# Logic and Truth



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 4, 2005)

How would you explain, in a sentence or two, the relationship between logic and truth?


----------



## JWJ (Aug 4, 2005)

Logic is something Clarkians use to aid in judging truth and something Van Tillian's don't use to obtain paradoxes .


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 4, 2005)

Christ is called both logic and truth in scripture!


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 4, 2005)

Is truth impossible without logic?


----------



## JohnV (Aug 4, 2005)

It seems to me that logic is a test for truth. But we can know truth in various ways, sometimes beyond expression. In each of the faculties, I would think, man can know truth, and sometimes before he knows the logic behind it. But then, it is also true that a more basic logic applies. Namely, before I know God exists through the exercise of reason, I have already known of His existence because of experience (having met Him via the Holy Spirit), which logic is that to know follows from having sensed; it would be illogical to have been in contact with God ( the Holy Spirit ) and to not then know Him. But the reason involved is so basic that we usually do not call that reasoning, as reasoning implies greater mental effort than mere reaction. So its logical, but we are not necessarily exercising it overtly. 

Once man has made his reasoning, he then judges of the reasons. But before he reasons he observes the axioms on which reason is built. Here are three categories of the faculty: to observe, to reason, and to use judgment. Truth is intrinsically part of all three.


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Is truth impossible without logic?



I think that truth can exist without logic. I think the more important question is can truth be KNOWN without logic.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Aug 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by webmaster_
> ...



But in order to be _using_ logic in any sense, would one not have to have an innate _knowledge_ of its truth and what it is? In other words, I would ask, can anyone (infant or other) use the law of non-contradiction in any of their natural thinking patterns without already having a certain knowledge of the existence and truth of that law?


----------



## JohnV (Aug 4, 2005)

Chris:

Isn't it the case that children use that law long before they can articulate it? They know it as if by instinct: red is not blue; one is not two; "Dad says no" is not "Dad says yes." But they don't tell me its the first (or second, depends on which order you use) law of thought or rule of logic. They just say that that is the way it is. They know. It's intrinsic to knowing. That's why, it seems to me, they are called interchangeably the Laws of Thought and the Rules of Logic. Though it isn't a deliberate attempt to do logic, yet it is an implicit part of thinking. 

Just rambling as the thoughts come.


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Is truth impossible without logic?



No, but logic is possible without truth. These statements are all logically valid irrespective of their truth value.

All Puritans are beer-drinkers.
Matthew is a Puritan.
Therefore, Matthew is a beer-drinker.

Chicago is a city in Indiana. 
Indiana is part of the United States.
Therefore, Chicago is a city in the United States.

The sign on on the highway, leading into Denver, Massachusetts says the city's elevation is 5280 feet. It must be the case that Massachusetts has an elevation in excess of one mile.


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 4, 2005)

This statement is logically valid and true.

All Arminians are apostates.
All apostates espouse unsound doctrine.
Therefore, all Arminians espouse unsound doctrine.

:bigsmile:


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 4, 2005)

A deductive argument is said to be sound that is _valid_ and has _all true premises_. Though, a statement may be logically valid, it may unsound as the true value is not there.


----------



## JKLeoPCA (Aug 5, 2005)

Truth is knowing where a path leads.

Logic works out how to get there.

or something like that... :bigsmile:


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 5, 2005)

Logic is a repentant Arminian budding into a five-pointer. Truth is somewhere in between.


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Logic is a repentant Arminian budding into a five-pointer. Truth is somewhere in between.



Or you could say it is the other way around!


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 6, 2005)

God is love
Love is blind
Ray Charles is Blind
----------------------
Ray Charles is God


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 6, 2005)

Lloyd-Jones:



> Then I come to another characteristic [of true Evangelicalism]. This may very well be a highly controversial one, but in my estimate it is extremely important. It is, and I put it dogmatically and bluntly, that the evangelical distrusts reason and particularly reason in the form of philosophy....
> 
> I suggest to you that nothing is more important in our present situation than just this one particular point. Philosophy has always been the cause of the church going astray, for philosophy means, ultimately, a trusting to human reason and human understanding. The philosopher wants to encompass all truth; he wants to categorize and explain everything, and that is why there are no more important passages in the Scripture for us at the present time than the First Epistle to the Corinthians, starting in chapter I, at verse 17, and going right the way through to the end of chapter 4, with especial reference to chapter 2. The apostle's whole contention in those chapters is that things were going wrong in Corinth because they were beginning to bring back faith in human wisdom, philosophy; and his point is to show that this is diametrically opposed to the preaching of the gospel. He says he has become a fool for Christ's sake: `If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise' (I Cor. 3:18). Here `a fool' means that you do not trust to philosophy and to human wisdom. This is really a most important matter.
> 
> ...


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> God is love
> Love is blind
> Ray Charles is Blind
> ...



Equivocation!


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...


----------



## JohnV (Aug 6, 2005)

> The sum of all I am saying is that the evangelical distrusts scholarship and is watchful of it. That does not mean that he is anti-intellectual; it does not mean that he becomes obscurantist; but it does mean that he keeps reason and scholarship in their place. They are servants and not masters.


----------



## Jon (Jan 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> How would you explain, in a sentence or two, the relationship between logic and truth?


1) Logic is the science of necessary inference.
2) Necessary inference is truth.
C) Therefore, logic is the science of truth.

_Soli Deo Gloria_

Jon


----------



## Jon (Jan 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jon_
> 1) Logic is the science of necessary inference.
> 2) Necessary inference is truth.
> C) Therefore, logic is the science of truth.


Oops. I believe I have equivocated. Allow me to reformulate.

1) Logic is the science of necessary inference.
2) The science of necessary inference is truth-inferential.
C) Therefore, logic is truth-inferential.

_Soli Deo Gloria_

Jon


----------



## Civbert (Jan 26, 2006)

> _Lloyd-Jones:_
> 
> Then I come to another characteristic [of true Evangelicalism]. This may very well be a highly controversial one, but in my estimate it is extremely important. It is, and I put it dogmatically and bluntly, that the evangelical distrusts reason and particularly reason in the form of philosophy....
> 
> ...



I'm not sure what Lloyd-Jones meant by reason, but if he meant the application of correct thinking, logic, or sound arguments, he shooting himself in the foot. All of his statements depend on the validity of laws of logic and rules of inference. To say that reason is secondary to faith can lead one to say that faith is irrational. No matter what his final paragraph said, it does not resolve the issues of irrationalism he brings to the rest of his "arguments".

Aristotle did not formulate a new philosophy, he simply described in a clear manner the forms or patterns of correct thinking. This does not lead to errors any more than Eulid's geometry does. They are the same forms of reason used by Paul and Christ and little children when they are thinking correctly. To reject logic and reason is to reject any possibility of validating knowledge -or objective truth.

Lloyd-Jones seems to make "scholarship", "human wisdom" and "reason" to mean the same thing. I think this confusion is damaging to Christian thinking. God is a God of knowledge. Reason wasn't the cause of the failures of the Church of Rome, it was placing "tradition" above the rational truths of Scripture.

[Edited on 1-26-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## JohnV (Jan 27, 2006)

I don't know this, but likely Lloyd-Jones was referring to Psalm 146:3 "Put not your trust in princes, Nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help."

Jehoshaphat sent his princes to teach the people ( 2 Chron. 17:7 ) It seems logical that princes were the best educated men in the land, since they would generally be prepared for rulership through education. They would not only be military leaders or judges but also able teachers. I'm just speculating, though. But even so, men are still a vain hope whether princes or not. The only thing we can really trust is God's wisdom, since our own is contingent, even from the best and most godly of scholars. 

So he's not denigrating sound reason. He's just not willing to trust men with it, not even himself I would think. If he owes even a small part of truth to his own reasonings, speculations, or assumptions, then it is not trustworthy. Error-free and universal-encompassing logic, though, is beyond man's capabilities. So, we go only by what the Word says, and the things that _must_ follow from what the Word says. At least that's what I take from this quote.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jan 27, 2006)

Logic isn't _necessary_ inference as it pertains to inductive reasoning, which frankly is the category of most reasoning, that is probabilistic reasoning-- which means the conclusion probably follows the premises. Induction is used even in science based on fixed laws, as well, when there is limited observation of recurring phenomenal patterns. Likewise, there are probabilistic syllogisms in logic.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jan 27, 2006)

One thing that always irks me incidental to logic, is that some well-meaning Christians say _God is above logic_ though fewer cite the even worst conclusion emanating from such a terrible premise-- namely that _God's ways are illogical._

In reality, God is the author of a logic. He operates within the parameters of his nature. God doesn't create rocks too big for him to pick up, and likewise God is perfectly holy and just. 

When we read John 14:6, we see the qualifiers... "_the way_... _the truth_... _the life_..." not "_a way_... [/i]a truth[/i]... and _a life_..." Imagine, the faulty exegesis that ensues when premise our epistemological methodology on the illogic of God. The clear and plain meaning of Scriptural truths like John 14:6 are up to question.


----------



## Civbert (Jan 27, 2006)

Logic defined as "science necessary inference" is a better definition. Inductive reason, while very useful for processing some types of information (multiple observations), is still formally fallacious. The consequences of this is the truth of inductive conclusions is always uncertain - and should be used only as a basis for opinion, and not knowledge.

Even inductive reasoning must start with deductive reasoning. The problem is thinking that induction and deduction are two equal forms of logic, or two equally valid forms of reasoning. Induction is a subset of deductive logic.

Science is not based on "fixed laws" but assumed laws. In truth, no scientific law is fix or absolute. Induction is not based on fixed scientific laws, rather, scientific laws are based on induction - which is why they are always "probabilistic".


----------



## Puritanhead (Jan 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> Logic defined as "science necessary inference" is a better definition. Inductive reason, while very useful for processing some types of information (multiple observations), is still formally fallacious. The consequences of this is the truth of inductive conclusions is always uncertain - and should be used only as a basis for opinion, and not knowledge.
> 
> Even inductive reasoning must start with deductive reasoning. The problem is thinking that induction and deduction are two equal forms of logic, or two equally valid forms of reasoning. Induction is a subset of deductive logic.
> ...





> _Inductive reason, while very useful for processing some types of information (multiple observations), is still formally fallacious._



(1) I respectfully disagree with your first contention... "...is still formally fallacious..." The logical _fallaciousness_ of a statement is not found merely because it is based on probablistic reasoning or induction, nor because it does not fit formal categories of deduction. Deduction is obviously the preferable means of reasoning, but is not always an option. An inductive syllogism can be both logical and cogent. Your contention here would ultimately make the scientific method as fallacious.

(2) I never said inductive logic was based on the laws themselves, but simply that one can apply those fixed laws based on _limited observation of observable phenemenon_ and draw conclusion based on induction, which is probabilistic reasoning.



> Science is not based on "fixed laws" but assumed laws. In truth, no scientific law is fix or absolute. Induction is not based on fixed scientific laws, rather, scientific laws are based on induction - which is why they are always "probabilistic".



I see the dispute about laws being fixed or assumed as inconsequential... For example, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is fixed in the sense that is widely assumed, and it isn't going anywhere. That is a moot point.



> In truth, no scientific law is fix or absolute.



(3) Lastly, in truth, all laws are fixed and absolute, and us fallible humans aren't always perceptive of those fixed laws that God set in motion and which govern the universe. We gain our insight throughout experience (viz. empiricism) where divine revelation is lacking. However, I'll never say the _truth_ is subordinate to the limited empirical insights of us finite humans--- you manifest the epistemological problem with empirical reductionism here! That empiricism is all we have in the scientific method is granted.
:bigsmile: 

Besides, my God is too big for the scientists to put into a _petre dish_ to experiment upon and prove or disprove His existence. 

How do you like them apples?




> Spock: Your illogical approach to chess does have its advantages on occasion, Captain.
> Kirk: I prefer to call it inspired.
> Spock: As you wish.
> _Star Trek - Charlie X_


----------



## Civbert (Jan 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Civbert_
> ...



How then is a fallacious _argument_ determined?



> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> ...Deduction is obviously the preferable means of reasoning, but is not always an option. An inductive syllogism can be both logical and cogent. Your contention here would ultimately make the scientific method as fallacious.



You did not say how an argument is determined to be fallacious. But never-the-less, inductive arguments always commit the fallacy of _asserting the consequence_. And yes, ultimately the scientific method _is_ fallacious. Which means inductive conclusions are never proven truths.

Here are a couple scientific quotes to support my arguments:


> "It can even be shown that all [scientific] theories, including the best, have the same probability, namely zero."
> _--- Karl Popper_
> 
> All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: "If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true." This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing." If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet _it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based_.
> ...



A logical fallacy is an invalid argument, and an argument is invalid if the form of the conclusion does not follow from the forms of the premises. The key word here is "form". And this is not "form" in the sense of "official" but in the sense of "basic structure". It is the forms of statements (conclusions and premises) along with the rules of inference that allow us to make necessary inferences. And it is _because_ inductive arguments can not make _necessary_ inferences that they are fallacious. 

Inductive arguments should be considered _good _or _bad_, not _valid _or _invalid_. They are _all _invalid. But some are very good - well supported by the evidence and premises - and it may be reasonable to believe them. But induction can never prove a true conclusion. To prove truth requires true premises and a correct _form _of argumentation (e.g. a valid form of syllogism). That is, truth comes from formally valid arguments and true premises. And since logic concerns truth, the better definition of logic is "the science of necessary inference". 



> > _Originally posted by Civbert_
> >
> > In truth, no scientific law is fix or absolute.
> 
> ...



We're not dealing with God's laws, were are talking about laws of science. One assumes scientific laws are fixed - but in fact, some scientific laws which we had developed turned out to be inaccurate or incomplete. The scientific "laws" really are not laws in the sense that God's commands are laws. 



> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> We gain our insight throughout experience (viz. empiricism) where divine revelation is lacking. ...



I would not say that divine revelation is lacking. Rather, divine revelation is completely sufficient and necessary for any of the scientific guess-work that follows. Empiricism says that knowledge comes ultimately from sensory experience - but this in itself is absurd - since knowledge is propositional and no amount of sensory experience will lead to a proposition. Sensory experience alone will not lead the "Theory of Relativity" nor the doctrine of justification. 



> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> ...However, I'll never say the _truth_ is subordinate to the limited empirical insights of us finite humans--- you manifest the epistemological problem with empirical reductionism here! That empiricism is all we have in the scientific method is granted.
> :bigsmile:



Empirical theories and methods are what we have in natural science, but that is not the same as empiricism (the theory that knowledge comes ultimately from sensory experience). The difference is while natural science is beneficial and utilitarian , it does not give us truth. 



> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> Besides, my God is too big for the scientists to put into a _petre dish_ to experiment upon and prove or disprove His existence.
> 
> How do you like them apples?



Those are choice apples!  

He's not simply too big, He's also too logical! 

[Edited on 1-27-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Puritanhead (Jan 27, 2006)

I guess I see you just favor formal deduction as the standard bearer... Fair enough.

Well, what I meant is divine revelation doesn't speak to everything... It doesn't for example explain the wonders of the atom or the cell. That is where it is lacking for example.

When I was thinking God's laws, I tied it to the laws governing the universe, so I was thinking of the laws of physics, and for that matter laws of metaphysics... not just the OT law. I do believe that God did the handiwork with the laws governing the universe.


----------



## JohnV (Jan 28, 2006)

I guess I see things differently. As I understand it, the term "fallacious" has to do with formal logic. That is, if the minor premise is true, and the major premise is true, then the conclusion must be true. That is, it follows logically. The idea of fallaciousness only means that the logic does not follow, not that the conclusion is not true. The possibilities are that either one of the premises may be "not true", and thus yield an unproven conclusion, but not necessarily an untrue one. So just because the argument may be "fallacious" does not mean that the concluding proposition is wrong, but just unproven. Nothing more. 

That is, someone may conclude that Rome is in Italy on spurious grounds, but that does not negate that Rome is truly in Italy ( to use a standard example. ) For example, he might say that Berlin is in Germany, Tokyo is in Japan, and therefore Rome has to be in Italy. That does not follow. He's right, but his argument is wrong. But if he then adds that he was reading a history book about WWII, and read about the meeting of the heads of state of the Axis powers, a delegation each from Berlin, Tokyo and Rome, and he knows that the three Axis powers were Germany, Japan, and Italy, and he can show that Berlin is in Germany and Tokyo in Japan, then his reasoning of elimination follows, since the only two places left to relate would be Rome and Italy. Therefore Rome is in Italy.

In the first instance his argument is fallacious, but not wrong. In the second case he has rescued his argument from fallaciousness and is still not wrong, but the very same. So to use the term "fallacious" to mean that the argument must be wrong because it is fallaciously argued is an equivocation of that term, using two different meanings interchangeably. 

Every syllogism must have premises. After we have made our syllogism it may rightly be asked how we know that the premises are true. So we must in turn produce a like syllogism to prove each of the premises. And then it may again be asked how we know these premises are true. And so in infinite regress. At some point, usually sooner than later, we have to acknowledge that we've counted on the authority of someone with universal knowledge, for only he can know that _x_ is the case for all _p_, ( _x_ being the condition, in this case either true or false; _p_ being the proposition. ) We may say that we know something to be true in every case based upon our limited knowledge that every case that we know of is true. The atheist may counter, for example, that the Bible is not true for him, and so he has an exception to our induction that the Bible is true in all cases. He has poked a hole in our axiom, he asserts. 

And that is the difficulty with logic. We may be able to do logic very well indeed, but we do not know everything. And it is not the limitation of logic that is our downfall, but the limitation in our knowledge. We just don't know enough, or know what we should when we need it. But whether we know a lot or a little, or even if we know everything, logic itself will not fail us. We know this because God is the God of all truth, and therefore truth is one, and therefore no contradiction in truth is possible; and logic is about the relationships of truths in proposition form. Therefore the difficulties is with the propositions themselves, not with the logic. And the problem with propositions is that when they are ours they come from fallen and limited beings. We propose propositions that may not really be reflecting the truth being put in propositional form accurately, since it is that we who are finite and fallen men who make them. When God makes them they are infallible, when we make them they are fallible. 

That is to say, then, that truths already exist before we make propositions about them, otherwise what are we making propositions about to produce truths if not truths? And facts are already facts before we analyze them and make cognitive connections about them, otherwise, what are we cognating and analyzing to produce facts if not facts?

So I am suggesting that we are given a subject/object relationship ( man created in the physical and intellectual environment which shares created origin in the same God ), and that truth already exists before men think about and organize them for themselves. That is, they can learn about truths. So in the redeemed state a man may be pulled out of the lies he has formerly preferred to believe in the Fall instead of the pure and undefiled truths of God. Man was defiled, not truth, and not God's revelations of Himself in creation and the Word. Man's propositions are prone to fallibility, but God's truth is perfectly reasonable.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jan 28, 2006)

God and Logic by Gordon Clark.


----------



## Civbert (Jan 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> I guess I see things differently. As I understand it, the term "fallacious" has to do with formal logic. That is, if the minor premise is true, and the major premise is true, then the conclusion must be true. That is, it follows logically. The idea of fallaciousness only means that the logic does not follow, not that the conclusion is not true. The possibilities are that either one of the premises may be "not true", and thus yield an unproven conclusion, but not necessarily an untrue one. So just because the argument may be "fallacious" does not mean that the concluding proposition is wrong, but just unproven. Nothing more.




In general, I agree with you, but I want to correct some of the terms I wasn't using clearly when I used the terms "valid" and "fallacy". Fallacies may be formal or informal, but validity is determined by form alone. An invalid argument is one where the form of the argument itself is at fault. But a fallacious argument maybe formally correct (valid).

But I agree that the conclusion of an invalid argument is not necessarily false. Only that the true/false state of the conclusion is indeterminate. The validity of an argument is not directly related to the truth of the premises or the conclusion. One can take two false premises and validly deduce a true conclusion. 

Example:
All Germans enjoy online chess play.
I am citizen of Germany.
Therefore, I enjoy playing chess online.

This is a valid argument, with false premises and a true conclusion. The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. The argument is fallacious, but it is still valid. So the validity of an argument is a question of form.

A fallacious argument does not mean the conclusion is false either. But the error in the argument may or may not be due to form. It may also be due to unjustified premises, or due to circularity. 



> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> And that is the difficulty with logic. We may be able to do logic very well indeed, but we do not know everything. And it is not the limitation of logic that is our downfall, but the limitation in our knowledge. We just don't know enough, or know what we should when we need it. ...



We don't need to know everything to prove a proposition is true. If was agree that the Scriptures are God's truth revealed, then we have a foundation determining additional true propositions. We do not follow an infinite regress to prove each premise. In fact, we can only go back as far as our first principles, the axioms of our world view - and for the Christian, that is God's Word.



> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> ....But whether we know a lot or a little, or even if we know everything, logic itself will not fail us. We know this because God is the God of all truth, and therefore truth is one, and therefore no contradiction in truth is possible; and logic is about the relationships of truths in proposition form. Therefore the difficulties is with the propositions themselves, not with the logic. And the problem with propositions is that when they are ours they come from fallen and limited beings. We propose propositions that may not really be reflecting the truth being put in propositional form accurately, since it is that we who are finite and fallen men who make them. When God makes them they are infallible, when we make them they are fallible....



Agreed. When propositions come from God, and not from a fallen being, then we know truth - the things God gives us to know in His Word - "we have the mind of Christ".



> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> That is to say, then, that truths already exist before we make propositions about them, otherwise what are we making propositions about to produce truths if not truths? And facts are already facts before we analyze them and make cognitive connections about them, otherwise, what are we cognating and analyzing to produce facts if not facts?



And what we can know is the facts and truths that are the propositions of Scripture. We don't need unlimited knowledge, just a starting point, an axiom, a foundation for truth - which is propositional.



> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> So I am suggesting that we are given a subject/object relationship ( man created in the physical and intellectual environment which shares created origin in the same God ), and that truth already exists before men think about and organize them for themselves. That is, they can learn about truths. So in the redeemed state a man may be pulled out of the lies he has formerly preferred to believe in the Fall instead of the pure and undefiled truths of God. Man was defiled, not truth, and not God's revelations of Himself in creation and the Word. Man's propositions are prone to fallibility, but God's truth is perfectly reasonable.



But the unregenerate man can believe these same truths also. The propositions "David was a King of Israel" is true, and can be understood and assented to by regenerate and unregenerate alike. It is the same truth for both. The difference is not in the quality of the proposition, but that only the regenerate can justify this belief as knowledge. For the unregenerate man, it is merely opinion.


----------



## Civbert (Jan 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> God and Logic by Gordon Clark.


----------



## JohnV (Jan 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JohnV_
> ...


I would disagree with the last thought, that the foundation for truth is propositional. It must be the other way around, that truth is the foundation for propositions. Propositions must be about truth, not prior to truth. Propositions can be either true or false. I would agree that the propositions of God's Word are the foundation for our propositions about truth. But I would argue that God's truth existed prior to the propositions of His Word. To reduce God's Word to propositions alone is not to confess the Living Word, which is Christ, who is not a proposition but very God of very God. It also denies the various literary means used to convey His truth to us beyond mere proposition, so that we may understand. 

Even Shakespeare teaches us that some things are better conveyed to us through use of literary connotation rather than propositional definition. That is why we have poems and allegories, to convey things very simply that would require many more words in mere propositional form. And the Bible makes use of such means. That is, truth is conveyed to us in ways that are not merely propositional. They can be reduced to proposition, which the Church has done in her doctrinal documentation, but they are conveyed to us originally in various ways so that we may understand.


----------



## Theogenes (Jan 30, 2006)

Truth is what God thinks, some of which He has revealed to us in the Scriptures. Logic is reasoning by good and necessary consequence to all of the implications and applications of Scriptural propositions. That by the way is a sound hermeneutic. We don't reason to the Truth but rather from it.

Jim


----------



## Henry from Canada (Jan 30, 2006)

The Truth is the Truth. It is only known in total by God. It never changes. 

Logic is owned by man. It is used by man to manipulate, twist and distort the Truth. It changes to meet man's everchanging requirements.


Example:
----------
Marge Simpson:
"I believed you. But you lied."

Homer Simpson:
"Now, now, Marge. It takes two to lie. One person to tell the lie. The second person to believe the lie."


Explanation:
---------------
Marge possessed the Truth.
Homer used human logic to twist the Truth so that he could incriminate Marge and spread the blame.

The Bible is the Truth. 

Professing Christians throughout the ages have used human logic to twist the Truth to meet their own needs. 

For more details, please send me $10 and with that seed gift God will bless you 1,000 times over and prosper you with cars, houses, etc.

Oh, what am I saying? Send me $100, for 10,000 times the blessing. This is in your best interests, not mine.








This is a lame Canadian attempt at humour.


----------



## Civbert (Jan 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Henry from Canada_
> The Truth is the Truth. It is only known in total by God. It never changes.
> 
> ...
> ...




Without "human" logic, you would not be able to read your bible
Without "human" logic, you could not know "Jesus died to save sinners".
Without "human logic", you could not make an argument against logic.

Men may "rationalize" all sorts of errors and sins, but this is not by using correct logic, it can only be done by committing purposeful errors in logic. God uses logic to communicate knowledge. Without logic, there is no knowledge.

[Edited on 1-30-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Henry from Canada (Jan 30, 2006)

Sorry Anthony, I took too many cynical pills today. 

You are right in that human logic can be very useful. It is a gift from God.

I regret to say, however, that I have seen too many people use "human logic" to justify sin. In my example, Homer was using logic to alter Truth to meet his needs. Lawyers often use human logic to protect criminals from justice.


----------



## Henry from Canada (Jan 30, 2006)

Anthony said:
"Men may "rationalize" all sorts of errors and sins, but this is not by using correct logic, it can only be done by committing purposeful errors in logic. "

This statement is true some of the time. But I do not believe it is always true.

I believe people sometimes unknowingly lie and deceive themselves.

Example:
-----------
There have been studies that have examined why people are obese.

Some of these obese people know exactly why they are too fat. They eat too much and/or do not exercise enough.

Some people have no idea why they are obese. However, when they are forced to record their food intake and exercise activities, they suddenly become shocked to discover how much they actually eat and how little they actually exercise. 

These people are not actually lying I think; it is just easy to "forget" about that Coke you had at 2PM......

There is a book called "Vital Lies, Simple Truths" by Daniel Goleman that discusses how humans subconsciously distort logic to feel better about themselves.


Proverbs 16:2
-----------------
"All a man's ways seem innocent to him,
but motives are weighed by the Lord."

I suspect man sometimes does not use "purposeful" errors of logic. I suspect often that man has sinful motives and logic that seems "innocent."


I hope this is not a debate over semantics.


----------



## Civbert (Jan 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Henry from Canada_
> Sorry Anthony, I took too many cynical pills today.
> 
> You are right in that human logic can be very useful. It is a gift from God.
> ...



I understand the feeling. There are many examples of men using their ability to argue and persuade to promote lies and justify sin. I think this most often done by using logical fallacies to intentionally deceive people. When I first started studying logic, I was struck by two things: how frequent logical fallacies are used by "intelligent" people (lawyers, doctors, politicians, theologians), and that logically fallacious arguments are often the _most_ persuasive. I expect some people who use these deceptive augments, know these arguments are fallacious, and use them _because_ they are persuasive - especially against those who have never been exposed to the study of logic. 

Logic, sadly, is not a required subject in school. And we see the results in the way our elected officials take advantage of the ignorance.


----------



## Civbert (Jan 30, 2006)

Zig Ziglar said something like - "I never ate a candy bar by accident".


----------



## Henry from Canada (Jan 30, 2006)

Anthony said:
"Zig Ziglar said something like - "I never ate a candy bar by accident". 

10 years ago, I worked with an extremely obese person who had 2 candy bars every lunch.

If you were to question her, she might say she was obese because she ate too many candy bars. In this case, she may not be deceiving herself.

Or, she might also say that she is fat because of "glandular" problem or slow metabolism. In this case, she may have "accidentally" forgotten all those candy bars.


A few months ago, a young man who appears to be 7 months pregnant gave me a "pep talk" on exercise. I told him that I have been exercising deligently for a few decades now. To which, he replied "oh...... yeah so have I" and promptly left the room.

Was this man telling the Truth? Maybe yes. Maybe no. But I doubt it. You could sense by the reckless way he exercised that he was unfamiliar with proper pacing and proper technique.

If he was lying, was he aware of this lie? Maybe he was. Maybe he wasn't.

There might have been just enough Truth in his lie to allow him to convince himself he is a deligient exerciser. Hey, walking to MacDonald's from the parking lot is exercise right people? See I exercise.

Famous words of George from Seinfeld:
-------------------------------------------------
It's not a lie if you really believe it, Jerry.


----------



## knight4christ8 (Feb 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> How would you explain, in a sentence or two, the relationship between logic and truth?



Logic is used to test for meaning. Once meaningfulness is grasped and affirmed, truth is affirmed. 
Logic is the means by which a finite rational being tests and affirms truth value.


----------



## Ron (Mar 4, 2006)

In light of Civbert and Puritanhead's discussion from page one:

Does one know that the President of the United States in the 1980´s had the initials R.R. if he thinks that Roy Rogers was President then? 

Let´s talk about time.

1. Justification: Inductive inference that the clock is working based upon history
2. Belief: Believe as true the time the clock indicates, which is 12:00
3. Truth: It is 12:00

Someone might say that since all the criteria have been met, one can know it is 12:00 given inductive-knowledge. However, the 3 criteria allow one to say that he knows it is 12:00 even when relying upon a broken clock! Shouldn't this intuitively bother us? Can we "know" things based upon false information? The problem with induction is that inferences that are rational to maintain can always be false. 

Let me try to make this even more glaring. Let´s say there is another man in the room who has strong reason to believe that the clock is broken. Accordingly, this man will not rely upon the clock. In fact, this man believes that any justification of the time based upon the clock will be unwarranted. The point should be obvious. The man who is most informed about the clock is not able to know the time, whereas the man with less information about the clock can "œknow" the time if inductive inference allows for such knowledge! *If anyone is looking for a reductio, then here it is. Given and inductive-knowledge, having less information can be a necessary condition for more knowledge, and having more information can cause one to rationally lose the knowledge he once had!* Ignorance truly can be bliss. It´s one thing to have a rational inference about a truth value and quite another thing to have knowledge of a truth value.

Now let me sum this up. The first man´s inference about the clock was rational because based upon history the clock had an extremely high probability of working; say 99.9%. The second man had an entirely different rational inference based upon his history with broken clocks. He believed that there was less than 1% chance of the clock working the day after he observed it not working. Both men were making rational inferences based upon their finite perspectives and information. At the very least, given inductive-knowledge, deductive or revelatory knowledge becomes something of a different order and not merely a difference in degree. We need to distinguish the two. I prefer reserving the term knowledge to more than inductive inferences, allowing for rational inferences that yield to the maximal degree what John Frame might call "œpsychological certainty" as opposed to epistemic certainty, or knowledge rightly called. 

Can anyone be certain of the time? 

Let´s say that there is one clock in the world that is the standard of time. In other words, let´s assume that it indicates the "œtrue time." Now let´s say we were to hook up a digital transmitter to the clock that would output the time to a series of data acquisition systems all running in parallel. Would all of the systems record the same time at any exact instance? No. How can we arrive at the true time then? Some might take the median time of all the times recorded as call it the true time. Someone else might take the arithmetic mean and someone else the mode. Let´s say we were to conclude that at a particular instance the true time was 12:00 noon +/.000000000000000000000000001 milliseconds. How many points of time can fit between that very variance? Well an infinite number of course. Accordingly, what is the probability of one knowing the true time? Well 1/infinity of course. Well, what is 1/infinity? Well zero of course. Consequently, no matter what the time is, nobody knows the true time!

Finally, induction always operates under the formal fallacy of asserting the consequent. It would be misleading, however, to say that inductive reasoning is always fallacious. Rather, by repeated tests through asserting the consequent a veracity of belief can be in order. "œIf A, then B; B therefore, A" is of course fallacious. However: "œIf A, then B; B therefore, A _has more veracity..._" is of course the basis for science and sound. To say that science is always wrong because it asserts the consequence has great shock value but all it really reduces to is that induction is not deduction, which is no great discovery. 

Ron


----------



## JohnV (Mar 4, 2006)

Ron:

Do we know that the things you said are absolutely certaint? Whether we have "psycological certainty" or "epistemic certainty", is it certainty under these criteria? If, on the other hand, we have objective truth revealed to us, do we then have sufficient grounds for certainty? In other words, does it depend on us in any way, instead of on the giver of certainty: does certainty depend on our limitedness, our finitude? If it depends on us, then certainty is not possible, for we are limited and finite; if it depends upon God, then it is possible, because He is unlimited and infinite; is this not so? 

Therefore, if there is an infinite reference point behind all truth, namely God, then induction is possible, and not necessarily misleading. It is not only possible, but is different for the scientist who presupposes man's objectivity instead of God's objective revelation in that which science investigates. When a scientist makes an induction, and he refuses to include the BIG truth that God made all things, then is his induction valid? That is different than a man who has certainty in Christ, and makes inductions based upon the superior truth of Christ's revelation, His self-attestation of Himself, in both general revelation and special revelation. 

Just some thoughts that you post brought to mind. It got some wheels turning. I'm trying to point to a difference between what the world calls induction and what we would call induction as believers in the revealed truth of God's Word. It seems to me this would make quite a difference in justifications.


----------



## Ron (Mar 5, 2006)

Hi John,



> Do we know that the things you said are absolutely certaint?



I don´t know whether you are certain of things but certainty is available to us.



> we have objective truth revealed to us, do we then have sufficient grounds for certainty?



Sometimes, not always. Not all things in Scripture are plain. God´s existence is certain to all men since all men believe in God with maximal justification. 



> In other words, does it depend on us in any way, instead of on the giver of certainty: does certainty depend on our limitedness, our finitude?



On something that must be deduced, unlike God´s existence, it will depend on both God and man but God must effectually give man the belief in the truth.



> Therefore, if there is an infinite reference point behind all truth, namely God, then induction is possible,



When you say induction is impossible, do you mean that it is rational to draw inference? Well, I agree with that. If you mean that we can know things through induction with certainty, well I´m sympathetic to that. However, I would say that we could not know that we know things through induction. If we do know things through induction, it´s because God has granted a necessary, causal relationship to those things that appear to us as such. He would also have to grant us some warrant to believe that things must be the way they are. Does he do this? I don´t know nor do I think we can know. 



> When a scientist makes an induction, and he refuses to include the BIG truth that God made all things, then is his induction valid?



Yes, his inference would be rational; he just might not be able or willing to give a justification for his inference. Having warrant and articulating warrant are two different things. All men know that it is wrong to murder. How can man justify this claim apart from Scripture? 

Blessings,

Ron


----------



## just_grace (Mar 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> How would you explain, in a sentence or two, the relationship between logic and truth?


Jesus and me, Jesus being the Truth and me struggling with 2 and 2 make 4... = trying to comprehend the equasion in all it's glory. Lol 

What a dull and yet a intelligent question at the same time. 

Dafydd.

The latter me showing grace lol!

[Edited on 3-5-2006 by just_grace]


----------

