God caused or uncaused?

Rob, Yes, but it's still a logically valid syllogism. It's also wrong. Crying about it won't change it.Any logically valid syllogism can be wrong as demontrated by new evidence. The concept of phlogiston was once a logically valid argument, now we know it's wrong.Meaning; No, it doesn't.This is the second logically valid syllogism I've shown you that is wrong. What don't you understand? One should be enough. This is why science never caims to have the ultimate truth, it always allows for something to be wrong.But this is getting boring. Evidence of god, now. Time to put up or shut up.MarkEdited by mark24, : No reason given.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

The scientific method is our best way of understanding the physical world. Logic is a tool of that method.This topic is about God (caused or uncaused), who is non-physical. The scientific method has no connection to God whatsoever. It's tools are irrelevant to the topic. Exactly. The whole venture of science - which deals with the physical world - is valid only if the notions about the physical world are valid. Notions about the non-physical world (if any) are not relevant - i.e. do not cohere.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

mark24: Like the TOE?mark24: Because it is logical?

Ringo: But the notions themselves are the non physical world. And it is those notions (laws) that bind the physical world together.Without the laws and forces (non-physical) the phisical world would not stay together.But it does stand firm as a result of the non physical laws that sustain it.

Ringo: Logic is that method. Take logic out of that equation and what do you have?The TOE...

Rob writes:

quote:

---

Yes or no.

​

Is logic valid when it matches the external and internal test and is formed into a composite whole?

​

ie. is science valid?

---

That is yet another example of trying to misdirect the audiences attention while you palm the pea.The fact is, as has been pointed out to you by others in this thread, that logic can be totally internally and externally consistent, formed into a compaoste whole and still be false.There is another example which I have used here at EvC often, one which is Biblically related.The Bible speaks of the waters above and the waters below. They pictured a solid sky that held back the waters above, and that the solid land floated on a vast reservoirs of the waters below. It was reasonable, logical and could even be supported by observation. When you dug down through the surface of the earth you found water. When the windows in the heavens opened it rained.The theory was both internally and externally consistent, formed a composite whole, and was wrong.You attempt to equate the question of whether or not science is valid with your assertion. The answer of course is that they are unrelated, it is a false dichotomy and that science is sometimes valid, sometimes not.The difference, and a significant one, is that science then runs tests and experiments to attempt to verify conclusions. It does NOT rely on axioms that are assumed to be true.The mistake as has been pointed out to you is in confusing Axioms with Hypothesis. The Axiom is assumed to be true and not require proof, the Hypothesis is proposed and then tested.Logic can be valid, totally valid, and also wrong.In this topic though, "God caused or uncaused?", there have been no Axioms stated, no Hypothesis made, testing and observation are imposiible. It is a silly, irrelevant and unimportant question.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Rob, Like phlogiston, the plum-pudding theory of atomism, steady state cosmology, yes. Because you can never be 100% sure of anything.Evidence of god, please.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

jar: So what is science testing for if not logical coherence?And are they not assuming that logical consistency (though sometimes wrong due to lack of information) is axiomatic and our only tool to shed light on reality? Yes or no.

​

Is logic valid when it matches the external and internal test and is formed into a composite whole?

​

ie. is science valid?Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

True... because we do not have all of the information.So to what do we look for clues?Logical consistency?

No. The notions are descriptions of the physical world, made by creatures in the physical world for their own use in the physical world. They are in no way related to the notion of a non-physical God. No. The physical world would stay together just fine even if nobody had ever had a notion about it.The issue we have here is in connecting notions about the physical world - which we can test with physical observations - with notions about "God" - which we can not test with physical observations. Your notions about the physical world can be perfectly coherent with your observations of the physical world. And your notions about the non-physical world can be perfectly coherent within themselves. But there is no connection between the two coherences.ABE: No it isn't. Logic is worthless without the physical observations for it to work on. It's nothing but a tool.Edited by Ringo, : Added response to another message.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Ringo: You deny the laws of physics even though they are proven?You don't believe in gravity?Is gravity physical, or does it only affect the physical?

Rob, Partly, we look for an evidentially supported & logically valid syllogism. In other words, a theory that is supported with evidence.The more evidence means the more confident we can be about the syllogism being correct, so more evidence is desirable.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Ringo: Exactly (no slang there...)So logic is proven to exist, because of the physical world. We can compare the two...

Very good mark. Thank you.Now see: http://EvC Forum: God caused or uncaused? -->EvC Forum: God caused or uncaused?

The laws of physics are not proven. Believing or disbelieving in gravity doesn't affect the fact that it's there. Gravity is not physical in the sense that you are thinking. It's physical in the sense that it affects everything, including light.Evidence for god please.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!