When do you use a logical argument?

Answer 1

A logical argument is the most widely accepted form of argumentation. So, it's good to use a logical argument anytime you can. Logic comes in many forms, but is normally thought by western civilizations to have originated with the ancient Greeks. Aristotle is perhaps considered the most significant contributor to the forms of logic still in use, today. In its earlier forms, Aristotle, along with other Greek philosophers, used either inductive or deductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning is thought to provide general conclusions from specific examples. For example, when you throw something in the air from the earth it will come back down. The same holds true if in one experiment you throw up a heavy object; in the second, a lightweight object. In either case the object will probably return to earth. The general conclusion is that, "what goes up will come down." You can do this over and over and the same thing will happen. But, further thought can cause this to appear as merely possible, not completely true. Suppose the lightweight object were a feather that was drawn higher into the air by an updraft and subsequently disintegrated in the turbine of a jet aircraft. So, inductively, only a probability can result from the specific examples, no matter how unlikely a different conclusion may seem.

Deductive reasoning, on the other hand, draws conclusions from definitions and axioms. Given two or more accepted definitions, which are accepted as valid by two or more observers, a logical conclusion can be drawn, if and only if there is no possible situation where both definitions are true and the conclusion false.

Simplified, logic is about making assumptions about truth, then trying to figure out if they are correct.

When it comes to Bible statistics and history, there are few solid numbers that can fit into the accepted framework of a logical argument. Numbers in The Bible were mostly symbolic. Although inductive reasoning can be applied, there still remains only a probability that the conclusion is accurate. Unless, of course, an agreement can be reached between two or more persons. In that case, a deductive conclusion can be reached, "by the mouth of two or three witnesses." So, any convincing, logical conclusions regarding Biblical issues must originate inductively, and then deductively conclude on the basis of the initially agreed upon premises.

A logical argument can be used anytime. But a logical conclusion is predicated on the commonality and the agreement of terms presented by the parties involved. To argue that faith is based upon evidence, when one party believes that it is, yet another does not, can only result in further disparity. If, however, both can accept the validity that it is, then a logical conclusion might be drawn that science is simply a another form of practicing faith. To disagree on the semantics is to prevent any logical discussion from reaching an agreeable conclusion.

While considering the universe, another example might be to inductively conclude that the earth was made for humans by some supreme entity. And the careful study of nature by certain agreeable parties may deductively conclude that the laws of nature don't really care about us; they just work. These same persons may further infer that the universe is not here for us; we just happen to have evolved in it. Logic fails a lot in religion, anti-religion and metaphysics. And science isn't perfect, either. But it is widely regarded as the best tool we have in trying to understand the universe.

Hope that helped *_*