|
|
|
Grace Bible Church 4000 E.
Collins Rd. P.O. Box #3762 Gillette, WY 82717
(307) 686-1516 - Preaching the Living WORD through
the Written WORD - 2 Tim 4;:2 - |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
INTRO TO LOGIC
AND THE BIBLE Grace Bible Church,
Gillette, Wyoming Pastor Daryl Hilbert I. INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC A. Logic is the instrument (Aristotle’s
collection, Organon; organon - “instrument”) by which we reason and by
which all sciences operate. Aristotle is credited with defining “logic,” not
inventing it. God is the source of logic, making it self-evident from His
nature (See Diagram).
B. God communicates with man
through reason in Scripture. Therefore, logic is essential in understanding
and interpreting the Scriptures. Note the various quotes: 1. The
whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory,
man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture,
or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be
added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. (Westminster Confessions of Faith 1:6) 2. Reason is the instrument of discovery of
all doctrines and duties, whether ‘expressly set down in Scripture’ or ‘by
good and necessary consequence deduced from Scripture’: but their authority, when once discovered,
is derived from God, who reveals them and prescribes them in Scripture,
either by literal assertion or by necessary implication. (B. B. Warfield on the Confession) 3. When we accept the laws of logic, we are
not accepting laws external to God to which he must be subject, but we are
accepting laws of truth which are derived from God’s holy character. (James O. Buswell) 4. The science of reasoning is of very great
service in searching into and unraveling all sorts of questions that come up
in Scripture….The validity of logical sequences is not a thing devised by
men, but it is observed and noted by them that they may be able to learn and
teach it; for it exists eternally in the reason of things, and has its origin
with God. (Augustine) 5. Logic is fixed, universal, necessary, and
irreplaceable…[because] God is a rational being, the architecture of whose
mind is logic. (Gordon Clark) II. DEFINITIONS OF LOGIC A. Logic is the science of
reasoning. B. Logic is the science of necessary
inference. C. Logic is thinking clearly without
contradictions or fallacies. D. Logic is the
rules governing right reasoning; the study of the methods and principles to
distinguish good (valid) reasoning from false (invalid). E. Logic is the branch of philosophy that
deals with the forms of thinking in general, and more especially of
inference, of scientific method, and the art of reasoning and that system of rules
for convincing or confounding an opponent by argument. III. DISTINCTIONS IN LOGIC A. The concept of logic is
basic to all thinking, reasoning, and sciences. However, there are several
distinctions in logic within different sciences (Mathematics, Scientific, and
Dialectical (Speech) etc.). The particular focus of logic in this class will
be Dialectical Logic. It is sometimes called Propositional Logic or
Sentential Logic. B. Dialectical Logic is the study of
rules for arguments in propositions or statements. In a sense, Dialectical
Logic is the basis for all other sciences because most ideas are communicated
through words. C. There are two basic types of logic in
Dialectical Logic; they are “Formal Logic” and “Informal Logic.” 1. Formal
Logic involves the validity and certainty of an argument based on the
structure of statements (premises and conclusions). 2. Informal Logic involves the
strength and probability of an argument based on the support of statements
(premises and conclusions). IV. INFORMAL FALLACIES Intro to Informal
Fallacies: 1. Definitions
of an Argument a) An
argument is offering a set of reasons or evidence in support of a conclusion
(Informal Logic). b) An argument is a connected series of
statements intended to establish a definite proposition. (Formal Logic)
(Monty Python, Argument Clinic) 2. Definition
of a Fallacy a) A fallacy
is a type of incorrect argument. They are not formal or technical in nature. b) Informal fallacies in logic can be caused by
inattentiveness, carelessness, fatigue, prejudice, bias, ignorance, and the
sin nature. c) A typical fallacy arrives at irrelevant
conclusions. In other words, it is an argument that does not establish what
it intends to establish. A. Appeal To Force 1. It
is argument by intimidation, scare tactics, or force. It is also called
“Argumentum Ad Baculum” (“argument to the stick”). 2. This line of "reasoning" is
fallacious because coercing people through intimidation does not constitute
evidence for a claim. 3. Ex. “You had better agree that the new
company policy is the best if you expect to keep your job.” 4. Ex. “The defendant ought to be found
innocent because if he isn't, there will be a riot and many innocent citizens
will be hurt or killed.” 5. It is seen of wicked rulers in the Bible
(Pr 28:15). 6. It is used by Satan to cause believers to
fear and falter (1Pe 5:8-9). 7. It could be used by wealthy individuals
in the church who withhold funds if their view is not accepted. 8. It could be used by pastors to intimidate
and ridicule those who do not agree with his views. B. Personal Attack 1. It is
argument by attacking the man (Ad Hominem Abusive - ad hominem - “to the
man”). 2. The reason why an Ad Hominem Abusive is a
fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not
have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. 3. Ex. “Candidate Jane Jones' proposal X is
ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003.” 4. Ex. “We should disregard Fred's argument
because he is just angry about the fact that the defendant once cheated him
out of $100.” 5. It was used against Jesus to disregard
his teaching (Mat 12:24f). 6. It is often associated with “name
calling.” 7. It could be used in debates regarding
religion by both sides. 8. An ad hominem attack often resorts to
“name calling” because they cannot defeat the argument any other way. C. Appeal To Emotions 1. It is an
argument that appeals to emotion rather than reason. 2. This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates
peoples' emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. 3. This fallacy is actually an extremely
effective persuasive device. As many people have argued, peoples' emotions
often carry much more force than their reason. Logical argumentation is often
difficult and time consuming and it rarely has the power to spurn people to
action. An appeal to emotions is very powerful which explains why it is
popular and used widely. 4. Ex. “Bill goes to hear a Democrat speak.
The Democrat tells the crowd about the evils of the Republicans, such as
taking away Social Security, not caring about teachers and education, not
doing anything about Global warming. After hearing the speech, Bill is
incensed with the Republican Party. He feels good about joining the
Democratic Party and accepts it is as the right thing to do.” 5. Ex. "It was so great to worship with
you last Sunday night. The songs were great, and the band helped me to
worship God. I appreciate the way you recognize people's emotions and include
an appeal to emotions." 6. Appeal to emotion was used by Jewish
religious leaders to incite retaliation (Mt 5:38, 43). 7. While it is not wrong for preachers to
stir the listeners to action, they must do so by appealing to reason through the Scriptures (Is 1:18;
Ac 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:9). Emotions do not necessarily generate correct
beliefs or correct responses. D. Appeal To Popularity 1. It is an
argument that appeals to popular demand rather than facts and evidence. 2. The basic idea is that a claim is
accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined
towards the claim. 3. At one time people approved of claims
such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds
greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the
earth" but all these claims turned out to be false. 4. This sort of "reasoning" is
quite common and can be quite an effective persuasive device. Since most
humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person
that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to
accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell
products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. 5. Ex. “I read the other day that most people would really like
to see gun owners disarmed. I have always liked guns, but if most people
don’t like them they must be right.” 6. Sometimes
Christians adopt the popular views of the world (1Co 15:33; 1Jo 2:16) or
adopt certain Bible interpretations simply because most Christians hold to
them. E. Appeal To Tradition 1. It is an
argument that appeals to the old way of doing things not necessarily because
it is right. 2. This sort of "reasoning" is
fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct
or better than something newer. On the other hand, new (Appeal To Novelty) is
not always better either. 3. However, if someone successfully argues
why something has stood the test of time, it would be backed by evidence and
not be a fallacy. 4. Ex. Reporter: "Mr. Hatfield, why
have you been fighting with the McCoys all these years? Hatfield: "I
don't rightly know. I'm sure it was the McCoys who started it all,
though." Reporter: "If you don't know why you're fighting, why don't
you just stop?" Hatfield: "Stop? What are you crazy? This feud has
been going on for generations so I'm sure there is a good reason why it
started. So I aim to keep it going.” 5. The Pharisees neglected the correct
biblical course because they held to the traditions of men (Mk 7:8 cp. Col
2:8). 6. While believers must not hold to the
traditions of men, there are some valid biblical traditions (1Co 11:2; 2Th
2:15). F. Appeal To Authority 1. It is an
argument that bases its appeal on a person who is not an authority in that field. 2. This fallacy is committed when the person
in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. 3. When a person falls prey to this fallacy,
they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to
do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they
erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert
and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. 4. Since people have a tendency to believe
authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made
by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one. 5. Ex. “I'm not a doctor, but I play one on
TV. When you get a bad cough, you need Vicks Adult Formula 44. You can’t buy
anything more effective.” 6. Commercials use this all the time when
athletes support their product. 7. Some individuals in authority believe
they are an authority in every field. G. Appeal To Ignorance
(Burden of Proof) 1. It is an
argument that is based on a lack of evidence. 2. It is also known as the burden of proof.
It becomes a fallacy when the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. 3. For example, in the United States an
individual is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore the burden of proof is
on the prosecution, not the defense. 4. Ex. Bill: "I think that some people
have psychic powers." Jill: "What is your proof?" Bill:
"No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic
powers." 5. It is an erroneous argument for
Christians to say, I believe there is a God because no one has ever proved
that God does not exist. 6. There are biblical, scientific, and
philosophical reasons why God exists and Christians should know how to use
them. 7. Atheists often claim that they have no
burden of proof to prove that God does not exist. In one sense, that is true.
However, when they make the claim that God does not exist, which they often
do, then a burden of proof rests upon them to substantiate their claim. H. Poisoning the Well 1. It is an
argument that includes unfavorable information (true or false) about the
opponent not related to the issue. 2. The
person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will
bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject
any claims he might make. 3. However, merely presenting unfavorable
information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence
against the claims he/she might make. 4. This was the Pharisees fallacious attempt
to thwart Jesus’ teaching (Luk 15:2). But wisdom and truth is based on facts
and evidence (Mat 11:19). 5. This is akin to the church member that
attempts to taint someone’s reputation in order to get others to reject his
ideas. I. Straw Man 1. It is an
argument that ignores a person's actual position and
substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that
position. 2. It could also be defined as skewing an
opponent’s argument so that it can be easily defeated. 3. This sort of "reasoning" is
fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does
not constitute an attack on the position itself. 4. Ex. "Senator Jones says that we
should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't
understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that." 5. A straw man argument was used by those
who slanderously falsified Paul’s beliefs (Rom 3:8). Also cp. Act 6:13-14. J. Red Herring 1. It is an
argument in which an irrelevant topic is presented
in order to divert attention from the original issue. 2. It is also called a “smoke screen” or
“wild goose chase.” Instead of concentrating on all the white herring, one is
distracted by one red herring. 3. The basic idea is to "win" an
argument by leading attention away from the original issue to another issue. 4. Ex. “We admit that this policy is
popular. But we also urge you to note that there are so many policies on this
ballot that the whole thing is getting ridiculous.” 5. This sort of "reasoning" is
fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as
an argument against a claim. K. Special Pleading 1. It is an
argument which gives one-sided evidence while omitting other relevant facts
that may lead to another conclusion. 2. This is similar to the fallacy of “double
standard” where a person applies a standard to an opponent’s argument but has
a special case for not applying it to his own. 3. Ex. I know that nine out of ten studies
show a different conclusion, but this one study argues my case.” 4. Ex. "In the Thomistic cosmological
argument for the existence of God, everything requires a cause. However,
proponents of the argument then create a special case where God doesn't need
a cause, but they can't say why in any particularly rigorous fashion."
(Thomas Aquinas did not say everything has a cause. Rather, he said every
effect ("efficient cause") has a cause. It is not possible to
regress to infinity in efficient causes. Therefore, an uncaused First Cause
exists and this is God). 5. Ex. “The Bible is like any other
mythological literature portraying fictitious gods.” (Actually the Bible is
one of the most credible historical documents ever written. Its characters
verifiably existed and its events are historically recorded by outside
sources.) 6. The Jews used special pleading to suggest
Paul was persuading “men to worship God contrary to the law” (Ac 18:13-16). L. Slippery Slope 1. It is an
argument that asserts that an action will initiate a
chain of events culminating in an undesirable event later. 2. In some cases, the assumption is made
that one event immediately leads to an exaggerated or catastrophic event. 3. Ex. “Give them an inch and they’ll take a
foot!” 4. Ex. “We have to stop the tuition
increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!” 5. The Pharisees used a slippery slope
fallacy when stating that if they did not kill Jesus, the Romans would take
away their nation (Joh 11:48). M. Relativistic Fallacy 1. The
relativist fallacy, also known as the subjectivist fallacy, is a fallacy
committed when one person claims that something may be true for one person
but not true for someone else. 2. It is an argument that rejects a claim by asserting that the claim might be
true for others but is not for him/her. 3. Regarding fallacies, relativism is the
view that truth is relative to a person, time, culture, place, etc.). 4. It is not a fallacy when dealing with
preferences, personal tastes, or with subjective experiences, but only with
objective truth. 5. This is the idea of the biblical
quotation, “everyone did right in his own eyes” (Jdg 17:6; 21:25; Pr 12:15;
Pr 21:2) N. False Dilemma 1. It is an
argument that assumes there are only two alternatives when in fact there are
more than two. 2. Sometimes there are only two
alternatives, but always assuming that there are only two is fallacious. 3. Some people insist that if you disagree
with them on one issue, then you must be against everything they stand for. 4. Ex. “Either you give to this needy person
or you are a greedy capitalist.” 5. A False Dilemma fallacy was used against
Jesus in regard to giving to Caesar (Mt 22:16-22) and the resurrection (Mt
22:23-33). O. Begging the Question
(Circular Argument) 1. It is an
argument that includes the conclusion in one of the premises. 2. It is also called Circular Reasoning, Reasoning in a Circle, Petitio Principii. 3. This sort of "reasoning" is
fallacious because it continuously asserts a claim but never proves or brings
it to a satisfactory conclusion. 4. Some cases of question begging are fairly
blatant, while others can be extremely subtle. 5. The Christian cannot correctly argue,
“The Bible is inspired because the Bible says that it is inspired.” The
common response is, “So does the Koran.” 6. You would expect inspired writings to
declare their own inspiration. But self-authentication does not give proof of
inspiration. 7. We could argue miracles confirmed God’s
spokesmen. God’s spokesmen speak the words of God infallibly. God’s spokesmen
infallibly declare the Bible is inspired. P. You Too Fallacy 1. It is an argument that asserts that a certain position is
wrong because its proponent fails to consistently act in accordance with that
position. 2. It is an argument that rejects a position
because the opponent is guilty of the same wrongdoing (“you too” - “tu
quoque”). 3. Also, the fact that a person's claims are
not consistent with his own actions might indicate that the person is a
hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false. 4. Another version of the “you too” fallacy
is when Party A is asked to defend the actions of Politician A. Their
response to Party B is that Politician B was also guilty of the same actions.
True or not, this response never sufficiently defended Politician A’s
actions. Besides, if Politician B’s actions were also wrong, two wrongs do
not make a right (arguing against the fallacy of “Two Wrongs Make a Right”). Q. Bandwagon 1. It
is an argument in which a threat of rejection by one's peers is substituted
for evidence in an "argument." 2. It is also known as, “peer pressure.” 3. The strength of this fallacy rests on the
fact of that everyone has the need to belong. This sometimes becomes a strong
emotional appeal to conform to the views and positions of those groups even
if wrong. 4. Keep in mind that there is a difference
between compromising truth and compromising preferences for the sake of
peace. 5. Lk 6:26 - Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way. R. Post Hoc 1. The full
name is "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc," which means, "After
this, therefore because of this." This is a sequential fallacy. 2. It is an argument that asserts that one
event is caused by another event, simply because it preceded it. A preceded
B, therefore, A caused B. 3. Ex. “Joan is scratched by a cat while
visiting her friend. Two days later she comes down with a fever. Joan
concludes that the cat's scratch must be the cause of her illness.” 4. Ex. “Party A passes a new tax reform law
that benefits upper class Americans. Shortly thereafter the economy takes a
nose dive. Party B claims that the tax reform caused the economic woes and
they push to get rid of it.” 5. Ex. “Acts 2:4 teaches that the apostles
received the Holy Spirit and began to speak in tongues. Therefore, the Bible
teaches that everyone who receives the Holy Spirit will speak in tongues.”
(There are passages that teach that not every believer will speak in tongues
(1Co 12:29-30) 6. Two similar fallacies are “Confusing a
Common Cause,” and “Ignoring a Common Cause.” S. Equivocation (Ambiguity) 1. It is an
argument that occurs when a word or phrase is used with two or more meanings.
In fact, ambiguity is one of the seven deadly sins of correct thinking. 2. Ex. “If all men are created equal, then
why are pro basketball players so tall?” 3. Ex. “Your argument is sound; nothing but
sound.” 4. Amphibole (or Relationship) is one
where the words are clear but the grammatical construction is not. 5. Ex. “Save soap and waste paper.” or “I
live by the river; drop in some time.” 6. Accent (or Emphasis) occurs when
the accent, emphasis, or tone of voice changes the meaning. 7. Ex. “You have heard that it was said,
‘You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy’” (Mt 5:43). or “I
love you.” “I love you.” “I love you.”
“I love you.” 8. Significance (or Circumstance) is
committed when conditions or circumstances change the meaning of the words. 9. Ex. “What is truth?” (by a philosophy
student) or “What is truth?” (Pontius Pilate) 10. Ex. “Son of God” (God incarnate) or “Son of
God” (highest created being - JW’s) T. Non Sequitur - drawing a
conclusion that does not follow (unwittingly or on purpose). V. THREE BASIC LAWS OF LOGIC A. Three Basic Laws 1. These
fundamental laws are true principles governing reality and thought and are
assumed by Scripture. Some claim they are arbitrary Western constructions,
but this is false. The basic laws of logic govern all reality and thought and
are known to be true for at least two reasons: (1) They are intuitively
obvious and self-evident. Once one understands a basic law of logic (see
below), one can see that it is true. (2) Those who deny them use these
principles in their denial, demonstrating that those laws are unavoidable and
that it is self-refuting to deny them.
(J.P. Moreland, Three Laws of Logic) 2. The basic laws of logic are neither
arbitrary inventions of God nor principles that exist completely outside
God’s being. Obviously, the laws of logic are not like the laws of nature.
God may violate the latter (say, suspend gravity), but He cannot violate the
former. Those laws are rooted in God’s own nature. Indeed, some scholars
think the passage “In the beginning was the Word [logos]” (Jn 1:1) is
accurately translated, “In the beginning was Logic (a divine, rational
mind).” For example, even God cannot exist and not exist at the same time,
and even God cannot validly believe that red is a color and red is not a
color. Often God does not act in ways that people understand or judge to be
what they would do in the circumstances. But God never behaves illogically in
the proper sense. He does not violate in His being or thought the fundamental
laws of logic. (ibid.) B. Law of Identity - “A is A”
(A = A) 1. In other
words, A is A, and cannot be anything but A. 2. “...a thing is itself… the fact or the
existence of the thing must already be evident…
each thing is inseparable from itself” (Aristotle, Metaphysics
Book VII, Part 17) 3. The law of identity says that if a
statement such as “It is raining” is true, then the statement is true.
More generally, it says that the statement P is the same thing as itself and
is different from everything else. Applied to all reality, the law of
identity says that everything is itself and not something else. (J.P. Moreland, Three Laws of Logic) 4. This emphasizes the importance of
understanding and defining our terms. Without such identification, all
communication would be impossible and nonsensical (1Co 14:8-11). 5. This law is not above God, but comes from
the essence of God’s nature, including all His attributes. God revealed
Himself to Moses as “I AM WHO I AM” (Ex 3:14). God is Who He is, from His
nature He acts as He acts. Therefore, truth and reality are what they are
because God is the eternal, self-existent, divine creator. 6. See also Jn 6:48; 8:12; 10:11; 11:25;
14:6; 15:1; Re 22:13. C. Law of Non-Contradiction -
“A cannot be both A and not A” ~(A
& ~A) 1. It is
impossible for the same thing at the same time to belong and not belong to
the same thing at the same time and in the same respect. (Aristotle, Metaphysics 1005b12-20). Or simplified,
A cannot be A and non-A at the same time and same respect. 2. The law of noncontradiction says that a
statement such as “It is raining” cannot be both true and false in the
same sense. Of course it could be raining in Missouri and not raining
in Arizona, but the principle says that it cannot be raining and not raining
at the same time in the same place.
(J.P. Moreland, Three Laws of Logic) 3. A contradiction is two opposing
statements. A paradox (classical definition) is something which appears to be
a contradiction but is not. 4. Because God is Who He is and is a God of
truth, it is impossible for God to lie, say something false, or contradict
Himself (He 6:18; Tit 1:2; Nu 23:19). Therefore, there can be no lie or
contradiction in the truth (1Jn 2:21). If God contradicted Himself,
communication from God would be impossible and nonsensical. When He gave the
command to Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and
evil, it did not mean that they could also eat from the tree of knowledge of
good and evil (Ge 2:17). 5. The orthodox Christian view of the
Trinity is not a contradiction. It is not claimed that God is one God and
also three Gods at the same time in the same respect. Rather, the Trinity is
explained in that God is one in essence but subsists in three persons. 6. Until a little more than a hundred years
ago, the law of contradiction was almost universally accepted by philosophers
as a self-evident truth. Francis Schaeffer attributed the decline of
20th-century society to the demise of the law of contradiction. He suggested
that when philosophy abandons this principle it sinks beneath "the line
of despair" and ultimately makes suicide the only viable course of
action. (Phil Johnson, The Law of
Contradiction) 7. On a positive note, when we are engaged
in defending the faith, and someone denies this law, the debate is over. Why
do I call this a “positive note”? Because if a person claims their disbelief
in rationality or logic as a reason for not believing in Christianity, then
they have made the case for Christianity. As we defend Christianity we are
trying to demonstrate that every alternative to apostolic doctrine is an
exercise in irrationality. If the only way one can escape from belief in God
is by denying logic, then so be it.
(Sproul, R.C., Defending Your Faith) D. Law of Excluded Middle -
“A must be either A or not A” (A v ~A) 1. In other
words, A must be either A or not A. Any middle alternative is excluded. 2. The law of the excluded middle says that
a statement such as “It is raining” is either true or false.
There is no other alternative.
(J.P. Moreland, Three Laws of Logic) 3. The law of excluded middle says that a
statement is true or false. Or it can be said that of two contradictory
statements one is true while the other is false. 4. This is observed in the essence of God,
“with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow” (Jm 1:17). God is either
good or He is evil. There is no middle alternative that God is both good and
evil. Therefore, since God is good, He cannot be evil (Jm 1:13). 5. Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No';
anything more than this comes from evil (Mt 5:37 ESV). 6. It is either right to obey God rather
than man or it is not right. You be the judge (Ac 4:19). 7. Either Jacob was Isaac’s son Esau or he
was not Isaac’s son Esau (Ge 27:21). 8. Israel either kept God’s commands or they
did not keep God’s commands (Dt 8:2; Jdg 2:22). 9. John exhorted believers to test the
spirits. Either they were from God or they were not from God (1Jn 4:1). 10. This is not to be confused with the fallacy
of “False Dilemma” (also known as fallacy of “Excluded Middle”). VI. FORMAL LOGIC A. Informal Logic pertains to
the strength of an argument while Formal Logic involves the validity and
certainty of an argument based on the structure of statements (premises and
conclusions). In other words, Formal Logic specifically concentrates on the
forms of an argument. B. The basic and standard forms are called
“categorical statements.” C. A categorical statement is a statement
that relates two classes (set of things) or categories. D. Categorical statements are used to
determine identity, contradiction, excluded middle. They are also used to
determine premises and conclusions in categorical syllogisms, rules of
inference, and informal arguments. E. There are four different standard forms of
categorical statements represented by the following symbols: A, E, I, O.
F. These labels come from the medieval
period when logic was studied in Latin. The letters are vowels from the Latin
words A F F I R M O and N E G O,
meaning (respectively) “I affirm” and “I deny.” 1. A - “all,” 2. E
- “no,” 3. I
- “some,” 4. O
- “some (are) not” G. To be in standard form,
the elements of a categorical statement must appear in the following order: 1. Quantifier
(i.e., the word “all “no,” “some,” or
“some (are) not”) 2. Subject term (i.e., a word or phrase that
names a class or category) 3. Copula (“to be” verb - “is” and “are” or
“is not” and “are not”) 4. Predicate term (i.e., a word or phrase
that names a class or category) Ex. “All S are P,” = All
(quantifier) S (subject) are (copula) P
(predicate). Ex. “All men are mortal,” = All
(quantifier) men (subject) are (copula) mortal
(predicate). H. The four standard forms
are as follows: 1. (A) - “All
S are P” (universal affirmative)
a) All men
(S) are mortal (P). b) All beagles (S) are dogs (P). c) All Scripture is inspired (God-breathed)
(2Ti 3:16). d) All men (S) are sinners (P) (Rom 3:23). e) Everyone who calls on Christ is a person
who is saved (Rom 10:13). f) Any who believe in Christ are those who
have eternal life (Joh 3:16). g) Only those in Christ are those who
possess all spiritual blessings (Eph 1:3). 2. (E) - “No
S are P” (universal negative)
a) No men
(S) are immortal (P). b) No beagles (S) are cats (P). c) No men (S) are righteous (P) (Ro 3:10). d) No unsaved men are those who understand
spiritual things (Ro 3:11a) e) No unsaved men are those who seek God (Ro
3:11b). f) Nothing unclean is that which enters
heaven (Re 21:27). 3. (I) - “Some
S are P” (particular affirmative) a) Some men
(S) are Professors (P) b) Some trees (S) are oaks (P) c) Some believers are evangelists (Ep 4:11). d) Some believers are teachers (Ep 4:11). e) Some who have died are those who have
seen Christ (1Co 15:6). 4. (O) - “Some S are not P” (particular
negative) a) Some
graduates (S) are not Doctors (P) b) Some trees (S) are not oaks (P) c) Some who descended from Israel are not
believers (Ro 9:6). d) Some who say Lord, Lord are those who will
not enter heaven (Mt 7:21). I. Translating normal
sentences into categorical statements 1. To
translate a sentence into a categorical statement do the following: 1) Determine the quantifier and subject
category. 2) Insert the copula (is/are). 3) Add the predicate category. 4) Note: Commands and questions are not propositions
and cannot be translated into categorical statements 2. Examples
of translating categorical statements a) Everybody
can throw a ball. (1) All
people are ball-throwers. (A) b) Some
college students will not become Professors. (1) Some
college students are persons who will not become Professors. (O). c) “Some,
to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy” (Php 1:15). (1) Some
persons are persons who are preaching Christ from envy. (I) d) “nor any
other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God” (Ro
8:39). (1) No
created things are things that can separate us from the love of God. (E) e) “But a
man named Ananias, sold a piece of property” (Ac 5:1) (1) All
persons identical to Ananias are persons who sold their property. (A) f) “Why has
Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?” (Ac 5:3). (1) Not a
statement but a question g) “Therefore
repent and return” (Ac 3:19). (1) Not a
statement but a command. h) *Socrates
is a man. (1) All
persons identical to Socrates are persons who are men. (A) i) *Everything
that begins to exist has a cause. (1) All
things that begin to exist are things that have a cause. (A)
*(simplified form that is an acceptable standard form) 3. Stylistic
variants of categorical statements a) A -
Universal Affirmative (All S are P) (1) Every S
is a P. (2) Each S is a P. (3) Any S is a P. (4) If anything is an S, then it is a P. (5) Things are S only if they are P. (6) Only P are S. b) E -
Universal Negative (No S are P) (1) Nothing
that is an S is a P. (2) A thing is an S only if it is not a P. (3) If anything is an S, then it is not a P. (4) Nothing is an S unless it is not a P. c) I -
Particular Affirmative (Some S are P) (1) There are
S that are P. (2) At least one S is a P. (3) There exists an S that is a P. (4) Something is both an S and a P. d) O -
Particular Negative (Some S are not P) (1) At least
one S is not a P. (2) Not all S are P. (3) Not every S is a P. (4) Something is an S but not a P. (5) There is an S that is not a P. 4. Examples
of translating categorical statements a) “Not
everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven” (Mt
7:21) (1) Some
persons who say “Lord, Lord” are persons who will not enter heaven (O). b) “everyone who does evil hates the Light” (Jn 3:20) (1) All
those who do evil are those who hate the Light (A) c) “but
not all things are profitable” (1Co 10:23) (1) Some
things are things that are not profitable (O) d) “If anyone wishes to
come after Me, he must deny himself” (Lk 9:23) (1) All
persons who wish to come after Me are persons who must deny themselves” (A). e) “only
there are some who are disturbing you” (Ga 1:7) (1) Some
persons are persons who are disturbing you (I). f) “No
one has seen God at any time” (Jn 1:18) (1) No
persons are persons who have seen God” (E). g) “But
there are some of you who do not believe” (Jn 6:64) (1) Some
persons are persons who do not believe (O). h) “There is
now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Ro 8:1). (1) All
persons who are in Christ are persons who will not receive condemnation. (not
in standard form) (2) No persons who are in Christ are persons
who will receive condemnation. (standard form E) VII. THE SQUARE OF
OPPOSITION A. Inference - An
inference is the process of drawing (inferring) a conclusion from a statement
or premise. B. Immediate Inference - an immediate
inference is when a conclusion is drawn from only one premise. C. The Square of Opposition - is a way of
diagramming logical relations and immediate inferences between categorical
statements (A, E, I, O).
D. Explanation of
Square of Opposition 1. Contradictories (A ←→ O and E ←→ I) are statements
that cannot both be true (or false). For example, “All dogs are collies”
contradicts “Some dogs are not collies” and vice versa. Also, “No dogs are
collies” contradicts “Some dogs are collies” and vice versa. 2. Contraries (A ←→ E) are statements
that cannot both be true but they can both be false. For example, “All dogs
are collies” and “No dogs are collies” are contraries and cannot both be
true. If one of these statements is true, the other must be false. But if in
fact only “Some dogs are collies,” they are both false. 3. Subcontraries (I ←→ O) are statements that cannot
both be false but they can both be true. For example, “Some dogs are collies”
and “Some dogs are not collies” can both be true (“some are” and “some are
not”). But if in fact “All dogs are collies,” then only “Some dogs are
collies” is true. 4. Implications are made from statements such as, A → I (“All
ants are insects” implies “Some ants are insects.”), and E → O (“No
ants are antelope” implies “Some ants are not antelope.”). We can only
consider that I → A (Some ants are insects” implies “All ants are
insects”) might be true, if we do not know that “All ants are insects.” But
if in fact only “Some ants insects” then “All ants are insects” would be
false. E. Exercise to
determine the immediate inference (First
statement is assumed true) 1. All
successful executives are intelligent men. a) No
successful executives are intelligent men. b) Some successful executives are intelligent
men. c) Some successful executives are not
intelligent men. 2. No
animals with horns are carnivorous. a) Some
animals with horns are carnivorous. b) Some animals with horns are not
carnivorous. c) All animals with horns are not
carnivorous. F. Exercise to
determine validity of immediate inferences. (First statement is assumed true) 1. All
cougars are carnivores. So, it is false that some cougars are not carnivores. 2. All legal treaties are promises. Hence,
it is not the case that no legal treaties are promises. 3. Some mosquitoes are evil beings.
Therefore, it is not true that no mosquitoes are evil beings. 4. All self-absorbed people are boring
people. It follows that some self-absorbed people are boring people. 5. Some lawyers are shysters. So, all
lawyers are shysters. 6. No five-star generals are humble people.
Consequently, it is false that some five-star generals are humble people VIII. CATEGORICAL
SYLLOGISMS A. Syllogisms 1. A syllogism,
in logic, is a mode of deductive reasoning that consists of a sequence of
three propositions; two premises and one conclusion. 2. Aristotle’s formulations of syllogistic
logic held sway in the Western world for over 2,000 years. Since the 19th
Cent., Aristotelian logic has been supplanted by symbolic logic, which
replaces ordinary language with mathematical symbols. However, linguistic
syllogisms (categorical) remain a verifiable means of valid inference. 3. The classic example of a syllogism is: 1. All men are mortal
(Premise #1). 2. Socrates is a man
(Premise #2). 3. Therefore, Socrates is
mortal (Conclusion). 4. A
syllogism can be visualized by the Euler Circle:
5. The
previous syllogism is a “valid” syllogism (correct form). A valid syllogism
is a syllogism that is in standard form (correct) in which case the
conclusion necessarily (certain or guaranteed) follows. For a syllogism to be
“sound,” the form must be valid (correct) and the premises must be true
(discussed later). 6. Therefore, if Premise #1 and #2 are in the correct form, then it is logically
“necessary” (certain or guaranteed) that the conclusion must follow. 7. So, if “All men are mortal” and “Socrates is
a man” are in the correct form, then it is
logically “necessary” (certain or guaranteed) that “Socrates is
mortal.” 8. Not all syllogisms are “valid.” Invalid
syllogisms are not in correct form and therefore do not guarantee that the
conclusion necessarily follows. Note the following syllogism: 1. All dogs are mammals
(Premise #1). 2. All cats are mammals
(Premise #2). 3. Therefore, all cats
are dogs (Conclusion). 9. Even
though Premise #1 and #2 may be true, the syllogism is not in correct form.
Therefore, the conclusion does not necessarily follow and is invalid.
Furthermore, the syllogism is not sound. B. Standard Forms
of Moods 1. To
determine the form of a syllogism, we must understand the moods, terms, and
figures. 2. Our example syllogism is in the mood of
“AAA,” which is the most utilized and the most simplified. Statements 1, 2,
and 3 are all “A” propositions (All S are P). 1. All men are mortal.
(A) 2. Socrates is a
man. (A) 3. Socrates is
mortal. (A) 3. The
following is an EIO form. 1. No heroes are cowards. 2. Some soldiers are
cowards. 3. Some soldiers are not
heroes. 4. The
following is an AEE form. 1. All kings are princes. 2. No princes are
princesses. 3. No princesses are
kings. 5. The
following is an IAI form. 1. Some students are
Freshmen. 2. All students are
enrolled. 3. Some enrolled are
Freshmen. C. Standard Forms
of Terms 1. To
determine the form of a syllogism we must know the “major term,” “minor
term,” and “middle term.” The major term becomes the predicate (P) and the
minor term becomes the subject (S). 1.
All men (mid) are mortal (maj).
- men
mortal - M P 2.
Socrates (min) is a man (mid).
- Socrates men -
S M 3.
Socrates (min) is mortal (maj).
- Socrates mortal -
S P 2. The
standard form of major, minor, and middle terms are as follows: a) The
major term (P) should be in line 1. b) The minor term (S) should be in line 2. c) The middle term (M) should be in
both line 1and 2. d) The conclusion in line 3 should contain
both the minor term (S) and major term (P), but not the middle term (M).
D. Standard Forms
of Figures 1. Our
example syllogism above is a Figure 1 (AAA-1) out of a total of four Figures.
To determine the figure of a syllogism we must have the proper distribution
of the middle term. 2. The following is a diagram of the four figures:
3. The
following is a helpful diagram to determine the categorical figure. 4.
The EIO form example is an EIO-2. 1. No heroes are cowards. 2. Some soldiers are
cowards. 3. Some soldiers are not
heroes. 5. The
AEE form example is an AEE-4. 1. All kings are princes. 2. No princes are
princesses. 3. No princesses are
kings. 6. The
IAI form example is an IAI-3. 1. Some students are
Freshmen. 2. All students are
enrolled. 3. Some enrolled are
Freshmen. 7. Since
there are four kinds of moods (A, E, I, O) and there are three propositions
(Premise #1, #2, and a Conclusion) in a categorical syllogism, there are 64
possible moods (4 x 4 x 4 = 64). And since there are four different figures
(Fig. 1, 2, 3, 4), there are 256 different forms of categorical syllogisms (4x
64 = 256). However, there are only 24 valid forms. This stresses the fact that there is a greater
possibility for invalid arguments than valid. IX. LIST OF VALID SYLLOGISMS
(24) A. AAA-1,
AAI-1, AAI-3, AAI-4,
AEE-2, AEE-4, AEO-2,
AEO-4, AII-1, AII-3,
AOO-2 B. EAE-1,
EAE-2, EAO-1, EAO-2,
EAO-3, EAO-4, EIO-1,
EIO-2, EIO-3, EIO-4 C. IAI-3,
IAI-4 D. OAO-3 X. LIST OF ALL VALID AND
INVALID SYLLOGISMS (256) A. A - Combinations
B. E - Combinations
C. I - Combinations
D. O - Combinations
XI. SYLLOGISTIC FALLACIES A. 1) AFF- Affirmative
conclusion with a negative premise 1. No E or
O has A or I conclusion B. 2) ECL- Exclusive
negative premises 1. No E or
O in two premises C. 3) MID- Undistributed
middle term 1. No
connection by M D. 4) MAJ- Illicit
major term 1. No
connection with P E. 5) MIN- Illicit
minor term 1. No
connection with S F. 6) NEG - Negative
conclusion with affirmative premises (Clark) 1. No A or
I in two premises has E or O conclusion G. 7) EXT- Existential
affirmative from universal negative (Exception) 1. Aristotelian
logic consisted primarily of only 15 valid syllogisms. a) AAA-1, AEE-2,
AEE-4, AII-1, AII-3,
AOO-2 b) EAE-1, EAE-2,
EIO-1, EIO-2, EIO-3,
EIO-4 c) IAI-3, IAI-4 d) OAO-3 2. The
Existential (Conditional) Fallacy refers to two universal premises and a
particular conclusion (9). a) AAI-1, AAI-3,
AAI-4, AEO-2, AEO-4,
b) EAO-1, EAO-2,
EAO-3, EAO-4, 3. The
above list would be valid if the critical term denotes actually existing
things. a) Thus, if
we are given an AAI-1 syllogism and the minor term is cats, then the
syllogism is valid from the Aristotelian standpoint. But if the minor term is
unicorns, then the syllogism is invalid. On the other hand, if the minor term
is students who failed the exam and we are not certain if there are any such
students, then the syllogism is conditionally valid. (Hurley) 4. Those
syllogisms which include only the Existential Fallacy (EXT) are for all
intents and purposes considered valid. H. Three Helpful Rules 1.
Rule 1: If one negative premise, then a negative conclusion (AFF). 2.
Rule 2: If two negatives, then invalid (ECL). 3.
Rule 3: If two affirmatives, then an affirmative conclusion (NEG). XII. ENTHYMEMES A. Definition - An enthymeme
(Grk enthumēma - thought, piece of reasoning) is argument or
syllogism in which a statement, usually a premise, is missing. Enthymemes are
used in everyday language. Scripture makes full use of enthymemes. Sometimes
an enthymeme excludes a premise because it is generally assumed. Sometimes a
statement is missing for emphasis. An enthymeme can also be used to slip in
an invalid assumption. B. An enthymeme is discovered
by turning the statement into syllogistic form. Note the following example:
“Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal.” 1. All men
are mortal - missing premise 2. Socrates is a man 3. Socrates is mortal C. “Venus completes its orbit
in less time than the Earth, because Venus is closer to the sun.” 1. All
planets closer to the sun complete their orbit in less time than the Earth. 2. Venus is closer to the sun. 3. Venus completes its orbit in less time
than the Earth. D. Romans 5:12 Therefore,
just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin,
and so death spread to all men, because all sinned. 1. All
those who sin will die 2. All men sinned 3. All men will die E. Romans 8:1 Therefore there
is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus 1. No one
condemned is one who is in Christ 2. Believers are in Christ 3. No believer is one who is condemned) (EAE-2) XIII. SORITES A. Definition - A sorites (Grk.
sōros - heap or quantity) is a chain of syllogisms in which the
conclusion (sometimes missing) of a syllogism is the premise of the following
syllogism(s). Note: Concerning sorites, the premises are often switched and
can be juggled to the proper form. Note the following example: 1. All
bloodhounds are dogs. 2. All dogs are mammals. 3. (All bloodhounds are mammal)
(AAA-1) - missing conclusion 4. No fish are mammals. 5. (Therefore, no fish are bloodhounds)
(AEE-2) A. Here is a puzzle sorites
for fun 1. (1)
Babies are illogical; 2. (2) Nobody is despised who can manage a
crocodile; 3. (3) Illogical persons are despised. --- 4. (3)
Illogical persons are despised. 5. (1) Babies are illogical; 6. (All babies are despised) (AAA-1) 7. (2) Nobody is despised who can manage a
crocodile; 8. (No one who can manage a crocodile is
a baby) (AEE-4) B. Romans 8:30 and these whom
He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified;
and these whom He justified, He also glorified. 1. All who
are predestined are called 2. All who are called are justified 3. (All who are predestined are justified) 4. All who are justified are glorified 5. (All
who predestined are glorified) C. Luke 5:21 The scribes and
the Pharisees began to reason, saying, "Who is this man who speaks
blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" 1. All who
forgive sins are equal with God 2. Jesus claimed to forgive sins 3. (Jesus claimed to be equal with God)
(AAA-1) 4. All who claim to be equal with God are
blasphemers 5. (Jesus is a blasphemer) (AAA-1) XIV. RULES OF INFERENCE A. Definition of Inference: 1. It is
the logical connection of one proposition that follows (is inferred) from
another. 2. It is the act of drawing a valid
conclusion based on premises in standard form, according to rules, and often
expressed in conditional statements. B. Rules of Inference 1. Modus
Ponens (MP) a) It is
called “Modus Ponens” (which means the “mode of positing”) because the second
premise posits (i.e., sets down as fact) the antecedent of the conditional
(first) premise. (The Power of
Logic) b) It is in “conditional” form (if…then).
“If” is the antecedent and “then” is consequent. “If it is
raining (antecedent), then the ground is wet (consequent).” c) Stated form: If p then q, p, therefore
q. d) Symbolic styles: (Power of
Logic) (Hurley) (Craig) p →
q p É q
1. P → Q p p____ 2. P \
q q 3. Q
e) Ex. #1 1. (Premise #1) - If
it is raining (p), then the ground is wet (q). 2. (Premise #2) - It
is raining (p). 3. (Conclusion) -
So, the ground is wet (q). f) Ex. #2
(converted to a categorical syllogism) “If Socrates is a man,
then Socrates is mortal.” 1. (All men are mortal
- enthymeme) 2. Socrates is a man. 3. Socrates is mortal. g) Ex. #3 1. If the solution turns
blue litmus paper red, then the solution contains acid. 2. The solution turns
blue litmus paper red. 3. The solution contains
acid. h) Ex. #4
(Premises can interchange) 1. Ben is a rat. 2. If Ben is a rat, then
Ben is a mammal. 3. Ben is a mammal. i) Ex. #5
(Stylistic variants) (“If it is raining (antecedent),
then the ground is wet (consequent)”) 1. Given that it
is raining, the ground is wet. (antecedent) 2. Assuming that it
is raining, the ground is wet. (antecedent) 3. The ground is wet if
it is raining. (antecedent) 4. The ground is wet given
that it is raining. (antecedent) 5. The ground is wet assuming
that it is raining. (antecedent) 6. It is raining only
if the ground is wet. (consequent) j) Ex. #6
(Jn 8:31) 1. If you
continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine. 2. You
continue in My word. 3. Then you
are truly disciples of Mine. k) Ex. #7
(1Jn 1:9) 1. If we
confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us. 2. We confess
our sins. 3. He is
faithful and righteous to forgive us. l) Ex. #8
(Le 11:44; 1Pe 1:16) 1. If God is holy,
then men must be holy. 1. If God
exists, then objective morals exist. 2. God is holy 2.
God exists. 3. Men must be holy. 3.
Objective morals exist. 2. Modus
Tollens (MT) a) Modus
tollens means the mode or way of removing. The argument form gets its name
from the second premise [~q],
which denies (removes the truth of) the consequent of the first premise [q].
(The Power of Logic) b) Stated form: If p then q, not q,
therefore not p. c) The symbol ~ (tilde) stands for “not.” d) Symbolic styles: (Power of
Logic) (Hurley) (Craig) p → q p É q
1. P → Q ~q ~q____ 2. ~Q \ ~p ~p 3. ~P e) Ex. #1 1. If it is raining (p),
then the ground is wet (q). 2. The ground is not wet
(~q). 3. It is not raining (~p). f) Ex. #2
(converted to a categorical syllogism) “If Socrates is an angel, then Socrates is
immortal.” 1. (All angels are immortal -
enthymeme) 2. No Socrates is
immortal. (Socrates is not immortal) 3. No Socrates is an
angel. (Socrates is not an angel) (AEE-2) g) Ex. #3
(Jn 18:36) 1. If My kingdom were of
this world, then My servants would fight. 2. My servants are not
fighting. 3. My kingdom is not of
this world. h) Ex. #4
(statements may include negatives; Also ~ ~ q is equivalent to q) 1. If God does not exit
(~p), objective moral values do not exist (~q). 2. Objective moral values
do exist (~ ~ q). 3. God exists (~ ~p). 3. Fallacy:
Affirming the Consequent a) Modus
Tollens denies the consequent (~ q, not q) which is always
valid. Affirming the consequent (q), results in an invalid conclusion.
Therefore, it is a fallacy. b) Stated form: If p then q, q, therefore p.
(invalid) c) Symbolic styles: (Power of
Logic) (Hurley) (Craig) p → q p É q
1. P → Q q q____ 2. Q \
p p 3. P
d) Ex. #1 1. If it is raining (p),
then the ground is wet (q). 2. The ground is wet (q). 3. It is raining (p).
(A sprinkler could be on.) e) Ex. #2 1. If Fred is eating
eggs, then he is having breakfast. 2. Fred is having
breakfast. 3. Fred is eating eggs.
(Fred could be eating pancakes.) f) Ex. #3 1. If evolution were
true, we would expect to see similarities in DNA of all organisms on earth. 2. We do see similarities
in DNA of all organisms on earth. 3. Therefore, evolution
is true Explanation: The
evolutionist making such an argument has failed to recognize that
creationists would also expect to see similarities in DNA of all organisms,
since the original kinds were made by the same Creator. (Answers in
Genesis). 4. Fallacy:
Denying the Antecedent a) Modus
Ponens affirms the antecedent (p) which is always valid. Denying the
antecedent (~p, not p) results in an invalid conclusion.
Therefore, it is a fallacy. b) Stated form: If p then q, not p,
therefore not q. (invalid) c) Symbolic styles: (Power of
Logic) (Hurley) (Craig) p → q p É q
1. P → Q ~p ~p 2. ~P \ ~q ~q 3. ~Q d) Ex. #1 1. If it is raining (p),
then the ground is wet (q). 2. It is not raining (~p). 3. The ground is not wet
(~q). (The ground could be soaked but it may have stopped raining.) e) Ex. #2 1. If lemons are red,
then lemons have a color. 2. Lemons are not red. 3. Lemons do not have
color. f) Ex. #3
(Jn 11:21 - Martha’s comment was invalid) 1. If Jesus had come to
Bethany sooner, Lazarus would be alive. 2. Jesus did not come to
Bethany sooner. 3. Lazarus was not alive.
(But Jesus did not intend to keep Lazarus alive, Jn 11:6) 5. Hypothetical
Syllogism (HS) a) Hypothetical
Syllogism is a syllogism having a conditional statement for one or both of
its premises (Also expresses as a sorites) b) Stated form: If p then q, if q then
r, therefore if p then r. c) Symbolic styles: (Power of
Logic) (Hurley) (Craig) p → q p É q 1. P → Q q → r q É r
2. Q → R \
p → r p É r 3. P → R d) Ex. #1 1. If it is raining (p),
then the ground is wet (q). 2. If the ground is wet (q),
then Fred will wear his boots (r) 3. If it is raining (p),
then Fred will wear his boots (r) e) Ex. #2
(Ro 8:29-30; can be converted into capital letters and symbols) 1. If believers are
predestined (P), then they are called (C). 2. If they are called
(C), then they are justified (J). 3. If they are justified
(J), then they are glorified (G). 4. If believers are
predestined (P), then they are glorified (G). 5. (Proof) P → C, C
→ J, J → G, \ P
→ G f) Ex. #3 1. Babies (B) are
illogical (I). 2. Nobody is despised
(~D) who can manage a crocodile (M). 3. Illogical (I) persons
are despised (D). 4. (Proof ) B → I,
I → D, ~D → M (D → ~M) \ B → ~M 6. Disjunctive
Syllogism (DS) a) Disjunctive
Syllogism is a syllogism having a disjunctive statement (i.e., an ‘‘either .
. . or . . .’’ statement) for one of its premises. b) Stated form: Either p or q, not p, therefore
q. (Also not q, therefore p) c) The symbol Ú (wedge or vee) stands for “or.” d) Symbolic styles: (Power of
Logic) (Hurley) (Craig) p Ú q
p Ú q 1. P Ú Q ~p ~p 2. ~P \ q q 3.
Q e) Ex. #1 1. Either it is raining (p)
or the sprinkler is on (q). 2. It is not raining (~p). 3. The sprinkler is on (q). f) Ex. #2 1. Either Jesus was a
liar or Jesus was Lord. 2. Jesus was not a liar. 3. Jesus is Lord. g) Ex. #3
(Ga 1:19a) 1. Either I am trying to
please men or God. 2. I am not trying to
please men. 3. Therefore, I am trying
to please God. 7. Constructive
Dilemma (CD) a) Constructive
Dilemma combines both conditional and disjunctive statements to arrive at a
secondary conditional conclusion. b) Stated form: Either p or q, if p
then r, if q then s, therefore, either r or s. c) The symbols · (dot) or & stands for “and.” Also ( )
(parentheses) are used to confine an argument in complex statements. d) Symbolic styles: (Power of
Logic) (Hurley) (Craig) p Ú q
(p É r) · (q É s) 1. (P → R) &
(Q
→ S)
p → r p Ú q 2. P Ú Q q
→ s r Ú s 3. R Ú S \ r Ú s e) Ex.
#1 p Ú q, p → r, q → s, \ r Ú s 1. Either it is raining (p)
or the sprinkler is on (q). 2. If it is raining (p),
then it costs nothing (r). 3. If the sprinkler is on
(q), then there is a utility charge (s). 4. Either it costs
nothing (r) or there is a utility charge (s). f) Ex.
#2 p Ú q, p → r, q → s, \ r Ú s 1. Either Jesus is Lord
or He was a liar. 2. If Jesus is Lord, then
He must be worshipped. 3. If Jesus was a liar,
then Christianity is a hoax 3. Either Jesus must be
worshipped or Christianity is a hoax. g) Ex. #3 (p É r) · (q É s), p Ú q, \ r Ú s 1. If Jesus is Lord, then
He must be worshipped, and if Jesus was a liar, then Christianity is a hoax 2. Either Jesus is Lord
or He was a liar. 3. Either Jesus must be
worshipped or Christianity is a hoax. 8. Conjunction
(Conj) a) Conjunction
states that if p is true, and q is true, it follows, “p
and q” is true. b) Stated form: p, q,
therefore, “p and q.” c) Symbolic styles: (Power of
Logic) (Hurley) (Craig) p p 1. P q q 2. Q \ p · q p · q
3. P & Q d) Ex. #1 1. It is raining (p) 2. The sprinkler is on (q). 3. Therefore, It is
raining (p) and the sprinkler is on (q). e) Ex. #2 1. Jesus possesses a
divine nature (D). 2. Jesus possesses a
human nature (H) 3. If Jesus is divine and
human, then He is a mediator (M). 4. Therefore, Jesus is a
mediator (M) f) Ex. #2
Proof 1. D 2. H 3. (D & H) → M . : M (Proof) 4. D & H
(Conj,1,2) 5. M (MP,3,4) 9. Simplification
(Simp) a) Simplification
states that if “p and q” is true, it follows that, p is
true (q would also be true). b) Stated form: “p and q” therefore, p. c) Symbolic styles: (Power of
Logic) (Hurley) (Craig) p · q p · q 1. P & Q \ p p 2. P d) Ex. #1 1. It is raining (p)
and the sprinkler is on (q). 2. It is raining (p). e) The main
usefulness of this rule is that if you have the premise P & Q and you
need either P by itself or Q by itself to draw a conclusion, simplification can
give it to you (Craig). f) Ex. # 2a 1. Moses (M) was a great
prophet and the prophets (P) were rejected. 2. If the prophets (P)
were rejected, then Christ (C) was rejected. 3. Therefore, Christ (C)
was rejected g) Ex. # 2
(Proof) 1. M & P 2. P → C .
: C (Proof) 3. P (SP,1) 4. C (MP,2,3) 10. Addition
(Add) a) Addition
seems at first to be a strange rule of inference: It states that if P is
true, then “P or Q” is also true. What needs to be kept in mind is this: in order
for a disjunction to be true only one part of the disjunction has to be true.
So if one knows that P is already true, it follows that “P or Q” is also
true, no matter what Q is! (Craig).
b) Stated form: p, therefore, p or q. c) Symbolic styles: (Power of
Logic) (Hurley) (Craig) p p 1. P p Ú q p Ú q 2. P Ú Q d) Ex. #1 1. It is raining (p) 2. Either it is raining (p)
or the gods are crying (q). e) Ex. #2
(1Co 14:37) 1. Someone is a prophet
(P). 2. If someone is a
prophet (P) or spiritual (S), then someone understands (U) the Word. Therefore, someone
understand (U) the Word. f) Ex. #2
(Proof) 1. P 2. (P v S) → U . : U (Proof) 3. P v S (Add, 1) 4. U (MP, 2,3) 11. Absorption
(Abs) a) This is a
rule which one hardly ever uses but which nonetheless states a valid way of
reasoning. The basic idea is that since P implies itself, it implies itself
along with anything else it implies. (Craig) b) Symbolic styles: (Power of
Logic) (Hurley) (Craig) p →
q p É q 1. P p → (p · q) p → (p · q) 2. P → (P & Q) c) Ex. #1 1. If it is raining (p),
then you need your umbrella (q) 2. If it is raining (p),
then it is raining (p) and you need your umbrella (q). d) Ex. #2 1. If believers obey the
commands of Christ, then they are His disciples. 2. If believers obey the
commands of Christ, then they obey the commands of Christ and they are His
disciples. e) Ex. #3 (The
main use for absorption will be in cases where you need to have P & Q in
order to take a further step in the argument. For example: 1. If creation appears to
have a design (d), then there is a Designer (D). 2. If creation appears to
have a design (d) and there is a Designer (D), then living things do not
evolve (~E). 3. Therefore, if creation
appears to have a design (d), then living things do not evolve (~E). f) Ex. #3
(Proof) 1. d → D 2. (d & D) →
~E .: d → ~E (Proof) 3. d → (d
& D) (Abs, 1) 4. d → ~E (HS, 3, 2) XV. ATTITUDE OF LOGIC AND WISDOM
(Jm 3:17) A. Pure motives 1. Most
Bible versions translate hagnos simply as, “pure” or “chaste.” Indeed
that is a good translation. 2. But along with the idea of chaste
behavior (1Pe 3:2) is the idea of innocent or without intent to do wrong (2Co
7:11; 1Ti 5:22). 3. In the context of Jam 3, where James is
speaking of social behavior (13-18), the meaning lends itself to innocent and
without intent to do wrong. 4. Concerning logic or reason, one must be
pure in motives. There must be no hidden agendas (from which fallacies can
spring) but only have the person’s best interest in mind. There must not be
deception or manipulation but only a desire to arrive at the truth. This
perspective must be first (prōtos). B. Peaceable 1. The
Greek word is a derivative of peace (eirēnē) and refers to
someone who is peaceable (eirēnikos). 2. This would describe someone who is not
given to emotional tirades in order to argue their position. 3. Rather their even-keel disposition adds
to their message because it does not force the listener to make a decision
based on emotion. 4. In order to be peaceful there must be
agreement, especially agreement to the truth. C. Gentle 1. The word
“gentleness” (epieikēs) has evolved since its classical origins.
However, it has not completely lost all of its original meaning. Such words
as kind, forbearing, and considerate are likely synonyms. 2. The classical meaning was closer to the
root eikos which meant what is reasonable. It includes synonyms such
as fitting, suitable, plausible, accommodating, and reasonable. 3. It is the idea that one’s speech and
actions are fitting and suitable, not off-the-wall. To interact and dialogue
successfully with others, there must be a willing reasonableness as well as
suitable responses (Pr 25:11). 4. It is certainly not a “my way or the
highway” attitude. Therefore, gentleness (such as in the N.T. - Phil 4:5; 1Ti
3:3) is gentle in its presentation of the truth. D. Reasonable 1. The
literal meaning for this word (eupeithēs) means easily (eu)
persuaded (peithō). 2. It does not mean naďve or simple but one
who is congenial or open to reason. 3. This is the only time this word is used
in the Bible, though it is used in the Apocrypha. 4. Perhaps it goes without saying that to
the one who desires to be logical, he must be “able to reason.” We must know
how to reason and how to present our position in a reasonable manner (Is
1:18; Ac 17:2, 17, 22, 28; 18:4). This also includes being willing and able
to listen to reason (Pr 18:13). 5. It is the opposite of being
unapproachable, unwilling to listen, and closed-minded. E. Full of Mercy 1. Perhaps
this quality might not be seen as a characteristic of logic and reason. But
after all, this is the wisdom that is from above. 2. The ultimate goal of the Christian
apologist is not to win an argument at all costs, but to win a convert. 3. Mercy (eleos - mercy or pity) is
showing compassion toward the shortcomings of others, not exposing them.
“Full of” is the Greek word mestos and has the idea of going beyond
what could or should be expected 4. The one who ridicules the shortcomings of
others will never win an argument nor win the confidence of another. 5. Mercy is also a rule in logic, though not
always followed, We are to be charitable to arguments that are not
necessarily well-crafted or carry many implied premises. F. (Full of) Good Fruits 1. Good
fruits coincide with pure intentions. The wisdom from above seeks the benefit
of another (pure intentions) and then carries it out (good fruits). 2. The goal of Christian logic and reason is
not necessarily to win an argument but to produce fruitful Christian lives. G. Unwavering (“impartial” KJV, NET, NIV) 1. Adiakritos means to be impartial or without prejudice and
favoritism. 2. Prejudice and favoritism never find their
way in logic and reason. Prejudice and favoritism cause decisions to be
fallacious and biased. Prejudice and favoritism are not based on s or truth. 3. Prejudice and favoritism are denounced in
the Bible (Jm 2:1 cp. Ro 2:11; Ep 6:9). H. Without Hypocrisy 1. Wisdom
and logic is to be “without hypocrisy” (anupokritos - a = negative &
hupokrisis = Greek theatrical mask, to answer on a stage, pretend or put on). 2. It is one thing to discuss truth, logic,
and reason but it is another to live up to the truth we know. Hypocrisy is
saying one thing but doing another. 3. The Christian is not only to know the
truth but also to live it (Jm 1:22). 4. Many philosophers who postulated their
views never lived up to their own philosophies. 5. To be without hypocrisy means to be
sincere, so sincere that one lives the truth they promote. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX APOLOGETICS “ON GUARD”
HANDOUT - 01 “Why Does
Anything at all Exist?” (Book Chapter 3) Grace Bible Church, Gillette,
Wyoming Pastor Daryl Hilbert I. “On Guard” A. Book written by William Lane Craig on
defending your faith with reason and precision. B. DVD Companion: Pastor Bobby Conway (“One Minute
Apologist”) interviews William Lane Craig about each chapter in the book. II. Definition of a Good Argument A. An argument is a series of statements
(premises) leading to a conclusion (Craig). B. What is a good argument? 1. The premises need to be true. 2. The conclusion needs to follow from the
premises by the rules of logic. 3. The premises need to be more plausible
than their opposites. (Craig) C. From our Logic Class 1. An argument that follows the rules of
logic is called a "valid" argument. 2. An argument that is valid and its
premises are true is called a "sound" argument. III. Leibniz’s Argument 1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either
in the necessity of its own nature
or in an external cause.) 2. If the universe
has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. 3. The
universe exists. 4. Therefore
the universe has an explanation of its existence (AAA-1 - 1, 3) 5. Therefore,
that explanation is God (MP - 2, 4) IV. Suggested Additional Resources Handout - 01 A. Debate: Atheism vs. Christianity (Zindler
vs. Craig) 1. Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOQnzfZEmxc B. Lecture: “Intellectual Neutral” 1. Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u-Eqwfmns8 2. Reasonable Faith Video: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/in-intellectual-neutral-johnson-ferry-baptist-church# V. Scripture A. God said
to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to
the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you (Ex 3:14). B. Before
the mountains were born Or You gave birth to the earth and the world, Even
from everlasting to everlasting, You
are God (Ps 90:2). C. Your
throne is established from of old; You are from everlasting (Ps 93:2). D. Do you not
know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the
ends of the earth Does not become weary or tired. His understanding is
inscrutable (Is 40:28). E. You are
My witnesses," declares the LORD, "And My servant whom I have
chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He.
Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me (Is 43:10). F. In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He
was in the beginning with God G. Jesus
said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am
(Jn 8:58). VI. Map Argument A. At the end of most chapters you’ll find an
argument map or outline of the case presented in that chapter. Let me explain
how to use the argument map. B. The map has a “swim lane” format that
exhibits my argument in the left-hand lane labeled “Pro.” The right-hand lane
labeled “Con” exhibits the objections that might be raised by an opponent of
the argument. C. The arrows moving back and forth across
the lanes trace the various Pro and Con responses that might be given. These
maps will help you to see the big picture. (Craig, On Guard)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX “ON GUARD”
HANDOUT - 02 “Why Did the
Universe Begin?” (Book Chapter 4) Grace Bible Church,
Gillette, Wyoming Pastor Daryl Hilbert I. Kalam Argument: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. (AAA-1) II. Terms and Concepts A. Infinite regress - (Philosophy, Logic) is a causal relationship brought
about by an infinite number of causes. In regard to cosmological causality,
infinite regress avoids the contradiction of spontaneous generation, but
results in the absurdity of never explaining a first cause. B. Mill’s (and Russell’s) Fallacy - John
Stuart Mill. (1806-1873), wrote “if everything must have a cause, then God
must have a cause.” Besides the absurdity of infinite regress, Mill and
Russell made another fundamental error. 1. [Mill] made a fundamental error in his
definition of causality. He assumed that the law of causality is simply,
“Everything must have a cause.” If indeed the law could be defined in this
way, then Mills criticism would be just. But such is not the case. The law of
causality does not require that everything have a cause, only that every
effect must have a cause. An eternal object need not have a cause…What we
must strive to do, then, is find something that is not an effect, something
that has the power of being within itself, something that has existed from
all eternity. It [is] obvious to the Christian that this something is God,
whom orthodox Christians have historically described as self-existing,
eternal, and independent of all things. He is not caused simply because he is
not an effect. (Sproul, Defending
Your Faith) III. Scripture A. In the
beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Ge 1:1) B. And,
"YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS
ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS; THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN; AND THEY ALL
WILL BECOME OLD LIKE A GARMENT (Ps
102:25-26; He 1:10-11). C. For thus
says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth
and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but
formed it to be inhabited), "I am the LORD, and there is none else (Is 45:18). D. By faith
we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what
is seen was not made out of things which are visible (He 11:3). E. All
things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into
being that has come into being (Jn
1:1-3). F. For by
Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and
invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things
have been created through Him and for Him (Col 1:16). IV. Additional Resources to Handout - 02 A. Debate: What is the Evidence for/against
the Existence of God - 1 (Atkins vs. Craig, 1998) 1. Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGsFPR4QX0M B. Debate: What is the Evidence for/against
the Existence of God - 2 (Atkins vs. Craig, 2011) 1. Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ssq-S5M8wsY
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX “ON GUARD” HANDOUT
- 03 “Why is the
Universe Fine-tuned for Life?” (Book Chapter 5) Grace Bible Church,
Gillette, Wyoming Pastor Daryl Hilbert I. Fine-tuning Argument: 1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to
either physical necessity, chance, or design. 2. It is not due to physical necessity or
chance. 3. Therefore, it is due to design. (Disjunctive Syllogism - 1, 2) II. Explanation A. The three possible reasons why our
universe is fine-tuned for life are: 1. Physical necessity: The constants and quantities
must have the values they do. 2. Chance: The constants and quantities have
the values they do simply by accident. 3. Design: The constants and quantities were
designed to have the values they do. B. If someone has a fourth alternative, he’s
welcome to add it to the list, and then we’ll consider it when we come to
premise 2. But there doesn’t seem to be another alternative to the three
listed here. Note: A
fourth alternative cannot simply be an alternative from imagination. It would
have to be a premise supported by reason and evidence, not simply an
assertion. III. Richard Dawkins' Objections A. Detractors of design sometimes object that
on this hypothesis the Cosmic Designer Himself remains unexplained. This objection
is what Richard Dawkins calls “the central argument of my book” The God
Delusion. He summarizes his argument as follows: 1. One of the greatest challenges to the
human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of
design in the universe arises. 2. The natural temptation is to attribute
the appearance of design to actual design itself. 3. The temptation is a false one because the
designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the
designer. 4. The most ingenious and powerful
explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection. 5. We don’t have an equivalent explanation
for physics. 6. We should not give up the hope of a
better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is
for biology. 7. Therefore, God almost certainly does not
exist (DRH - concluded
this way to avoid the burden of proof). B. Fallacies 1. Non Sequitur (Latin for "it does not
follow") - Dawkins’ atheistic conclusion … doesn’t follow from the
six previous statements even if we concede that each of them is true. There
are no rules of logic that would permit such an inference. Dawkins’ argument
is plainly invalid. Dawkins’ lack of philosophical depth is plainly on
display here. 2. False Premises 5, 6 - Step 5 refers to
the cosmic fine-tuning that has been the focus of our discussion. Dawkins has
nothing by way of explanation for it, and therefore the hope expressed in
step 6 represents nothing more than the faith of a naturalist. 3. False Premise 3- Dawkins’ claim here
is that we are not justified in inferring design as the best explanation of
the complex order of the universe because then a new problem arises: Who
designed the designer? But, you don’t need to explain the explanation 4. False Assumption on Complexity -
Dawkins’ fundamental mistake lies in his assumption that a divine Designer is
just as complex as the universe. That is plainly false. As a pure mind
without a body, God is a remarkably simple entity. A mind (or soul) is not a
physical object composed of parts….Dawkins has evidently confused a mind’s
ideas, which may, indeed, be complex, with a mind itself, which is an
incredibly simple entity. IV. Scripture on Fine-tuning of the Universe A. In the
beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Ge 1:1). B. The earth
was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the
Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters (Ge 1:2). cf.
Creation week (Ge 1:3-31). C. "It
is I who made the earth, and created man upon it. I stretched out the
heavens with My hands And I ordained all their host (Is 45”12). D. Covering
Yourself with light as with a cloak, Stretching out heaven like a tent
curtain (Ps 104:2). E. Thus says
the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I,
the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself
And spreading out the earth all alone,(Is
44:24). F. For
thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the
earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but
formed it to be inhabited), "I am the LORD, and there is none else (Is 45:18). G. "You
alone are the LORD. You have made the heavens, The heaven of heavens with all
their host, The earth and all that is on it, The seas and all that is in
them. You give life to all of them And the heavenly host bows down before You
(Neh 9:6). V. Scripture on Design A. For You formed my inward
parts; You wove me in my mother's womb. 14 I will give thanks to
You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully
made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well. 15
My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully
wrought in the depths of the earth; 16 Your eyes have seen my
unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were
ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them (Psa 139:13-16). B. Then
God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and
let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over
the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps
on the earth." 27 God created man in His own image, in the
image of God He created him; male and female He created them (Ge 1:26-27). C. But
now ask the beasts, and let them teach you; And the
birds of the heavens, and let them tell you. 8 "Or speak to
the earth, and let it teach you; And let the fish of the sea declare to you. 9
"Who among all these does not know That the hand of the LORD has
done this, 10 In whose hand is the life of every living thing, And
the breath of all mankind? 11 "Does not the ear test words,
As the palate tastes its food? (Job 12:7-11). VI. Additional Resources to Handout - 03 A. Debate: Viability of Intelligent Design
(Ayala vs. Craig) 1. Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfylw5okAag
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX “ON GUARD” HANDOUT
- 04 “Can We be Good
without God?” (Book Chapter 6) Grace Bible Church,
Gillette, Wyoming Pastor Daryl Hilbert I. Moral Argument: 1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do
not exist. 2. Objective moral values and duties do exist. 3. Therefore, God exists. (Modus Tollens, 1, 2) II. Explanations A. What makes this argument so powerful is
that people generally believe both premises. In a pluralistic age, students
are scared to death of imposing their values on someone else. So premise 1
seems correct to them because of its implicit relativism. At the same time,
certain values have been deeply instilled into them, such as tolerance,
open-mindedness, and love. They think it’s objectively wrong to impose your
values on someone else! So they’re deeply committed to premise 2 as well. (Craig, “On Guard”) B. …There’s the distinction between being objective
or subjective. By objective I mean “independent of people’s
opinions.” By subjective I mean “dependent on people’s opinions.” So to say
that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or bad
no matter what people think about it. Similarly, to say that we have
objective moral duties is to say that certain actions are right or wrong for
us regardless of what people think. (Craig, “On Guard”) C. As Darwin himself wrote in The Descent of
Man, If … men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees,
there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the
worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would
strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering. (Craig, “On Guard”) D. Now it’s extremely important that we
clearly understand the issue before us. I can almost guarantee that if you
share this moral argument with unbelievers, someone will say indignantly,
“Are you saying that all atheists are bad people?” They’ll think you are
judgmental and intolerant. We need to help them see that this is a complete
misunderstanding of the argument...Rather the question is: If God does not
exist, do objective moral values and duties exist? The question is not about
the necessity of belief in God for objective morality but about the necessity
of the existence of God for objective morality. (Craig, “On Guard”) E. The Bible reports many good deeds done by
pagans such as Darius (Dan. 6:25–28), the city clerk of Ephesus (Acts
19:35–41), the Roman military officers who protected Paul (Acts 23:10,
17–35), and the natives of Malta who befriended Paul and his shipmates (Acts
28:10). The fact that such people did good things, knowing they were
ethically good, proves they had knowledge of God’s Law written in their
hearts. Therefore if those people never come to trust in the true God, their
good deeds will actually witness against them on the day of judgment. (MacArthur Ro 2:14-15) III. Scripture A. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law
do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to
themselves, n that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts,
their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or
else defending them. (Ro 2:14-15) B. but we have renounced the things hidden because
of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by
the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2Co 4:2) C. For I know my transgressions, And my sin
is ever before me… Behold, You desire truth in the innermost being, And in
the hidden part You will make me know wisdom. (Ps 51:3, 6) D. by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared
in their own conscience as with a branding iron. (1Ti 4:2) IV. Suggested Additional Resources - Handout -
04 A. Debate: Goodness without God (Kurtz vs.
Craig) 1. Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F6y_6fIjAY B. Lecture: “Can We be Good without God?” 1. Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZXj26oIA68
13. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX “ON GUARD”
HANDOUT - 05 “What about
Suffering?” (Book Chapter 7) Grace Bible Church,
Gillette, Wyoming Pastor Daryl Hilbert I. Atheist Argument: It’s Logically
Impossible For God And Suffering To Coexist 1. An all-loving, all-powerful God exists (L&P). 2. Suffering exists (S). 3. If God is all-powerful (P), He can create any world that He
wants (C). 4. If God is all-loving (L), He prefers a world without
suffering (WS) 5. Therefore, God does not exist. 6. If an all-loving, all-powerful God exists (L&P), then He
can and prefers to create a world without suffering (C&WS). (SP, 3, 4; AD,1) 7. However suffering exists ~(C&WS) (Premise 2) 8. Therefore, an all-loving, all-powerful God does not exist ~(L&P)
(MT, 2,6, This is a valid logical form but unsound in it premises) II. Rebuttal of Premise # 3. If God is
all-powerful, He can create any world that He wants. A. If God created man with a free will, then
man can sin and bring about suffering. B. It would be logically impossible for God
to make someone do something freely. C. If God is always consistent with His
nature and truth, then He cannot do something logically impossible. III. Rebuttal of Premise # 4. If God is
all-loving, He prefers a world without suffering. A. God can and does have overriding purposes
for allowing the suffering in the world. B. The overriding purposes would be God’s
glory and power over suffering, God’s revelation of His love in Christ, man’s
salvation, the believer’s sanctification, and understanding of good. C. Conclusion: God could not have created
another world with as much good as, but less suffering than, this world, and
God has good reasons for permitting the suffering that exists. IV. Scripture A. These things I have spoken to you, so that
in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take
courage; I have overcome the world.(Jn
16:33) B. And not only this, but we also exult in
our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; and
perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; and hope does not
disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts
through the Holy Spirit who was given to us. (Ro 5:3-5) C. After you have suffered for a little
while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ,
will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you. (1Pe 5:10) D. For you have been called for this purpose,
since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow
in His steps. (1Pe 2:21) E. Therefore we do not lose heart, but though
our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day. For
momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory
far beyond all comparison, while we look not at the things which are seen,
but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are
temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal. (2Co 4:16-18) F. As for you, you meant evil against me, but
God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to
preserve many people alive. (Ge
50:20) G. And we know that God causes all things to
work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called
according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to
become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn
among many brethren. (Ro 8:28-29) V. Suggested Additional Resources - Handout -
05 A. Debate: Do Suffering and Evil Disprove
God? (Sinnot-Armstrong vs. Craig) 1. Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8A3Sdw2Eig B. Lecture: “Is There meaning in Evil and
Suffering?” Craig 1. Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZXj26oIA68
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX “ON GUARD”
HANDOUT - 06 “Did Jesus Rise
from the Dead?” (Book Chapter
8&9) Grace Bible Church,
Gillette, Wyoming Pastor Daryl Hilbert I. A CASE FOR JESUS’ RADICAL
SELF-UNDERSTANDING A. Jesus Had a Divine-Human
Self-Understanding. 1. The worship of Jesus by monotheistic Jews
as God incarnate within twenty years of His death requires an adequate cause
to be found in Jesus’ own claims. 2. Explicit Claims a) Messiah (1) The belief in the early church that Jesus
was the Messiah requires an adequate cause. (2) Peter’s confession (Mark 8: 27– 30) (3) Jesus’ answer to John the Baptist (Matt.
11: 2-6; Luke 7: 19– 23) (4) Jesus’ triumphal entry (Mark 11: 1– 11;
John 12: 12– 19) (5) Jesus’ action in the temple (Mark 11: 15–
17) (6) Jesus’ condemnation by the Sanhedrin (Mark
14: 61– 65) (7) Jesus’ crucifixion as “King of the Jews”
(Mark 15: 26) b) 2. The Son of God (1) Parable of the vineyard (Mark 12: 1– 9) (2) “No one knows the Father but the Son”
(Matthew 11: 27) (3) “No one knows … not even the Son” (Mark 13:
32) (4) Jesus’ trial confession (Mark 14: 60– 64) c) 3. The Son of Man (1) Jesus’ favorite title (2) Reference to the divine-human figure of
Daniel 7 (Dan. 7: 13– 14) (3) Jesus’ trial confession (Mark 14: 60– 64) 3. Implicit Claims a) Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom of God
(Matt. 19: 28) b) Jesus’ authority (1) The content and style of Jesus’ teaching
(Matt. 5: 31– 32) (2) “Truly, I say to you” (Mark 8: 12; 9: 1;
etc.) (3) Jesus’ role as an exorcist (Luke 11: 20) (4) Jesus’ claim to forgive sins (Mark 2: 1–
12) c) Jesus’ miracles (Matt. 11: 4– 5) d) Jesus’ role as Judge (Luke 12: 8– 9) II. A CASE FOR THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS’
RESURRECTION A. Evidence To Be Explained 1. Jesus’ empty tomb a) The historical reliability of the story of
Jesus’ burial supports the empty tomb. b) The story of Jesus’ empty tomb is
independently reported in very early sources. c) Mark’s story is simple and lacks
legendary development (Mk 15:37-16:7). d) The tomb was discovered empty by women (Jn 20:11-18; Mt 28:9-10). e) The earliest Jewish response to the
disciples presupposes the empty tomb. 2. Various individuals and groups
experienced the appearances of Jesus a) Paul’s list of eyewitnesses to Jesus’
resurrection appearances guarantees that such appearances occurred (1Co
15:5-8). b) The gospel accounts provide multiple,
independent reports of postmortem appearances of Jesus. On the day of Christ’s
resurrection (1) Mary
Magdalene (Jn 20:11-18) (2) The other women (Mt 28:9-10) (3) Disciples traveling to Emmaus (Lk 24:13-32) (4) Peter (Lk 24:33-35 cp. 1Co 15:5) (5) All the disciples except Thomas (Jn
20:19-25) Later in the forty day
interval (6) Thomas and all the disciples (Jn 20:26-31) (7) Disciples at Sea of Galilee (Jn 21:1-25) -
Peter’s Commission (8) Disciples on mountain at Galilee (Mt
28:16-20) - Great Commission Including Five hundred
brethren (1Co 15:6) (9) James (1Co 15:7) - James’ Commission (10)
Disciples at Jerusalem (Lk 24:44-49; Ac 1:3-8) - Second Commission c) The resurrection appearances were
physical, bodily appearances (Lk 24:39). 3. The first disciples believed in Jesus’
resurrection a) Jews had no expectation of a Messiah who
instead of triumphing over Israel’s enemies would be shamefully executed by
them as a criminal. b) Jewish beliefs about the afterlife
preclude anyone’s rising from the dead to glory and immortality before the
resurrection at the end of the world (Mt 22:23; Mk 12:18; Lk 20:27; Ac 23:8).
B. Explaining The Evidence 1. Rival explanations do not fare well when
assessed by the standard criteria for the best explanation, such as
explanatory scope, explanatory power, plausibility, being contrived,
disconfirmation by accepted beliefs, and outstripping its rivals in meeting
these criteria. a) Conspiracy theory b) Apparent death theory c) Displaced body theory d) Hallucination theory 2. Conclusion: The resurrection theory when
judged by these same criteria emerges as the best explanation. III. Suggested Additional Resources - Handout -
06 A. Debate: Resurrection (Spong vs. Craig) 1. Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsXzu4tcOTI |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
