Greg's first deductive syllogism

[Bruiser]

Post 34? Hold on, I'll be back. I hain't read it; but I often use a Debate tactic of using someone's beliefs against them, Even if I agree with them or not...

He would have liked debating with me...

I read it but don't understand it so much. I like things simple...

I don't see why the Syllogism in Post 1 isn't sound. A deep explanation probably won't help me. It has two sound Premises and a sound Conclusion...

 

[Arial]

I read it but don't understand it so much. I like things simple...

I don't see why the Syllogism in Post 1 isn't sound. A deep explanation probably won't help me. It has two sound Premises and a sound Conclusion...

Try posts 6-9. 12,13,18,19,20

 

[Bruiser]

Try posts 6-9. 12,13,18,19,20

You said his Premise is Trivially true; so I'm right. Why not go with the flow and answer Yes to his OP?

Atheists are easy to defeat; even smart ones. If I were him, I would have latched on to your "Trivially true" as a Yes. Inch and Mile stuff...

 

[atpollard]

You said his Premise is Trivially true; so I'm right. Why not go with the flow and answer Yes to his OP?

Atheists are easy to defeat; even smart ones. If I were him, I would have latched on to your "Trivially true" as a Yes. Inch and Mile stuff...

Just for the record, POST #9 illustrates where the OP was always intending to go:

Once the FORM was accepted as "valid", then came the word substitutions ...

• P1 - Major Premise: Hitler should do should do anything God wills him to do.
• P2 - Minor Premise: God wills for Hitler to murder Jews.
• C - Hitler should murder Jews

and ...

• P1 - Major Premise: Hitler was morally obligated to do anything God willed him to do.
• P2 - Minor Premise: God willed for Hitler to murder Jews.
• C - Hitler was morally obligated to murder Jews

Followed by his claim of "gotcha" ...

Remember, this is a deductive syllogism. If you can't show the incorrectness of either premise, or show that the conclusion fails to properly distribute the middle, the conclusion is reality. No amount of "God's hidden will changes everything, see Deuteronomy 29:29" can overcome the truth of a conclusion in a syllogism that is both valid and sound.

So let me ask you:

IF the first argument is valid ...

• [P1] The elect should do anything God wills them to do. + [P2] God wills for the elect to repent of their sins. = [C] The elect should repent of their sins

THEN, is the second argument ...

• [P1] Hitler should do should do anything God wills him to do. + [P2] God wills for Hitler to murder Jews. = [C] Hitler should murder Jews
• [P1] Hitler was morally obligated to do anything God willed him to do. + [P2] God willed for Hitler to murder Jews. = [C] Hitler was morally obligated to murder Jews.

... just as valid?

 

[Bruiser]

Just for the record, POST #9 illustrates where the OP was always intending to go:

Once the FORM was accepted as "valid", then came the word substitutions ...


and ...


Followed by his claim of "gotcha" ...


So let me ask you:

IF the first argument is valid ...

• [P1] The elect should do anything God wills then to do. + [P2] God wills for the elect to repent of their sins. = [C] The elect should repent of their sins

THEN, is the second argument ...

• [P1] Hitler should do should do anything God wills him to do. + [P2] God wills for Hitler to murder Jews. = [C] Hitler should murder Jews
• [P1] Hitler was morally obligated to do anything God willed him to do. + [P2] God willed for Hitler to murder Jews. = [C] Hitler was morally obligated to murder Jews.

... just as valid?

I read it, that's why I wish he was still here. The Bait and Switch would have shown him that God should Punish Sinners. My approach uses a person's own Thesis against them. Agreeing with his approach, means I can use his approach to convince him of Sin...

Oh yeah, his second Syllogism isn't as Valid since I suspect Hitler wasn't Elect (oh boy, if we find out he was). But it's still a good Syllogism, because it doesn't mention the Elect. Hitler wasn't Morally obligated to obey God; no more than Xerxes was. But he did follow Providence...

 

[atpollard]

I read it, that's why I wish he was still here. The Bait and Switch would have shown him that God should Punish Sinners. My approach uses a person's own Thesis against them. Agreeing with his approach, means I can use his approach to convince him of Sin...

Heck, I am a former atheist. I can probably hold up his side of the argument ...

Why should God punish sinners when God willed saints to be saints and sinners to be sinners? Even Paul ducked the question and told us to "shut up and don't ask that"! - [Atheist mode]

Romans 9:18-20 [NASB]

18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. ​

• (God willed saints to be saints and sinners to be sinners)

19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" ​

• (Why should God punish sinners when God willed it)

20 On the contrary, who are you, you [foolish] person, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?​

• ("shut up and don't ask that"!)

 

[Bruiser]

Heck, I am a former atheist. I can probably hold up his side of the argument ...

Why should God punish sinners when God willed saints to be saints and sinners to be sinners? Even Paul ducked the question and told us to "shut up and don't ask that"! - [Atheist mode]

Romans 9:18-20 [NASB]

18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. ​

• (God willed saints to be saints and sinners to be sinners)

19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" ​

• (Why should God punish sinners when God willed it)

20 On the contrary, who are you, you [foolish] person, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?​

• ("shut up and don't ask that"!)

God gave them over to themselves; he didn't Will anyone to be Sinners. At best, it's Passive Aggressive. It doesn't enter God's Mind to Cause Sin...

This has to be factored into the Potter and the Clay...

 

[Arial]

You said his Premise is Trivially true; so I'm right. Why not go with the flow and answer Yes to his OP?

Atheists are easy to defeat; even smart ones. If I were him, I would have latched on to your "Trivially true" as a Yes. Inch and Mile stuff...

I appreciate and respect your approach. But---look what happens if right off the bat you accept his syllogism.

What is his syllogism attempting to do?

@Greg asks:

What if you found a valid and sound deductive syllogism that drew a conclusion you think conflicted with the bible? Would you be open to the possibility that biblical inerrancy is a false doctrine? Or would you contradict the Calvinist view that logic arises from God's nature, and suddenly discover that logic isn't god's nature after all?
Greg's syllogism:

• P1 - Major Premise: The elect should do anything God wills then to do.
• P2 - Minor Premise: God wills for the elect to repent of their sins.
• C - The elect should repent of their sins

You concede that the syllogism is sound. Keep in mind that he is framing this from the Calvinist perspective and that is one thing that contributes to its unsoundness. To start with the two questions, present a false dichotomy. If you answer "yes" to P 1 and P2 then you are contradicting the C'ist view that logic arises from God's nature and discover that logic isn't God's nature after all. The two questions themselves are different categories, also. And his portrayal of the Calvinist view is slightly inaccurate. In Calvinism God is logic, (his simplicity) not simply that logic arises from his nature.

What is his next planned move?

Greg:

• P1 - Major Premise: Hitler should do should do anything God wills him to do.
• P2 - Minor Premise: God wills for Hitler to murder Jews.
• C - Hitler should murder Jews

If you have conceded that the first syllogism is sound, then this one is also.

In order to stay out of the trap that was laid, the syllogism needs to be shown to be unsound, and it is. And that has been demonstrated by several posters.