 |
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/8/2002 3:52 AM (GMT -6) |   | I want to suggest two arguments below (in form). Later I’ll put in actual arguments, but for now let’s leave it as comprising two mutually contradictory claims A and B. Here goes:
Argument I:
Either A or B is true
B is true
Therefore A is not true
Argument II:
Either A or B is true
A is not true
Therefore B is true
Is there any substantial difference in form between these two arguments? It has been suggested that the first argument is invalid because it affirms a disjunct as opposed to denying it [if you're reading mystery man, jump in!], while the second argument IS valid.
Comments?
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde
Edited by - TGB on 06/08/2002 09:41:30 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 6/8/2002 7:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Dear Tom,
Please permit me to fill in, what I believe are the blanks,
Argument I [is about]: [Whether] Either A or B is true.
[Saying] B is true, THEREFORE, A is not true, [is Only an Assumption]
Argument II [is about]: [Whether] Either A or B is true, [also].
[When] A is [proved] not true, THEREFORE, B [alone] is true, [and Not an Assumption]
Either/or is the key to unlock the mystery...presented, in my mind.
I am considering Argument I & II is [about] either A or B, as specifically being true, these are not two separate arguments, II & I.
In the first Argument I, of either A or B, as specifically being true; proving B as true, did not disprove A, therefore, it is an invalid argument against A, proving B [alone] as true [is Only an Assumption].
In the second Argument II, of either A or B, as specifically being true; proving A is not true, therefore, proves B [alone] as true, [and Not an Assumption].
I believe, this is an argument [about] either A or B as being true alone, and not any substantial difference in form, between these two arguments, II & I.
Example I: Proving man has the freedom to choose, call this B. Does not disprove God’s foreknowledge of mans choice, calls this A. Or A is not proved invalid, in some peoples mind, because B is proved true.
Example II: Proving man has the freedom to choose, call this B. Does not disprove God’s foreknowledge of mans choice, without fatalism, being predetermined by God, calls this A. Or A is not proved invalid, in some peoples mind, because B is proved true.
A Short Story: If someone said, "I believe, man has the freedom to choose and God’s foreknowledge predetermines that choice, without fatalism."
I might say, "How is this possible, your belief contradicts itself, what form of logical argument can defend…etc.", however, we know that many people hold to this as being true.
For someone to prove mans freedom of choice, does not contradict; God’s foreknowledge predetermines that choice, without fatalism, to me. The either/or arguments they would have to take me through are many, and possibly difficult to keep up with, in my trying to understand them. If I have a mind set, of trying to convert them to some other system of thought, namely mine, it would possibly prove, impossible for me to understand them. For them, ‘Truth’ in this situation, are not either/or issues, rather both?
God’s Love,
Tim
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JoeMoore
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 25
| Posted 6/10/2002 11:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Don't make this so complicated. That's how people get in silly arguments.
An example of proposition 1 could be, for a person named Jack:
Jack either has blue eyes or drives a red car.
Jack drives a red car.
Is it reasonable to say anything about the color of his eyes? Does he even have eyes? (OK, I said he drives. He should have eyes, but does he?)
We don't know because we haven't been given any information about the logical relationship between his eyes and his car.
Now, once the listener has understood this you can talk about choices, etc.
Joe Moore
Edited by - JoeMoore on 06/10/2002 4:35:55 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
JoeMoore
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 25
| Posted 6/10/2002 11:44 AM (GMT -6) | | There is another type of 'OR', that is very rarely used in English but often used in computerese. It's the exclusive or. It means either A or B, but not both.
People confuse the two because often 'A' and 'B' are mutually exclusive possibilities. i.e., either exactly 2 or exactly 3 people are in my office right now. Both being true must be a logical impossibility to fit the definition of mutually exclusive.
If you'd introduced the concept of possibilities being mutually exclusive or the idea of an exclusive or, you would have given us enough information to talk about A in the first example.
Joe Moore
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Newcomb
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 6/11/2002 5:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Interesting comments above, Tim is hedging his position a bit :)
It doesn't matter what it is "to me" it only matters if it is true or false. If the argument is valid and true, the point is made.
The original stated: (snip)
quote:
let’s leave it as comprising two mutually contradictory claims A and B.
This is the premise he used so we need to deal with it from there, however, this is the question, do you actually have a mutually cantradictory premise, one of which is true and the other necessarily false? We shall see. As for the forms:
quote:
Argument I:
Either A or B is true
B is true
Therefore A is not true
Argument II:
Either A or B is true
A is not true
Therefore B is true
Argument I works with any mutually contradictory statement, the form is: A v non-A.
Argument II would work only if you premise is true, that is, one is true and the other necessarily false. Theree are a thousand arguments that would not fit into II and it can be abused. There is a difference.
Tim is right whe he states:
quote:
Example I: Proving man has the freedom to choose, call this B. Does not disprove God’s foreknowledge of mans choice, calls this A. Or A is not proved invalid, in some peoples mind, because B is proved true.
However, free will provides a basis for arguements leading to that proof. Line upon line, precept upon precept. Luther was honest enough to admit that the two are incompatable.
Considering India and Pakistan, I'm thinking about giving up my handle as:
"Neuk'em"
"Neuk'em" | | Back to Top | | |
|
JoeMoore
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 25
| Posted 6/12/2002 6:58 AM (GMT -6) | | I apologize. I knew I should have read more carefully. However, to my credit, if you were a professor I would complain about a basic premise being written into following 'unimportant' text  . Of course, I would expect you to respond with 'but you still must read carefully' and the bargaining would begin.
The other thing is that mutual exclusivity is tough enough to determine in mathematical word problems. Mutual contradiction is often very, very difficult in all but the most simple (and the definition 'not A'). In philosophy, it's almost impossible--even with a 'not' there is often an excluded middle because terms are not clear, logical premises.
Example: Bob hasn't got a winning lottery ticket.
Does that mean he has a losing ticket? Even though every lottery ticket eventually is a winner or loser, has the drawing even been held, yet? Does Bob have a ticket? Does he simply have a ticket for a future lottery? We assume so much!
So, I get an 'F' for not reading the question and Tom gets at least a 'D' for imbedding the major part of the problem into a minor explanation.
The heading of this thread is logic. Do we really want to go into philosophy here? What's your point, Tom?
So, carry on.
Joe Moore
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 6/12/2002 3:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom, since I am a logician of sorts (at least I teach logic to undergrads), I'll chime in with my two cents  . Hope it helps.
Tom wrote:
quote:
I want to suggest two arguments below (in form). Later I’ll put in actual arguments, but for now let’s leave it as comprising two mutually contradictory claims A and B. Here goes:
Argument I:
Either A or B is true
B is true
Therefore A is not true
Argument II:
Either A or B is true
A is not true
Therefore B is true
Is there any substantial difference in form between these two arguments? It has been suggested that the first argument is invalid because it affirms a disjunct as opposed to denying it, while the second argument IS valid.
Under the assumption that A and B are mutually exclusive, both argument forms are equally valid. Argument I, however, is only valid under that assumption, whereas Argument II is valid whether or not A and B are mutually exclusive.
It is standard in logic to treat disjunctions as "inclusive". That is, if I say "Either A or B or C or ...", I am saying "at least one of these options must be true", which leaves open the possibility that more than one may be true. That is why Argument I is standardly regarded as invalid, because affirming one of the disjuncts leaves it open whether the other alternatives are true or false. For this reason, you shouldn't represent Argument I in the way that you do, but rather you should make the mutually exclusive nature of the alternatives explicit, as follows:
Argument I':
A and B cannot both be true.
B is true.
Therefore, A is not true.
Presented in this way, it should be evident that the argument is valid.
In Christ,
Alan
Lege, lege, lege, ora, labora, et relege.
Edited by - Alan Rhoda on 06/12/2002 8:46:59 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/12/2002 7:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Alan-
Simple and sweet. Spoken like a true logician! Thanks! And thanks to everyone on this.
Again, the point is made by Max Herrera on his discussion site:
Argument I
Either God is Sovereign or people are free.
People are free.
Therefore God is not Sovereign.
This would be an invalid argument? [Sovereignty here is understood to be "exhaustive divine control" and Freedom is "libertarian."] I see your point. However, I thought it was assumed from the get go that the two claims were mutually exclusive. I think Max assumes this as well. So, if this is assumed, wouldn't the argument be valid (even if it could be stated MORE consistently)?
Argument II
Either God is Sovereign or people are free.
God is not Sovereign.
Therefore people are free.
This is the valid one. Got ya! Thanks. Assuming that the claims are mutually exclusive, I kinda thought both arguments were valid. But I see your point.
Sheeesh. Logic!
Tom 
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 6/13/2002 2:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom wrote:quote:
Again, the point is made by Max Herrera on his discussion site:
Argument I
Either God is Sovereign or people are free.
People are free.
Therefore God is not Sovereign.
This would be an invalid argument? [Sovereignty here is understood to be "exhaustive divine control" and Freedom is "libertarian."] I see your point. However, I thought it was assumed from the get go that the two claims were mutually exclusive. I think Max assumes this as well. So, if this is assumed, wouldn't the argument be valid (even if it could be stated MORE consistently)?
The above argument is valid if we assume that divine sovereignty and libertarian freedom are mutually exclusive and invalid otherwise. If I understand Max Herrera, his view is that the two are compatible, so he thinks the above argument is invalid. But the way he presents the argument is misleading. According to open theism, divine sovereignty (understood as exhaustive divine control) and creaturely libertarian freedom are incompatible. So Herrera misrepresents the open view by casting the reasoning as he does and then pointing out that the argument in invalid. He should have presented the argument in this way:
God cannot both be sovereign (i.e., exert exhausive control) and grant creatures libertarian freedom.
People possess libertarian freedom.
Therefore God is not sovereign (in the defined sense).
Of course, Herrera and Geisler will want to object to the first premise, but that is beside the point as far as accurately characterizing the open view.
God bless,
Alan
Lege, lege, lege, ora, labora, et relege. | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 6/13/2002 6:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Either A or -A
Not -A
Ergo A
Either A or -A
A
Erog not -A.
No ambiguity whatsover in either argument if they are taken just as written.
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 6/15/2002 5:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: …Later, I will put in actual arguments…
Argument I
[A:] Either God is Sovereign or [B:] people are free.
People are free.
Therefore, God is not Sovereign.
Argument II
[A:] Either God is Sovereign or [B:] people are free.
God is not Sovereign.
Therefore, people are free.
TIM: Please permit me to fill in, what I believe are the blanks,
Argument I is about whether, either A or B is true.
Saying B is true, therefore, A is not true, is only an assumption
Argument II is about whether, either A or B is true, also.
When A is proved not true, Therefore, B alone is true, and not an assumption
Either/or is the key to unlock the mystery...presented, in my mind.
Tom: I want to suggest two arguments below (in form).
TIM: I am considering Argument I & II is about either A or B, as specifically being true, these are not two separate arguments, II & I.
Argument II & I are in fact, not two separate arguments as presented; A: Either God is Sovereign or B: people are free. However, their [form] is truly different, as suggested by Tom.
Tom: …for now let us leave it as comprising two mutually contradictory claims A and B.
TIM: Example II: Proving man has the freedom to choose, call this B. Does not disprove God’s foreknowledge of mans choice, without fatalism, being predetermined by God, calls this A.
Alternatively, A is not proved invalid, in some people’s mind, because B is proved true.
A Short Story: If someone said, "I believe, man has the freedom to choose [B: people are free] and God’s foreknowledge predetermines that choice, without fatalism [A: God is Sovereign]."
I might say, "How is this possible, your belief contradicts itself, what form of logical argument can defend…etc.", however, we know that many people hold to this as being true (i.e. Max Herrera?).
For someone to prove mans freedom of choice, does not contradict; God’s foreknowledge predetermines that choice, without fatalism, to me. The either/or arguments they would have to take me through are many, and possibly difficult to keep up with, in my trying to understand them. If I have a mind set, of trying to convert them to some other system of thought, namely mine, it would possibly prove, impossible for me to understand them. For them, ‘Truth’ in this situation, are not either/or issues, rather both?
To be continued…
God’s Love,
Tim
Edited by - Tim on 06/15/2002 10:41:03 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/15/2002 9:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Or we could solve it
THE MIDDLE EASTERN WAY!
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde
Edited by - TGB on 06/15/2002 2:20:08 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 6/16/2002 3:52 AM (GMT -6) | | To all of my dear friends at CVM,
Max: Does God absolutely know what creatures with free-wills will do?
TIM: Does God know, all the possibilities of my free choices? Certainly, however, possibility is not actual, until it is experienced, thus my use of the term, ‘Possible Certainties’, which I should of more correctly stated, "seems contradictory".
The following, is a reformation of my first statement of belief, after much consideration surrounding our conversation, what do you think, is it neotheistic or orthodox?
I believe God is infinitely wise, with universal knowledge; knows absolutely all those things, which are possible as what is possible, certain as what is certain, contingent as what is contingent, and all those things, which are foreordained as what is predestined conclusion.
Max: Can God error, when it comes to future-contingent events?
By future-contingents, it is meant, a free-will act which is yet future. The question is, "does God ABSOLUTELY know what creatures with free-will, will do in the future before the creature chooses what he or she will do?"
TIM: I do not believe it is possible for God not to know all possible futures; of, from, or about the free choices of all humankind, from eternity past. Universal knowledge, which is infinitely wise, has the intelligence for COMPLETE foreknowledge.
Your observations are taken well, Max, with great appreciation; it would be wrong for me to say, "God is without limit in knowledge, when He is ALL knowledge, Himself." Although, I believe God is not a prisoner of His own knowledge, and is unlimited or boundless in His capacity to relate, with my limited awareness of Him. That is to say, I believe God experiences me, by relating to my experience of Him, and others, such as your self. God does not predetermine all my choices when relating to you or Him, though He has determined what choices might or might not be (i.e. in His will or out of His will).
Furthermore, in my mind, either/or questions when formed by a person, does not always form a perfect ‘law of non-contradiction statement’, although the person may think they have.
God’s Love,
Tim
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 6/16/2002 7:12 AM (GMT -6) | | I would like to continue this conversation, with anyone who wishes, under Can God experience Himself...I believe that I have formed a more concise statement, of my beliefs there, thank you for your understanding.
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:37 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|