I need a detailed explanation to this logic question
"God is love and love is blind. Therefore God is blind." Using your knowledge of logic, state and explain whether the above statement is (i) correct (ii) valid (iii) true (22 marks)

Mod, I don't know if it's front page worthy if yes kindly do the needful.
Cc:
Fynestboi
olawalebabs
Richiez

God is the creator of that thing called blind, so God is never blind

Love has types and the type of love being described here is unknown.

I. Agape
ii. Phileo

Now, the statement, LOVE IS BLIND doesn't have any real correlation with the EYE rather, it posits that being blind in love is an ability of a person influenced by love to do ANYTHING WHATSOEVER for his/her lover irrespective of its consequence- whether it deprives him/her of something dear to him/her or not. Now, this kind of love is rare.

But God gave us Jesus Christ, His son who died for us and He didn't bother about the consequence, God still loves us unconditionally even when we are not worthy. Can we now say that He is blindly in love with us even when we err from time to time? Even when we are not faithful, He keeps on loving us and wishing that we change to become the original person He wants us to be?

God's love for us is blind but He sees clearly else, we would have been consumed.

NOW TO RESPOND TO WHAT IS ON THAT QUESTION:
In logic, that statement is called Syllogism and logically, the statement is correct and valid because it follows the law of syllogism. But it is not true because there is a logical answer to it as I have explained above.

Fadomero:
God is the creator of that thing called blind, so God is never blind

Please read again, the answer should align with the question.

jay7:
I need a detailed explanation to this logic question
"God is love and love is blind. Therefore God is blind." Using your knowledge of logic, state and explain whether the above statement is (i) correct (ii) valid (iii) true (22 marks)

Mod, I don't know if it's front page worthy if yes kindly do the needful.
Cc:
Fynestboi
olawalebabs
Richiez

Love Without God Is Blind. Typical Love Christ Shared To Redeem Mankind From Our Sins Is God's Love Is Not Infatuation, Immoral Sex Love Making. God's Love Is Helping The Needy Without Any Attatchment Of Any kind. NOTE: GOD Is Not BLIND.

jay7:
I need a detailed explanation to this logic question
"God is love and love is blind. Therefore God is blind." Using your knowledge of logic, state and explain whether the above statement is (i) correct (ii) valid (iii) true (22 marks)

Mod, I don't know if it's front page worthy if yes kindly do the needful.
Cc:
Fynestboi
olawalebabs

Richiez

Attend lectures una go d dodge.
See your lyf?
Lyf na turn by turn so face your turn abeg.
Can't comman be explaining logic of 9 years ago.
Better still, you can use Google.

Have you seen justice symbol or call it statute? if I say justice is blind, what do I mean?

jay7:
I need a detailed explanation to this logic question
"God is love and love is blind. Therefore God is blind." Using your knowledge of logic, state and explain whether the above statement is (i) correct (ii) valid (iii) true (22 marks)

Mod, I don't know if it's front page worthy if yes kindly do the needful.
Cc:
Fynestboi
olawalebabs
Richiez

Where did you get that from? Combining two polarized and opposing items. One is said by the Bible and the other is said by the world. So the two can no be yoked together.

Please.

Have you seen God? God is faith and faith is as well believing without seeing .... See how it all relates? My opinion tho

In Logic, there's the presence of statements( Propositions) called Conclusion and others called Premise.

A CONCLUSION is a proposition you are trying to assert. That is you are claiming that it is valid.

A PREMISE represents statement that you use to support your CONCLUSION.

Logically if a premise is valid, then it follows that the conclusion is also VALID. Whether it is correct or not makes no difference, it remains VALID.

ARGUMENTS is a group of structured propositions that combines both the premise and conclusion. Arguments may be valid or invalid.

For example, if I say 'A human has two eyes, a goat has two eyes. There is no difference between a human and a goat'. This is an argument. You can deduce that my conclusion is 'There's no difference between a human and a goat' and the remaining parts are my Premises. Since my premise is Valid, my argument is a valid one. Even though it might not be correct, Logic says it is VALID.

Lawyers are trying!!!.

Now that we've delved slightly into the rudiments of logic, let's move to your question.

'Therefore God is Blind' is the conclusion. And the rest are just the premises.
'God is Love' is a valid statement.
'Love is Blind' is also valid.

Logically, you have a VALID ARGUMENT on your hand. It most definitely is not correct, but it remains a VALID one.

RESHARPENED:
In Logic, there's the presence of statements( Propositions) called Conclusion and others called Premise.

A CONCLUSION is a proposition you are trying to assert. That is you are claiming that it is valid.

A PREMISE represents statement that you use to support your CONCLUSION.

Logically if a premise is valid, then it follows that the conclusion is also VALID. Whether it is correct or not makes no difference, it remains VALID.

ARGUMENTS is a group of structured propositions that combines both the premise and conclusion. Arguments may be valid or invalid.

For example, if I say 'A human has two eyes, a goat has two eyes. There is no difference between a human and a goat'. This is an argument. You can deduce that my conclusion is 'There's no difference between a human and a goat' and the remaining parts are my Premises. Since my premise is Valid, my argument is a valid one. Even though it might not be correct, Logic says it is VALID.

Lawyers are trying!!!.

Now that we've delved slightly into the rudiments of logic, let's move to your question.

'Therefore God is Blind' is the conclusion. And the rest are just the premises.
'God is Love' is a valid statement.
'Love is Blind' is also valid.

Logically, you have a VALID ARGUMENT on your hand. It most definitely is not correct, but it remains a VALID one.

this is the only logical answer I have seen u are wise ,not the rest of pple above spewing sentimental trash.

respect80:


Attend lectures una go d dodge.
See your lyf?
Lyf na turn by turn so face your turn abeg.
Can't comman be explaining logic of 9 years ago.
Better still, you can use Google.

Lolz tnks but I graduated from a University few years back, and the question above is for HND1

To me, based on logic, the argument is valid hence the conclusion is true (from logic truth table) but it is not correct because according to english grammer, love in both the premise and the conclusion is disjointed. This is because 'love' as used in the context are dissimilar hence there exist no relationship between them.

Pearlqueen:
Love has types and the type of love being described here is unknown.

I. Agape
ii. Phileo

Now, the statement, LOVE IS BLIND doesn't have any real correlation with the EYE rather, it posits that being blind in love is an ability of a person influenced by love to do ANYTHING WHATSOEVER for his/her lover irrespective of its consequence- whether it deprives him/her of something dear to him/her or not. Now, this kind of love is rare.

But God gave us Jesus Christ, His son who died for us and He didn't bother about the consequence, God still loves us unconditionally even when we are not worthy. Can we now say that He is blindly in love with us even when we err from time to time? Even when we are not faithful, He keeps on loving us and wishing that we change to become the original person He wants us to be?

God's love for us is blind but He sees clearly else, we would have been consumed.

NOW TO RESPOND TO WHAT IS ON THAT QUESTION:
In logic, that statement is called Syllogism and logically, the statement is correct and valid because it follows the law of syllogism. But it is not true because there is a logical answer to it as I have explained above.

I love intelligent ladies, its attractive, and more killing when it comes in good shape

Pearlqueen:
Love has types and the type of love being described here is unknown.

I. Agape
ii. Phileo

Now, the statement, LOVE IS BLIND doesn't have any real correlation with the EYE rather, it posits that being blind in love is an ability of a person influenced by love to do ANYTHING WHATSOEVER for his/her lover irrespective of its consequence- whether it deprives him/her of something dear to him/her or not. Now, this kind of love is rare.

But God gave us Jesus Christ, His son who died for us and He didn't bother about the consequence, God still loves us unconditionally even when we are not worthy. Can we now say that He is blindly in love with us even when we err from time to time? Even when we are not faithful, He keeps on loving us and wishing that we change to become the original person He wants us to be?

God's love for us is blind but He sees clearly else, we would have been consumed.

NOW TO RESPOND TO WHAT IS ON THAT QUESTION:
In logic, that statement is called Syllogism and logically, the statement is correct and valid because it follows the law of syllogism. But it is not true because there is a logical answeur to it as I have explained above.

Couldn't be better. Best explanation!

jay7:
I need a detailed explanation to this logic question
"God is love and love is blind. Therefore God is blind." Using your knowledge of logic, state and explain whether the above statement is (i) correct (ii) valid (iii) true (22 marks)

Mod, I don't know if it's front page worthy if yes kindly do the needful.
Cc:
Fynestboi
olawalebabs
Richiez

This na gns 202 logic and philosophy question nah

How the question take hard you op

Pearlqueen:
Love has types and the type of love being described here is unknown.

I. Agape
ii. Phileo

Now, the statement, LOVE IS BLIND doesn't have any real correlation with the EYE rather, it posits that being blind in love is an ability of a person influenced by love to do ANYTHING WHATSOEVER for his/her lover irrespective of its consequence- whether it deprives him/her of something dear to him/her or not. Now, this kind of love is rare.

But God gave us Jesus Christ, His son who died for us and He didn't bother about the consequence, God still loves us unconditionally even when we are not worthy. Can we now say that He is blindly in love with us even when we err from time to time? Even when we are not faithful, He keeps on loving us and wishing that we change to become the original person He wants us to be?

God's love for us is blind but He sees clearly else, we would have been consumed.

NOW TO RESPOND TO WHAT IS ON THAT QUESTION:
In logic, that statement is called Syllogism and logically, the statement is correct and valid because it follows the law of syllogism. But it is not true because there is a logical answer to it as I have explained above.

Who send you story

It's just logic, you have your premise
Is it a valid statement or not

How is this a logical question? Blind doesn't connot blindness in the literal sense of it. And d Love which God is is not the type u are talking about.. OP How old are you sef?

GST 112 uniben
Simple stuff

Both premises are actually valid, therefore the conclusion "therefore, God is blind" is a valid conclusion deduced from the valid premises.

However, a valid conclusion deduced from valid premises does not necessarily mean it is correct and true.

Another example below:

Ufedolove is a man (premise 1, true and valid)
Men are dogs (premise 2, valid but not true)
Therefore, Ufedolove is a dog (valid but not true)

God is love is valid

love is blind is also valid

when We say love is blind, it means turning a close eyes to someone's wrong action!

so if We are to say God is blind is also valid, because for so many wrong things We have done, he has always turned a closed eyes otherwise! you should be dead

Pearlqueen:
Love has types and the type of love being described here is unknown.

I. Agape
ii. Phileo

Now, the statement, LOVE IS BLIND doesn't have any real correlation with the EYE rather, it posits that being blind in love is an ability of a person influenced by love to do ANYTHING WHATSOEVER for his/her lover irrespective of its consequence- whether it deprives him/her of something dear to him/her or not. Now, this kind of love is rare.

But God gave us Jesus Christ, His son who died for us and He didn't bother about the consequence, God still loves us unconditionally even when we are not worthy. Can we now say that He is blindly in love with us even when we err from time to time? Even when we are not faithful, He keeps on loving us and wishing that we change to become the original person He wants us to be?

God's love for us is blind but He sees clearly else, we would have been consumed.

NOW TO RESPOND TO WHAT IS ON THAT QUESTION:
In logic, that statement is called Syllogism and logically, the statement is correct and valid because it follows the law of syllogism. But it is not true because there is a logical answer to it as I have explained above.

In logic, when all premises are valid, then the conclusion must true. Truth in logic is different from correct.

The truth is that love is not blind. But the people involved are The ones who closed their eyes and mind to the realities. Hence the lovers are the blind. So God is love and love is not blind. Therefore God is not blind.

RESHARPENED:
In Logic, there's the presence of statements( Propositions) called Conclusion and others called Premise.

A CONCLUSION is a proposition you are trying to assert. That is you are claiming that it is valid.

A PREMISE represents statement that you use to support your CONCLUSION.

Logically if a premise is valid, then it follows that the conclusion is also VALID. Whether it is correct or not makes no difference, it remains VALID.

ARGUMENTS is a group of structured propositions that combines both the premise and conclusion. Arguments may be valid or invalid.

For example, if I say 'A human has two eyes, a goat has two eyes. There is no difference between a human and a goat'. This is an argument. You can deduce that my conclusion is 'There's no difference between a human and a goat' and the remaining parts are my Premises. Since my premise is Valid, my argument is a valid one. Even though it might not be correct, Logic says it is VALID.

Lawyers are trying!!!.

Now that we've delved slightly into the rudiments of logic, let's move to your question.

'Therefore God is Blind' is the conclusion. And the rest are just the premises.
'God is Love' is a valid statement.
'Love is Blind' is also valid.

Logically, you have a VALID ARGUMENT on your hand. It most definitely is not correct, but it remains a VALID one.

Exactly Boss. The argument isn't only valid, but "Sound" as well, since both premises are actually true

Pearlqueen:
Love has types and the type of love being described here is unknown.

I. Agape
ii. Phileo

Now, the statement, LOVE IS BLIND doesn't have any real correlation with the EYE rather, it posits that being blind in love is an ability of a person influenced by love to do ANYTHING WHATSOEVER for his/her lover irrespective of its consequence- whether it deprives him/her of something dear to him/her or not. Now, this kind of love is rare.

But God gave us Jesus Christ, His son who died for us and He didn't bother about the consequence, God still loves us unconditionally even when we are not worthy. Can we now say that He is blindly in love with us even when we err from time to time? Even when we are not faithful, He keeps on loving us and wishing that we change to become the original person He wants us to be?

God's love for us is blind but He sees clearly else, we would have been consumed.

NOW TO RESPOND TO WHAT IS ON THAT QUESTION:
In logic, that statement is called Syllogism and logically, the statement is correct and valid because it follows the law of syllogism. But it is not true because there is a logical answer to it as I have explained above.

Too much sence will not kill you! Nice one!

jay7:


Lolz tnks but I graduated from a University few years back, and the question above is for HND1

Good for you.
I knew you would probably have some insight on the question even before you asked.

Hope you've been able to find solution to the question.
That logic is usually under deductive reasoning but in some cases, if you are unable to distinguish between a factual statement and a figurative statement, you may end up committing an error in deductive reasoning.

RESHARPENED:
In Logic, there's the presence of statements( Propositions) called Conclusion and others called Premise.

A CONCLUSION is a proposition you are trying to assert. That is you are claiming that it is valid.

A PREMISE represents statement that you use to support your CONCLUSION.

Logically if a premise is valid, then it follows that the conclusion is also VALID. Whether it is correct or not makes no difference, it remains VALID.

ARGUMENTS is a group of structured propositions that combines both the premise and conclusion. Arguments may be valid or invalid.

For example, if I say 'A human has two eyes, a goat has two eyes. There is no difference between a human and a goat'. This is an argument. You can deduce that my conclusion is 'There's no difference between a human and a goat' and the remaining parts are my Premises. Since my premise is Valid, my argument is a valid one. Even though it might not be correct, Logic says it is VALID.

Lawyers are trying!!!.

Now that we've delved slightly into the rudiments of logic, let's move to your question.

'Therefore God is Blind' is the conclusion. And the rest are just the premises.
'God is Love' is a valid statement.
'Love is Blind' is also valid.

Logically, you have a VALID ARGUMENT on your hand. It most definitely is not correct, but it remains a VALID one.

You go school abeg!!!

respect80:


Good for you.
I knew you would probably have some insight on the question even before you asked.

Hope you've been able to find solution to the question.
That logic is usually under deductive reasoning but in some cases, if you are unable to distinguish between a factual statement and a figurative statement, you may end up committing an error in deductive reasoning.

Thanks, you know there is know end to learning and it's always good to know little about other courses.