Originally posted by RJHinds So the goal of logic must be to convince someone of the correctness of your argument. If that is the goal, then what does it matter if one can get away with using incorrect premises?
No, you can't read that into my post. What you have described is rhetoric, the purpose of rhetoric is to attempt to convince. The purpose of logic is to see if an argument is internally consistent.
Originally posted by DeepThought No, you can't read that into my post. What you have described is rhetoric, the purpose of rhetoric is to attempt to convince. The purpose of logic is to see if an argument is internally consistent.
You told josephw that you were not sure what he meant by goal. But for me you seem certain that the meaning of goal is purpose. So that would mean that the goal of logic is to see if an argument is internally consistent, right?
Originally posted by RJHinds You told josephw that you were not sure what he meant by goal. But for me you seem certain that the meaning of goal is purpose. So that would mean that the goal of logic is to see if an argument is internally consistent, right?
Well he could have meant two different things. One question he could have been asking is "What is the purpose of logic, what is it for?". The other question he could have been asking is "What is logic itself aiming to become?", which is peculiarly teleological. I assumed the former as it is, to me, the natural meaning of the question. However, religion involves a certain amount of teleological thinking. In your belief system God has a purpose in mind for the World, history is aiming towards an outcome. So I couldn't be certain that josephw didn't have some sort of teleological outcome for logic in mind. The use of the word goal did imply that.
Originally posted by DeepThought Well he could have meant two different things. One question he could have been asking is "What is the purpose of logic, what is it for?". The other question he could have been asking is "What is logic itself aiming to become?", which is peculiarly teleological. I assumed the former as it is, to me, the natural meaning of the question. However, religi ...[text shortened]... e some sort of teleological outcome for logic in mind. The use of the word goal did imply that.
Originally posted by RJHinds Then prove otherwise?
Show me the gullies that indicate water flow like the gullies on Earth and Mars. No gullies, no water. Pretty simple. No water flow wear patterns or erosion. Get serious.
Originally posted by sonhouse Show me the gullies that indicate water flow like the gullies on Earth and Mars. No gullies, no water. Pretty simple. No water flow wear patterns or erosion. Get serious.
Where is all the dust on the moon that indicates it is billions of years old? 😏
Originally posted by sonhouse You mean it is raining so much dust the moon would be covered in oh, let's say 6000 years?
Why don't we see that dust in telescopes and why isn't the ISS covered with dust right now? It's been up more than 10 years now.
I never said that it rained on the moon or that there was rivers of water there. I just suggested that the use of water by God might have been a way to make sure the moon did not get hot like the sun.
Just because there has been no evidence of water found on the moon does not mean it wasn't there for a very short time. Heat from the moon would cause water to evaporate and dry up like the deserts on Earth and in the process the moon would be cooled. It is just a suggestion, not a statement of fact because I was not there.
In my opinion, the level of dust on the moon is too small for it to be 4 billion years old. You do remember that when we first went to the moon that moon pods were made to prevent the possibility of sinking down in all the billions of years of dust accumulation? 😏
Originally posted by sonhouse It would mean the other dude doesn't know logic principles and it would be like you beating a 6 year old at chess and then gloating about how great you are.
Now that sounds like the best description of the goal of logic yet.
"If you can't beat them with brilliance, then baffle them with bull****."
28 Mar '15 16:40
Logic help
Back to Top