Thursday, August 14, 2014

The irrational nominalism of Cheungians

In their defence of their idol, Vincent Cheung, Cheungians behave like mindless drones repeating what their guru has taught them so well. It is really really sad that those who claim to be rational are the most impervious to logical reasoning. Not only are they impervious to reason, they propagate Cheungism and share their guru's writings as if they live by every word from his mouth

In the matter of ascribing the title "Author of sin" to God, Cheung came up with a seemingly easy answer to the question of theodicy. By definition, God is good, and therefore God cannot be called evil even though God is the author of sin. But this does not and will not work. Cheung's logical syllogism is as follows:

p = God is the Author of sin
r = God acts according to His nature
q = God is evil

P1: p
P2: not q
Conclusion: Not q

The problem is that statement p, when coupled with r, necessitates conclusion q. If that is indeed the case, then Cheung's argument become as follows:

P1': If p [and r; therefore q]
P2: not q
P3, p, r
C': not q

As it can be clearly seen, the new syllogism is clearly invalid and logically contradictory. Does it matter how true P2 is? If I shout over and over again statement q, that God is not evil by definition, does it solve the logical problem inherent to Cheung's position? NO, it doesn't! Logic is a tool. They are rules governing thought, and validity and invalidity of arguments does not lie in what the subject matter being discussed is. Insert anything, any proposition, you might wish into 'p,' 'q,' 'r' and the validity or invalidity of the argument does not change. The argument form: If p and r, then q; p, r, not q, therefore not q, is an invalid form of argument, regardless of the cognitive content of the argument.

Cheung's drones repeat over and over again "God by definition is not evil." That is "Not Q" and as it can be clearly seen from the form of the argument, asserting not-q over and over again does not make an invalid argument valid. As long as I can show the truth of premise 1', Cheung's argument is toast, period. Cheung's nominalism expressed in repeating "God is by definition not evil" like a mantra over and over again is useless. It is illogical to think that the problem is solved just by the mere assertion of a single premise. This is basic logic 101, on the definitions of soundness and validity of arguments. Cheung failed logic 101, and his followers fall headlong together with him into collective intellectual suicide.

If you are a Cheungian, please repent of following that false teacher. He has led you astray, clouded your mind towards irrational argumentation, in the false flag operation of being rational. May the Holy Spirit have mercy to break the bondage Cheung has on your mind and on your soul

I challenge all unrepentant Cheungians to a contest in logic. Elucidate the logical forms of all your premises and conclusions in nice, neat propositional logic forms, and then we can discuss who exactly is being logical

No comments: