1. If the Bible were not true, logic would not be meaningful. 2. Logic is meaningful. 3. Therefore, the Bible is true.
129 comments
1. If the Koran were not true, logic would not be meaningful. 2. Logic is meaningful. 3. Therefore, the Koran is true.
`Fixed`
Insert any religious text above. Heck one could also insert most nn-religiious texts above....LOGIC FAIL.
1. If Harry Potter was a sparkly vampire, logic would not be meaningful. 2. Logic is meaningful. 3. Therefore, potatoes are yummy.
Makes just as much sense. Actually, it makes much more sense.
I can see where you got your doctorate from, Doctor.
EDIT: Incidentally, I now need a new irony meter after this.
1. ¬(p^¬ p)
2. (Genesis 1)^(Genesis 2)
3. ¬ Bible
1. If The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy were not true, logic would not be meaningless. 2. Logic is meaningless. 3. Therefore, HHGTTG is true.
This whale that just fell on my house is delicious.
EDIT: Aw, Tolpuddle Martyr beat me to a Guide reference.
How the hell does 1. work out? That doesn't even make sense.
There is no way this man is a doctor, he probably got his first name legally changed to "Dr."
1. If the Bible were not true, logic would not be meaningful.
Why? The rules of logic precede the bible and many of the oral traditions that eventually came to comprise the bible. The rules of logic are not detailed, or even so-much as mentioned in the bible, and many things described in the bible contradict logic rather than giving it "meaning".
Your argument is flawed in it's very premise by assuming facts not in evidence. You provide no evidence that logic is tied to the bible other than your assertion that it is.
2. Logic is meaningful.
But you provide no evidence or reason as to why the concept of logic would only be "meaningful" if the bible were true. Why is it that cultures across the world, cultures without a tradition in, or even knowledge of, any part of the bible still manage to have a rich and meaningful tradition of logic? Such things should be possible if logic were inexorably tied to the bible.
3. Therefore, the Bible is true.
Anyone could use your flawed and facetious reasoning to claim that any concept is true, and they, like you, would be wrong because your arguement is based on an unproved assertion of facts not in evidence.
1. If the Bible were not true, logic would not be meaningful.
Logic existed before the Bible. Therefore, your premise is false.
2. Logic is meaningful.
Uh..ok.
3. Therefore, the Bible is true.
No. You're affirming the consequent.
Newspeak
“War is Peace”
"Freedom is Slavery”
“Ignorance is Strength.”
If we suppose that Logic is in fact meaningful as suggested by Dr Lie then why do so many Christians claim logic is not important in proving the existence of their God ?
How many times have we heard logic not being a valid argument ?
1. If the Bibe were not true, logic would not be meaningful.
2. There is no way of telling if the Bible has the correct worldview and logic, or if it's some other worldview.
3. Therefore ... you are full of shit.
BWAHAHAHAHA!
If the Sun were not fueled by dirty socks, men would not have testicles.
Wow! This is fun! Wheee! That and how many box tops will earn me a PhD? I just solved the mystery of Fusion!
The argument is valid BUT so is this:
1. If unicorns didn't like pie, Nazis would not be strawberries. 2. Nazis are strawberries. 3. Therefore, unicorns like pie.
See I can do it too. I can make up premises out of thin air and create a conclusion.
BUT a valid argument is NOT cogent if its premises are false.
1. No reason to think the meaning of logic has anything to do with the truth of the Bible.
#1 is a non-sequiter and definitely not true. Therefore the rest of your argument falls apart.
And if this is the best argument you have to prove your religion true, then I feel totally justified in kicking Christianity to the curb and becoming an atheist.
OR:
See, that's logic. A statement of irrufutable fact
If the Bible were not true, logic would not be meaningful.
.......What the hell are you talking about?
If the Bible is true, then insects have four legs.
So there, heathens! Turn or burn!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Lisle
Now, see, I don't believe in the Bible and logic still makes sense to me. Y'know, because it's logical.
1. If Thomas the Tank Engine were not true, logic would not be meaningful. 2. Logic is meaningful. 3. Therefore, Thomas the Tank Engine is true.
ALL PRAISE SIR TOPHAM HATT!
1. If Star Trek were not true, logic would not be meaningful.
2. Logic is meaningful.
3. Therefore, Star Trek is true.
Funny, I was just reading about red heifers . Specific Biblical rituals require specific kind of heifers for some reason we can't quite comprehend. Quote from the article: "It is cited as the prime example of a chok, or biblical law for which there is no apparent logic, and is therefore of absolute Divine origin." Get it? The less logical it is, the more certainly divine it is.
Actually, and sadly enough, this argument is valid in the strict logical sense, in that the conclusion does follow from the premises. It's just that the first premise is complete bullshit.
It's too bad, too, because the first time I read it, it looked like faulty logic, which would have made the whole thing infinitely more satisfying. :(
Edit: To those who say this argument affirms the consequent: no, it denies the consequent, which is valid . Note that the second part of the first premise is "logic would not be meaningful," and the second premise is "logic is meaningful."
1. If the Bible were not true, logic would not be meaningful.
You know these educated nut bars are really starting to worry me. I mean have you seen Schafelys academic record?
I thought maybe he had something like a PhD in basket weaving or counselling (not psychology) I've met idiots in real life with those degrees. Does AiG really pay enough for you to sell your brain to them?
Doctor of what, I may ask.
Bwuh?
ETA: Haseri: 1. God is love. 2. Love is blind. 3. Two of my characters (used in books I write for fun) are blind. 4. Therefore, my characters are God. 5. I have created and control my characters. 6. Therefore, I have created and control God. 7. Therefore, I am God.
Who the hell is "Dr." Jason Lisle and where did he buy his Ph.D?
If Green Eggs and Ham were not true, logic would be meaningless. Logic is meaningful therefore Green Eggs and Ham is True.
All hail Dr. Seuss!!
An attempt at using a logical argument format to present a claim, with the evidence being logic itself, and the whole argument being utterly illogical?
You, sir, fail at failing.
There are no words. Batshit, facepalm, 'AiG, hit WTF and move on', failboat, non-sequitur, circular logic, logic fail, wharrgarbl, PhD from clown college...
None of it comes close to describing the true horror.
Sure, this is a valid logical syllogism, but those are a dime a dozen and can't prove a damn thing unless their premise is true. For example, I can say "If it's 300 degrees outside, the oceans will freeze. It's 300 degrees, therefore the oceans will freeze." and that would be valid and logical, but I'm starting with a retarded premise and that gives me bad results. Yes, logic is a great way of finding truth, but if you use bad input you get bad output or as we say in programming: "garbage in, garbage out".
1- If "On the Origin of Species" were not fact, logic would not be meaningful.
I'll have that Ph.D of yours, if you don't mind, 'Dr' Jason.
1. If A, then B.
Sorry, your form is invalid, and your argument is therefore unsound. But even if you had written this argument with the correct form, your argument would remain unsound. I'll try a counterexample:
1. If I am a heterosexual, then I have a biological mother.
Try again later!
tlsorrel, you're incorrect. The argument is deductively valid. He did not affirm the consequent; he denied the consequent. Your example should have read:
1. If I am a heterosexual, then I have a biological mother.
which is a deductively valid argument. The consequent was "logic would not be meaningful", and his second premise was "logic is meaningful", so he denied the consequent, not affirmed it.
The problem with his argument is that the first premise is laughable.
For one who authors a Logical Fallacies series, he sure could avoid appeal to authority. Why is it that any fundie with a degree feels compelled to write DOCTOR in front of his name? You never hear "Doctor Dawkins, Ph.D".
My personal theory is that fundies, while they claim to despise education, actually envy and fear it. Their frame of reference is still, fundamentally, one learned man preaching to illiterates (in theory, slightly less so in protestantism, but how many fundies have actually read theBible?)
That first premise isn't even a coherent thought, let alone supported by any evidence. Once again, fundie logic that will completely fail to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with the conclusion. You're preaching to the choir Jadon.
1. If Norse Mythology were not true, logic would not be meaningful. 2.Logic is meaningful. 3. therfore Norse mythology is true.
Pray to Odin you heathen!
...
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
