Religion II

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yeah, he won it just like he's an "imminent" scientist in the class of Galileo, Newton, etc.

Would you consider Nobel laureate Erwin Schrödinger an imminent scientist in the class of Galileo, Newton, etc? He was working along similar lines. How about Richard Dawkins in the old days before he became active in spreading the word? How about David S. Goodsell and Addy Pross?

I'm not exactly presenting a paper before the Nobel committee here. Your arguments are ad hominem.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

By the way, Mr. Actor, are you working on answers for my questions in 5573?

No. I'm not. I don't have the time. So if you have a point to make, make it.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

No. I'm not. I don't have the time. So if you have a point to make, make it.

Then don't expect any answers from me for anything until you find the time.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Would you consider Nobel laureate Erwin Schrödinger an imminent scientist in the class of Galileo, Newton, etc? He was working along similar lines. How about Richard Dawkins in the old days before he became active in spreading the word? How about David S. Goodsell and Addy Pross?

I'm not exactly presenting a paper before the Nobel committee here. Your arguments are ad hominem.

Learn the difference between "imminent" and "eminent" before placing yourself in the class of any the above and thereby don the royal mantle of greatness. .

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Then don't expect any answers from me for anything until you find the time.

I ceased expecting any answers from you some time ago.

But I tell you what. I'll answer one question of yours for each question you answer. Fresh start. No complaining about who asked first, who asked the most, who answered least. Here's my question.

Do my activities in #4745 make me a murderer?

What's your question?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I ceased expecting any answers from you some time ago.

But I tell you what. I'll answer one question of yours for each question you answer. Fresh start. No complaining about who asked first, who asked the most, who answered least. Here's my question.

Do my activities in #4745 make me a murderer?

What's your question?

Stuff your question. See my 5643.

[Actor]

Logic 101

There are two kinds of logic: Formal Logic and Informal Logic. Formal Logic is intended to prove a proposition (theorem). Informal Logic is designed to persuade.

FORMAL LOGIC

Formal logic follows a set of strict rules. The basic argument of formal logic is the syllogism which takes the form

• Premise 1
• Premise 2
• Conclusion

For example

• P1 – All men are mortal
• P2 – Socrates is a man
• C - Socrates is mortal

The argument must be both valid and sound. To be valid the conclusion need only follow from the premises. For example

• All birds can fly
• Penguins are birds
• Therefore penguins can fly

This argument is valid but it is not sound. To be sound the premises must be true and, in this example, they are not. Penguins, emus, ostriches, domestic turkeys are all birds but they cannot fly.

Arguments in Formal Logic can be written out in a notation called Boolean Algebra, named after George Boole who invented it. In Boolean Algebra a syllogism is written as

	P1 + P2 ==> C

where the “+” sign means “and”. The ==> means “implies”. (It’s supposed to look like an arrow.) P1, P2 and C are statements, i.e., anything which can be assigned a truth value (TRUE or FALSE) and only a truth value. (Note that pairs such as ON or OFF, YES or NO, 0 volts or 5 volts, can also be considered truth values but I do not intend to get into that.)

The beauty of Boolean Algebra is that validity is almost automatic. Good mathematicians can avoid errors in the math and, if they do creep in, other mathematicians can find and correct them. Thus validity is not controversial. That leaves soundness, i.e., proving the truth of the premises, and that is beyond the scope of mathematics.

Before moving on to Informal Logic there is one subject I wish to briefly cover: that of inductive reasoning, a form of extrapolation. Inductive reasoning should raise a red flag in most cases but there is an exception, viz., the Axiom of Induction put forth by mathematician Guiseppe Peano.

• P1 - you have a set of statement which can be numbered, e.g., statement 1, statement 2, statement 3, etc.
• P2 - statement N ==> statement N + 1, i.e, if you assume statement N is true then statement N + 1 must also be true
• P3 - statement 1 is true
• C - all statements are true

Next I’ll cover INFORMAL LOGIC.

Please hold all questions until I have finished the series.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Logic 101

There are two kinds of logic: Formal Logic and Informal Logic. Formal Logic is intended to prove a proposition (theorem). Informal Logic is designed to persuade.

FORMAL LOGIC

Formal logic follows a set of strict rules. The basic argument of formal logic is the syllogism which takes the form

• Premise 1
• Premise 2
• Conclusion

For example

• P1 – All men are mortal
• P2 – Socrates is a man
• C - Socrates is mortal

The argument must be both valid and sound. To be valid the conclusion need only follow from the premises. For example

• All birds can fly
• Penguins are birds
• Therefore penguins can fly

This argument is valid but it is not sound. To be sound the premises must be true and, in this example, they are not. Penguins, emus, ostriches, domestic turkeys are all birds but they cannot fly.

Arguments in Formal Logic can be written out in a notation called Boolean Algebra, named after George Boole who invented it. In Boolean Algebra a syllogism is written as

	P1 + P2 ==> C

where the “+” sign means “and”. The ==> means “implies”. (It’s supposed to look like an arrow.) P1, P2 and C are statements, i.e., anything which can be assigned a truth value (TRUE or FALSE) and only a truth value. (Note that pairs such as ON or OFF, YES or NO, 0 volts or 5 volts, can also be considered truth values but I do not intend to get into that.)

The beauty of Boolean Algebra is that validity is almost automatic. Good mathematicians can avoid errors in the math and, if they do creep in, other mathematicians can find and correct them. Thus validity is not controversial. That leaves soundness, i.e., proving the truth of the premises, and that is beyond the scope of mathematics.

Before moving on to Informal Logic there is one subject I wish to briefly cover: that of inductive reasoning, a form of extrapolation. Inductive reasoning should raise a red flag in most cases but there is an exception, viz., the Axiom of Induction put forth by mathematician Guiseppe Peano.

• P1 - you have a set of statement which can be numbered, e.g., statement 1, statement 2, statement 3, etc.
• P2 - statement N ==> statement N + 1, i.e, if you assume statement N is true then statement N + 1 must also be true
• P3 - statement 1 is true
• C - all statements are true

Next I’ll cover INFORMAL LOGIC.

Please hold all questions until I have finished the series.

I can't. I'm sorry. I'm just busting at the seams 'cause I gtotta know this before I die, and I have no idea when the Lord is going to call me home. I have to know ASAP: Do I have to don formal wear when using formal logic?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I can't. I'm sorry. I'm just busting at the seams 'cause I gtotta know this before I die, and I have no idea when the Lord is going to call me home. I have to know ASAP: Do I have to don formal wear when using formal logic?

I'm surprised Revelations' rapture stuff doe not go into detail on whether you should wear a tux and a bow tie.

Maybe "Casual Friday" might work? Informal logic seems like overkill in your case.
It looks like that to me.........

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I'm surprised Revelations' rapture stuff doe not go into detail on whether you should wear a tux and a bow tie.

Maybe "Casual Friday" might work? Informal logic seems like overkill in your case.
It looks like that to me.........

I'm not surprised at all because there isn't any "rapture stuff" in Revelations.

[hcap]

Various commentators and Bible teachers have presented a number of options for the description of the rapture in the Book of Revelation.

Interpretation of passages are liker a Rorschach test to literal minds Not everyone sees the same butterflies or the same elephants kissing.

Revelation 4:1-2 New International Version (NIV)
The Throne in Heaven

4 After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in heaven. And the voice I had first heard speaking to me like a trumpet said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.” 2 At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Various commentators and Bible teachers have presented a number of options for the description of the rapture in the Book of Revelation.

Interpretation of passages are liker a Rorschach test to literal minds Not everyone sees the same butterflies or the same elephants kissing.

Revelation 4:1-2 New International Version (NIV)
The Throne in Heaven

4 After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in heaven. And the voice I had first heard speaking to me like a trumpet said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.” 2 At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it.

Again, the doctrine of the rapture is not taught in Revelations. It's taught in only two places in the NT. And in the OT, Enoch is a type of New Covenant raptured saint, since God took Enoch before he ever died.

The two relevant NT passages are these:

Matt 24:37-43
37 "For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. 38 "For as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, they were marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so shall the coming of the Son of Man be. 40 "Then there shall be two men in the field; one will be taken, and one will be left. 41 "Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken, and one will be left. 42 "Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming.
NASB

And then this,

1 Thess 4:13-17
13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve, as do the rest who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, and remain until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord.
NASB

The common denominator with both these passages is the Second Coming. Conversely, the Revelation 4 passage has absolutely nothing to do with the Parousia.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I'm not surprised at all because there isn't any "rapture stuff" in Revelations.

First know use of word "rapture": 1594, ergo, unlikely to be in the Bible.

Alternate name for the drug ecstasy.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Again, the doctrine of the rapture is not taught in Revelations. It's taught in only two places in the NT. And in the OT, Enoch is a type of New Covenant raptured saint, since God took Enoch before he ever died.

So you say. There is a huge following due to popularization of movies and books like the ‘Left Behind’ series is subject for another Rorschach test. You may not see the same elephants kissing, but a huge number do. Your subjects for Rorschach tests are genesis, the flood and distrust of modern science and secular education

So when you asked what to wear I joked about casual friday versus tuxedos and bow ties.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

So you say. There is a huge following due to popularization of movies and books like the ‘Left Behind’ series is subject for another Rorschach test. You may not see the same elephants kissing, but a huge number do. Your subjects for Rorschach tests are genesis, the flood and distrust of modern science and secular education

So when you asked what to wear I joked about casual friday versus tuxedos and bow ties.

Perhaps Dispensationalists think the bible is a big inkblot needing psychological interpretation but I don't. I see words that I interpret. And it's not as I say, for the context of the passage in Revelations 4 has absolutely nothing to do with the Second Coming, which is quite odd since this is when the rapture will occur.
And both passages I quoted establishes this truth.