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.

 

Syllogisms of Lies

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   
God is not human.
Jesus was a human.
Therefor, Jesus was not God, or he was lying.

Humans are not God.
Jesus was God.
Therefor, Jesus was not human, or he was lying.

Humans cannot give birth to God,
A human gave birth to Jesus.
Therefor, Jesus was not a God, or he was lying.

A God cannot die on a cross,
Jesus died on a cross,
Therefor Jesus was not God, or he was lying.

Man cannot walk on water.
Jesus walked on water.
Therefor, Jesus was not a man, or he was lying.

Man cannot turn water into wine.
Jesus turned water into wine.
Therefor, Jesus was not a man, or he was lying.

No man can reanimate his corpse after death.
Jesus reanimated his corpse after death.
Therefor, Jesus was not a man, or he was lying.

An all-powerful God cannot feel pain.
Jesus felt pain.
Therefor, Jesus was not an all-powerful God, or he was lying.

An all-powerful God cannot bleed.
Jesus bled.
Therefor, Jesus is not an all-powerful God, or he was lying.

An all-powerful God cannot be overtaken by men, tortured and murdered.
Jesus was overtaken by men, tortured and murdered.
Therefor, Jesus was not an all-powerful God, or he was lying.

No man can die for another's sins,
Jesus died for another's sins,
Therefor, Jesus was not a man, or he was lying.

No man is born without a human father.
Jesus was born without a human father.
Therefor Jesus was not a man, or he was lying.

An all-powerful God cannot be tempted,
Jesus was tempted,
Jesus was not an all-powerful God, or he was lying.

Man cannot float to heaven,
Jesus floated to heaven,
Therefor, Jesus was not a man, or he was lying.

A God who becomes a man is pretending to be a man,
God became a man,
Therefor, God was pretending to be man.

A god pretending to be a man hides his true self,
God pretended to be a man,
Therefor, God hid his true self.

He who hides his true self does so to deceive,
God hid his true self,
Therefor, God did so to deceive.

A deceiver must lie to deceive.
God deceived.
Therefor, God lied.

He who lies to men is a liar,
God, Jesus or the Bible lie to men,
God, Jesus or the Bible are liars.

Take your pick.




posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   
If knowledge is power, and power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely.

That would mean that an all knowing and powerful being would be completely corrupted. Therefore it stands to reason that if there was a god, it would also be corrupt, would it not?



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 11:45 PM
link   
My objection is to your premise, repeated in one form or another: Jesus must be either a God or a Man. I reject that premise.

Not surprisingly, I believe he is different from either, a third category, sui generis, sometimes described as the God-Man.

Rejecting that premise rejects most, if not all, of your syllogisms as invaild.



posted on Jun, 30 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


One problem with your entire argument...

Jesus didn't claim to be God...

Problem solved?




posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 12:14 AM
link   
What IF Jesus didn't lie, but those who put the bible together did? What if liars got a hold of the truth then turned it into a control mechanism?

I don't think Jesus ever performed any miracles, he was a normal person with a treasure trove of knowledge. It's the people in power at the time who turned him into a miracle worker and zombie.



posted on Jul, 1 2013 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 




My objection is to your premise, repeated in one form or another: Jesus must be either a God or a Man. I reject that premise.

Not surprisingly, I believe he is different from either, a third category, sui generis, sometimes described as the God-Man.

Rejecting that premise rejects most, if not all, of your syllogisms as invaild.


That is not a premise actually, it is a conclusion. To reject the premise of a syllogism, you must reject one of the first two lines.

When I say "he lied", it could obviously be any numerous link in the chain that lied—disciples, The Bible, interpreters, historians etc—usually whoever relates the story.

“I and the Father are one”, "The great I AM", “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”.

Are these claims of humanity? Or are these claims to YHWH? Are these the claims of the Messiah? The Son of God? The Son of Man?

Call him what you will, this "man" could stop the wind with his voice.

37 A furious squall came up, and the waves broke over the boat, so that it was nearly swamped.
38 Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him, “Teacher, don’t you care if we drown?”
39 He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, “Quiet! Be still!” Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.
40 He said to his disciples, “Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?”
41 They were terrified and asked each other, “Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!”
(Mark)

If we must infer that Jesus was not a god, nor a man, but a different kind of being altogether, I would have to ask how you surmised this? From the very book that tells you he is all these things?



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 

Dear TheSubversiveOne,

Thank you for forcing me to rethink my position. Logic is a valuable tool, especially when properly used. After my rethink, I find I hold the same position still.

Let me give you an example.

Apples are red. (Ok, I know some are green, cut me some slack here.)
Red is a color.
Colors can't be weighed.
Therefore, apples can't be weighed.

I believe that is the same sort of error that is sneaking into your syllogisms. (By the way, if I haven't thanked you for using syllogisms, may I now? Very nice work.) If I was to object to that argument, I would criticize the premise "Apples are red." for being insufficiently descriptive.

I admit that it may not be a logical objection, but I think that's where the problem seeps in. As in your first syllogism:


God is not human.
Jesus was a human.
Therefor, Jesus was not God, or he was lying.
Where I think the problem occurs is in the second premise, as being insufficiently descriptive.


If we must infer that Jesus was not a god, nor a man, but a different kind of being altogether, I would have to ask how you surmised this? From the very book that tells you he is all these things?
I am not, at this point, asking you or anyone to infer anything, nor am I trying to prove logically anything about Jesus. I am merely pointing out that the possibility exists that Jesus was a "God-Man," that it is logically possible, and that your syllogisms fail to address that question, let alone rule it out.

Discussing Jesus' historicity and the veracity of the New Testament is another thread (and a frequent one) altogether.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Why not do one on Mohamed? Answer you don’t have the balls and it is not pc to question Islam.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 





Apples are red. (Ok, I know some are green, cut me some slack here.)
Red is a color.
Colors can't be weighed.
Therefore, apples can't be weighed.


A syllogism consists of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. This is logical jargon, but once its figured out it becomes quite helpful. In a syllogism, we always have these three parts only. We move from the first, to the second and conclude with the third to complete the argument. After that, we can move onto another syllogism, and further down a line of deductive reasoning. It's painstakingly boring and pedantic, but very useful as a tool when making a point, as it is very difficult to disagree with.

In arguments, its good to know your fallacies. You committed the Fallacy of Four Terms, by adding in "weighed". Remember, syllogisms consist only 3 terms (apples, red, color). Here's your argument straightened out a bit.

Some apples are red.
Red is a color.
Therefore, some apples are colored.

From that point, you can move on to the next argument. I hope I'm not sounding too nitpicky here, but what little I know may help.

To destroy my syllogisms you must show where I went wrong with my logic, or you can disagree with the premises. I think your second objection, about the insufficient terms used to describe God or Jesus, makes more sense.

Sure, calling an apple red doesn't fully encompass what an apple is, its a simple true or false statement, and it can lead to some strange places. But then again, so is calling someone God.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by guitarplayer
 





Why not do one on Mohamed? Answer you don’t have the balls and it is not pc to question Islam.


I don't live in an Islamic country. I haven't read the Quran. Why don't you tell me all about it?



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 

Dear TheSubversiveOne,

Thank you very much for the lesson, I appreciate it.

Let's assume for a moment that all of your syllogisms are completely sound. Are you not, then, proving too much?

The conclusions include Jesus was not God and Jesus was not man. You're syllogisms show that either Jesus didn't exist at all, or there are lies involved. This seems a strange pair of conclusions. If Jesus didn't exist at all, how do we account for lies about a completely fictional entity? Further, if lies are involved, these lies have come from multiple sources; religious and secular, favorable and unfavorable.

Historians utilize techniques somewhere between art and science. It is my understanding that the vast majority of historians believe that a Jesus did exist, at least as a man. I doubt that historians would be ignorant of the logical technique you describe. It seems a worthy use of time to try to determine what that man said and did. I'm not knowledgeable enough to see how syllogisms would help us with that.

With respect,
Charles1952

P.s. "Apples are food. People need food to survive. Therefore, people need apples to survive." That's why I feel the completeness of the description is important in some cases. I needed to change the first premise to "Apples are one kind of food," or something like that. - C -



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


What land do you live in?




top topics



 
3

log in

join