by Brian Bosse, Copyright July 13, 2009, all rights reserved.
I am going to be producing a series of one page reference PDFs dealing with both Propositional and Predicate Calculus. Over time, I will try and combine these documents into one reference PDF. I mainly do this for my own benefit, but would be happy to try and answer any questions a reader might have. The first PDF defines the language we will be using within the Propositional Calculus.
Keep in mind, these reference PDFs are not meant to be thorough, but rather are simply a guide.
Posted in Logic • 0 Comments • Permalink • 383 views
by Brian Bosse, Copyright July 07, 2009, all rights reserved.
The following paper is the recreation of a formal debate that took place on this website a number of years ago. It is a debate with an atheist utilizing the presuppositional apologetic method.
I hope you enjoy the debate.
Posted in Philosophy • 0 Comments • Permalink • 396 views
by Brian Bosse, Copyright June 27, 2009, all rights reserved.
The ground for rationality is God in the sense that rationality is the way God thinks. Logic is mankind's attempt to model this thinking of God. Yet far too often we hear people deprecate logic as something merely human. Granted, our modeling of God's thinking is fallible. Yet, our modeling reflects the rational argumentation explicitly utilized in the God-breathed Scriptures. This post illustrates the use of two of the most fundamental laws of logic - modus ponens and modus tollens.
Modus Ponens
The logical law of modus ponens states that if we are given an implication and the antecedent of the implication as premises, then we may conclude the consequence of the implication. In other words:
Premise 1: If A, then B.
Premise 2: A.
Conclusion: B.
Premise 1: If you do believe, then you will be saved.
Premise 2: You do believe.
Conclusion: You will be saved.
One Biblical argument illustrating this deductive process is found in Romans 5:8-10. Here is the text as found in the NASB:
(8) But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (9) Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. (10) For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
Verse 10 is the justification for the conclusion "we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him" found in verse 9b. Verse 10 is an implication, and verses 8 and 9a make up the antecedent of the implication. Verse 9b is the necessary conclusion reached by the law of modus ponens. Here is how it looks:
Premise 1: If while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son,…, then we shall be saved by His life (verse 10).
Premise 2: While we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son. (This is what is meant by verses 8 and 9a. "While we were yet sinners" corresponds to "while we were enemies," and "Christ died for us…having been justified by His blood" corresponds to "we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son.")
Conclusion: We shall be saved by His life. (This corresponds to 9b which says, "we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.")
Modus Tollens
The logical law of modus tollens states that if we are given an implication and the negation of the consequence of the implication as premises, then we may conclude the negation of the antecedent of the implication. In other words:
Premise 1: If A, then B.
Premise 2: ¬B.
Conclusion: ¬A.
Premise 1: If you do believe, then you will be saved.
Premise 2: You will not be saved.
Conclusion: You do not believe.
One Biblical argument illustrating this deductive argument is found in 1 Corinthians 2:8 which reads in the ESV:
None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
This is a straightforward deductive argument with an implied premise. Here is the argument:
Premise 1: If the rulers of this age understood this, then they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
Premise 2: They did crucify the Lord of Glory. (Implied in the argument.)
Conclusion: The rulers of this age did not understand this.
There are numerous such arguments found throughout Scripture. The point is that the God-breathed Scriptures themselves presuppose these logical laws. These logical laws find their origination in God Himself, and are not some human concoction.
Posted in Logic • 0 Comments • Permalink • 458 views
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >