Not true. Evangelical doctrine is errant. My doctrine is errant. Scripture is not.
Please retract your false statement.
1. So does evangelical doctrine come from somewhere other than scripture? Will you post that on your website?
2. "Evangelical Christians teach the Bible is inerrant" is a false statement"? Will you post that on your website, too?
This is hilarious. Darth, it is not possible for the same syllogism to beg the question, affirm the consequent, and commit the fallacy of the undistributed middle!
You have demonstrated otherwise.
1. Whatever Jesus Christ taught is true.
Questions begged by this premise: that anyone knows what Jesus Christ actually taught, that he ever taught anything, that he actually existed, that what is written in any version of any ancient texts accurately reflects what he taught, that the translation (which requires interpretation) of any version of the New Testament as it exists today ("extant") accurately reflects what Jesus taught, that whoever may have originally written the New Testament was accurate about what Jesus taught, that whoever may have originally written the New Testament accurately remembered what Jesus taught, that going from Aramaic to Greek resulted in an accurate interpretation of what Jesus taught, and that nothing was added into the New Testament that was attributed to Jesus but that he never really said.
You don't have a way of answering any of these questions. And a concession that you and Mormons believe in Jesus and believe in the New Testament does not resolve the ontological question--which you are incapable of resolving--of who does anyone know the answer to any of these questions. Both ancient Spartans and ancient Athenians believed in Zeus. The fact that this belief was shared does not prove that Zeus existed.
2. Jesus Christ taught that Scripture is inerrant
You are begging the question with scripture, and you have not responded to my post on this. It is irrelevant how you define scripture, the question is how Jesus defined scripture. AND YOU CAN"T ANSWER THAT, BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW.
The undistributed middle is "scripture." Number 2 does not follow from Number 3 because you are equivocating about what "scripture" means. You have to, because you know what you mean by "scripture." YOU DON"T KNOW WHAT JESUS WOULD HAVE MEANT BY SCRIPTURE. You are trying to draw a conclusion by going from your assumption of what Jesus meant by "scripture" to what you mean by "scripture."
You are further begging the question and creating an undistributed middle with "inerrant," for the same reasons.
1. Whatever Jesus taught is true.
2. Jesus taught that the scriptures are errant.
3. Therefore, the scriptures are errant.
Which leads to a paradox. Since the only source of "what Jesus taught" is "scripture," so Jesus may have been errant in teaching that scripture is errant. But if Jesus was not errant, then the scripture are errant, which means that the source of his teaching about being errant is errant.
3. Therefore, Scripture is inerrant.
You are affirming the consequent because "Jesus taught that Scripture is inerrant" affirms "Whatever Jesus taught is true." "Scripture" is your only source for "whatever Jesus taught." "Therefore, Scripture is inerrant" is the antecedent of "Whatever Jesus taught is true." If whatever Jesus taught is true, and whatever he taught is in the scriptures, then it is a foregone conclusion that the scriptures are inerrant.
I'm going to be charitable and say (for now) that you don't know what you're talking about. The examples of affirming the consequent and the fallacy of the undistributed middle are structurally different forms of argument than each other and than the argument I presented.
Oh, so an undistributed middle can't cause you to affirm the consequent. Yes, I
must be the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.
The fallacy of the undistributed middle is a logical fallacy that is committed when the middle term in a categorical syllogism isn't distributed. It is thus a syllogistic fallacy.
All students carry backpacks. My grandfather carries a backpack. Therefore, my grandfather is a student. The middle term is the one that appears in both premises - in this case, it is the class of backpack carriers. It is undistributed because neither of its uses applies to all backpack carriers. Therefore it can't be used to connect students and my grandfather - both of them could be separate and unconnected divisions of the class of backpack carriers. Specifically, the structure of this example results in affirming the consequent.
Tell me: Is there anything illogical about the following argument?
a. Whatever the Holy Spirit has revealed to Darth J is true.
b. The Holy Spirit has revealed to Darth J that Mormonism is true.
c. Therefore, Mormonism is true.
But I thought that could only happen if I had been one of Jesus' original 12 apostles. http://www.mormonapo...g-in-john-1416/
The answer is No -- there is nothing illogical about the above argument. If the two premises are true, the conclusion must be true. I accept the first premise but not the second. This is the ONLY way to refute an argument of this form: you must dispute one or both of the premises.
As long as the definition of "Mormonism" remains constant. "Scripture" does not have the same meaning throughout your syllogism because you equivocate from Jesus' definition of "scripture" (which is never stated) to your
definition of scripture.
To be comparable, your example would have to be:
1. Whatever the Holy Spirit reveals to Darth J is true.
2. The Holy Spirit has revealed to Darth J that "Mormonism" is true.
3. Therefore, Warren Jeffs' understanding of "Mormonism" is true. http://fldstruth.org/
Here's another one:
d. Whatever is in Salt Lake City is in Utah.
e. Temple Square is in Salt Lake City.
f. Therefore, Temple Square is in Utah.
Temple Square has the same meaning in this example. "Scripture" does not have the same meaning in #2 and #3 in the syllogism you used to start this thread.
Both of the above arguments follow the exact same logical form as my argument:
All Xs are B.
A is X.
Therefore, A is B.
You have certainly convinced yourself of this. That is because you have not addressed your equivocation about what "scripture" may have meant to Jesus, and what it means to you.
This, from someone who obviously would have flunked first-semester logic.
Someone who believes in an inerrant, literal Bible isn't exactly in the best position to have a superior attitude about another person's intelligence. Or maybe every ethnic group and every species of animal that lives today really did descend from a small sample that went on Noah's ark and didn't drown only a few thousand years ago. Maybe space aliens or the devil planted all those cave men remains and animal fossils here to trick us.
Rob, your consistent refusal to answer my questions about what authority you have, or why your beliefs are superior to any other random religion, very strongly suggests that you do not have an answer for those questions. If it is all simply a matter of understanding what exact word was used in the remnants of a copy of a copy of a copy (and so on) of something that may or may not have been written by early apostles of Jesus, then I wonder why everyone who speaks Greek and believes in the Bible doesn't belong to the same church. I wonder why everyone who speaks Hebrew doesn't belong to the same church, let alone why there are differences of belief among Jews (the religion, not the race).
And when you consistently demand that the fundamental question of why anyone, anywhere should listen to what you have to say is off topic, you are only making it more obvious that you don't have these answers. Or, you'll have to say that God has inspired you in some way, and you know that's a trap when you're talking to Mormons.
Every single evangelical Christian I have ever met in my life has nothing more to offer than an increasing chain of assumptions based on the premise that we share some of the same assumptions. As I stated before, the fact that we may share some of the same assumptions does not prove that those shared assumptions are ontologically true.
You have offered no reason to believe that my statements in my earlier posts in response to you, here or on other threads, have been wrong. The only reason you want to engage in these incremental debates is to try to lead someone to believe that your religion is true. That's the only way you can, because you have nothing else to offer them.
Put up or shut up, Rob. Stop calling out Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and others, trying to tear down their faith as if that validates yours. Stop attempting to use a Bible that doesn't belong to you to prove others wrong and yourself right. In debate, a failure to answer is the same as a concession. Either show me the unicorn, or stop trying to get us to chase them with you.
Edited by Darth J, 09 March 2010 - 08:37 PM.
Sometimes I make my kids wear sombreros and scuba fins around the house. Not because there is any reason. I just want to teach them obedience.