Welcome to WeightLossChat.org!   

Advertisments:




Can Somebody Put This Into Standard Argument Form?

Can Somebody Put This Into Standard Argument Form?

Postby Coll » Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:23 pm

I have to put this into standard argument form, decided if it's deductive or inductive, and include any implicit premises if their are any:

Yes, and if oxen and horses and lions had hands, and could paint with their hands, and provide works of art, as men do, horses would paint the forms of gods like horses, and oxen like oxen, and make their bodies in the image of their several kinds.
The Ethiopians make their gods black and mule-nosed; the Thracians say theirs have blue eyes and red hair.
(Xenophanes, Fragments)

I came up with this:

Inductive Argument

P1. Humans have hands and paint works of art, and they paint the forms of gods in the form that reflects the form of their own species and population.

P2. Horses and oxen and lions have hands and can paint works of art.

C.
Horses and oxen and lions paint the forms of gods in the form that reflects the form of their own species and population.


Does this looks right? Tell me what you think it should be. I'm a little confused. Thanks!
Coll
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 6:02 am

Can Somebody Put This Into Standard Argument Form?

Postby Darroll » Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:25 pm

I admit, I had to lookup purely what you have been speaking approximately, i did no longer study all of it, yet sufficient to get the assumption of purely what you have been speaking approximately.... and that i respond via saying : why does it would be one or the different ? Why can it no longer be the two procedures ?? pondering a theist, which includes myself, a toddler of God to be greater exact, believes God is exterior the *field* whilst it includes such issues as what's sturdy or what's incorrect to our human minds . God contraptions the occasion .... yet extremely some the examples He has set is plenty above the skills of human beings, then or now.. The examples you utilize are specific of their classes of movements the outcomes there of . They fall under a particular timeframe that's no longer present day in any respect... in present day circumstances, as seen interior the NT of the Bible, the examples you utilize are of the OT, are geared greater for the *ethical* residing of *helping your fellow guy*,,, Morals are made for reason...... and are understood in concepts and ideas.... God , for us theists , is the regulation, so whilst the regulation is made it quite is accompanied.... I ask you : Is it ethical to place a killer to dying because of the fact the regulation makers say it is the cost you pay ? Or is it because of the fact the cost you pay for taking a existence is the regulation of morality ?? i desire it is sensible ??? yet, the element i'm *attempting* to make is this : A regulation is laid down, it quite is to be accompanied, the cost is paid whilst the regulation is broken, there's a reaction for each action.... What could morals be in line with if no longer no longer concept of authentic and incorrect ? and to close, i could say it, because of the fact from , back, a theist attitude, sure, God is God.... Redundant to many ?? possibly.....Morality being *bigger* than God ? How ? Morality is an concept of movements and reactions, and God is, to us, a Being who set them in action .... *sigh*,..... back, i desire this makes a minimum of a splash experience.... it quite is puzzling to place it into words..... circulate in peace.... God bless
Darroll
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 11:32 am

Can Somebody Put This Into Standard Argument Form?

Postby Burgess » Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:29 pm

No, that's not right, since horses, oxen, and lions don't have hands.

A better argument would be something like:

P1.
Humans have lungs and can breathe.

P2.
Horses, oxen, and lions have lungs.

C.
Horses, oxen, and lions can breathe.
Burgess
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2014 4:48 am


Return to Body Image and Self Esteem

cron