The use of logic in establishing truths

Jaderis writesI will give you guys one thing, you stuborness to see a point is matched only by your inability to see your own inconsistent statement and premises. Take the above for example. First you say, they cannot verbalize words anymore with their vocal cords, then ask a silly question like, "Can you see how it might be indispute'? This demonstrates the complete inability to know when you are licked and the inability to see or admit truth when it is right in front of your face, ie that things really do exist or that a fact is really a fact, without anyones consenses or approval. No. I cannot see how what I said can be in DISPUTE. Can You? I dont accept it as true because I have ot it. It is a fact that is indisputable. Please wake up and smell the coffee. D Bertot

jb1740 writesI love you guys, but do you hear what you are saying here. I am busy at present but would really like to continue the fray, if I still permitted on the website. D Bertot

This simply amases me that a Person as yourself with obvious education would make a round about claim, as you have, that he or she actually thinks that the axiom under consideration, is actually something that could be at some point believable. this is simply astounding. Nothing is a 'logical convention', that is obviously irrefutable and testable to the extent that this is. Since this is a website of evidence, please provide the evidence that refutes it, at any time of your choosing. This type of attitude demonstrates a complete lack of objectivity and reason. Any thinking person would know and understand that such a truth, of this axiom is incontravertable by simple observation. Its only been 3 billion years, how many more do we need to see if its true or not. D Bertot

On the contrary. I showed that by your inability to refute any of those points in my summation, in any small degree, I established the fact that FACTS can and are gathered by the process I set out. then conclude that ID most certainly falls under the category of science, with application of axioms and logic. I was rauiling about the fact that by your lack of evidence, my arguments, points and positions stood unassaulted. D Bertot Your right their OPINIONS dont count, we need facts to disprove the axiom. Outside of that the above sentence makes no sense I have already answered the rest of the above numerous times by demonstrating that there are REAL FACTS THAT DO EXIST, independant of our logic, approval or wishes. You seem to think you are the one that gets to decide what is real or not real. Its already there and real before you get there. You verbage does not CHANGE REALITY, EVEN IF YOU DONT LIKE TO ACCEPT OR ACKNOWLEDGE IT. There may indeed be at times 'tenative conclusions', but there are also, real facts that do not fall under this category. ie, dead men tell no tales. If its not true quit talking at it and show me otherwise, provide the evidence not fancy words. D Bertot

jaderis writes Wrong DBs illustration of a designer proceeds from an axiom, the conclusion of which is irrefutable. However, if you think you are better than all the others that have tried, go for it. Provide another possible explanation than the only known three.Only half right. axioms are composed of premises, that (now watch it) that require no proof, there conclusions are valid and irrefutable. If you dont think I am right give it a try. Show me how dead men talk, and I dont want to hear you just talk, show me some EVIDENCE, that you fellas speak of so often.D Bertot

It is most certainly true that if something is obvious you dont have to STATE IT, (axiom) ,and that should be the case here. But you are not even willing to admit the obvious. And I am dealing with people that are not willing to admit even the simplest truths or be remotley objective about the FACT that even REALITY is indeed a fact. In other wordrs, is it a FACT that we are here and we exist and that is a Fact and a truth in reality. Will you even admit this simple point. Wouldnt you even say we can be 100% sure of this fact? Have fun. Does a statement like the one above if even require or merit an response. Answer NO. It makes absolutely no SENSE. You are kiddng me when you say my positon about dead people talking, does not derive from any known facts or objective facts. This is simply ludicrous. But it does point up the fact, the extremes people will go to avoid a obvious point. Again, quit quibbling about my answers and provide the evidence that demonstrates that dead men talk. Wow.Again there is no ARGUMENT to be gathered from the fact that people believe in ghost an the such, therefore there is nothing for me to respond to. The fact that they believe in these things is not direct evidence, as the type that I can simply see dead people are doing nothig. Maybe you can convince the amazing Randy with your ghost argument and win the check. No its a absolute fact that dead men talk to anyone, not a theory. This is how you test the validity and certaintly of an axiom. If not please invalidate the theory, It should be quite simple using your mighty 'scienctific mehtod. And I agree with you its not Logic that proves that a fact is real, but the obvious fact (axiom)itself. And in this case as in others it is so clear that you have to be completley unobjective to not see it.razd WRITESI cannot believe that a person of your education would try to defend the above syllogism, let alone state it in the first place. The first premise is completley non-sensical and completley non-demonstratable from any point of fact gathering. Again if it is please provide it and quit talking about it. I wont even ask you to prove it is wrong, that dead men dont talk, just demonstrate it from any reasonable position involving FACTS. You have fun now.D Bertot

JB1740The demonstratable fact and the direct evidence that dead people talk to no one is not assertion or quibbling. If it is please prove me wrong. I am not being Glib, yopu simply offer nothing of SUBSTANCE for me to reply to. RAZDs excellent wording or whatever, is not a substitute for a argument, the conclusion of which should be here is the direct evidence that shows why dead men dont talk. Just say you are licked and we can move on.D Bertot

You of course are correct about the wording I provided in the initally application of this axiom. I of course later stated what I thought all others would know to be true in what I said, that 'Something or Someone, who's existence is eternal,created all things. Its of course, impossible as I have pointed out before to think of any others without simply rearranging these possibilites and definitons, as you have here to get any other possibilites. Since things do exist, perhaps you would like to attempt a souce outside the three that have been offered. Its is an axiom of the highest order, even if you are not satisfied with the language or wording. Your being evassive Blugenes. This is of course saying the exact samething, given the refining of the wording I had first offered.D Bertot

Nosyned writesNice try ned. You know exacaaly what tell no tales means. It is an axiom of the highest order, it is not a 'restriced definition'. This is simply how you fellas change the meanings and wording to avoid the obvious conclusion.Have fun.D Bertot

And of course, "Just came into existence", is the exact same as saying the created themselves.", Or that they came from another source, which just pushes the process back further to the Creator.. Your wasring you time, its been tried better than you and I. Its anxiom of the highest order.Ever forward,D Bertot

Ringo writesI think we are going in circles here. Remember, there are facts that are facts long before we discover them. Before the first human was here, there were facts waiting to be discovered. The substance of those facts doesnt change depedning on our conclusions and consensus. I didnt assume anything. Dead men dont talk to anyone and there are only three possible explanations for the existence of even existence itsel or of things, no matter how you WORD it. As much as I liked Chris Farley, he will never shout again, no matter how much I think its possible. So, for the love God shut your frieken yap. Just kidding.D BertotD Bertot

Actually I like this definition very much. It surprises me though that the very fella you guys use for your definitons appears to agree with me. "which does not need any explanation", etc. Sounds alot like my definiton. I can see why you dont like this one. I guess you know I would ask what the first two definitons are. Hmmm Yes if you insist on using terms (Tentativity) that you give an exclusive meaning and purpose to your positon, then you will never see the validity of the positon I have been setting out. An axiom as I have demonstrated does not have to be only a LOGICAL Starting point for some argument. Some have direct application and testability in the real world, accessiblity to the scientific method. Logic is only a source through the science of decuctive reasoning to asscertain existing, verifiable facts.The simple propositon in the beggining was to demonstrate even the possibility of a designer from a scientific method. Again this can be done through the process of an axiom and deductive reasoning. No one questions that you fellas have monopolized the definiiton of the word science and have tried to make it mean something exclusive to yourself, But this not true. Science is the simple gathering of information or knowledge. How you do this is of course, what is at issue here. Given Wikis definition it would seem very logical and reasonable that an axiom, would fall into this process.D Bertot

Bluegenes writesDont mean to be obtuse here. Of course you came into existence, but you did not say you came into existence with no CREATIVE ACT,OR SELF creating acts. If you are going to offer and explanation, please give the full explanation when using it later in an illustration. You most certainly did just give another example of SELF CREATING. Try again. No one said that given this axiom, that is, not also possible. That is the position I have been maintaining. The creator is most definatley one of those possibilites, along with the others. Now it is certain that only one is of course true. Watch this now. Heres the point. We use this axiom, that needs no explanation (Wiki) for a starting point , in other words we dont question the validity of it contents. The axiom which is incontrovertible is also testable to physical things. Got it.D Bertot

And you seem to be confusing obvious REALITY, with some definiton you have contrived, that only you and a few others seem to believe. Real and absolute reality are demonstratable facts, not simply perceptions. "I think therefore I am." Existence is real not simply percieved. You yourself seem to intimate the validity of Real and absolute reality, you therefore admit my proposition that facts are real before anyone gets to them. The above definition you offered doesnt even make sense in the observable world. Again reguardless of how I percieve the principle of Gravity, it is real and the same all the time. Again dead men cant talk even if the consensus says they can or cannot. Enough said.D Bertot

Listen carefully. When people are alive they are not dead. If they were resurrected or came back to life they are not dead. Dead people dont say anything. Yes I believe these stories, but you do not. So whats the point?What people say and what they can prove are two different things. This takes care of the is whole post. The FACT, that you need is NOT what they say or believe, but what they can demonstrate. Please provide the evidence.D Bertot