It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lets discuss deductive logic..

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion




For example, you can begin by assuming that God exists, and is good, and then determine what would logically follow from such an assumption.


This is a really bad example of deductive logic. It sounds like something that William Lane Craig would say!

First of all, we can't BEGIN by assuming "God" exists. There is no deduction in assuming.

Logically, we must first all agree on the definition of "God". What is it? Then, and only then, can we determine if it exists and whether or not, and how, "God" is indeed "good" or "bad".




posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 09:43 PM
link   
dbl post
edit on 25-1-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: windword
I would have to agree in this example. Assuming the existing of anything with imponderable evidence from which to draw a conclusion has little hope of reducing those parameters with deductive reasoning.

Logic dictates that if I stub my toes in the dark on a stool I left in my pathway by mistake in the light of day that it is there if I can see it or not. I can turn on the light and thus expand on the information with which I drew that conclusion.

If I turn off the light and something unknown to me illuminates my pathway and I avoid danger as a result I might conclude that there is a source of light that others can not perceive but seems to make itself available to me.

Deductive reasoning might make me ignore this hypothesis for a lack of reduction by comparing my experiences with others, while Inductive Reasoning might allow me to include this information and conclude that some unseen to others source of light in fact does light up my path in the darkness because I am witness that I avoided danger as a result of that light source.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence




Logic dictates that if I stub my toes in the dark on a stool I left in my pathway by mistake in the light of day that it is there if I can see it or not. I can turn on the light and thus expand on the information with which I drew that conclusion.


Exactly. Deductive logic require an actual, physical starting point, for example a stubbed toe. It's not logical to assume that "God" smashed your toe out of retribution for some thought that you had earlier. The logical assumption would be that your foot slammed into something solid as result of a lack of information because of the the darkness.

Like the poster on page one who suggested, "It's raining, therefore, we can assume the parking lot is wet."

We don't assume that it's raining, therefore, "God" is weeping, that's not logical reasoning.




edit on 26-1-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics
 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join