The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Funka Genocide]

Originally Posted by fifthfiend

Hey, I passed five years of spanish courses, but yo no habla el espanol for shit.

That's "Yo no hablo español por mierda." I believe... Don't quote me on that though because I can't speak a lick of spansih.

But I did a little research myself actually, and it appears that we are discussing a simple logical construct called a categorical syllogism. To clear up a few things, the construction can be valid without the conclusion being true, but the conclusion can not be true unless the construction is valid and both premises are true.

To sum this whole thing up, the purpose of logic is to find truth, and not to create a functionally proper though pointless argument. So the argument that a categorical syllogism can be both valid and untrue as a means to disprove logic is patently absurd.

Now that I think about this, what was the point? What was to be proved through all this?

Logic allows us to discern what is not true, and by that process allows us to come closer to truth. It does not exist in a vacuum, and for a valid statement to have any merit it must be true, and in order for it to be true it's premises must be true and follow the rules of a logical argument. That's as simple as I can put it.

By the way, I totally just finished a shitty correspondence course on philosphy and I got an A. I flunked out of high school though and haven't had an opportunity to go to college yet. I wonder if that has any bearing on any argument I've made...

ha, no I don't. :P