Is Logic a Valid Science in the establishment of ID as Scientific.?

Sideways writesI did it even before you finished your babbling.D Bertot

An axiom is accepted as a "truth that needs no proof". If its truth isn't accepted, it isn't axiomatic. For this discussion, at least, you have no axiom.Edited by Ringo, : Second "truth" --> "proof".

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

No. the definition does not say ACCEPTED AS Truth. It says "A Self evident TRUTH. This means it is self-supporting from its own premises. It doesnt need your approval. Further, it requires no proof. No force of Logic, not even mine, can refute it. It is therefore incontravertable. You have to demonstrate that its TRUTH is not valid and this cannot be done by the simple fract that the axiom is proof of itself. "It requires no Proof."Here it is in a syllogism, my propositon that is.Premise 1. Axioms by DEFINITON set forth Facts and Truth, the conclusion of which are incontravertable, because they require no proofPremise 2. the existence of a designer or possible existence fall into an axiom that sets for the only possible explanation for the origin of things.Conclusion. The existence of a designer is established apart from the ideas of religious thought by the means of an axiom, with the applied science of formal logic true demonstrate it validity.As we Italian's say, Bada-boom, bada-bing, der ya have it.D Bertot

Sure it does:

quote:

---

ax·i·om
-noun
1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2. a universally accepted principle or rule. Dictionary.com

---

And again:

quote:

---

ax·i·om
n.
A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim.... American heritage Dictionary

---

You have no "universally accepted" axiom. Therefore, your syllogism is worthless.Edited by Ringo, : Formatting nitpick.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

You are becoming a perfect example of how NOT to argue for ID. Is your plan to let the thread run out or be closed so you can get away with providing no evidence?

Dawn Bertot"sigh"Ok let us try this question.Is there a logical reason why God exists?

Nice try, go back and look at the definition that was provided by even yourself. It does not say that the Truth of the axiom is genarally ACCEPTED. It says the rule or principle itself, is genrally accepted. The Truth that is SELF-EVIDENT, self-supporting. Again, only this general principle of an axiom is the thing that is accepted. Nice try tough, Ive been doing this to long. D Bertot

Yeap, Especially the one I just presented and many many more.D Bertot

What's that? Avoiding the evidence and living in la-la land.I was really hoping for something spectacular from you in this thread. Disappointing.

Quit crying and respond to the argument

You're such a hypocrite, little girlie.

Sure it does. Here it is again:

quote:

---

ax·i·om
n.
A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim.... American heritage Dictionary

---

There is nothing "self-evident" about your claim that "the existence of a designer or possible existence fall into an axiom that sets for the only possible explanation for the origin of things." Message 198You're misusing "axiom" to mean "something you won't or can't back up".

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

Please can we stop these short posts with nothing but sniping?This whole thread is rapidly losing whatever coherence it once had.Lets not just have the same questions put to Dawn again and again, his answers to many are already there whether we are able or willing to understand them or not.If anyone has a new line of argument to bring up now would be an excellent time. Otherwise the thread is just going to turn into a circular frenzy of pseudo-logic chopping.Alternatively if Dawn has a different way to present his argument maybe that might help progress things, clearly the OP and subsequent debate have done little to facilitate any productive discussion of the threads titular question.TTFN,AW

But this is wrong-headed by inspection. It is only that for which proof has been supplied that is incontrovertible.Otherwise, what you're saying is that you can render any assertion incontrovertible simply by refusing to defend it, and that doesn't make any sense.Axioms are simply assumed to be true for purposes of argument. They may be true, or they may not be, in reality. You can pick and choose which axioms you want, because they're simply things you assume to be true and that can be anything at all.For instance, Euclid's fifth axiom has always been the subject of some interest:

quote:

---

If two lines intersect a third in such a way that the sum of the inner angles on one side is less than two right angles, then the two lines inevitably must intersect each other on that side if extended far enough.

---

It turns out that you don't have to assume this is true. If you assert, instead, that "if two lines intersect a third, and the sum of their inner angles is less than two right angles, the two lines still won't ever intersect each other" you've defined geometry on a hyperbolic surface.Or you can go the opposite route. If you assume a fifth axiom that says that two lines perpendicular to a third inevitably intersect, you've defined geometry on an elliptic surface, like the surface of a sphere.As you can see, axioms are not assumed because they're "self-evident", or because they're so true you don't have to prove them, neither of which is true. Axioms do not by definition set forth facts and truth. They simply represent what has been assumed to be true, for argument's sake. I am Italian, and as we like to say, "fuggeddaboudit." Axioms aren't true by definition. Hell, "true by definition" doesn't even mean what you think it means.Axioms are true because they're assumed to be true for purposes of argument. There's no requirement that others make the same assumption. A given proof in Euclidian geometry isn't convincing in elliptic geometry, because those two geometers differ in what they assume to be true. And neither has a greater claim to truth than the other; they have no power or basis to conclude that the other one is making a wrong assumption. They're simply making different assumptions.

Hi Dawn Bertot,When logic is called a science, it is this definition of science that is in play (definitions from Answers.com) This is not the same definition of science that is meant when referring to fields like physics, geology or biology: Logic can be used when thinking about the real world, but it can also be used to think about imaginary worlds. Science requires that you make logical connections between your ideas and the real world. The mere application of logic says nothing about the real world unless it includes thinking logically about evidence from the real world, because it is the real world that is the object of scientific study.So until you direct your logic at evidence from the real world, you couldn't possibly be doing science.--Percy