Bob Corker #fundie

Bob Corker #fundie calvinists4conservatism.wordpress.com

[Except you can’t prove those statements without citing the Bible, which is where the beliefs came from. Circular logic]

All correct logic is circular, nitwit. Consider this statement:

-My food is cold because of the refrigerator.
-The refrigerator works because my food is cold.

The coldness of the food and the refrigerator’s ability to cool the food are proven in tandem. So are God and the Bible. All correct logic is circular, since human knowledge of the going-ons of the world is finite. Granted, once you start talking with the LORD, logic is not necessarily circular, as His knowledge is infinite. However, since He is the cause of all, the point is moot. All proofs must fit into the great circle of logic, or else they are untrue.

67 comments

old comment by xplicit_UK

I think you're confusing logic with semantics. In your two sentences you basically said the same thing twice, just in a different word order.

I don't know much about logic (actually, I know nothing about logic) but I would expect the argument to go like:

- A sign of a working refrigerator is that food stored inside is colder than the ambient temperature.
- The food in the refrigerator is colder than the ambient temperature.
-> Therefore, the refrigerator works.

But even that is disregarding dozens of other reasons why the food might be colder, such as ice stored nearby etc.

So for your "logic" to work you'd need something like:

- A sign for the existence of the Christian god as depicted in the Bible is (...)
- (...) is true.
-> Therefore God exists.

And of course you will have to deal with every single refinement your critics have to offer as well.

old comment by Goosey

Okay, logic lesson, because I'm shocked that some of the commenters here seem to know as little about it as Bob Corker does.

Valid logic is logic where the conclusion follows from the premise, regardless of whether or not the premise is true.

Sound logic is logic where the conclusion follows from the prsmise, and the premise is true.

Example. Let's say I have a dog called Fido:-

All men are mortal.
Fido is a man.
Therefore Fido is mortal.

This argument is logically valid, even though one of my premises ("Fido is a man") is false, making it unsound. (Notice also that an unsound argument does not necessarily lead to a false conclusion: Fido is mortal, despite being a dog and not a man.)

Circular logic is always valid, but not necessarily sound. In fact, by trying to prove a conclusion by including it in the premise, one could say that circular logic is an attempt to frustrate soundness requirements.

Circular logic is not always unsound, though (because we know that unsound logic does not necessarily lead to a false conclusion). If the premise (and therefore the conclusion) of circular logic happens to be true, then circular logic is quite correct.

There are two possible problems with circular logic: either the premise has not already been proven, in which case circular logic is just the same as bare assertion, or the premise has already been proven, in which case circular logic is superfluous.

All that said, Bob Corker doesn't have a fucking clue.

Bob Corker #fundie calvinists4conservatism.wordpress.com

67 comments

Confused?