Wearing of Veil Inside the Church....

[Baelor]

As I said before, if you want to get entirely logical here, your error with thinking St. Paul fallacious is that you implicitly assume a Theological premise of “difference in order of creation = different roles” to be false.

Please point out where I say that St. Paul’s reasoning is fallacious, so that my error in ‘logic’ (for the record, that is NOT a logical concern at all) may be displayed to all.

If that is the case, the conclusion does not follow from the argument. But as far as St. Paul is concerned, the natural order exists and it does mean something. So St. Paul in that passage does not explain WHY it means something but he does explain how it exists.

…So…I was right.

So there is good reason to believe that “difference in order of creation = different roles” is true (not by logical inference but simply because it is a revealed truth). Therefore, the charge you lay that the conclusion does not follow from the premise is incorrect.

I never claimed that the conclusion cannot follow from the premise. I claimed one thing, and one thing only, namely that the logical statement “Different order of creation, therefore different roles” is logically flawed, which it is. I never claimed that the chain of causation did not exist, merely that you have not presented it.

And if you can flesh out the argument, please do so. In other words, how does one reach the conclusion that men and women have different roles because they were created at different times?

As an aside though, you asked me for a definition. So I merely reiterated what St. Paul states.

It very obviously was not a definition. I asked you to define precedence. The definition is that man came before woman. The add-on about natural roles in no way fits into the definition of precedence, which you had already completely defined.

Then you said I am stating a logical fallacy. For your information, logical fallacy does not apply for a definition anyway. If I say “I define a square as an Apple”, there is no logical fallacy.

See above for why you are wrong.

If there is no logical rules of inference involved, there is no fallacy. So when I restated St. Paul, for you to say its a logical fallacy would be something you need to take up with St. Paul. Not me.

See above for why you are wrong.

I’m not talking about making the audience assume premises. I’m saying that when there are shared assumptions, a person might not explicitly state them in his argument.

I do not remember establishing them. What are the shared assumptions?

For example,

You dropped the ball. Therefore it fell.

Note that I am not explicitly stating that dropped objects fall. I can do this because we all know it. St. Paul is writing to an audience that shares an understanding of ordered creation as we share an understanding of gravity.

But the statement does not follow logically, so my original point – which was narrow in scope – stands.

Of course, it raises the additional issue of what the full argument (which supposedly exists) actually is, for which I have received no response.

 

[ballin]

Please point out where I say that St. Paul’s reasoning is fallacious, so that my error in ‘logic’ (for the record, that is NOT a logical concern at all) may be displayed to all.

…So…I was right.

I never claimed that the conclusion cannot follow from the premise. I claimed one thing, and one thing only, namely that the logical statement “Different order of creation, therefore different roles” is logically flawed, which it is. I never claimed that the chain of causation did not exist, merely that you have not presented it.

And if you can flesh out the argument, please do so. In other words, how does one reach the conclusion that men and women have different roles because they were created at different times?

It very obviously was not a definition. I asked you to define precedence. The definition is that man came before woman. The add-on about natural roles in no way fits into the definition of precedence, which you had already completely defined.

See above for why you are wrong.

See above for why you are wrong.

I do not remember establishing them. What are the shared assumptions?

But the statement does not follow logically, so my original point – which was narrow in scope – stands.

Of course, it raises the additional issue of what the full argument (which supposedly exists) actually is, for which I have received no response.

Your first error was entirely on arguing that a DEFINITION/PARAPHRASING is logically flawed. If you don’t understand that, I don’t think its much importance delving on it. We can just say “Ballin is wrong”. I think I did the paraphrasing of St. Paul accurately. You could have said I misquoted him and that would have been completely valid. But to say I made a logically fallacy is … well… shows a lack of grasp on what it means to commit a logical fallacy on your part.

But lets see what you have to say to the following

1. Woman was created for man and not man for woman
2. Man has precedence over woman in the natural ORDER of creation – follows from (1)
3. Beings have different roles according to the order of Creation – Divine Revelation
4. Therefore man and woman have different roles

Now, which part of the above argument do you have problems with?

 

[Walking_Home]

severus:

So the angels do not do as God commands and now follow you? That seems to be a threat to Walking Home.

He said nothing like what you have attributed to him. There was nothing at all threatening about what he said.

---

Well – the accusation has been made – that I am “spreading error” – doesn’t that mean – that I am under “threat” – of the angles coming after me.

 

[ballin]

---

Well – the accusation has been made – that I am “spreading error” – doesn’t that mean – that I am under “threat” – of the angles coming after me.

If you are in error, which you are, then yes, they will come after you. I am not stating anything different from someone saying “if you commit mortal sin, you will loose salvation”.

 

[thewanderer]

Ok, this thread has gotten ridiculously out of hand. Besides the fact that it was derailed pages ago, I think everybody needs to step back a minute and cool off. Ballin, you never answered the question of what it means for men to have precedence in the natural order… I think if this conversation is going to have any chance of getting anywhere you need to explain what that means. It is clear that the others still think you are contradicting JPII, so you need to show them that you aren’t through figuring out where the misunderstanding is and addressing it in particular, in a new thread dedicated to that topic.

 

[Baelor]

Your first error was entirely on arguing that a DEFINITION/PARAPHRASING is logically flawed.

No, it was not. I made no error.

It is obvious that the statement “men and women have different roles” is NOT simply a redefinition of “men were created before women,” especially in the context of your post. Two reasons:

1. You introduced a logical causation which is not present in explanatory definitions.
2. It is not immediately obvious (or even self-evident) that different creation orders implies different roles in creation.

But to say I made a logically fallacy is … well… shows a lack of grasp on what it means to commit a logical fallacy on your part.

No, I am definitely right.

1. Woman was created for man and not man for woman
2. Man has precedence over woman in the natural ORDER of creation – follows from (1)
3. Beings have different roles according to the order of Creation – Divine Revelation
4. Therefore man and woman have different roles

Now, which part of the above argument do you have problems with?

The argument is hugely problematic, and simply reaffirms my original point. Thank you for confirming your error.

The correct argument is as follows:

1. Woman was created for man and not man for woman.
2. i.e., man and woman have different roles

The problem with your argument is that nothing is gained from either 2) or 3). In addition, 3) does not follow from 2), it follows from 1). You are still justifying the claim that men and women have different roles based on the fact that “woman was created for man, and not man for woman,” which is totally unrelated to their order. They could have been created simultaneously, woman could have been created prior but in anticipation of man, etc.

My point remains: the establishment of a link between order of creation and roles has not been established in this thread.

 

[ballin]

No, it was not. I made no error.

It is obvious that the statement “men and women have different roles” is NOT simply a redefinition of “men were created before women,” especially in the context of your post. Two reasons:

1. You introduced a logical causation which is not present in explanatory definitions.
2. It is not immediately obvious (or even self-evident) that different creation orders implies different roles in creation.

I paraphrased St. Paul. Perhaps due to your lack of Scripture knowledge you assumed I presented an argument? In any case, you made the error of asking for a definition, and when given one, objecting that it is fallacious

No, I am definitely right.

Of course, how can you ever be wrong?

The argument is hugely problematic, and simply reaffirms my original point. Thank you for confirming your error.

Yes, always a pleasure.

The correct argument is as follows:

1. Woman was created for man and not man for woman.
2. i.e., man and woman have different roles

The problem with your argument is that nothing is gained from either 2) or 3). In addition, 3) does not follow from 2), it follows from 1).

Are you an actual student in logic? Because that made no sense. When given an argument, you must show why premises are false to show why the conclusion does not follow.

In your case, you merely got rid of the premises by saying they are not required. That’s an appalling use of logic.

Ironically, you have not presented any reason to REJECT any of the premises. Premise (2) merely was directly from (1). Man just came before woman. (3) was divine revelation. You just went A-wall with your logic by suddenly getting rid of them lol.

You are still justifying the claim that men and women have different roles based on the fact that “woman was created for man, and not man for woman,” which is totally unrelated to their order. They could have been created simultaneously, woman could have been created prior but in anticipation of man, etc.

The point “Mr. Logical” is that though it could have been done that way, IT WASNT .

So since it wasn’t done that way, your point is moot to speculate about the possibility.

For an example, Angels are higher in the natural order compared to man. Man could have been made before angels. That does not mean they are any less down the order because that is not how it took place.

Seriously dude, good job at missing the point.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Pending mod review by Thomas Casey.