Is Christ Myth Theory the atheist version of Intelligent Design?

[Prophet]

No offence Legion, but you contribute nothing other than endlessly dismissing everything I say

...which is, in Bunyip's specific case, an invaluable contribution for which this forum owes Legion a debt of gratitude.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No Legion. The theory of evolution is DEDUCTIVE and INDUCTIVE reasoning backed by tested hypothesis.

Inductive reasoning differs little from abductive except in that it incorporates specifically academic notions such as hypotheses. It was invented/coined to do so.

The historicity of Jesus is ABDUCTIVE reasoning that unlike deductive and inductive reasoning is not conclusive - it is guesswork.

Deductive reasoning can easily show that Jesus exists. That's because deductive reasoning depends upon the axioms and/or inference rules in question or more informally the assumptions used. The reason it is generally useless in any research is because it depends upon complete knowledge of the system in question (such as in the use of predicate calculi, Boolean algebra, vector arithmetic, etc.). However, the axioms need not be based on any evidence. Thus one can create a set of axioms and inference rules that prove deductively Jesus was god. It's quite simple, actually. Here's a deductive argument:

1) All gospels prove Jesus existed |Assumption
2) If gMark is a gospel, then gMark proves Jesus existed | formally equivalent to 1
3) gMark is a gospel | historical evidence

Conclusion: Jesus existed

There are infinitely-many deductive arguments that are just as pointless, useless, meaningless, and stupid that nonetheless prove Jesus is historical. That's because any and all reasoning can lead to conclusions. Also, logically (or formally) reasoning describes the methods by which one can apply inference rules given certain axioms and assumptions. This is why, regardless of argument type, logicians and mathematicians distinguish between "validity" and "soundness".

Deductive reasoning is not guesswork

That's because the guesses are assumed beforehand. This is again related to Gödel's incompleteness proof(s), which demonstrates that we have to rely on assumptions in order to rely on the validity of any and all derivations (reasoning which leads to a conclusion). Deductive reasoning is best exemplified by predicate calculus or basic algebra. In formal logic, the following deductive argument is absolutely true:

If English is a language, then Jesus is god. English is a language. Ergo, Jesus is god.

The problem is that like all deductive arguments the above stands and falls on the assumptions underlying both the argument and the method of inference.

and for scientific theories like the ToE those deductions, inferences and guesses have been formed into TESTABLE hypothesis.

Do you have any idea at all how hypotheses are tested in the sciences and the ways in which this is related to formal (or informal, for that matter) reasoning, logic, or any epistemological method(s)?

Only when falsifyable hypothesis have been tested for many decades did the ToE graduate to the ultimate status of Theory.

There is not one evolutionary theory, but many. There are entire field in the sciences (such as evolutionary psychology) which rest on the assumption that particular models of evolution are true. The ways in which hypotheses are falsified depend upon multiple theories, which is why most (if not all) fields in science have contradicting theories.

So the ToE represents testable, falsifyable hypothesis over a century or so.

It doesn't. First, because there is no single hypothesis that was ever tested to confirm evolutionary theory. Second, because there is no singular ToE. Third, because your Popperian, border-line positivism grade-school "scientific method" is "over a century of so" outdated.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

Justas an example: You say

Here's a deductive argument:

1) All gospels prove Jesus existed |Assumption
2) If gMark is a gospel, then gMark proves Jesus existed | formally equivalent to 1
3) gMark is a gospel | historical evidence

Conclusion: Jesus existed.

That is neither sound nor valid Legion, yet again you are lecturing me off topic and demonstrating a catastrophic lack of knowleldge in the field you are lecturing me on.

That is not a deductive argument, P1 is just an assumption, ABDUCTION is when you rely for P1 on an assumption. DEDUCTION is when you form P1 on an axiom.

As usual with your lectures, P1 is an assumption and does not lead to P2 you admit to be simply a restatement of P1 (read it, you actually acknowledge that P2 is 'formally equivalent to 1) and the conclusion a necessary precondition for P2. You have a unsound, invalid nonsense of an argument that concludes it's own premises - both if which are identical..

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

You leave me nothing to work with mate

It doesn't. First, because there is no single hypothesis that was ever tested to confirm evolutionary theory. Second, because there is no singular ToE. Third, because your Popperian, border-line positivism grade-school "scientific method" is "over a century of so" outdated.

So what if there is no single hypothesis? The ToE is comprised of countless tested hypothesis - why on earth would you think that made sense as an objection? You are addressing an imaginary claim again.. And no there is only one ToE. Nothing you are saying meaningfully addresses the contention.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

That is neither sound nor valid Legion

Validity is determined by the proper application of inference rules. Are you capable of demonstrating how I made an invalid inference, or would do you need me to reduce the argument to formal notation and to supply a specific formulation of formal logic?

That is not a deductive argument, P1 is just an assumption

You really haven't studied logic, have you? Premises and assumptions differ only in the ways in which a particular system makes use of them. I could have called the "assumptions" I used "premises", and this would actually be more typical. It simply wouldn't make any difference. Any premise that can be asserted in any propositional or predicate calculus (i.e., formal logic) isn't just consistent with deductive reasoning: it practically defines it.

ABDUCTION is when you for P1 on an assumption.

Seriously? Premises are assumptions, or at least they are for anyone other than an utterly incompetent ignorant ******* who hasn't the faintest idea of what actual formal "reasoning" really is. Assuming you aren't such an individual, care to share your reasons for differentiating premises from assumptions in some way consistent with formal logic?

DEDUCTION is when you form P1 on an axiom.

In every formulation of logic, any and all premises are necessarily allowed and then inference rules and axioms define what one can validly conclude from some set of premises.

This is such basic logic it makes me wonder how much you actually know about induction, deduction, formal logic, etc. What logic textbooks, formal systems, etc., are you familiar with? Can you demonstrate you have any idea what you are talking about? Were I to give you a tautology, could you formulate a symbolic (or informal) derivation from it?

As usual with your lectures, P1 is an assumption and does not lead to P2

Wrong.

you admit to be simply a restatement of P1

Which, for those of us actually familiar with logic, means that it does lead to it. Otherwise there would be no way to take P1 and obtain P2. Duh.

You have a unsound, invalid

Are you even capable explaining the difference between soundness and validity?

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

You really haven't studied logic, have you? Premises and assumptions differ only in the ways in a particular system makes us of them. I could have called the "assumptions" I used "premises", and this would actually be more typical. It simply wouldn't make any difference.

Just leave it please, you are posting nonsense. Assumptions differ from premises in a deductive argument because a deductive argument needs an axiom as a premis, not an assumption.

Your objections do not relate to the claim they object to - what can I say? There is no where to go from there.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

Which, for those of us actually familiar with logic, means that it does lead to it. Otherwise there would be no way to take P1 and obtain P2. Duh

Sigh. No my friend P1 leading to P2 does not mean that P1 is equivalent to P2, you are not making sense.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Just leave it please, you are posting nonsense.

Actually, I am giving you all you need to relate what I say to any formal logic. You can't. I can present you with dozens and dozens of textbooks, monographs, volumes, and papers demonstrating that your personal definitions of formal terms and formal systems is utterly at odds with those used by philosophers, logicians, mathematicians, etc. I can quote for you the ways in which your definitions are pathetically inept in that they are totally incompatible with the very "reasoning" you purport to be familiar with.

However, you would just claim I was appealing to authority (if not, I beg you, ask me to substantiate my claims about logic, argumentation, formal systems, etc., as I will run your pathetic little claims into the ground in a heartbeat).

Assumptions differ from premises in a deductive argument because a deductive argument needs an axiom as a premis, not an assumption.

Wrong. This is trivially true for any moron with a passing familiarity formal logic or mathematics. Axioms, like inference rules, enable conclusions based on propositions.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Sigh. No my friend P1 leading to P2 does not mean that P1 is equivalent to P2, you are not making sense.

Show this is true in any system of formal logic.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

I said:

Assumptions differ from premises in a deductive argument because a deductive argument needs an axiom as a premis, not an assumption.

You reply:

Wrong. This is trivially true for any moron with a passing familiarity formal logic or mathematics. Axioms, like inference rules, enable conclusions based on propositions.

Sure Legion, its wrong because it is only 'trivially true' - cos' I'm a moron.

Ok buddy, lets leave it there ok?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Sure Legion, its wrong because it is only 'trivially true' - cos' I'm a moron.

I overestimated your ability to comprehend simple English. Let me rephrase: "Wrong. The fact that it is wrong is trivially true for any moron with a passing familiarity with formal logic or mathematics."

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Ok buddy, lets leave it there ok?

Apparently you misunderstood. This is, in its entirety, trivially wrong:

Assumptions differ from premises in a deductive argument because a deductive argument needs an axiom as a premis, not an assumption.

It is trivially wrong for many reasons:
1) No deductive argument "needs" an axiom as a premise
2) Assumptions and premises can be interchangeable and/or indistinguishable in deductive reasoning with no real difference.
3) Premises in deductive arguments are, informally, assumptions. Formally, the distinction between assumptions and premises has to do with inference rules in a particular formal system.
4) Deductive arguments don't require axioms. Essentials of Symbolic Logic (3rd Ed.), for example, is a textbook requiring hundreds of logical deductive arguments without a single axiom.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion

Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

Yet another deflection. You really are incapable of supporting any claim you vomit forth.