Formal and Informal Logic

Okay.

I don't recall any disagreement with those posts. Nonsense. I mostly reason informally myself.My point is just that the grounding of an argument is separate and distinct from the logic. We shouldn't be talking about "logical grounding", since logic does not itself ground anything. Maybe it is a clue. But we ought to investigate such clues. This one has been investigated, and found wanting.

Oh yes I did! In the whole evolution is incompatable with God debate I specifically said that I thought the working definition of God was bogus. Yea. Building definitions and premises around your desired conclusion is not logical. Or you just don't understand or don't want to. According to you who happen to believe the other side of the coin. Either God exists = evolution is false, evolution is true = God does not exist. I think his and your definition of God is self serving, innaccurate, and well personnaly, blasphemous. Why when another equally arbitray definition of God would have done no better? No suprises here. You never make sense of the stuff you don't want to. It is always left until later or willfully ignored.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

To which you contrasted wholly against pagan Gods. If God is not omniscient and omnipotent then he is pagan. Totally self-serving definition. You would have done just as well simply starting from your conclusion like Faith does. That is why you both agree on this.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

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.

Nice tactic. Rather than attack the poster just irrelevently attack their grammar.The God of your tradition might be omnipotent and omniscient but the God of the Bible certainly is not. That is for another thread though. The point was simply that such a defintion followed from the conclusion instead of the other way around. You must have missed that while spending your wasted effort on my grammatical vices.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

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.

Take it to its own thread if you wish to try to support that assertion.

---

Well if you would notice the title and OP of this thread we are talking about constructing logical arguments. Welcome to the thread Faith. Even though half of this thread was dragged off topic talking about morals or whatever the point is and always has been about the flawed architecture of some of robin's arguments. Why the heck would I want to believe in your traditional God? I would much rather believe in the actual God, the one that the Bible authors talk about. Again that is off topic. One would hope that as a moderator you would have more of a vested interest in not derailing interesting topics. We are not here in this thread to argue about who really has the correct definition of God. The point was that the definition of God given had a dependency on the conclusion. When you define God to be counter to evolution and the sole source of objective morality then of course you come to the conclusion that evolutionists must be athiests and that all morality is subjective without God.There is no logic to be had. That is why I said he would be better of doing what you do and start from your conclusion. Just go ahead and state it. You start with the innerrancy of the Bible and your particular unbibilical interpretation of God and creation used in a futile attempt to try to preseve that inerrancy. Robin starts with his atheism and nihilism based on a preconcieved characture of God. It is a sign of inability or unwillingness to follow the discussion. If you felt that due to by incorrect syntax that you didn't understand something then you should have asked me to correct it. Instead you used it as a platform to make uninformed and irrelevent attacks against something that I wasn't even trying to discuss.Edited by Jazzns, : I blame staying up too late playing warcraft.Edited by Jazzns, : For some reason some edits were lost. 4 edits later and things should be better. I cant wait for spellcheck in Firefox 2!Edited by AdminJar, : off topic portion

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

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.

Only if there were such a historical universally accepted definition Faith, which is an issue under dispute. If you wish to try to defend such a position, take it to an appropriate thread or do a PNT.

---

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

You don't even know what the traditional God of the west is. But that doesn't even matter. It is still the case that Robin used the concept properly, both historically and logically, whether there are disagreements about it or not. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by AdminJar, : off topicEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

Off topic so I am doing a PNTEdited by deerbreh, : off topic

It isn't at all off-topic here. It was a statement originally made by Robin that is under contention for its supposed illogic and that's what this thread took off from. It isn't illogical at all, but turns out to be only people's ignorance of the historical Western view of God.