Logical and Dialectical Reasoning in Scripture

[Wafer]

Wafer,

I would not have made sense of those sentences without the use of logic.

You stated: 'everybody has their (sic) own list of rules, and there is no way to be sure that everybody's rules are the same as anybody else's rules'.

Do you realise the need to use logic of grammar and syntax to compose that sentence? In fact you used the collective noun, 'everybody', which is singular and referred to it by the use of the possessive plural, 'their' (unfortunately the NIV violates this rule throughout its translation of OT and NT).

Grammar and syntax have a logic - if the reader is to understand the meaning of the sentence then that logic has to be followed. Note that we can ask questions of every word in a correct sentence, and we can find the answer to that question in the sentence....

If the writing is not logical, then the reader will not be convinced of the logic of the analysis.​

A 'definition of grammar is the study of the way words are used to make sentences.An example of grammar is how commas and semicolons are supposed to be used'.

Syntax is 'the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language'. If I wrote, 'God world Son only so gave he his one only and so loved for' (John 3:16) violates fundamentals of syntax. These rules are not unseen but we too often take them for granted. I've picked up a few of them in my lengthy article, Language police take aim: English grammar takes a nose dive in importance

What I think causes some Christians to balk at the idea of using logic in communication is what is seen in liberal theology using the historical-critical method where people promote autonomous human reason to arrive at conclusions that are contrary to Scripture.

This shows how humanistic reasoning can be abused, but it does not negate the use of logic in our communication. Those who are opposing the use of logic, are engaging in a self-defeating exercise. This is because they are using logic in the sentences they write to oppose the use of logic which they oppose.

Many things in Christian exegesis, theology, apologetics, Bible study, etc., can be abused. The abuse of something does not negate its legitimacy when used for the correct purposes. One or 10 faulty Fords (motor vehicles) doesn’t make every Ford junk – I drive a Mitsubishi.

See my article, Logic and Christian discussions

Oz

BRITISH LEFT WAFFLES ON FALKLANDS

 

[OzSpen]

BRITISH LEFT WAFFLES ON FALKLANDS

The topic was logic and you have engaged in fallacious reasoning with this Appeal to Ridicule logical fallacy.

 

[bbyrd009]

The modern problem is not a different type of logic, it is that "logic" means a list of rules by which we judge something to be valid or invalid. The list of rules is invisible, and everybody has their own list of rules, and there is no way to be sure that everybody's rules are the same as anybody else's rules. And of course everybody has a rule that your argument must be something they like.

nice imo. I would say that that is a modern problem, yes, whereas in 0 AD logical or what we now call "Hegelian" thought was a new thing, out of Greece. You say the list of rules is invisible, but I suggest that they are fairly well codified, and we are just not taught them? We are raised as Hegelian thinkers in the West, but no one knows what Hegelian even means, outside of the discipline? So when we are confronted with...say, two Eastern teams competing to a tie on purpose, the point is simply lost on us?

Then there is the rule that people don't talk about: They are reluctant to learn something new unless they learn it by their own efforts. People are proud to say "I used to believe such and such but one day I realized that was not so." If you try to tell them it's not so before they figure it out for themselves, they call you names.

a great point that I have heard before, but never quite like I am hearing it now, nicely put. This is a great way to define "Hegelian dialectic" imo, that does not obtain in the Eastern, and I could even provide much Scripture in support of this concept.



What is it?

altogether wacko.

complete nonsense, huh?
​

ntmy btw, i'm Mark

 

[bbyrd009]

Yep. Just take a look at all the terrible singers on reality show contests....

lol. I guess at one time there was a valid reason survival-wise maybe for manifesting Dunning/Kruger, my working theory is that those guys got more...got laid more maybe?

 

[bbyrd009]

BRITISH LEFT WAFFLES ON FALKLANDS

sublime

The topic was logic and you have engaged in fallacious reasoning with this Appeal to Ridicule logical fallacy.

God thank he did imo
God's nonsense is better than man's sense​

 

[bbyrd009]

You stated: 'everybody has their (sic) own list of rules

ha, sic indeed bro, good one imo.

Hopefully you (were joking their, right) get that in even "Eastern dialectic" a vocabulary and syntax are still allowed, even if a form of Logic" might be responsible, I dunno there. Are, um, I dunno, Egyptian hieroglyphs "logical" to you? Something like that maybe.

Oh, also "dialectic" does not require writing, merely speaking? Which was meant to be part II here, how the rise of our current form of writing actually drove Hegelian or I forget what it was called then "Aristotlean" or one of those guys "thought?" Platonic? Maybe. I was all read up on this for a discussion like a year ago, hafta bone up again I guess

 

[bbyrd009]

If the writing is not logical, then the reader will not be convinced of the logic of the analysis.

inferring that if the writing is logical, they will be? Imo an onsite search of "Cassini" posted by me will put that to rest bro

 

[Wafer]

The topic was logic and you have engaged in fallacious reasoning with this Appeal to Ridicule logical fallacy.

Dude, that is called "counter example". I included the joke in hopes of making my point without stabbing anybody with it.

 

[bbyrd009]

Dude, that is called "counter example". I included the joke in hopes of making my point without stabbing anybody with it.

you'll never win that way I guess though...you'll end up losing, being a um like sacrifice, a living sacrifice or something prolly
:O

 

[OzSpen]

Dude, that is called "counter example". I included the joke in hopes of making my point without stabbing anybody with it.

Wafer,

You didn't extend to me the courtesy of responding to the content of what I wrote.

Oz

 

[Taken]

_bbyrd009

Logic is a type of blindness, and you are a logical thinker. when you read the Bible, you bring this with you, but the Book was written dialectically, and so when you apply logic to such passages as
1 Thess 5:1-11 Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you,
you are going to "see and not see," if the passage can be made to fulfill a predetermined conclusion, or reinforces a personal desire.

Agree.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Wafer]

Wafer,

You didn't extend to me the courtesy of responding to the content of what I wrote.

Oz

You disagreed with what I said, and I disagreed with what you said, so there is nothing but to say something nice and retire from the conversation.

 

[bbyrd009]

You disagreed with what I said, and I disagreed with what you said, so there is nothing but to say something nice and retire from the conversation.

irl anyway, for sure. But even in forums, you--one i mean--might have someone else review a convo and give their opinion. Cover the avatars tho i guess. And don't pick the person either, if possible; you want a virtual casting of lots here imo

ps, you sure your not an "Atheist?"
j/k, you are channeling here our onsite atheists lol

 

[bbyrd009]

]

​

 

[Wafer]

Dialectical Reasoning
Dialectical reasoning is the process of arriving at truth through a process of comparing and contrasting various solutions. This process, also known as logic, originated in classical Greece by the philosopher Aristotle and has evolved into the present through the works of other philosophers such as Hegel. Marx, Boethius and many others.
Dialectical Reasoning definition | Psychology Glossary | alleydog.com

IOW an elaborate process for choosing what you prefer to believe while pretending that it is more valid than choosing the same thing without the elaborate process.

 

[OzSpen]

Dialectical Reasoning
Dialectical reasoning is the process of arriving at truth through a process of comparing and contrasting various solutions. This process, also known as logic, originated in classical Greece by the philosopher Aristotle and has evolved into the present through the works of other philosophers such as Hegel. Marx, Boethius and many others.
Dialectical Reasoning definition | Psychology Glossary | alleydog.com

IOW an elaborate process for choosing what you prefer to believe while pretending that it is more valid than choosing the same thing without the elaborate process.

Wafer,

So, are both truth and error correct?

When we compare the various solutions to getting rid of the congestion on the freeways around Brisbane, Australia, is that a legitimate activity?

What is wrong with comparing the various interpretations of the Book of Revelation? Is that or is that not a necessary part of biblical interpretation?

When I compare worldviews to arrive at a solution to which belief system matches reality, am I engaging in a legitimate dialectic?

Oz

 

[Wafer]

Wafer,

So, are both truth and error correct?

When we compare the various solutions to getting rid of the congestion on the freeways around Brisbane, Australia, is that a legitimate activity?

What is wrong with comparing the various interpretations of the Book of Revelation? Is that or is that not a necessary part of biblical interpretation?

When I compare worldviews to arrive at a solution to which belief system matches reality, am I engaging in a legitimate dialectic?

Oz

As I said before, logic is a list of rules to determine what is valid and what is not. Everybody makes up their own rules and it is difficult to be sure everybody is using the same rules because the list is invisible.

Atheists use their invisible rules to discredit the invisible God. What a hoot!

Philosophers use their invisible rules, multisyllabic words and a list of famous names to pretend they have found truth. A careful analysis reveals that they haven't even said anything, and they get very ugly when you point that out.

2 Timothy 1:7 King James Version (KJV)
7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

Those who rely on their logic have an unsound mind!

 

[OzSpen]

As I said before, logic is a list of rules to determine what is valid and what is not. Everybody makes up their own rules and it is difficult to be sure everybody is using the same rules because the list is invisible.

Atheists use their invisible rules to discredit the invisible God. What a hoot!

Philosophers use their invisible rules, multisyllabic words and a list of famous names to pretend they have found truth. A careful analysis reveals that they haven't even said anything, and they get very ugly when you point that out.

2 Timothy 1:7 King James Version (KJV)
7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

Those who rely on their logic have an unsound mind!

Wafer,

You didn't answer my questions.

You talk about 'invisible rules' but they aren't invisible when you require them to write any sentence. What are the subject, nouns, verbs, prepositions, adjectives, adverbs, predicate, prepositional phrase, clauses, etc. Where should commas, colons, semi-colons and full stops (periods) go? All of these rules are required for us to communicate on CyB.

Oz

 

[Wafer]

Wafer,

You didn't answer my questions.

You talk about 'invisible rules' but they aren't invisible when you require them to write any sentence. What are the subject, nouns, verbs, prepositions, adjectives, adverbs, predicate, prepositional phrase, clauses, etc. Where should commas, colons, semi-colons and full stops (periods) go? All of these rules are required for us to communicate on CyB.

Oz

You are muddling several subjects. Did anybody ever tell you that prepositions are not good words to end a sentence with? That is not a rule, it is an opinion formed by Latin students and carried over to English. The fallacy is that it is impossible in Latin. English has no such rule. English "rules" are no more than a list of the ways people talk, and people freely invent new ways all the time. So your "rules" of grammar are not only invisible, they are constantly changing.

You want to talk rules? All bible students agree that Ephesians chapter 3 has several parentheses, but nobody so far has sorted out the rules well enough to mark them all for sure. God makes your silly rules of grammar look like lame jokes.

"So, are both truth and error correct?"
A cleverly constructed bit of nonsense. The topic is logic, and logic can support whichever you prefer.

"When we compare the various solutions to getting rid of the congestion on the freeways around Brisbane, Australia, is that a legitimate activity?"
I have no information about freeways there.

"What is wrong with comparing the various interpretations of the Book of Revelation? Is that or is that not a necessary part of biblical interpretation?"
Interpretations arise when someone doesn't know something. For instance, most people do not know that The Revelation is addressed to Jewish synagogues, so it contains Jewish expressions which have no meaning to goyim.

"When I compare worldviews to arrive at a solution to which belief system matches reality, am I engaging in a legitimate dialectic?"
You are merely rewording the concept of logic. "Worldview" can be anything you want it to be. It does not have to relate to reality.

 

[bbyrd009]

Dialectical Reasoning
Dialectical reasoning is the process of arriving at truth through a process of comparing and contrasting various solutions. This process, also known as logic, originated in classical Greece by the philosopher Aristotle and has evolved into the present through the works of other philosophers such as Hegel. Marx, Boethius and many others.
Dialectical Reasoning definition | Psychology Glossary | alleydog.com

IOW an elaborate process for choosing what you prefer to believe while pretending that it is more valid than choosing the same thing without the elaborate process.

Hmm, maybe, ya. Couple things i see there is now the def of "dialectic" has been like appropriated solely to "logic," when my understanding was that it basically meant something like "2" or "meeting of 2" or even "examining 2 choices," which i say Bc the Eastern or "Naive" is also known as a "dialectic."

Ah, so i pretty much agree with sentence 1 iow, just not sure about "also known as logic?" So, i can see that in this convo...words might get in the way pretty quickly--and i notice i have even just said "that in this" which is a sign to me; that may not mean anything here lol, dunno yet--but what is logic? Haven't looked yet, but what is logic if not "that which apparently makes sense?"

Also you say "choosing what you prefer to believe" which i certainly can't disagree with, but it might also (even as a rule perhaps) be choosing what we (all) prefer to do? Iow if i have decided that logically since i am going up to heaven after i have died (better yet, "we" are all going up to heaven after "we" have died, undefined "we" to be...extracted later), + the "end" of resources on earth will bring Armageddon even maybe, = it is perfectly fine to burn "fossil" fuel and buy and consume stuff (in 2 or 20 minutes) from nonbiodegradable plastic that will still be here in 2000 or 20,000 years, stuff like that.

The point i meant to make being that actions, today will often be affected, and i would even argue are the whole point of the, of engaging in the "dialectic" to begin with? Which might be at odds with what you meant to say there at "choosing what you prefer to believe" iow, i dunno.

Even if it is at odds with what you had in mind, i can see that the same processes might be used for either, at least as long as someone seeks beliefs about...yesterday, or tomorrow, for whatever reason.