From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Criticism: "There's no logic in Christianity"
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 16:16:24 GMT

To Mr. Sandvik and Mr. Sarver: Please explain in what (non-standard)
way you define "logically valid argument".

---

The premise I give

     1. Relationship with God is good.
     2. Sin is the only thing that inhibits relationship with God.
     3. All sin.
     4. Forgiveness removes the effect of sin in (2).
     5. Accepting Jesus provides forgiveness.

is in no particular order.  There is no speaking of one being "next".
The argument is simply of the standard form, "Given that the above
five are true, it follows that accepting Jesus is good."

bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:

>It doesn't matter if you do state them, Skinner.  Suppose I draw entirely
>different conclusions from your "propositions".  How will you enforce your
>interpretation/linkage between one proposition and the next?

If there are other conclusions which can be validly inferred from the
above premise, fine.  The existence of other conclusions in no way
invalidates the one I gave.  Given a premise, all conclusions which
obey the rules of inference are equally valid.

>In other words, let's start with the following proposition:

>1.  All sin.

>What is the next legal proposition?  It could be:

>2.  All are human.
>2.  All have had some fun in their life.
>2.  Sin is normal and nothing to be concerned about
>2.  (yours)  A savior is needed.

It's not clear what part of the argument is being considered here.
"All sin" is probably part of the premise.  Are the choices for (2)
additions to the premise or propositions inferred from the premise?
If the former, there are no constraints.  Anything may be listed next.
If the latter, then none listed are "legal", for none of them can be
implied from (1) without adding to the premise.

Note that the argument I give is not, "All sin; therefor a savior is
needed."  It is as follows.

     Premise: All sin; sin is the only things that inhibits
              relationship with God; forgiveness removes the effect of
              sin; accepting Jesus provides forgiveness; relationship
              with God is good.

     Conclusion: Therefore accepting Jesus is good.

---

>/      1.  The sky is blue
>/      2.  The grass is green
>/      3.  Therefore, gravity pulls things downward (assume local reference for
>/          the word "downward")

>/(skinner)
>/is not valid, for no chain of propositions can connect the
>/premise (1 and 2) to the conclusion (3).

>"No chain of propositions can connect them"?

Yes.  The "chain of propositions" you gave, which I annotate in part
below, cannot be inferred from the premise.

>Here they are:

>1.  The sky is blue.

>2.  The gods make the color blue fall from heaven.  

This cannot be inferred from the premise.

>3.  It is invisible to us because humans have only two eyes--three or more 
>    eyes are necessary to see color falling--my holy book says so.

This also cannot be inferred from the premise.

And so on.

                                   Gregg Skinner







Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish