Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bosse  Hello Anthony,
I am going to list the mounting number of propositions. I begin with the one axiom: Axiom: All Scripture is the word of God. Quote: |
So you agree that Scripture is the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible.
| Proposition 1: All Scripture is the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible. Quote: |
And I'll assume that you agree that the books are the words, sentences, propositions, etc that they contain.
| Proposition 2: All the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible are the "words, sentences, and propositions" contained in the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible. Proposition 3: All Scripture is knowledge. Anthony’s Valid Syllogism Premise 1: All Scripture is the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible. Premise 2: All the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible are the "words, sentences, and propositions" contained in the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible. Conclusion: All Scripture is the "words, sentences, and propositions" contained in the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible. Anthony’s Invalid Syllogism Premise 1: All Scripture is knowledge. Premise 2: All Scripture is the "words, sentences, and propositions" contained in the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible. Conclusion: All the "words, sentences, and propositions" contained in the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible is knowledge. Not only is the above argument invalid, but we have three additional propositions that are not derived from the one axiom that must be accounted for. So, I guess I am not with you so far. | Brian,
Look at the meaning of the sentences. If you don't get the meaning correct, you can not correctly analysis the logic. When I say "All Scripture is the "words, sentences, and propositions" contained in the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible." It is the same as "All Scripture is the "words, sentences, and propositions" contained in the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible" and "All the "words, sentences, and propositions" contained in the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible is Scripture". I.e. A is B and B is A. That is the nature of a definition. If B is the definition of A, then A is B and B is A. Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bosse Quote:
If P = p1, p2, p3, p3,...pn,
then All (p1, p2, p3, p3,...pn) is X is the exact the same as all P is X.
Nothing has been added or subtracted.
| We have four different propositions. One is “All P is X,” another is “All (p1, p2, p3…, pn) is X,” | That is the same proposition. Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bosse another is “All P is (p1, p2, p3…, pn),” | That is a definition of the term P. It is a proposition, but the effect of a definition is you can substitute the definition for the word defined WITHOUT CHANGING THE MEANING OF THE PROPOSITION. You are not creating a new proposition by subsituting (p1, p2, p3…, pn) for P. Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bosse and the last one is “All (p1, p2, p3…, pn) is P.” Now to go from “All (p1, p2, p3, p3,...pn) is X” to “All P is X”, the required additional proposition is “All P is (p1, p2, p3…, pn).” If you wanted to go from “All P is X” to “All (p1, p2, p3, p3,...pn) is X,” then the additional proposition needed is “All (p1, p2, p3…, pn) is P.” And if you wanted to go to the equivalence of the two propositions, then you would have to have both of the other propositions.
Now, will you reciprocate? | Not yet. Now the next step.
"All P is X" is logically equivalent to "All (p1, p2, p3…, pn) is X" because the defintion P is (p1, p2, p3…, pn). This is the same proposition, not a new one. It means the same thing.
Now we can use the direct implication from the A form to the I form.
"All (p1, p2, p3…, pn) is X"
Therefore "p3 is X".
Why, because p3 is Some (p1, p2, p3…, pn).
To put it in short:
* All P is X,
* therefore p3 is X.
The word "one" and "uno" and "1" are the same words. I can switch these in a sentence and mean the same thing. The same is true for definitions. Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bosse (1) The implication you want to draw is not an instance of the rule of subalternation. You claim to be arguing from a universal affirmative statement to a particular affirmative statement when in fact you are arguing from a universal affirmative statement to another universal affirmative statement. You are going from "All S is P" directly to "All Q is P". There is no logic authority be it book, professor, or whomever that would say this is a valid deduction. So, what say you? | No, I argued from All S is P to Some S is P. The Some S is a subset of All S. Any verse of Scripture is "Some Scripture".
Words have meaning, and a proposition is the meaning of a declarative sentence. All Scripture is knowledge implies Jesus is the Christ is knowledge because Jesus is the Christ is some Scripture.
__________________
R. Anthony Coletti
Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Jonesborough, TN
[i]et venite et arguite me dicit Dominus[/i]
|