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

and why an axiom is not Truth or fact

DB writes:and even testable from the application and correspondece to pysical things.

DB writes:Even if you view Logic as mathmatics or by some other definition it has the capacity to develope a conclusion that correspondes to the physical world, when its conclusions are verifiable, knowable and sometimes incontravertable, even without the application of an actual physical test.

The proposition set out and explained.Premise 1. Logic as a science to develope or enchance the idea of Creation or ID is demostratable from the fact, that one can establish Facts, ACTUAL facts, that are usable, knowable "understanding gained by experience"., (by any common definiton) and even testable from the application and correspondece to pysical things. One cannot simply dismiss the reality or value of a fact, because it is not established by the method of testing know as 'Natural science'. It can and has been demonstrated that truths in fact, also known as Axioms (self-evident truths) can be demonstrated as knowable and incontravertable by the premises they establish. It is agreed that even if you list Logic as only a Formal science, it still has the ability to establish actual facts in truth, the conclusions again, of which are incontravertable, AxiomAgain, bear with me please. Again there has been no possible alternatives offered for example in the Spock argument. The last attempt, was to say, "They are willing and able but have not decided to yet". Again, this only restates his proposition in another form and even if they had not decided yet to respond, it would still fall under the category of UNWIILING. Spock set forth an argument the conclusion of which was Factual that corresponded to the physical world but was not an actual test by the process of physical things. Whats the point.You can have actual Facts that are real that do not need the actual testing measures set forth in the 'Natural science' definition. An Axiom. Simply stating that these are not actual Facts because they are based on Math or whatever, does not invalidate them as Facts. Its only that your definition of Fact will not allow this possibility. Further, the most important fact that establishes his argument and conclusion as Valid and Truthful in reality was that it was INCONTRAVERTABLE. It must be demonstrated to be incomplete and not axiomatic by refutation. Enough said on that illustration I hope.Im getting to the application, but these are points that need to be established prior to that conclusion. Definitions and conclusions about what certain words are an actually mean are at the heart of the issue. You certainly can have almost no agreement if this is not accomplished.The dictionary defines the word Fact as, "something that exists or is real". In other words it has the property as something that is knowable and identifiable, regardless of the type of test you apply to it. Even if you view Logic as mathmatics or by some other definition it has the capacity to develope a conclusion that correspondes to the physical world, when its conclusions are verifiable, knowable and sometimes incontravertable, even without the application of an actual physical test. In other words you can ascertain or grasp, that, "something that exists or is real" (Fact),by simply the application of the Science of Logic.

No I did not say the only way to establish facts is from logic, only that it is another possible way through the application of an axiom that correspondes to the physical world., ie the only three possible explanations of things in existence.

NN writes:ou seem to be saying here that logic alone can establish "facts". Correct? That seems to be the only thing you are trying to establish with this whole section.

True the test is that it has to have application to the physical world. And all axioms (true axioms) of course apply to the real world. You will remember that I said axioms require no PROOF, or in this case , no further testing. They are usable , knowable and testable because they can be observed as applicable from the premise (physical properties) they speak about., Ie 'DEAD MEN TELL NO TALES". Can you test this axiom, yes?. Do you need to handle anything to know this, No. I also agree with you that what I am describing is the Natural science of testing and observation. Its just that the axiom, is step aoutside you methods, that is valid as well.

Ok I did not ASSERT that an axiom is true , factual and demonstratable, in and of itself. The definition of an axiom and the dictionary did it for me. If an axiom is not what it says it is then what is it?. Again I have demonstrated and proved the validity of these propositions numerous times. D Bertot.

For this reason it is simply a contemplation or hypothesis not a true AXIOM.