[Albert]

Premise One: All men are mortal.

Premise Two: Devil is a man.

Conclusion: Devil is mortal.

[B0ycey]

If you disagree, then please show me how the opposite conclusion could be inferred from the syllogism I just wrote above in address to Albert.

If you're going to be deliberately obtuse and can't admit you are simply wrong, what is the point? Live in your bubble and enjoy your debate with Potemkin on a false premise. It is after all quite a common trait on here.

[Victoribus Spolia]

If you're going to be deliberately obtuse and can't admit you are simply wrong, what is the point? Live in your bubble and enjoy your debate with Potemkin on a false premise. It is after all quite a common trait on here

I am not being obtruse. You just claimed logic is not fixed because different conclusions can be inferred from a shared pair of premises.

So let me spell it out for you, please show me how the opposite conclusion (Socrates is NOT mortal), can be inferred from the following two premises:

P1: All men and mortal.

P2: Socrates is a man.

If you can do this, I will gladly admit you were right and I was wrong.

Premise One: All men are mortal.

Premise Two: Devil is a man.

Conclusion: Devil is mortal.

This is a valid syllogism and the conclusion follows from the premises, but whether the premises are valid premises in-themselves is a separate matter.

In the context of a theological debate between two orthodox Christians, premise two would never be accepted and the whole syllogism would be rejected in that context (this was the same point I made about you example regarding heliocentrism v. geocentrism).

[Victoribus Spolia]

I wanted to make you beg three times, VS. Now I am content.

Well played.

I accept your kind invitation.

Oh good, I will present some suggested terms and definitions at a later date after my present debate over Immaterialism (that I hope you are enjoying) has been concluded.

[Sivad]

This is a valid syllogism and the conclusion follows from the premises, but whether the premises are valid premises in-themselves is a separate matter.

Sound, not valid. Don't confuse these people anymore than they already are.

[B0ycey]

I am not being obtruse. You just claimed logic is not fixed because different conclusions can be inferred from a shared pair of premises.

So let me spell it out for you, please show me how the opposite conclusion (Socrates is NOT mortal), can be inferred from the following two premises:

P1: All men and mortal.

P2: Socrates is a man.

If you can do this, I will gladly admit you were right and I was wrong.

You only reach the same conclusion if you accept the rules given VS. In such a case, there is only one answer. And that is because everyone accepts the statements as facts. But logic is reasoning and reasoning is not fixed. So if you alter the prefix 'all' with 'some', the logical answer for the question becomes less certain and not universally agreed. So not fixed.

[Victoribus Spolia]

You only reach the same conclusion if you accept the rules given VS.

Yes, the rules of logic.

In such a case, there is only one answer.

Thus, logic is fixed.

But logic is reasoning and reasoning is not fixed.

Yes, this is what you still have to prove (using reasoning i might add, with all of the delectable irony I can possibly stress).

So if you alter the prefix 'all' with 'some', the logical answer for the question becomes less certain and not universally agreed. So not fixed.

Correct, but those would be different premises and thus necessitate difference conclusions.

However, to prove that logic is not fixed, based on your claim that contrary conclusions can be inferred from the same premises, would require you to do what I just asked you to do regarding the syllogism I gave.

If you can't, then logic is in fact, fixed.

Whats so hard about this? Do you just like to argue for the sake of hearing yourself talk or what?

Why are you so desperate for moral relativity that you would destroy the very basis of rational thought?

Nothing more indicative of hedonistic derangement can be conceived in my opinion.

Sound, not valid. Don't confuse these people anymore than they already are

Its the teacher in me, I can't help it.

I am used to small children after all, I have not given up on explaining why boogers are brown and why mommy doesn't have a pee-pee to a 3 year old, so I think I can handle the unacquainted on here......though my optimism is fading.

[Albert]

This is a valid syllogism and the conclusion follows from the premises, but whether the premises are valid premises in-themselves is a separate matter.

In the context of a theological debate between two orthodox Christians, premise two would never be accepted and the whole syllogism would be rejected in that context (this was the same point I made about you example regarding heliocentrism v. geocentrism).

Well here is a better one.

Premise One: All men are mortal.

Premise Two: Jesus is a man.

Conclusion: Jesus is mortal.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Premise One: All men are mortal.

Premise Two: Jesus is a man.

Conclusion: Jesus is mortal.

The syllogism is valid as presented and is not entirely opposed to Orthodoxy either.

The humanity of Christ is confessed, and Christ did die (in fact he had to) but the astute theologian would simply add: Is Christ merely a man.

[B0ycey]

Correct, but those would be different premises and thus necessitate difference conclusions.

However, to prove that logic is not fixed, based on your claim that contrary conclusions can be inferred from the same premises, would require you to do what I just asked you to do regarding the syllogism I gave.

As I said, you're being obtuse. The only thing I can suggest is pick up a dictionary. Then you know you're wrong. But deep down you already know this.

But sure, if everyone does indeed agree by the same principles (or rules if we go by your example) as one another, then the logical conclusion is the same for everyone. Shame not everyone does agree on the same principles isn't it?

[Victoribus Spolia]

Shame not everyone does agree on the same principles isn't it?

Yes some people are wrong.

and bears shit in the woods.

[Potemkin]

Yes some people are wrong.

and bears shit in the woods.

Looks like Dostoyevsky wasn't the only one to rebel against the rules of logic, eh VS?

But at least ol' Fyodor was smart enough to know that he was rebelling against the rules of logic.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Looks like Dostoyevsky wasn't the only one to rebel against the rules of logic, eh VS?

But at least ol' Fyodor was smart enough to know that he was rebelling against the rules of logic.

Indeed.

Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

[Albert]

The syllogism is valid as presented and is not entirely opposed to Orthodoxy either.

The humanity of Christ is confessed, and Christ did die (in fact he had to) but the astute theologian would simply add: Is Christ merely a man.

But wait hold on, Christ is immortal for crying out loud. He is the one who promised everlasting life for men and women.

[Sivad]

Its the teacher in me, I can't help it.

I am used to small children after all, I have not given up on explaining why boogers are brown and why mommy doesn't have a pee-pee to a 3 year old, so I think I can handle the unacquainted on here......though my optimism is fading.

Dialetheism

I know it's a total dick move but I couldn't resist.

[Sivad]

@Victoribus Spolia, now you're really gonna have some fun with the logicians of pofo.

[Rancid]

If I could, I would eliminate all life except for me.

[Saeko]

@Victoribus Spolia, now you're really gonna have some fun with the logicians of pofo.

As PoFo's greatest, exalted, feared, and most high logician, I will deign to reveal the Truth to you lowly peasants (purely out of the goodness of my heart, though I expect a sacrifice of a virgin soon). VB is right on this matter, and Boycey's arguments are vacuous.

[Saeko]

If I could, I would eliminate all life except for me.

I'd take it just one step further.

[Victoribus Spolia]

But wait hold on, Christ is immortal for crying out loud. He is the one who promised everlasting life for men and women.

So you deny He died on the cross Albert?

The syllogism you presented is true, but it is not sufficient to describe the whole of Christ's nature as fully God and fully Man. That would require several complex syllogisms i'd imagine.

You need to learn basic logic before you will be able to tackle the hypostatic union or Anselm's argument from Cur Deus Homo.

I know it's a total dick move but I couldn't resist

Thanks bro.