Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8773 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-26-2017 10:38 AM
358 online now:
DrJones*, dronestar, dwise1, jar, New Cat's Eye, PaulK, RAZD, Riggamortis (8 members, 350 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Post Volume:
Total: 814,654 Year: 19,260/21,208 Month: 2,019/3,111 Week: 240/574 Day: 36/46 Hour: 4/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345678Next
Author Topic:   What is science? (ROB and STRAGGLER only)
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 16 of 106 (459357)
03-06-2008 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Rob
03-05-2008 1:11 AM


Re: Wasn't Expecting a 1 on 1 but OK Then
Well I see your point... I have so much to gain by preaching the gospel

Would your life have more or less meaning without God in it? I think that you believe that you personally gain much from your faith whatever difficulties it might also result in

Sorry for the sarcasm, but seriously...

There are many who seem to NEED a god in their life for whatever reason (comfort, meaning, morality etc. etc.)
People will find gods for these reasons whether any exist or not so to dismiss this point with sarcasm does not do it justice.

You don't seem to deny the fact that any test for a personal god is inherently wholly subjective and thus prone to conclusions that tell us more about the needs and desires of the individual than anything else more fundamental about the world.

The question of this discussion is whether or not science - or methodical naturalism - is subject to the same sort of inherent weaknesses.

Do you agree as to the subjective nature of religious conclusions?
Do you agree as to the aim of the discussion?

Sience is logic. And natural science is logic applied to the natural world. That's the premise

I don't think that is the premise.

At a deeper level I would say that science at it's most fundamental is a quest for the truths of nature (whether those truths actually exist or not is another interesting question but I do think science necessarily assumes that they do)

The methods of science such as the appliance of logic, prediction, objectivity etc. etc. are just the tools used to ensure that the investigation leads to the most reliable and accurate findings humanly possible (i.e. those closest to the truth)

Science is not a method despite the fact that it is often presented in those terms.

In my view science is an attitude to investigation applied to nature.
Namely that the truth is the overriding objective and that every effort is made to ensure that findings are as close to the truth as possible.

Could it be... that great wealth (even fortunes) of sexual treasure, material prosperity, intellectual esteem, and power cloud the judgement of naturalists who hold the major chairs of science?

The main failing of science is that it is practiced by imperfect beings. Beings whose other desires can obscure the desire to understand the natural world.
The methods of science are what they are exactly because we recognise that we are imperefect in this respect.
The methods of science are what they are, at least in part, to stop us fooling ourselves and others into false conclusions that we may have drawn for all sorts of other less noble reasons that we may or may not be consciously aware of.
As a result the methods of science allow us to derive knowledge that we can rely on to a much greater extent than knowledge gained without the same methods imposed.

Whilst science is not method alone - It is the application of the methods of science that allow us be confident that the search for truth in nature is the overriding objective (of course as imperfect beings we can apply the methods imperfectly but that is another question)

Without the application of these methods no practical attempt has been made to meet the main objective of ensuring truthfulness. As such these investigations cannot be considered scientific.

The methods of science are restricted to the empirical material world. Thus so is scientific investigation.

This is not the result of a philosophical position. It is a practical limitation.

Over to you.......

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Rob, posted 03-05-2008 1:11 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Rob, posted 03-06-2008 10:03 AM Straggler has responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3321 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 17 of 106 (459359)
03-06-2008 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Straggler
03-06-2008 9:39 AM


Re: Wasn't Expecting a 1 on 1 but OK Then
Straggler, I contend that I have already refuted all of these points.

For example your first point, we all have a God that we worship; a view of reality that protects whatever needs we perceive that we need.

And naturalism is a form of nature god. We've been over this ground.

I think you need to chew on it some more, because I would have thought you had not read it at all judging by your comments.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Straggler, posted 03-06-2008 9:39 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Straggler, posted 03-06-2008 12:54 PM Rob has responded
 Message 19 by Straggler, posted 03-06-2008 1:04 PM Rob has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 18 of 106 (459370)
03-06-2008 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Rob
03-06-2008 10:03 AM


De-Abstractalisation
I did say at the beginning that you were going to have to break this down and 'deabstractionalise' it to some degree if we were to have any meaningful discussion.........

It appears that this is indeed the case.

In case you missed it, our current definition of science says that 'only material explanations are scientific' though that definition is itself only a philosophical proposition

I have explained why I think this is not a philosophical position but a practical limitation.

You need to explain exactly how you have refuted this.

The conflict between science and religion is not over the existence of God because the terms God and reality are synonymous. Both are absolute, ultimate, and sovereign. The question is really one of God’s (or reality's) characteristics.

The key difference of characteristic is that physical 'reality' can be perceived collectively, tested collectively, verified as consistent and concluded to exist objectively whilst recognising the fact that we must perceive it subjectively (i.e. back to the colour red argument).
Personal perceptions of God are wholly subjective so no reliable conclusion as to the existence of God is possible.

You need to explain how you have refuted this as well.

This point begs to be repeated; if nature is ordered in an intelligible, logical, and coherent fashion, then our philosophical constructs (theories) regarding it, must also be coherent if they are to be compatible with the assumed empirical order.

The empirical evidence suggests that nature does display these characteristics. This is a conclusion based on empirical evidence.
Never mind science - your day to day life would be impossible if it were not so (try and imagine life is a random, disordered and incoherent world ....)

For example your first point, we all have a God that we worship; a view of reality that protects whatever needs we perceive that we need

I do indeed perceive reality. Apparently the same reality that we can all demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt that we all share.
The same cannot be said of your perception of God.
That is the difference that you have yet to address as far as I can see.

I realise that it may be frustrating but unless you can explain this in a way that I can understand there is little point continuing (I would like to continue). If you are unable to explain it in more a more accessible format (i.e broken down into parts that can be individually argued rather than one extended argument) then you are unlikely to have much success with a wider audience.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Rob, posted 03-06-2008 10:03 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Rob, posted 03-07-2008 12:24 AM Straggler has not yet responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 19 of 106 (459371)
03-06-2008 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Rob
03-06-2008 10:03 AM


Establish Position
The question of this discussion is whether or not science - or methodical naturalism - is subject to the same sort of inherent weaknesses as religion.

Do you agree as to the wholly subjective nature of religious conclusions?

Do you agree as to the aim of the discussion as stated above?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Rob, posted 03-06-2008 10:03 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Rob, posted 03-07-2008 12:52 AM Straggler has responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3321 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 20 of 106 (459417)
03-07-2008 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Straggler
03-06-2008 12:54 PM


Re: De-Abstractalisation
First off, there is nothing that is abstract about coherence. If it is not valid, then any debate or observation is futile.

So I am a bit perturbed that you imply ambiguity on my part. The whole point of my excersize is to de-abstractinalize methodological naturalism.

Nonetheless, I will answer your questions and put aside any feelings.

Rob: In case you missed it, our current definition of science says that 'only material explanations are scientific' though that definition is itself only a philosophical proposition

Straggler: I have explained why I think this is not a philosophical position but a practical limitation.

You need to explain exactly how you have refuted this.

Actually it is not a practical limitation. Philosophy came before science. In fact, philosophy was the first science. It was only later that we attempted to apply it to understanding the natural world. So, the empirical world confirms that logic (the law of contradiction) is valid.

Only if our reasoning is valid, can science be true. The Lewis quote I gave was to remind you of this fact. Perhaps you're grappling with that, but you cannot say that I did not address or refute it.

Rob: The conflict between science and religion is not over the existence of God because the terms God and reality are synonymous. Both are absolute, ultimate, and sovereign. The question is really one of God’s (or reality's) characteristics.

Straggler: The key difference of characteristic is that physical 'reality' can be perceived collectively, tested collectively, verified as consistent and concluded to exist objectively whilst recognising the fact that we must perceive it subjectively (i.e. back to the colour red argument).

Personal perceptions of God are wholly subjective so no reliable conclusion as to the existence of God is possible.

Logic can also be perceived collectively. If I say that I cannot speak, then everyone can hear the problem, but they percieve it with their mind.

It sounds as though you are making the case that logic and red do not exist materially? That they are not real things, but only perceptions?

If so, are your own thoughts real? Do you exist?

Rob: This point begs to be repeated; if nature is ordered in an intelligible, logical, and coherent fashion, then our philosophical constructs (theories) regarding it, must also be coherent if they are to be compatible with the assumed empirical order.

Straggler: The empirical evidence suggests that nature does display these characteristics. This is a conclusion based on empirical evidence.

Not so...

Perhaps you should consider professor Haldane's dilemma which I picked up in C.S. Lewis's book 'Miracles':

quote:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter."

Your proposition is circular Straggler, and it also does not leave you thoughts the option to be anything but the ebb and flow of matter. In other words, our thoughts are not thoughts at all. They are just matter doing what matter enevitably does. Sometimes it loves, and sometimes it slaughters. What's the difference?

Also, what are the laws of physics Straggler?

They are not material, but matter obeys them. In fact, matter is formed by them.

Rob: we all have a God that we worship; a view of reality that protects whatever needs we perceive that we need

Straggler: I do indeed perceive reality.

You misunderstood the point. Your view of reality is your god. Your perceptions are what you think need to be protected by that god.

Straggler:

Apparently the same reality that we can all demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt that we all share.

If matter is all that there is (as you maintain) then my perceptions cannot be other than the actions of matter. How can mind exist apart and disconnected (out of reality) from the only reality that there is?

Straggler:

The same cannot be said of your perception of God.

With all due respect Straggler, I thank Him for that...

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Straggler, posted 03-06-2008 12:54 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3321 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 21 of 106 (459418)
03-07-2008 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Straggler
03-06-2008 1:04 PM


Re: Establish Position
Straggler:
The question of this discussion is whether or not science - or methodical naturalism - is subject to the same sort of inherent weaknesses as religion.

Absolutely! The answers and assumptions they propose must be coherent internally, and with the external evidence.

It is the naturalists who do not believe in coherence. But as i have said clearly, if the evidence is coherent, then our theories must have that same quality, if we expect them to match.

Straggler:

Do you agree as to the wholly subjective nature of religious conclusions?

I don't know of any philosophy that is wholly subjective. But I do know that the only thing that is Holy(ie. whole) is absolute coherence.

Straggler:

Do you agree as to the aim of the discussion as stated above?

Yes, just as I have said all along. The question is, 'do you'?

Is natural science the application of logical coherence so as to understand the natural world or not?

Is science coherent... yes or no?

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Straggler, posted 03-06-2008 1:04 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Straggler, posted 03-07-2008 12:34 PM Rob has not yet responded
 Message 23 by Straggler, posted 03-07-2008 6:21 PM Rob has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 22 of 106 (459441)
03-07-2008 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Rob
03-07-2008 12:52 AM


Premises and Conclusions
So I am a bit perturbed that you imply ambiguity on my part. The whole point of my excersize is to de-abstractinalize methodological naturalism.
Nonetheless, I will answer your questions and put aside any feelings.

Whether any lack of clarity is due to ambiguity on your part, the inherent complexity of the argument or my own shortcomings I have yet to ascertain fully. It is not my intention to frustrate. Merely to break things down into smaller, simpler and thus easier to analyse pieces. Maybe it is just the scientist in me……..

First off, there is nothing that is abstract about coherence

Abstract or otherwise there does seem to be some debate as to what exactly a theory of logical coherence entails as well as the conclusion (by Russel) that it actually fails it's own test of being internally consistent and thus coherent. Is this relevant?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_theory_of_truth

If it is not valid, then any debate or observation is futile

If what is not valid? The theory of logical coherence? Are you assuming that this theory itself is logically coherent? Is this necessarily the case?

We still seem to be talking at cross purposes here.
In my mind logic is a tool used by science in order to achieve it's fundamental aim of investigating the truths of nature in the most reliabale way possible whilst recognsing that those undertaking the investigation are subjective and illogical creatures naturally predisposed to making false and innaccurate conclusions with regard to a complex and often baffling world.

In your argument logic plays a far greater and more fundamental role than being a mere tool. It is both the essence and failing of science. For the sake of clarity I would like to try and break your argument down by separateing the premise and the conclusions from the reasoning as I for one remain unclear as to what exactly the premise or the concluions are (whilst appreciating that the reasoning might be necessarily complex)

Can you verify (or correct) the following summary of your thinking (putting the actual complex reasoning to one side for a moment and just concentrating on the conclusions

My attempt to summarise your argument as I understand it.

IF science is the appliance of logic to the material world in the form of the law of contradiction
THEN the only scientific conclusions possible are logical conclusions regarding the material world

IF science must assume that nature is logical, coherent and material
THEN science itself must be logical coherent and material in order to be valid

IF science is to be considered valid
THEN the basis of the assumption on which it is founded must be subject to logical coherence in the form of the law of contradiction as applied to the material world

IF the assumption on which science is based cannot be verified by the law of contradiction as applied to the material world
THEN the findings of science are invalid

My apologies if I have completely misrepresented you. I await your clarification.

Thus far I don't think anyone has refuted anything. We have just made separate arguments based on different assumptions that in many ways answer different questions. I understood the debate to be as to the reliability of science as compared to religion and have barely considered strict logical coherence as even important. You have dismissed all my arguments simply by arguing that you have demonstrated science to be internally incoherent and thus necessarily invalid regardless of whether or not it actually can be shown to produce reliable results or not. We have come to opposing conclusions by very different routes and as yet either one or both could be demonstrated to be either right or wrong.
In order to claim refutation we need to have demonstrated point by point why the arguments or key assumptions made by the other are actually wrong rather than just continually reiterating our own argument.

I will attempt to do this once I get the necessary clarification back from you re the IF THEN statements above.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Rob, posted 03-07-2008 12:52 AM Rob has not yet responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 23 of 106 (459465)
03-07-2008 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Rob
03-07-2008 12:52 AM


Simple Logic
Is science coherent... yes or no?

I don't know. Nor do I know if it matters in any practical sense.

Is logic itself coherent within the limitations you apply?

By applying logic do we not assume that reality (material or otherwise) is logical consistent and coherent?

How could we apply logic meaningfully if reality (material or otherwsie) were illogical, inconsistent and incoherent?

If the appliance of logic requires the same assumptions that you accuse science of requiring does your own argument not conclude itself to be invalid?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Rob, posted 03-07-2008 12:52 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Rob, posted 03-08-2008 2:32 AM Straggler has responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3321 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 24 of 106 (459490)
03-08-2008 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Straggler
03-07-2008 6:21 PM


Re: Simple Logic
Rob: is science logical?

Straggler: I don't know. Nor do I know if it matters in any practical sense.

C'mon Straggler, of course it does...

You said it yourself in the same reply:

How could we apply logic meaningfully if reality (material or otherwsie) were illogical, inconsistent and incoherent?

You're absolutely right! It is obvious that if science is not logical, then it is meaningless to us?

Straggler:

If the appliance of logic requires the same assumptions that you accuse science of requiring does your own argument not conclude itself to be invalid?

No, because my argument (defintion of science) is not only coherent, but coherence itself. I am making the case that science is essentially applied logic. Logic cannot contradict itself by definition.

It is methodological naturalism that is contradictory and incoherent because it presupposes where logic can lead. I maintain that it leads straight to God (reality). And if God (reality) is logical, then logic will take us to God (reality).

It is only illogical arguments that are false. That is the whole point of my proposition and why methodological naturalism cannot be science.

Look, your a smart man. We all get tired now and then. Percy, Kuresu, Razd, Ned, jar (did I forget anyone?) have all had a field day with me a few times because I grew weary. I absolutely lost it.

I am not trying or willing to beat you up. Don't lose it.

Take a break, recharge, and re-read my proposition. As I said at first, we're in no hurry.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Straggler, posted 03-07-2008 6:21 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Straggler, posted 03-08-2008 10:38 AM Rob has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 25 of 106 (459522)
03-08-2008 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Rob
03-08-2008 2:32 AM


Re: Simple Logic
You have misquoted yourself!!

You said

Is science coherent... yes or no?

To which I replied

I don't know. Nor do I know if it matters in any practical sense.

Why did you feel the need to change this in your last post to -

Rob: is science logical??

Science is logical in it's methods I agree. However within the boundaries and definitions YOU have set for coherence I don’t know if it can be described as “coherent” or not.

The question here is whether or not your appliance of logical coherence and resulting argument against the validity of science is itself logically coherent and thus valid in terms of your own arguments.

I am not sure that it is.


1) In order to derive conclusions by applying logic to a system you implicitly assume that the system is logical, consistent and coherent.

2) Unless you are able to derive this assumption logically the very application of logical coherence in order to derive logical conclusions is itself a philosophical position and not a logical one

3) If the application of logical coherence cannot itself be shown to be logically coherent then it is itself invalid by it’s own definitions

4) If the application of logical coherence is itself invalid then any conclusions that you have drawn by means of testing for logical coherence are also invalid

Thus, in these terms, the only valid answer to the question

Is science coherent

is
I don’t know

Obviously (assuming a logical, consistent and coherent reality;))

Logic cannot contradict itself by definition.
.

The question is whether or not logical coherence in the form that YOU have applied it is itself coherent.

It is up to you to show that it is.

If you could summarise your essay into a series of IF THEN statements to which we can then apply the detailed and complex reasoning for each in turn, it really would make the whole thing much more accessible and open to the constructive criticism and analysis that you say you desire.
As things stand I (and I doubt I am alone) am finding it almost impossible to decipher.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Rob, posted 03-08-2008 2:32 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Rob, posted 03-08-2008 11:02 AM Straggler has responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3321 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 26 of 106 (459526)
03-08-2008 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Straggler
03-08-2008 10:38 AM


Re: Simple Logic
Straggler:
The question is whether or not logical coherence in the form that YOU have applied it is itself coherent.

I do not determine the form of logic.

The law of contradiction is what we all use.If that were not the case, then you would lose the power to contradict what I am saying.

If you reject the law of contradiction as the logical authority, then you reject the scientific method as well, because that is it's power. And that is the beauty of the proposed definition. It is what it is.

As stated from the proposition:

Assuming the entities involved achieve coherence, then theory + evidence = knowledge. All scientific observation is therefore triune in principle. There is no escaping this reality. If an idea is not testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable, it is not considered scientific. All of those qualities assume the law of contradiction to be valid and are dependant upon its application. Now note this: the law of contradiction cannot be falsified without affirming it at the same time. The only method of falsifying the law of contradiction is to apply the law of contradiction, so it affirms itself.

No test for authoritative revelation can be achieved with less than a triune character. Although our knowledge based upon this faith in logic is not comprehensive, it is our only light. We simply have no other authority for any form of objective revelation. That is not an ecclesiastical proclamation, but is the self evident and profound nature of logical propositions.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Straggler, posted 03-08-2008 10:38 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Straggler, posted 03-08-2008 12:11 PM Rob has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 27 of 106 (459533)
03-08-2008 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Rob
03-08-2008 11:02 AM


Re: Simple Logic
Although our knowledge based upon this faith in logic is not comprehensive, it is our only light. We simply have no other authority for any form of objective revelation. That is not an ecclesiastical proclamation, but is the self evident and profound nature of logical propositions.

In other words - Logic itself cannot be used to validate or invalidate the application of logic.

Is that what you are saying?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Rob, posted 03-08-2008 11:02 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Rob, posted 03-08-2008 12:19 PM Straggler has responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3321 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 28 of 106 (459534)
03-08-2008 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Straggler
03-08-2008 12:11 PM


Re: Simple Logic
Straggler:
In other words - Logic itself cannot be used to validate or invalidate the application of logic.

Is that what you are saying?

:laugh:

Your a smart one Straggler. And as such, I cannot believe you are struggling with this so violently. Open your eyes man. Snap out of it.

For the record, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that logic is self validating.

Logic is the thing we (irrespective of our philosophy) demand of ourselves and others. And it is what underpins the entire scientific process.

You deny logic, and you've denied science as anything other than subjective pontificating.

We do not rely upon ecclesiastical proclamation imposed by men. We rest and rely upnon logic as self evident.

Can I ask you a question?

Did you even read my proposition for content? btw, I had an MD in Tillimook Oregon ask some questions at the site. Check them out!

http://rob-lock.livejournal.com/


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Straggler, posted 03-08-2008 12:11 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Straggler, posted 03-08-2008 12:53 PM Rob has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 29 of 106 (459540)
03-08-2008 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Rob
03-08-2008 12:19 PM


Re: Simple Logic
What I am saying is that logic is self validating.

Thus the application of logic is deemed to be inherently valid?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Rob, posted 03-08-2008 12:19 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Rob, posted 03-08-2008 1:44 PM Straggler has responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3321 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 30 of 106 (459548)
03-08-2008 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Straggler
03-08-2008 12:53 PM


Re: Simple Logic
Straggler:
Thus the application of logic is deemed to be inherently valid?

Think this through very hard Straggler...

As I said in the proposal; logic is our only scientific way, for the purposes of coming to terms with the real world (reality). Logic is the only possible truth. It is the only possible life.

Now hear me... It is not something we can prove. Rather, it is something we cannot deny without inferring that illogical applications and inferences would be valid alternatives.

No-one excepting perhaps Charles Manson would consciously infer such a thing.

Logic is the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to reality (God) but by logic.

The point of my proposition is to reveal the history of science which is anchored in this faith.

And as such, Jesus claim to be 'the way the truth and the life, and that no-one comes to the Father except by Him' is extraordinary.

It is an infinitely reasonable claim. But we would not accept it from just anyone. He would have to be an extraordinary figure. And indeed He is still, to this very day.

You don't have to read my proposition.... just read the Gospel according to John.

You see, real science will lead us to the truth, as long as we are willing to follow Him. If we are not willing, then that is another matter.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Straggler, posted 03-08-2008 12:53 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Straggler, posted 03-08-2008 4:05 PM Rob has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
345678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017