Cole,
I believe you are emphasizing my point quite well. The example you give is a good example of a valid syllogism with a correct inference based on the stated premises, but I would hope your teacher also emphasized that valid logic depends entirely on valid premises. A valid premise is based on a prior proof, i.e. the conclusion in a syllogism assumes the premises are true. If the premises are untrue then the conclusion will be invalid, as in your example, even though the inference and construction was correct.
Please do not confuse valid logical constructs with valid logic. They are different considerations.
I’m quite sure he wasn’t. His intent was to diminish the value of logic by implying it is cold and heartless and that humans have feelings and emotions that are somehow outside of logic. This is unfortunately a perception horrendously and erroneously portrayed by such characters as Spock from Star Trek fame.
Are you sure? Think it through a little more. If you understand your logic lesson then you should be carefully examining the premises, not only for their validity in construction but also their truthfulness (i.e. the proofs on which they are based). Theism asserts that a god exists. What proven premises can you quote that would allow a valid inference for this conclusion? I know of none, there are none. Hence, theists cannot construct any valid logical argument for their claims.
Theism attempts to hide this problem by emphasizing “faith” as if it some form of magical and superior method for revealing truth where proofs and logic cannot work. This is of course utter nonsense. Faith simply means a conviction of a truth despite absence of any proof. It is a blatant attempt to avoid the logic problem.
No that is exactly not what I am saying. I am saying they have no valid proven premises on which to base a valid logical conclusion. Hence their assertions cannot be logical; i.e. must be illogical.
Remember not to confuse a valid logical construct with a valid logical argument. The premises must be true for a valid conclusion. My primary premise is that there are no proofs that can support any premises that can lead to the conclusion that a god exists. I am quite prepared to dismiss that premise if anyone can provide an appropriate proof.
I believe you are emphasizing my point quite well. The example you give is a good example of a valid syllogism with a correct inference based on the stated premises, but I would hope your teacher also emphasized that valid logic depends entirely on valid premises. A valid premise is based on a prior proof, i.e. the conclusion in a syllogism assumes the premises are true. If the premises are untrue then the conclusion will be invalid, as in your example, even though the inference and construction was correct.
Please do not confuse valid logical constructs with valid logic. They are different considerations.
I’m quite sure he wasn’t. His intent was to diminish the value of logic by implying it is cold and heartless and that humans have feelings and emotions that are somehow outside of logic. This is unfortunately a perception horrendously and erroneously portrayed by such characters as Spock from Star Trek fame.
Are you sure? Think it through a little more. If you understand your logic lesson then you should be carefully examining the premises, not only for their validity in construction but also their truthfulness (i.e. the proofs on which they are based). Theism asserts that a god exists. What proven premises can you quote that would allow a valid inference for this conclusion? I know of none, there are none. Hence, theists cannot construct any valid logical argument for their claims.
Theism attempts to hide this problem by emphasizing “faith” as if it some form of magical and superior method for revealing truth where proofs and logic cannot work. This is of course utter nonsense. Faith simply means a conviction of a truth despite absence of any proof. It is a blatant attempt to avoid the logic problem.
No that is exactly not what I am saying. I am saying they have no valid proven premises on which to base a valid logical conclusion. Hence their assertions cannot be logical; i.e. must be illogical.
Remember not to confuse a valid logical construct with a valid logical argument. The premises must be true for a valid conclusion. My primary premise is that there are no proofs that can support any premises that can lead to the conclusion that a god exists. I am quite prepared to dismiss that premise if anyone can provide an appropriate proof.
