Saints preserve us from Formal Logic

From: Peter Metcalfe (metcalph@voyager.co.nz)
Date: Sat 23 May 1998 - 05:18:40 EEST


Mikko Rintasaari:

>>>Nice and simple, but premise no: 2 [Saints are Good Malkioni - PHM]
>>>is, not wrong, but misleading. Replace with - "saints are extraordinary
>>>Malkioni"

Me>> Extraordinary in what respect? Bad or Good?

>unusual... SAINT is not identical to GOOD MALKIONI.

I never said it was. I said Saints _ARE_ good malkioni. If Good
Malkioni go to Solace, then Saints, as a subset of Good Malkioni,
also go to Solace.

>A saint is somebody who transcends the GOOD MALKIONI definition, somebody
>who is a GOOD MALKIONI, and then some. They manifest things impossible to
>ordinary GOOD MALKIONI, so the symmetry isn't there.

Your logic is deeply flawed. A subset cannot 'transcend' a set.
Either it shares _all_ the properties that _define_ the set or the
subset is not a member of that set. Furthermore the _onus_ is still
on _you_ to show that Saints are _not_ in Solace for any objections
to either premise to be valid.

>> When someone says 'All Men are Mortal. Socrates was a Man. Therefore
>> Socrates is Mortal', do you interject 'since Socrates was an
>> extraordinary man, it is not self-evident that Socrates is mortal'?

>No, the premises lead to the conclusion alright. But the case is
>different.

Then try this parallel. When someone says 'Good Christians go to
Heaven. Saints are Good Christians. Therefore Saints go to Heaven',
do you interject 'since Saints are extraordinary christians, it is
not self-evident that Saints are in Heaven'?

>My quibble is with the premise Saints are good malkioni,
>if the definition of good malkioni is that they go to Solace.

In which case your quibble should have been directed at the *first*
premise [ie Good Malkioni go to Solace after they die] and *not* the
second.
 
>> Bear in mind that at least four or five saints are stated in
>> the literature to be in Solace, the onus still is on you (or
>> anybody who wishes to take up the challenge) to demonstrate why
>> Malkioni should believe that Saints are not in Solace.

>Ah! But that is not my point. I'm sure the _malkioni_believe_ that their
>saints are in Solace, but that doesn't mean it _is_ so. I thought we were
>trying to figure out which option makes most sense metaphysically. It's
>got very little to do with what the Malkioni believe.

To be honest, I am not interested in about the real truth of
what the Malkioni believe. If the Malkioni are unable to
discover what they believe is true then what benefit do we get
from knowing the 'real facts'?

>>[Analysis on why Malkioni have proof for their ways snipped]

>>How can anybody say in the face of this that the Malkioni have no
>>'proof' for their ways?

>That is not proof... assurance maybe, but not proof.

What's the difference? Moreover how is the Malkioni proof any
different from the proof of the theists? Is it meaningful in
such circumstances to say that the Malkioni faith lacks proof
as several people have suggested?

- --Peter Metcalfe

------------------------------


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 23:17:42 EEST