morality comes from social standards or cumulative experience doesn't cut it. The best you can say about it is that it may act as a restraint in some cases. But murders are committed all the time, and in fact it's scary how many are never solved, so that it is very definitely possible to get away with it. And if you've watched crime documentaries you may be struck by how apparently normal and sane the murderers may be when finally identified, even in some of the most brutal and bizarre cases. Just like you and me.There IS no absolute reason not to murder if there is no absolute moral standard, which is what you seem to be getting at. And there is no absolute moral standard if there is no God, and even if there is a God there might not be an absolute moral standard depending on the kind of God we have.But there is, oddly enough, an inbuilt moral restraint that most of us feel to one degree or another, wouldn't you agree? What do you think, could evolution have brought that about or is that evidence that there is a God who made us? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You seem to be ignoring the point about how many unsolved murders there are and how therefore many DO get away with it, people who have convinced themselves they can -- and often do.

I certainly agree with this last point, but what I don't get is why, if something is built into us, there are no logical moral grounds for it any more than if there were a God who gave a moral code, which you have said would have logical moral grounds.

Ha ha. Come on. I was asking you why, according to YOU, built in morality does not have logical grounds but logic given by God would have logical grounds. I wanna know what you MEAN by that.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

"Logical grounds" is not being used in the sense of "logical premises."If we are creatures made in the image of God who are also fallen from grace because of sin, we would both show a moral sense that feels objective, and be flawed in our individual expression of it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Deerbreh got it, back some posts, in Message 147 and Message 153. You are insisting on a formal meaning of the term that ends up being false when you insist on it like that. Logic is simply the process of accurate reasoning. Formal logic is the attempt to codify this natural process.I would argue that this subjective sense of a compelling moral relation to everything in life that we all have does amount to a clue to something objective in our nature that is badly flawed but nevertheless real. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You did not object to his premises, or any particular way his logic worked out, but to his claiming to use logic at all. Your discussion was -- and continues to be -- so muddled that your own claim to logic has to be called into question.Robin's characterization of the God of Western tradition was quite accurate. If you had a problem with it you should have focused on it instead of accusing him of an inability to think logically. You are in fact making no sense at all.

That's a thoroughly garbled paragraph, grammatically goofed up too. "Self serving?" Huh? The God of Western tradition is omniscient and omnipotent. Pretty common knowledge. Pagan gods are generally local and finite. Pretty common knowledge. Again, you aren't making a bit of sense.

You are still talking nonsense. The God of Western tradition, based on the God of the Bible, is omniscient and omnipotent. This is common knowledge. It's a matter of simple historical fact rather than some kind of deduction from some conclusion, whatever that means. You apparently have some other view of God, but it is certainly not the traditional view. And I commented on your grammar because in that paragraph it was all of a piece with your incoherence and illogic.

The topic is logic and there is nothing wrong with the logic of using a historical definition of God as a premise. This is how Robin used it and it is his logic that is being discussed.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The Bible has not been used as a premise in this argument. It is simply a matter of fact that the God of Western tradition was derived from the Bible and since you claimed the two are not the same I corrected you, they are. But the premise that has been used has not referred to the Bible, but is based on the historical fact that the God of western tradition is omniscient and omnipotent, and that is how Robin used the concept. You may disagree with the traditional view of God, but it IS the traditional view of God and he was using it correctly and you are showing your ignorance of this simple fact to be raising questions about it, not to mention questioning its logic. Edited by AdminJar, : off topic