Help with Logical Fallacies

[McCragge]

Hey guys, I am still trying to hone my skills at the art of argument. But of course I am finding that it can be a lot more difficult then it looks. (at least for me) So I thought I would post an example or two and maybe you could help point out the fallacies (if there are any) and why they are fallacies.

+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+

If God exists, which he must indeed if God hates amputees, and it is said that God created all things, therefore God created all things if he exists.

Jack can't hate Jill if Jack doesn't exist.

+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+

Thanks in advance.

McCragge

[athon]

I use the site http://logicalfallacies.info/ for my students. It's fairly clear and well organised.

Of course spotting them in a discussion can be tricky, and often it's not until you've had some practice do they jump out easily.

Good luck.

Athon

[quixotecoyote]

If God exists, which he must indeed if God hates amputees, and it is said that God created all things, therefore God created all things if he exists.


This is phrased incorrectly. The first bit, "If God exists," doesn't have a then statement attached to it. It also seems like two propositions. Allow me to turn your statement (with its assumptions) into syllogisms.

A1. Anything that hates must exist.
A2. God hates amputees
A3. Therefore God exists

B1. Saying an entity created all things means that entity has created all
things.
B2. It is said that God created all things.
B3. Therefore God has created all things.

The logic is not fallacious. A2 and B1 are simply unsupported assertions. Originally it would have suffered from unstated assumptions as well.

[Lonewulf]

B1. Saying an entity created all things means that entity has created all
things.
B2. It is said that God created all things.
B3. Therefore God has created all things.

The logic is not fallacious.

Wait wait wait wait.

Wait.

Just... wait.

Wait.

*mind breaks*

Okay, there we go.

How is saying "someone says something happened, therefore it happened" logical? If I say I turned into superman and beat up Dustin Kusselberg with a giant trout, that doesn't mean the event actually happened.

[quixotecoyote]

Wait wait wait wait.

Wait.

Just... wait.

Wait.

*mind breaks*

Okay, there we go.

How is saying "someone says something happened, therefore it happened" logical? If I say I turned into superman and beat up Dustin Kusselberg with a giant trout, that doesn't mean the event actually happened.

Philosophically, logic is distinct from fact and truth.

As I noted, "Saying an entity created all things means that entity has created all things," is an unsupported assertion. In fact it is false.

However, since it was used as a major premise, the only logical issue is whether the conclusion can follow from the major premise and the minor premise, which it can.

In fact, most of the fallacies you're probably familiar with work like this. You can take any ad hominem, ad populum or ad agnorantiam and squeeze it into a functioning syllogism. That is why they're called informal logical fallacies.

Of course, I could be wrong as formal logic is not my specialty.

[rjh01]

See also http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Logic_and_Logical_Fallacies%28index%29

[McCragge]

Those two sites are great. I am reading them now, flipping back and forth.

But I don't think I understand, neither of the statements below are fallacious?

If God exists, which he must indeed if God hates amputees, and it is said that God created all things, therefore God created all things if he exists.

Jack can't hate Jill if Jack doesn't exist.

They are just worded incorrectly?

It just seems to me there must be a fallacy in here somewhere because what does god existing and hating amputees have to do with god creating anything.

McCragge

[quixotecoyote]

Could you reread my post to Lonewulf? I tried to explain it as best I could, so if there's a portion of my last response you didn't understand I'll know what I need to change.

[McCragge]

Could you reread my post to Lonewulf? I tried to explain it as best I could, so if there's a portion of my last response you didn't understand I'll know what I need to change.

Right, but you rewrote the statement into two seperate statements. Which by themselves seem logical I suppose. But together or combined they make no sense.

It seems to me that it would be set out like this

A1 If god exists he hates amputees
A2 God Created all things
A3 Therefore god exists and created all things.

(maybe the jack and jill statement is true) But to me this just doesn't make any sense. Why is the amputees comment even included and what does it have to do with the conclusion. And can we even arrive at the conclusion with the first statement?

Thank you for everyones patience, I am just trying to wrap my head around these logical fallacies and how to argue/debate more intelligently.

McCragge

[quixotecoyote]

Right, but you rewrote the statement into two seperate statements. Which by themselves seem logical I suppose. But together or combined they make no sense.

Right, on their own they were missing assumptions and not particularly well ordered.




(maybe the jack and jill statement is true)Not true, logical. eta:(well, probably true too, but that's not the point)

A proposition being logical has no impact on it's truth.

Watch.

1. Bunnies are fuzzy.
2. Charlie Daniels knows jack about evolution.
3. Therefore the sun appears to rise in the east.

This is a complete non-sequitor even though all premises and the conclusion are true. It is illogical but true.

On the other hand.

1.All fuzzy animals are bunnies
2.McCragge is a fuzzy animal
3.Therefore McCragge is a bunny.

Is logical but false. The logic is correct, but the underlying facts are not.



But to me this just doesn't make any sense. Why is the amputees comment even included and what does it have to do with the conclusion. And can we even arrive at the conclusion with the first statement?
The amputee's statement was included because my skills at formal logic do not extend far beyond basic concepts and the simple syllogism:
1.Major premise
2.Minor premise
3.Conclusion

So I cheated and filled in one of the assumptions behind your argument. If I was to ignore your parenthetical my analysis would look more like:

First a rephrase keeping all content but the parenthetical

If god exists and it is said that he created all things then if god exists he created all things.

1. if god exists
2. if it is said god created all things
3. if god exists he created all things

3 doesn't logically follow from this formulation at all. It is missing steps that can form a logical statement. In other words, it's not a logical argument.

However, on hearing this your audience will automatically fill in the missing part of the argument. There's a greek word for this which I should know because it's foundational to rhetoric, but it eludes me tonight.

When you say that argument to someone (minus the parenthetical), they will probably hear:

Major premise 1. If people say things, those things are true.
Major premise 2. Gods must exist to create all things.
Minor Premise 1. People say God exists
Minor premise 2. People say God has created all things
Conclusion:Therefore God exists and has created all things


Major premise two is not really necessary for this, but I included it for completeness.

People won't agree with this, but when they try to parse your statement, this is the logic pattern to find.





Thank you for everyones patience, I am just trying to wrap my head around these logical fallacies and how to argue/debate more intelligently.
McCragge
A worthy goal!

[McCragge]

Just to clarify, the arguments/statements I have posted as examples are not my actual statements. They were said to me in a recent argument I had and it just rang untrue or fallacious.

So basically, if I remove the amputees statement, it is not a logical statement, but because the audience is assumed to insert the implied missing bits it then is a logical statement? What if we re-insert the amputees statement is it still a logical statement?

McCragge

[quixotecoyote]

sorry missed this:

It seems to me that it would be set out like this

A1 If god exists he hates amputees
A2 God Created all things
A3 Therefore god exists and created all things.

Your parenthetical is a separate argument about the existence of god and needs it's own formulation. The amputee comment is unrelated from the creation argument. Further, your minor premise (A2) should be a specific example of a universal declared in your major premise (A1).



If you forced my to translate the entire sentence into one argument it would look like this:

Major premise A1: Anything that hates amputees exists
Major premise A2: If people say something, it is true but only if it exists (I should be declaring some sort of conditional here, I think)
Minor premise B1: God hates amputees.
Minor premise B2: People say God created all things.
Conclusion C1 as per A1 and B1: God exists
Conclusion C2 as per A2, B2, and C1: God created all things.

My notation is horrible and I don't think that as you wrote the sentence, the bit about amputees was part of the argument, but this is a logical but false argument.

[Kevin_Lowe]

If God exists, which he must indeed if God hates amputees, and it is said that God created all things, therefore God created all things if he exists.


Not every bad argument has a catchy name. This, for example, is just a weird argument, or rather two weird arguments. Let's break it down a bit by highlighting the qualifiers and the conclusion of the main argument:

IF (god exists) AND (it is said God created all things) THEN (God created all things) IF (he exists)

The last IF clause is redundant so we can drop it. That leaves:

IF (god exists) AND (it is said God created all things) THEN (God created all things)

Which is true, if God has the qualities God is said to have. It is not necessarily true otherwise. This argument is not fallacious, except in that it does not make the premise about God having the qualities God is said to have explicit. it just doesn't prove anything interesting.

The second argument is:

IF (God hates amputees) THEN (God exists).

This is trivially true. Nonexistant things cannot hate other things. This argument too is not fallacious and does not prove anything interesting.

[quixotecoyote]

Just to clarify, the arguments/statements I have posted as examples are not my actual statements. They were said to me in a recent argument I had and it just rang untrue or fallacious.

You seemed too intelligent to be saying those things yourself.


So basically, if I remove the amputees statement, it is not a logical statement, but because the audience is assumed to insert the implied missing bits it then is a logical statement? Well it will function as an logical statement. As written it is a non-sequitor, but in many (most?) arguments made outside of formal logic you expect your audience to do some of the work for you. I'm waffling. Logical simply means.... Well ok, I'm too inarticulate tonight.

Here: http://www.galilean-library.org/int4.html

This is less about lists of fallacies and more about an introduction to logic theory. Once you understand that, you'll know everything I know.

What if we re-insert the amputees statement is it still a logical statement?
McCraggeI think my post above explains what the deal on the amputee bit is. If it doesn't post again.

[quixotecoyote]

IF (god exists) AND (it is said God created all things) THEN (God created all things)

Which is true, if God has the qualities God is said to have. It is not necessarily true otherwise. This argument is not fallacious, except in that it does not make the premise about God having the qualities God is said to have explicit. it just doesn't prove anything interesting.


You have to make the bold section explicitly within the argument. Otherwise it is fallacious AND false rather than merely false.

[McCragge]

You seemed too intelligent to be saying those things yourself.

Phew, thank you. I was hoping people wouldn't think I wrote that.

Thanks for all the help. I think I am starting to get the hang of this a bit. Once I get done with the website posted above, I will start reading the website you posted as well.

McCragge

[NeilC]

This is quite good: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html

[McCragge]

Does this argument hold water?

P1: If you believe in God you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer
P2: if prayed for nothing will be impossible to you
C1: Amputees will get limbs back if they pray and believe in god

McCragge

[NeilC]

I don't see the point in P2.

If you believe in god and therefore will receive what you pray for then of course you will get your limbs back if you pray. IF you assume god exists and if you assume that praying works.

I would have thought that the logic is sound but the argument is not since it makes unfounded assumptions.

[quixotecoyote]

P2 is redundant and can be removed, but yes, this would function as valid but unsound (or logical but untrue, if you prefer);

[Kevin_Lowe]

You have to make the bold section explicitly within the argument. Otherwise it is fallacious AND false rather than merely false.

Well, it depends. Amongst Christians they might be happy to take it as read that God is as God is said to be, because that's part of their definition of God. So while it wouldn't get full marks in a formal logic exam or anything, it wouldn't be wrong in an important sense either if everyone involved was the kind of person who believed that anyway.

[NeilC]

I'm only just starting to learn about logic myself. Could you explain the differences between
sound, true and valid?

[McCragge]

Ok cool, thank you guys.

The unsoundness (is that even a word) or that it is untrue actually proves the point I am making in my argument. I just wanted to make sure that the logical construct was correct.

Does a logical statement require two premises or can it work with one?

McCragge

[quixotecoyote]

Well, it depends. Amongst Christians they might be happy to take it as read that God is as God is said to be, because that's part of their definition of God. So while it wouldn't get full marks in a formal logic exam or anything, it wouldn't be wrong in an important sense either if everyone involved was the kind of person who believed that anyway.

Agreed. I was just trying to be specific to prevent misunderstandings.

Splossy:

Valid means that the conclusion follows from the premises.

Sound means that the premises and conclusion are true

The definition of true is an insane ongoing philosophical poo-slinging contest that has been ongoing for the last 2500 years minimum and probably back into pre-history.

Figure it just means correct and your head won't explode. :)

[NeilC]

Thx. So can an argument be sound yet invalid? Like: cheese is made of milk, the sky is blue therefore cars are a means of transport.

[quixotecoyote]

Ok cool, thank you guys.

The unsoundness (is that even a word) or that it is untrue actually proves the point I am making in my argument. I just wanted to make sure that the logical construct was correct.

Does a logical statement require two premises or can it work with one?

McCragge

There are many ways to construct a logical statement. I've been keeping it very basic here because that's all I'm capable of.

At minimum you want to express an assumption (major premise), express an instance relating to that assumption (minor premise), and express what happens when you apply the assumption to the instance (conclusion).

If you move things into a different order or mix the parts together it doesn't change the validity. You could break apart your latest example into a bunch of different assumptions and instances, but it wouldn't change the validity.

[quixotecoyote]

Thx. So can an argument be sound yet invalid? Like: cheese is made of milk, the sky is blue therefore cars are a means of transport.

According to my source, no. Both the premises and the conclusion have to be true for the argument to be sound.

You conclusion can still be true, but your argument would still be unsound.

eta:actually, maybe it can. I go to reread.

eta2: Yes, I'm right. The actual way they describe it is that the argument has to be valid and the premises have to be true before the argument can be sound. However, any valid argument with true premises produces a true conclusion, so I got confused.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Check this link, Splossy:

http://www.wisegeek.com/in-logic-what-are-sound-and-valid-arguments.htm

Short version, no, sound arguments are the subset of valid arguments whose premises are true.

[slingblade]

My logic professor just pounded into our heads that "validity relates to form, and soundness to content." And this is what's being said by Quixote, so I'm not disputing his posts. :D We also memorized "true premises cannot lead to a false conclusion, but false premises can lead to a true conclusion. We call the latter 'lucking out,' and yes, that's a technical term."

She had a great sense of humor, my prof. :p

[sphenisc]

Does this argument hold water?

P1: If you believe in God you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer
P2: if prayed for nothing will be impossible to you
C1: Amputees will get limbs back if they pray and believe in god

McCragge


There is nothing in the premises which states that all amputees are "yous" (I'm assuming C1 implies "All").
Neither does the conclusion state that amputees have to pray for limbs to come back.

P2 adds nothing.

As quixotecoyote said, it can be made to follow logically if the audience are happy to fill in those details.

[McCragge]

Good catch I should definitely change the wording on that. Thank you.

McCragge

[Tokenconservative]

Wait wait wait wait.

Wait.

Just... wait.

Wait.

*mind breaks*

Okay, there we go.

How is saying "someone says something happened, therefore it happened" logical? If I say I turned into superman and beat up Dustin Kusselberg with a giant trout, that doesn't mean the event actually happened.

It's not.

In fact, it's circular reasoning of the sort all religions depend upon: we know that God created the universe because God says (in the Bible) that God created the universe.

Dun't work logically.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Does this argument hold water?

P1: If you believe in God you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer
P2: if prayed for nothing will be impossible to you
C1: Amputees will get limbs back if they pray and believe in god

McCragge

No. And it's even worse on the assumption and false premise angles.

Let's look at it from the Christian perspective (since that's the one you hope to slam here):

P1: it's secularist misconception that in Christianity, we are taught to use prayer for selfish ends. Just the opposite, in fact: you may pray for God to make you into a better or more "whole" person, but not for things like new or even extra limbs...or to hit the lottery or get to hit that babe in the next office, either. Not how it works in the Christian faith, anyhow.

So you start with a false and predictably bigoted assumption about "prayer" and its conection to God.

P2: not much different from P1, just a restating of a bigoted perspective.

C1: Christians often believe in the power of prayer to heal, but your conclusion is drawn from two false assumptions, so of course it's not going to be logical.

Tokie

[Radrook]

Validity only requires that the conclusion justifiably be derived from the main premise-nothing more. Validity does not assure that the conclusion reached is true or even the prmise itself is true.

For example:

All Martians are stupid.
Joe is a Martian.
Joe is stupid

Both premise and conclusions are false but the argument is considered valid because the premise justifies the conclusion.

If the conclusion would have been "Joe is not stupid" then the aregument is considered invalid due to the unjustified conclusion.

Whether Joe is or is not a Martian or whether he is or is not stupid has absolutely nothing to do with validity as understood in the use of syllogisms.

If Joe created the universe he is good.
Joe created the universe.
Joe is good.

Valid argument though clearly Joe doid not create the universe and Joe might be a criminal.


Here are other examples of valid arguments:

All Mice are people
All sons are Mice
All sons are people

All people are mean
Some soldiers are not mean
Some soldiers are not people

Some men are not pure
All men are savages
Some savages are not pure

http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e08b.htm

As you can see validity as the term is used in logic is not dependent on truth of premise or conclusion but simply on the relationship between the twain.

[VillageIdiot]

Hey guys, I am still trying to hone my skills at the art of argument. But of course I am finding that it can be a lot more difficult then it looks. (at least for me) So I thought I would post an example or two and maybe you could help point out the fallacies (if there are any) and why they are fallacies.

+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+


Jack can't hate Jill if Jack doesn't exist.

+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+

Thanks in advance.

McCragge


This idea is based on the presumption that hatred can not exist outside the mind of a specific hater. Therefore if we consider this hypothetical "Jack" it is a prerequisite of his exhibiting the emotion "hate" that he must first have a mind to hate with. If Jack has no physical existence from which to originate his hatred, then it is in fact safe to assume that Jill will not be hated by him.

This is probably why she pushed him down the hill. The hate was getting to her.

[Radrook]

Originally Posted by McCragge
Does this argument hold water?

P1: If you believe in God you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer
P2: if prayed for nothing will be impossible to you
C1: Amputees will get limbs back if they pray and believe in god

The argument is better stated as follows:

God grants all requests made via prayer
An amputee requested to grow a new limb via prayer.
The amputee's request was granted.

Valid argument, but as previously explained, false premise makes it fallacious.
God does not answer all prayers as requested. Sometimes he never answers them at all.
Or if he does respond, it need not be in the manner or at the time requested. He also has the option of not listening to all prayers but only to those qualified. So some persons might very likely be praying to themselves since God might have chosen not to listen.

Of course an atheist would imediately reject the argument as false due to his disbelief atheism.


McCragge

[Kooz]

McCragge, here's the initial problem (I think): the person who made the statement in your original post is referencing a specific argument (not type of argument, an actual argument that is used by anti-religious). Either he read it and is bringing it to you, or you tried to use it against him, and he wasn't sure what to say in response, but had an idea of where he was going.

The argument is, generally, if the Christian God exists, he must hate amputees because he is all-powerful and thus has the power to grow them new limbs. It is usually put forward as part of the logic statement: amputees exist, therefore God either (a) does not exist, (b) is not all powerful, or (c) is not all good (because he won't cure these people). Of course this ignores other possibilities (maybe all amputees are evil...), but that's the gist of it.

It sounds like your friend wanted to argue: "Atheists often say God hates amputees. if that's true, then God exists because in order to hate, the hater must exist."

This is flawed in a variety of ways. It is based on a false premise. It is a variety of the straw man argument. And, even conceding his point (God exists), it requires an explanation as to why God hates amputees (the first premise).

[Ron_Tomkins]

A1 I am always right
A2 If I say I'm always right, it probably means I'm wrong
A3 However, sometimes I am actually right
A4 I'm a pathological liar

:D

[Tokenconservative]

This idea is based on the presumption that hatred can not exist outside the mind of a specific hater. Therefore if we consider this hypothetical "Jack" it is a prerequisite of his exhibiting the emotion "hate" that he must first have a mind to hate with. If Jack has no physical existence from which to originate his hatred, then it is in fact safe to assume that Jill will not be hated by him.

This is probably why she pushed him down the hill. The hate was getting to her.

This presumes that the reporting is accurate to begin with.

In modern American reporting anytime a womyn (Jill, being a pre-womyn)is injured (falling down the hill) and a man(Jack: all men are potential rapists) is anywhere near, it's a given that the man is responsible either directly or indirectly for the injury.

In the original, BOTH Jack and Jill went up the hill while engaged in what the patriarchy suggests in the tale was a cooperative effort to obtain a certain amount of water. We know it's far more likely Jack was either forcing Jill, his chattel, to go up the hill as his beast of burden, or because he was hoping to rape her there. The original data suggest that Jack, being a typical, overweight, clumsy, two-left-feet type American male, then managed to fall down the hill. Now, the original information does not tell us that Jack did anything to cause Jill to "come tumbling after," but we can assume that in his abject cowardice Jack, an American male, remember, must have screamed like a little girl, clutched wildly at Jill (GI Jill, some would call her) and probably because she was at the time navigating loose scree or some such, managed to trip up his physical, intellectual and moral better, Jill, causing her to fall as well.

Tokie

[thomps1d]

No. And it's even worse on the assumption and false premise angles.

Actually, since there is a bible verse that states that anyone who prays will have his prayer granted no matter how absurd or extreme the request (I'm sure a more diligent forumite will have the reference handy and post it if required), the argument should read as follows:

P1 - The Bible states that God grants all prayer requests.
P2 - Some people believe that the bible is inerrant.
P3 - When amputees pray for their limbs to spontaneously regenerate, it does not happen.

C1 - The Bible is not inerrant.

Alternatively,

P1 - Some people believe that God will heal any injury through sincere prayer.
P2 - When amputees sincerely pray for spontaneous limb regeneration, it does not happen.

C1 - God will not, in fact, heal all injuries through prayer.

Or my personal favourite,

P1 - When Cthulu awakens, his followers will be eaten first.
P2 - Cthulu will soon rise from his long sleep.

C1 - Therefore, F'taghn!

[quixotecoyote]

You'd still need to tighten up your premises to make them valid arguments.

[Radrook]

Actually, since there is a bible verse that states that anyone who prays will have his prayer granted no matter how absurd or extreme....

That's YOUR idea-not the Bible's and based on a scripture taken out of context.

[quixotecoyote]

]Oh it's even better than that. Matthew quotes Jesus in Chapter seven unambiguously saying that even though we are evil God will answer our prayers and give us what we ask for.

That you have to reinterpret it to say something else because it doesn't actually work that way is your problem.

[sphenisc]

]Oh it's even better than that. Matthew quotes Jesus in Chapter seven unambiguously saying that even though we are evil God will answer our prayers and give us what we ask for.

That you have to reinterpret it to say something else because it doesn't actually work that way is your problem.

No it doesn't

[quixotecoyote]

I salute you for a response representative of your generally displayed intelligence.

[sphenisc]

I salute you for a response representative of your generally displayed intelligence.

That's a coincidence, I always like to aim my response at the level of the target audience. :)

[quixotecoyote]

Well if you find it, I've a washing machine on uneven ground making a hell of a racket so I'll need it back ASAP.

[Radrook]

Saying that Jesus was promising a hearing and a positive answer to wicked prayers is like saying that Abraham Lincoln was in favor of total unrestrained behavioral freedom for freed slaves simply because he declared them free. Of course, when Lincoln used the word FREE he knew that his audience had the required common sense to know what he meant based on their knowledge of democracy and of his own moral standards. In fact, anyone jumping to the conclusion that Lincoln proposed unrestrained freedom would be suspect of being educationally handicapped in some way or out of touch with reality.

The same holds true for Jesus' statement. It was given with the understanding that his audience was familiar with God's moral standards and knew he would never violate them via granting immoral prayerful requests.

Actually, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see imediately the logical problem which such a conclusion creates via requiring that God cooperate in murder, theft, dishonor of parents, adultery, etcetera, the very things which He and Jesus himself tells us are wrong.

Proverbs 15:29
The LORD is far from the wicked: but he heareth the prayer of the righteous.

Isaiah 1:15
And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.

That is the context which is being ignored and which makes the premise that Jesus meant ALL prayers would be heard and all prayers answered in accordance with any and all requests false.

BTW

Atheist skeptics require that their precious ideas be treated fairly and not be misrepresented and if not then they make accusations of ignorance, bad scholarship, and fallacious reasoning and tag conclusions reached via such dubious methods as baseless and totally unwarranted. The same applies to biblical subjects.

Also, I am not here to talk religion since the thread seemingly is about reasoning logically and any non-religious example would suffice for that purpose. But since the issue came up I am simply pointing out that being atheist doesn't grant one the right to ignore the requisites of cogent reasoning while tongue-in-cheek demanding it of non-atheists.

[quixotecoyote]

Congratulations Radrook, that strawman won't be getting up again for a long time. Should you actually want to address the points raised, they're still here.

[Radrook]

"Originally Posted by thomps1d
Actually, since there is a bible verse that states that anyone who prays will have his prayer granted no matter how absurd or extreme...."

Clearly, the point raised in the post I responded to is that God answers all prayers no matter how absurd or extreme. Now, if that point wasn't raised in the above quoted post, then we are either reading different posts or else living in different incompatible realities altogether. But if you indeed are reading the same statement, then YOU have to prove point by point just how it is that I am not addressing this person's weird idea. Can you do that?

BTW
I am not disputing that Jesus said that though we are sinful he will answer our prayers. What I am disputing is the idea that he answers all prayers indiscriminately like some thoughtless amoral imbecile something totally incompatible with his message-that of the OT and that of the NT as well. To read that int his statement is to ignore evertytjhing else Jesus said based on what Jesus knew
about God, or worse yet, to assume him either ignorant or insane-which he would have to be in ordewr to make the assertion that the fellow above just made and which you seem to be defending. That kind of approach to argumentation is worthless since it is mere baseless opinion.

[quixotecoyote]

<laugh>

Curse me a fig tree, Radrook, and we'll call it even.

Mark 11[/B]

] 20And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots.
21And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.
22And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.
23For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.
24Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.

[Radrook]

<laugh>

Curse me a fig tree, Radrook, and we'll call it even.

In other words since you can't back up your statement with logic you resort to ridicule. And that's the reason why I avoid the religious forum on this site and religious subjects here in general. I only made an exception with the statement made because it's just too hilariously fallascious to pass up. In any case, I consider the discussion over.

BTW
Ignoring a counterargument and proceeding as if none has been given isn't called argumentation. It's called you don't have a leg to stand on. I would also like to remind you that the thread was about false premise. Your premise trhat Jesus MEANT all prayer was to be answered is glaringly false. Why? Because of the reasons I provided and you choose to ignore.

Also, I am aware that you have a right to ridicule. But illogical ridicule on a site which prides itself on promotion of cogent reasoning in behalf of skepticism is totally out of place here and does the site a disservice.

IMHO

[quixotecoyote]

******** Radrook. You have conceded my previous argument:


BTW
I am not disputing that Jesus said that though we are sinful he will answer our prayers. What I am disputing is the idea that he answers all prayers indiscriminately like some thoughtless amoral imbecile something totally incompatible with his message-that of the OT and that of the NT as well. To read that int his statement is to ignore evertytjhing else Jesus said based on what Jesus knew

Plus you failed to point out anything in the surrounding context, outside of faith, which serves as a limitation on what prayers would be answered. That you're ragging on me to prove a point you've conceded shows how much this issue rattles your cage.

You seem like a relatively bright person for a believer, so I imagine that you know by now that no prayers are actually answered. The only prayers 'answered' are ones that did not require divine intervention. Yes your cancer may go into remission, guess what, people who don't pray have that happen to. But for any instance where it couldn't happen for someone who doesn't pray, it can't happen for anyone who does pray. That's blatantly obvious to anyone who's thought seriously about why pray doesn't lead to anything happening outside one's own mind. The cognitive dissonance must be deafening.

eta:

Curse me a fig tree.
Heal blindness with a mud pie.
Pray a wet slab of beef on fire.

None of the specific examples of the results of prayer in the Bible actually happen.

In it's own words, "Call out with a loud voice, for he is a god; either he is occupied or gone aside, or is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and needs to be awakened."

[Radrook]

******** Radrook. You have conceded my previous argument:

I fail to see where I have done that. Pray tell? About rattling cages, your need for asterisks which might indicate the use of foul language or the need to convey the possible use of it clearly indicates that it is YOUR cage that is being rattled not mine since I am calmly pointing out your illogical approach and don't need foul language to support my easily provable points. Why not less heat and a tad more illumination?



Plus you failed to point out anything in the surrounding context, outside of faith, which serves as a limitation on what prayers would be answered. That you're ragging on me to prove a point you've conceded shows how much this issue rattles your cage.


The surrounding context is the Bible itself and what we know that Jesus believed as a Jew based on his knowledge of the scriptures. As I previously pointed out and you cunningly choose to ignore, an author's statements must be evaluated within the context of his times, his social background, and what we know about his views. That is basic to literary interpretation. Anyone who doesn't know the basic exigencies of literary interpretation isn't qualified to judge any author since that would lead to the declaration of unfounded unjustified conclusions based on ignorance of the very interpretative principles which he should have known before even attempting to attribute meaning to the author's words. Since this seems to be the case in your case-why not qualify yourself first at least minimally before presumptuously taking on such a literary task?


You seem like a relatively bright person for a believer, so I imagine that you know by now that no prayers are actually answered. The only prayers 'answered' are ones that did not require divine intervention. Yes your cancer may go into remission, guess what, people who don't pray have that happen to. But for any instance where it couldn't happen for someone who doesn't pray, it can't happen for anyone who does pray. That's blatantly obvious to anyone who's thought seriously about why pray doesn't lead to anything happening outside one's own mind. The cognitive dissonance must be deafening.

No cognitive dissonance whatsoever except in your suspicious one-track mind.
Well, at least you qualify your suspicion. That shows there is hope for you yet. Bright relatively? I would normally say thnx but considering your lack of commonsense in this subject I hesitate. Actually, now you are mindlessly drifting off subject into the realm of speculating about whether prayer is really answered or not. OK! That's your pet peeve. No problem if that were the theme of this thread but it isn't. Neither does it have anything to do with your faulty unqualified premise.

....
eta:

Curse me a fig tree.
Heal blindness with a mud pie.
Pray a wet slab of beef on fire.

None of the specific examples of the results of prayer in the Bible actually happen.

In it's own words, "Call out with a loud voice, for he is a god; either he is occupied or gone aside, or is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and needs to be awakened."

You should take your overheated irrelevant argument to the religion forum since it looks completely out of theme here. Not that it need be. Only that your vehement irrational approach qualifies it more for that forum than for this one.

Advice
Try simplification by stating your premise and conclusion via a syllogism. If you do, I am sure you yourself will see just how far you have drifted off thread theme. : )

[quixotecoyote]

I fail to see where I have done that. Pray tell?

I suppose a boldface quotation immediately after my statement was too difficult to follow.




The surrounding context .....


Yep, still no ability to reconcile how Jesus says prayers will be answered yet they never are. Keep on spinning, I guess. Maybe it'll fool someone.

[Radrook]

I suppose a boldface quotation immediately after my statement was too difficult to follow.

Your argument isn't logical. Maybe that's why I find it difficult to locate and your need for added directions to coincide with the tortuous roundabout mental ruminations necessary. As I clearly said. Place your argument in a syllogistic format and let's take a look at it objectively. If unwilling then why not take it to the religion forum where you will have a field day with it without going off thread topic?

Your problem is that you being victimized by misconceptions and presuppositions. Since you already are convinced then you go about forming an argument around that preconception. Of course the preconception itself requires that you ignore all other matters bearing on the subject. And there is the danger! Ignoring all other relevant matters on a subject leads to a perhaps a valid but nevertheless false conclusions.

Please keep in mind that I am not saying that with your assumed premise the argument isn't valid. Of course it's valid given YOUR PREMISE. What I am saying is that the argument's conclusion isn't true. You need to learn to distinguish validity from truth. Other wise you will never gain an understanding of cogent reasoning.

But let's delve a little deeper into this-at least for the sake of those with a better grasp of the subject. First, all those familiar with the Gospels KNOW that Jesus spoke in symbolic language, figurative speech, and parables. Now, is it indeed FAIR better yet, logical, to ignore this and accuse him of speaking literally in order to ridicule? Not that you can't ridicule. Of course you can. But if you must-do so at least in a logical manner and not in such an easily-refutable time-wasting off-topic way.


After all, ignoring such well-known background info about Jesus could very well lead us to do so. But ignoring that type of data is fallacious reasoning which demands that we examine all relevant data before concluding anything. No?



Yep, still no ability to reconcile how Jesus says prayers will be answered yet they never are. Keep on spinning, I guess. Maybe it'll fool someone.


What Jesus said about prayer is NOT what youare saying.
And that's why a syllogism is necessary. So that we can examine exactly what it is you are saying. What I am saying is that Jesus could not have been teaching that all prayers would be unconditionally answered because that would involve sin.
You see, my approach isn't religiously based. It focuses on the logical merit of the conclusion. Validity. Perhaps. Truth-no.

BTW
Jesus was tempted to pray for the wrong things by Satan and he refused because such prayer would have been sinful.

Jesus often spoke in parables and symbolic language.

Since you ignore this you feel quite comfy concluding anything you wish without blinking an eye. But your ability not to blink while ignoring relevant data doesn't prove that you speak truth. It only proves ability not to blink.

BTW
Jesus used hyperbole on various occasions as do most other authors and speakers, umm, in order to get their points accross with added force. Try not to develop a nosebleed trying to fathom the concept of hyperbole.

I have no need or intentions of fooling anyone. Another one of your baseless conclusions created by your preconceptions which have absolutely no applicability to the subject.


Matthew 13:34

"All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:"

This literary device is nothing alien to scripture:

Ezekiel
17:2 Son of man, put forth a riddle, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel;

[quixotecoyote]

Word count != truth, and you're a pretty poor liar claiming to be unable to find my reference when it was quoted in bold directly under my statement.

(For those of you playing along at home, post 53 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3203165&postcount=53) is where I mention the conceded argument with a direct quote and post 54 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3204140&postcount=54) is where he pretends he doesn't see it)

Jesus was not speaking in parable form. The story goes that he actually killed a fig tree with a curse, not metaphorically but really magically zapped it. Then he said, "Truly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and thrown into the sea,' it will happen. And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith."

He magicked a fig tree to death and then told his disciples they could do it too. So curse me a fig tree Radrook. Or is your god still asleep?

eta:
For someone complaining about context, you're being quite dishonest about your own quotes.

Your Matthew 13 quote refers to the parable of the sower and the weeds, not the fig tree event in Matthew 21 which is not spoken as parable.

Ezekiel 17:2 refers to the parable of two eagles and the vine which is posed immediately afterwards. Not related at all to the event in Matthew 21 which is not spoken as parable.

Nice try though.

[Radrook]

Word count != truth, and you're a pretty poor liar claiming to be unable to find my reference when it was quoted in bold directly under my statement.

(For those of you playing along at home, post 53 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3203165&postcount=53) is where I mention the conceded argument with a direct quote and post 54 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3204140&postcount=54) is where he pretends he doesn't see it)

Jesus was not speaking in parable form. The story goes that he actually killed a fig tree with a curse, not metaphorically but really magically zapped it. Then he said, "Truly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and thrown into the sea,' it will happen. And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith."

He magicked a fig tree to death and then told his disciples they could do it too. So curse me a fig tree Radrook. Or is your god still asleep?

eta:
For someone complaining about context, you're being quite dishonest about your own quotes.

Your Matthew 13 quote refers to the parable of the sower and the weeds, not the fig tree event in Matthew 21 which is not spoken as parable.

Ezekiel 17:2 refers to the parable of two eagles and the vine which is posed immediately afterwards. Not related at all to the event in Matthew 21 which is not spoken as parable.

Nice try though.

First, the reference to Ezekiel OBVIOUSLY is to show that parables and symbolic language technique was already being used prior to Jesus. Nothing more.

Furthermore, your reference to Jesus pointing a finger, affecting a fig tree and telling his disciples that with similar faith they could do the same isn't relevant to what my rebuttal to a previous statement refers to. The claim was that Jesus fig tree demontration proves that all prayers are answered no matter how ridiculous they are. Wereupon I replied that Jesus never taught such a thing since it would require God to grant sinful foolish requests... a teaching totally alien to the Bible. That was my original premise which you have deviated from in order to short create a convenient strawman

Excerpt:

After this incident Jesus exhorts his disciples to “have faith in God”. They are to pray with expectant faith no matter how difficult the situation may be. The phrase “to remove mountains” was a common Jewish expression for removing difficulties. A wise teacher who could solve difficulties was called a “mountain remover”. If we pray with faith God will give us the means to overcome difficulties and obstacles. If we want God to hear our prayers we must forgive those who wrong us as God has forgiven us. Do you pray with expectant faith?

http://www.rc.net/wcc/readings/matt2118.htm

The tree symbolized Israel, The figs symbolized their behavior. In Jeremiah 24, the people of Israel are compared to figs, both good and rotten. The withering of it was their lack of bearing good behavior and so deserving to be cursed.


Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” Matthew 7:15-20 (KJV)

Galatians 5:22-23 (KJV)

This is the fruit we should produce: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Why? Because ultimately, the good fruit we bear comes from faith in Jesus Christ:

“Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God.” Philippians 1:11 (KJV)

bTW
Your accusation that Jesus used is derogatory. Did Moses, and other prophets which are also described as performing powerful works use magic? Or do you arbitrarily reserve your magic worker opinion for Jesus?

[quixotecoyote]

First, the reference to Ezekiel OBVIOUSLY is to show that parables and symbolic language technique was already being used prior to Jesus. Nothing more.

Allright, no reason for you to bring it up then as no one disputed the existence of parables.

Furthermore, your reference to Jesus pointing a finger, affecting a fig tree and telling his disciples that with similar faith they could do the same isn't relevant to what my rebuttal to a previous statement refers to. The claim was that Jesus fig tree demontration proves that all prayers are answered no matter how ridiculous they are. Wereupon I replied that Jesus never taught such a thing since it would require God to grant sinful foolish requests... a teaching totally alien to the Bible. That was my original premise which you have deviated from in order to short create a convenient strawman


As I said before, curse me a fig tree and we'll call it even. I conceded that Jesus may not have meant all prayers, so I explicitly limited it to one explicit example that Jesus gave.


Excerpt:

After this incident Jesus exhorts his disciples to “have faith in God”. They are to pray with expectant faith no matter how difficult the situation may be. The phrase “to remove mountains” was a common Jewish expression for removing difficulties. A wise teacher who could solve difficulties was called a “mountain remover”. If we pray with faith God will give us the means to overcome difficulties and obstacles. If we want God to hear our prayers we must forgive those who wrong us as God has forgiven us. Do you pray with expectant faith?


Of course not, it's all bunk. But you would think that someone with actual faith, like you perhaps, would be able to pray with expectant faith. Yet nothing happens when you pray.

http://www.rc.net/wcc/readings/matt2118.htm

The tree symbolized Israel, The figs symbolized their behavior. In Jeremiah 24, the people of Israel are compared to figs, both good and rotten. The withering of it was their lack of bearing good behavior and so deserving to be cursed.


I'm sure that was the symbolism behind Jesus's behavior as Matthew told it; in the form of a factual event, not a metaphor.


Ye shall know them by their fruits. <snipped for irrelevancy>

no further relevance.


bTW
Your accusation that Jesus used is derogatory. Did Moses, and other prophets which are also described as performing powerful works use magic? Or do you arbitrarily reserve your magic worker opinion for Jesus?

Of course not. Magic is magic, whether it's Moses' and the Egyptians' snake-poofing competition or Jesus's mud pie miracles.

[Radrook]

Allright, no reason for you to bring it up then as no one disputed the existence of parables.

Jesus use of parables was extensive as was his use of figurative language. The tree examples I give clearly show that he used the tree as symbol of people and their behavior. The OT used a tree to refer to the nation of Israel. Actually, the main reason we see things differently is because you believe the Bible to be a hodge podge of disjointed books and the teachings of Jesus as rambling utterances while I see the Bible as one inspired harmonious book with one guiding author-God. With such disparate viewpoints it might seem as if we will never agree on anything. However, our common ground can be the logic or lack of logic of the arguments since logic of conclusions is irrelevant to the subject matter. Are we justified in concluding what we are concluding, or are we somehow ignoring a vital step in the evaluative process.



As I said before, curse me a fig tree and we'll call it even. I conceded that Jesus may not have meant all prayers, so I explicitly limited it to one explicit example that Jesus gave.

The example you give cannot be isolated from the rest of Jesus teachings but must be examined within his teaching's context. That's a basic requirement for good scholarship
and is applicable to Mohammed, Buddha, Socrates, Plato and any other great teacher.

This is one of the faulty premises being used:

The only context is immediate context.
That is not immediate context.
That isn't context.

The above premise would make all Jesus tells us about any subject irrelevant to everything else stated a few pages later. Apply this same rule to any other book and the person doing so would be perhaps suspected of striving with might and main to portray his targeted material as a hodge podge of disconnected drivel.

It is common knowledge that the evaluation of the teachings, of let's say, Mohammed, requires a thorough reading and contrast and comparison of all the verses in the Koran which shed light on any given subject. Using one verse, or even a few verses, while tagging
everything else as totally irrelevant is taking things out of context and can only lead to ideas which Moslems would find offensive. In fact, they would ask the person why he is taking Mohammed's words out of context--the rest of the Koran. This requirement, mind
you, isn't restricted to merely the Koran or the Bible. This contextual requirement is a must when we evaluate any famous person's teachings.

Take the example of interpreting that Jesus meant any and all prayers would be answered if requested with faith. Could Jesus really have meant everything and all things requested? Or was he just using hyperbole to get his point across? Well, consider that when Satan asked Jesus to pray for certain things Jesus responded that those prayers were wrong. Faith was irrelevant. The requests themselves within the context of the situation were wrong. then we have Jesus praying at the Garden of Getsemane. How does he finish his prayer? By saying that God's will be done and not his. In short, God was under no obligation to answer a prayer if it was contrary to his purposes. Then again there is the example he gave to his disciples on what to pray for given in order of importance.

Of course not, it's all bunk. But you would think that someone with actual faith, like you perhaps, would be able to pray with expectant faith. Yet nothing happens when you pray.

I personally don't pray for fig trees to wither nor do I see any biblically justifiable reason why I should. About prayer expectations, Jesus taught his disciples both how to pray and what to pray for:

1. Sanctification of God's name
2. Request for His Kingdom to come and his will to be done on earth as in Heaven
3. Request for daily sustenance for physical survival.
4. Request for forgiveness of sins
5. Request for protection from evil.

Nowhere in this model prayer is there mention of praying for trees to wither or for healing of infirmities. Why? Because the healing of sicknesses is included in the doing of his will on earth as in heaven request and is promised to occur when God's kingdom takes direct control over earths affairs. All the miracles Jesus did were merely shadows of what would be done under God's promised kingdom--the final solution to all of mankind's problems.
So he had to have been speaking symbolically in reference to that scripture.

Importance of Larger Context
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyKQdRlJH7JgAUC9rCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=11veqafrf/EXP=1196660637/**http%3a//www.bibletoday.com/htstb/context.htm

I'm sure that was the symbolism behind Jesus' behavior as Matthew told it; in the form of a factual event, not a metaphor. no further relevance.


Your certainty ignores that Jesus spoke on other occasions in similar fashion and when questioned he stated that the words were not literal though some would misunderstand them to be that way.

I am not in the habit of posting irrelevancies. How they are perceived, of course, is beyond my control. About your certainty-you are entitled to your certainty as I am to mine.

Of course not. Magic is magic, whether it's Moses' and the Egyptians' snake-poofing competition or Jesus' mud pie miracles.

From your standpoint perhaps, but from a biblical standpoint supernatural results can have either of two sources. One source is evil-the other is not. Magic and magicians are always biblically associated with evil. In contrast, the miracles performed by the prophets, Jesus, and the Apostles are not.

Actually, Jesus' enemies were the ones accusing him of being a magic practitioner. Some still do-in fact.

[quixotecoyote]

Very well. Pray for 3 or 5. That works just as well. Neither sustenance nor survival nor protection will occur in any instance where it could not without prayer (save possibly in a type of situation were someone is requiring you to say a prayer or he'll kill you).

Your interpretation is a mish-mash of post-hoc rationalizations, but it still works to show the point.

[Radrook]

Very well. Pray for 3 or 5. That works just as well. Neither sustenance nor survival nor protection will occur in any instance where it could not without prayer (save possibly in a type of situation were someone is requiring you to say a prayer or he'll kill you).

Your interpretation is a mish-mash of post-hoc rationalizations, but it still works to show the point.

I really don't think that you even understand what the point is or what the concept of post hoc for that matter since it has absolutely no bearing on any of my conclusions.


BTW
The point in the model prayer example is that your fig-killing finger-pointing prayer request isn't a biblically approved one and has absolutely no basis in biblical Christian doctrine. But since it works to cloud the issue and avoids the need to reason you keep chanting it like a mantra.

[quixotecoyote]

this is my favorite post ever!

I really don't think that you even understand what the point is or thge concept of I don't of post hoc for that matter since it has absolutely no bearing on any of my conclusions.

A completely incomprehensible insult to my comprehension.

:bigclap

I applaud you sir.




BTW
The point was that your fig killing finger-pointing prayer request isn't a biblically approved one and has absolutely no basis in biblical Christian doctrine. But since it works to cloud the issue and avoids the need to reason you keep chanting it like a mantra.

So pray me up a pancake. Physical sustenance and all that.