And now we don our Lewis Caroll

I am obsessed with Lewis Caroll, I am a big fan of his and as such I think I would like to end my blog with an argument that I discovered that was written by the man himself.

P1. Babies are illogical

P2.Nobody is despised who can manage a crocodile

P3 .Illogical persons are despised.

C. Babies cannot manage crocodiles.

This might seem a bit confusing, but if we switch up the premises, it might make a bit more sense:

P1. Babies are illogical.

P2. Illogical persons are despised.

P3. Nobody is despised who can manage a crocodile.

C. Babies cannot manage crocodiles.

How about someone try to figure out the conclusion to this one also posed by Caroll:

1. No ducks waltz
2. No officers ever decline to waltz
3. All my poultry are ducks

What is the conclusion to this?

Why?

What is wrong with these arguments made by a christian online encyclopedia?

* Atheists use circular logic to "disprove" the existence of God. That is, they presuppose that God does not exist and then argue that all proofs for the existence of God must be flawed because He does not exist. Christians can use presuppositional apologetics to break the circle of the atheists' circular reasoning. 

* Muslims also use circular logic to defend the Qur'an. They argue that the Qur'an is true because it is the Word of Allah, that it is the Word of Allah because it says so, and that we can rely on it because it is true. This is completely different from why the Bible is true. 

* Evolutionists will claim that a fossil is millions of years old because that is the date given by radiometric dating; then state that it is reliable because they "know" that the fossil is millions of years old due to the strata in which it was found; additionally because the radiometric dating methods agree with each other, and date correctly materials which were historically dated by humans.

-source: Fstdt

1. Begging the Question: They start off with the assumptions that atheists, muslims, and evolutionists all start off with the assumption that God isn't real, or Allah is real when they make argukuments. This is false.
2. Ad hominem (abusive

Anything else?

Professional in front, Party in back.

So, I am attempting to try and grow out my hair long, but in order to do that, I unfortunately must go through that awkward mullet stage before I get it long and flowing. So, while I was talking about mullets with my hairdresser, she told me that mullets were slowly making a comeback in the fashion world. Her logic went as follows:

P1: I give more of my customers mullets.
P2: The number of people with mullets is increasing
C: Mullets must be making a comeback in the fashion world.

I happen to find this argument weak because the conclusion does not put forward strong evidence that mullets are indeed a rising fashion trend. What do you think?

To Court!

(Thanks http://www.smbc-comics.com for providing me with such humorous philosophical insights)

The Paradox of the court that is described in this rather humorous comic is a wonderful example of a seemingly unsolvable logical paradox. Protagoras and Eutharus both seem to have rational and logical points.

Protagoras's argument goes as:

P1: Eutharus owes me money if we wins a case

P2: Eutharus will owe me money if I sue him and win the case.

C: No matter what, Eutharus will owe me money

However, Eutharus's argument is as follows:

P1: Pythagoras says that until I win a case, I don't owe him money.

P2: If Pythagoras takes me to court for money and I win, I don't have to pay him because the court is on my side

P3: If I lose said court case, I have not won any case, so I don't have to pay Pythagoras any money.

C: I don't have to pay Pythagoras anything

Now, there is a solution to this paradox, but I will not say. Instead, try to figure it out yourselves.

Logic of Time Travel.

         Time travel is a very difficult concept to grasp and is prevalent in many fantasy and sci-fi novels. Yet there is much more logical problems and paradoxes than other controversial scientific theories. For example, if there was time travel, where are the time travelers? They should be around in the present day to accomplish whatever they need to do.
         There is also the issue of what happens when someone goes back in time to alter something? Take this argument:
P1: I punched Professor Silliman yesterday
P2: I used a time Machine to alter the past so that I did not punch Professor Silliman.
C: I did not punch professor Silliman.

This spawns many conflicts. If the conclusion is true, then the first premise, and consequently the second premise become untrue. It hurts my head.

Knowledge is Power.

Here is an 'argument' I remember hearing that I really like. I have taken some liberties to try and make it stronger.
P1: Reading educational books can lead to knowledge
P2: Knowledge leads to power
P2: Power leads to corruption
P3:Corruption is a crime
C: If you read educational books, you will be committing a crime.
Thus, I should no longer read my logic book, or else I might risk committing a crime.

Logic and Ethics

I love logic, but I feel that it is awfully hard to apply logic in the realm of morality. It seems like there is just fr too much emotional involvement in order for one to make a rational argument or decision. In addition to this, there are just too many facets of human nature that anyone can fashion an argument for any ethical belief which can be contradictory. Ex:

P1: People do not like it when they go hungry

P2: People possess empathy.

P3: People sometimes have an excess of food or money that they do not require.

C: People with an excess of food or money should donate it to the hungry.

OR

P1: Ownership of property is a cornerstone of living in a capitalistic society

P2: In a capitalistic society, a person may decide what to do with their own possessions to a legal extent.

C: People should not be obligated to give their resources to other people.