Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presented by Ratio Christi TAMU. zetesin, zeteseis (noun); zeteo (verb) search, debate Because I was at a loss how I could investigate these matters,

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Presented by Ratio Christi TAMU. zetesin, zeteseis (noun); zeteo (verb) search, debate Because I was at a loss how I could investigate these matters,"— Presentation transcript:

1 Presented by Ratio Christi TAMU

2 zetesin, zeteseis (noun); zeteo (verb) search, debate Because I was at a loss how I could investigate these matters, I asked if he were willing to go to Jerusalem and be tried there on these charges. -Acts 25:20 When Paul and Barnabas had a major argument and debate with them, the church appointed Paul and Barnabas and some others from among them to go up to meet with the apostles and elders in Jerusalem about this point of disagreement. -Acts 15:2 Now a dispute came about between some of John’s disciples and a certain Jew concerning ceremonial washing. -John 3:25

3 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, quarrels, and fights about the law, because they are useless and empty. -Titus 3:9 But reject foolish and ignorant controversies, because you know they breed infighting. -2 Timothy 2:23 2 Tim. 2:23, Titus 3:9 - moras (feminine) = foolish 1 Cor. 1:25 - foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom Mark 7:13 (variant) - you nullify the Word of God by the (foolish) tradition that you have handed down

4 If someone spreads false teachings and does not agree with sound words (that is, those of our Lord Jesus Christ) and with the teaching that accords with godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing, but has an unhealthy interest in controversies and verbal disputes. This gives rise to envy, dissension, slanders, evil suspicions, and constant bickering by people corrupted in their minds and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a way of making a profit. 1 Timothy 6:3-5 1 Tim. 6:4 - noseo = be sick. ailing (figurative)

5 Marks of unwise arguing: Useless Breeds infighting, quarrels Gives rise to: Envy Lack of trust Intellectual depravity

6 May my words and my thoughts be acceptable in your sight, O LORD, my sheltering rock and my redeemer. Psalm 19:14 Is it worshipful?

7 But reject foolish and ignorant controversies, because you know they breed infighting. And the Lord’s slave must not engage in heated disputes but be kind toward all, an apt teacher, patient, correcting opponents with gentleness. Perhaps God will grant them repentance and then knowledge of the truth and they will come to their senses and escape the devil’s trap where they are held captive to do his will. 2 Timothy 2:23 Is the other person in mind?

8 For though we live as human beings, we do not wage war according to human standards, for the weapons of our warfare are not human weapons, but are made powerful by God for tearing down strongholds. We tear down arguments and every arrogant obstacle that is raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to make it obey Christ. 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 Are you depending upon God ’ s power and guidance?

9 Finally, all of you be harmonious, sympathetic, affectionate, compassionate, and humble. Do not return evil for evil or insult for insult, but instead bless others because you were called to inherit a blessing...But set Christ apart as Lord in your hearts and always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope you possess. Yet do it with courtesy and respect, keeping a good conscience, so that those who slander your good conduct in Christ may be put to shame when they accuse you. 1 Peter 3:8-9, Are you displaying Christlikeness?

10 Is it worshipful? Is the other person in mind? Are you depending upon God ’ s power and guidance? Are you displaying Christlikeness?

11  The science of analyzing arguments ?  The science of good reasoning in general?  Tagore  A mind all logic is like a knife all blade, it makes the hand bleed that uses it

12  Premises that lead to a conclusion  P1:If God exists he works all events for the good of those who believe;  P2:Some events produce no good;  C:Therefore God does not exist.  The conclusion either follows from the premises logically, or is at least probable given the premises. √

13 Types of Arguments Inductive Deductive Bad Arguments Formal Fallacies Informal Fallacies Tactics Analysis

14  Inductive  Results in a high probability that the conclusion is true.  Common in science  Deductive Arguments  If the premises are true, and the structure is correct, the conclusion must be true.

15  Has premises and conclusion, but is probabilistic  100% of biological life forms that we know of depend on liquid water to exist.  Therefore, if we discover a new biological life form it will probably depend on liquid water to exist.  Used in the scientific method  The conclusion is not certain, only probable

16  Statistical Syllogism  P1:Most Greeks ate fish;  P2:Socrates was a Greek;  C:Therefore Socrates probably ate fish.  Similar in form to the deductive syllogism  The conclusion is still not certain, only probable

17  Assumes a sample has the same attributes as a population  10% of the survey were Democrats  Therefore, 10% of people are Democrats

18  Compares two situations  Situations A and B are similar in properties X and Y  Situation A also has property Z  Therefore, B probably has property Z as well  May provide good evidence for a claim  Is not conclusive

19  Draws a conclusion about the future from the past  Every time in the past that an apple has been dropped, it has fallen.  Therefore, if I drop an apple now, it will probably fall  One of the foundational assumptions of science

20  Has premises and conclusion  P1:All men are mortal;  P2:Socrates was a man;  C:Therefore Socrates was mortal.  The conclusion is certain, but only if the premises are true and the structure is correct √

21  Validity  An argument is valid if it has the correct form  Sound  An argument is sound if it is valid and the premises are true

22  Categorical Logic  Propositional Logic  Modal Logic

23  First formalized by Aristotle  Made up of simple statements  Not all arguments can be translated into this form  But many can be translated into this form

24  4 types of statements S P  All S are P S P  No S are P S P  Some S are P S P  Some S are not P  Can be combined into groups of three called a syllogism

25  Requires two kinds of premises  Major Premise:All men are mortal;  Minor Premise:Socrates was a man;  Conclusion:Therefore Socrates was mortal. middleterm  The premises must share a term (middle term) men mortal  P1:All men are mortal; Socrates man  P2:Socrates was a man; Socrates mortal  C:Therefore Socrates was mortal.

26  Not all combinations of terms are valid;  P1:All cats are mammals;  P2:Oreo is a Cat;  C:Therefore Oreo is a mammal.  P1:All mammals are animals;  P2:some cats are animals;  C:Therefore some cats are mammals. X √

27  The most basic logic dealing with conditionals  If then statements, etc.  More powerful than simple categorical syllogisms  9 basic rules

28 PQ  If P, then Q  P Q  Therefore, Q  Valid, example: the ground is wet, it is raining  If the ground is wet, it is raining  The ground is wet it is raining  Therefore it is raining  (this one is unsound because the premise is false) √

29 PQ  If P, then Q Q  Not Q P  Therefore, not P  Valid, example: it is raining, the ground is wet  If it is raining, the ground is wet  The ground is wet  The ground is not wet itisraining  Therefore it is not raining  (This one may be unsound as well) √

30 P Q  If P then Q Q R  If Q then R P R  Therefore if P then R  Example it is raining, the ground is wet  If it is raining, the ground is wet  If the ground is wet, the roads are slippery if it is raining, the roads are slippery  Therefore, if it is raining, the roads are slippery √

31  P  Q P Q  Therefore P and Q  Example  John is a good student  Mary is a good student John is a good studentMary is a good student  Therefore John is a good student and Mary is a good student √

32  P Q  P and Q P  Therefore P  Example  John is a good studentMary is a good student  John is a good student and Mary is a good student John is a good student  Therefore John is a good student √

33 P Q  If P then Q P P Q  Therefore If P then P and Q  Example it is raining, the road is wet  If it is raining, the road is wet if it is raining, it is raining the road is wet  Therefore if it is raining, it is raining and the road is wet √

34  P P Q  Therefore P or Q  Example  It is raining it is raining the sun is shining  Therefore if it is raining or the sun is shining √

35  P Q  P or Q P  Not P Q  Therefore, Q  Example  It is either rainingthe sun is shining  It is either raining or the sun is shining  It is raining  It is not raining the sun is shining  Therefore, the sun is shining √

36 P Q R S  If P then Q and If R then S  P R  P or R Q S  Therefore, Q or S  Example  If it is raining the streets are wetit is sunny the streets are dry  If it is raining the streets are wet, and if it is sunny the streets are dry raining sunny  It is either raining or sunny the streets are wet the streets are dry  Therefore, the streets are wet or the streets are dry √

37 God exists the present moment is realGod is in time  If God exists and the present moment is real, then God is in time  If God is in timehe knows what is happening now  If God is in time, then he knows what is happening now God knows what is happening nownow exists  If God knows what is happening now, then now exists now does not existEinstein's theory is wrong  Either now does not exist, or Einstein's theory is wrong  The present moment is real God exists Einstein’s theory is wrong  Therefore if God exists, Then Einstein’s theory is wrong  (However this may be unsound) √

38 Types of Arguments Inductive Deductive Bad Arguments Formal Fallacies Informal Fallacies Tactics Analysis

39  Result from errors of logical form  May have true conclusions  But the conclusion does not follow from the premises

40  Many types:  Ex: communists leftists  All communists are leftists. conservatives communists  No conservatives are communists. conservatives leftists  Therefore, no conservatives are leftists.  Ex: dogs animals  All dogs are animals. cats dogs  No cats are dogs. cats animals  Therefore, no cats are animals. X X

41  Improper modus ponens  Ex: God exists objective morals and duties exist  If God exists, then objective morals and duties exist  Objective morals and duties do exist God exists  Therefore God exists X

42  Improper modus tollens  Ex: God does not exist objective values and duties do not exist  If God does not exist then objective values and duties do not exist  God does exist objective values and duties exist  Therefore objective values and duties exist X

43  Mistakes in reasoning that arise from the content of the argument ⁻ Ad hominem ⁻ Red herring ⁻ Straw man ⁻ Appeal to Authority ⁻ Slippery Slope ⁻ Weak Analogy ⁻ Hasty Generalization ⁻ False Cause ⁻ Appeal to Ignorance ⁻ Bandwagon ⁻ Genetic Fallacy ⁻ Begging the question ⁻ Appeal to Emotion ⁻ Special pleading ⁻ Equivocation ⁻ Self refuting Statements

44  Meaning: “To the man”  Favorite of politicians  Ex:  "All politicians are liars, and you're just another politician. Therefore, you're a liar and your arguments are not to be trusted." X

45  An irrelevant fact intended to divert attention from the real issue  Therefore, if morality exists, then God must exist too!  Sure, but what about slavery in the Bible? That does not sound very moral to me…  Don’t take the bait! X

46  Misrepresenting your opponents position so it can be more easily defeated  “Here is the message that an imaginary 'intelligent design theorist‘ might broadcast to scientists: 'If you don't understand how something works, never mind: just give up and say God did it.” –Richard Dawkins  “one of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding.” - Richard Dawkins X X

47  If an argument is based on authority, it should be a legitimate authority, otherwise it is a bad argument  Ex:  Biogeography gives very strong evidence for evolution.  But Ray Comfort says evolution is false! X

48  Argues that by permitting A to occur, a far- fetched Z will occur.  Only fallacious if Z is not a likely consequence of A  Ex:  Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we'll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys. –yourlogicalfallacy.com X

49  If using an inductive analogy, the analogy must be strong or the argument is fallacious  Ex:  Cars and motor-boats both have engines and steering wheels.  Cars have wheels  Therefore boats must have wheels as well X

50  Drawing a conclusion about a whole group based on a few members of that group  Not all generalizations are hasty  Ex:  Both of the politicians I have met were liars  Therefore, all politicians are liars X

51  Post hoc ergo proctor hoc (After this therefore because of this)  Correlation does not imply causation  Ex:  Pointing to a fancy chart, Roger shows how temperatures have been rising over the past few centuries, whilst at the same time the numbers of pirates have been decreasing; thus pirates cool the world and global warming is a hoax. –yourlogicalfallacy.com X

52  Draws a conclusion from a lack of evidence  Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence  Ex:  You arguments have failed to show that God exists;  Therefore, God must not exist. X

53  Everyone knows that…  Ex:  Everyone knows that Stephen Hawking disproved God… X

54  Claiming a belief is false because you can explain why someone believes it  “Why aren’t you a Hindu? Because you happen to have been brought up in America, not in India. If you had been brought up in India, you’d be a Hindu. If you’d been brought up in Denmark at the time of the vikings, you’d be believing in Wotan and Thor. If you had been brought up in classical Greece you’d be believing in Zeus. if you had been brought up in central Africa, you’d be believing in the great Juju up the mountain.” –Richard Dawkins X

55  How do I know the Bible is true?  Because the Bible says it is true, and I believe it! X

56  An appeal to emotion  “they were religious, and that provided all the justification they needed to murder and destroy” –Richard Dawkins  “Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch- hunts…” –Richard Dawkins X

57  Exempting your claims from your own requirements  Everything that exists has a cause  God exists  So what caused God?  A: God doesn’t count because He’s uncaused! X

58  Using the same word with two different meanings  Define your terms!

59  The argument proves itself to be wrong

60 Types of Arguments Inductive Deductive Bad Arguments Formal Fallacies Informal Fallacies Tactics Analysis

61  Arguments are rarely stated in simple syllogisms  We must take complex arguments and break them down into simple parts we can analyze

62  What would happen if we get down on our knees and pray to God in this way:  Dear God, almighty, all-powerful, all-loving creator of the universe, we pray to you to cure every case of cancer on this planet tonight. We pray in faith, knowing you will bless us as you describe in the Bible. In Jesus' name we pray, Amen.  We pray sincerely, will anything happen? No. Of course not

63  What was the argument  Maybe…  God promises to answer all prayers  God didn’t give me what I prayed for  Therefore God does not exist

64  False premise  God promises to answer all prayers  Christians do not necessarily believe this, so the argument is unsound

65  What was the argument? I prayGod existsGod will answer my prayer  If I pray and God exists, then God will answer my prayer  I prayed  God didn’t answer my prayer God does not exist  Therefore God does not exist  This is valid, but Christians may disagree with the premises

66 “We could learn to live with people from all races and not immediately hating and wanting to kill someone just because they believe in a different god. Yes, a world without God would be a far better, friendlier and happier place. A world without religion would also be a safer place for innocent children, who have been abused by the religious-lot for centuries and continue to be abused.” –god-does-not-exist.org

67  This argument was an argument from emotion  It did not provide facts or evidence  It only claimed that religion harms children

68  To understand why "God does not exist" can be a legitimate scientific statement, it's important to understand what the statement means in the context of science. When a scientist says "God does not exist," they mean something similar to when they say "aether does not exist," "psychic powers do not exist," or "life does not exist on the moon."  All such statements are casual short-hand for a more elaborate and technical statement: "this alleged entity has no place in any scientific equations, plays no role in any scientific explanations, cannot be used to predict any events, does not describe any thing or force that has yet been detected, and there are no models of the universe in which its presence is either required, productive, or useful."

69  What is the argument: no empirical evidence that can only be attributed to God  There is no empirical evidence that can only be attributed to God God existshe will produce empirical evidence  If God exists, then he will produce empirical evidence God does not exist.  Therefore God does not exist.

70  What is the argument: no empirical evidence that can only be attributed to God  There is no empirical evidence that can only be attributed to God God existshe will produce empirical evidence  If God exists, then he will produce empirical evidence God does not exist.  Therefore God does not exist.  This is deductively valid (maybe)  But is it True? √

71 no empirical evidence that can only be attributed to God  There is no empirical evidence that can only be attributed to God God existshe will produce empirical evidence  If God exists, then he will produce empirical evidence God does not exist.  Therefore God does not exist.  We would disagree with the first premise, and maybe even the second premise! X X

72  Logic can be a useful tool in understanding arguments  But arguments are rarely in logical form  Therefore, it is useful to be able to analyze arguments in logical form to find errors


Download ppt "Presented by Ratio Christi TAMU. zetesin, zeteseis (noun); zeteo (verb) search, debate Because I was at a loss how I could investigate these matters,"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google