It is most certainly true that if something is obvious you dont (sic) 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 (sic) objective about the FACT that even REALITY is indeed a fact. In other wordrs, (sic) 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 (sic) you even say we can be 100% sure of this fact? Have fun.
Logic, particularly the science of logic (which you have not yet used), does not deal with reality, it deals with logic. Premise + premise ⇒ conclusion. Methodology, structural validity, and sound logical arguments are the tools of logic. Logic is wonderful at what it does, but it is only an abstract model, it isn't reality, it cannot make up a fact that is a "truth in reality" because it doesn't exist outside an abstract intellectual speculation.
And if your only argument is to repeat yourself and then claim that your conclusion is "obvious" when nobody agrees with you, then the evidence is that it is not obvious. Saying it is obvious doesn't make it so. Saying it is true doesn't make it so. Not in logic, not in the real world.
You presume to lecture us about logic when it is clear that - to put it politely - you understand little about logic and can hardly express yourself clearly, to say nothing of
logically. Example:
Does a statement like the one above if even require or merit an response.
Your argument is not improved when you don't refute the points that people make, preferring to restate your position and say it "amases (sic)" you that people actually have the
gall to disagree with you.
Does a statement like the one above if even require or merit an response. (sic) Answer NO. It makes absolutely no SENSE. You are kiddng (sic) me when you say my positon (sic) 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 (sic) obvious point. Again, quit quibbling about my answers and provide the evidence that demonstrates that dead men talk. Wow.
This whole paragraph is an argument (what part of it that makes sense) from incredulity - a logical fallacy, an invalid argument. Your inability to say anything else gives the impression that you are really having trouble with refuting the point with actual logic.
Do you deny that there are people that believe in ghosts, seances and zombies?
Do you claim that they would think "dead men tell no tales" was self-evident?
Do you claim that they would think "dead men tell no tales" was true?
Do you deny that this refutes your argument? It does. It demonstrates a condition under which your statement is not perceived as true.
Again there is no ARGUMENT to be gathered from the fact that people believe in ghost an (sic) the (sic) 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 (sic) that I can simply see dead people are doing nothig. (sic) Maybe you can convince the amazing Randy with your ghost argument and win the check.
Your problem is not whether their belief is true or not, but that they do not, will not, see your premise as either self-evident or true. You claim that you can establish a fact
by logic alone, and in order to do that you need to start with a premise that is perceived as 100% absolutely and positively true by everyone.
As I said before, you can discount these people as being irrational, so their opinion doesn't count. However, when you do this, you make any conclusion just as valid, and any argument just as sound. For example, I could argue that the earth is flat, that everyone who disagrees is irrational, and therefore the world is
obviously flat. Now we can discuss the evidence that actually shows the earth is not flat, but then we are no longer concluding a fact
by logic alone. It is not the logic that makes the fact true, the fact that the earth is an oblate spheroid orbiting the sun is independent of the logical argument, there is no causal relationship of one to the other.
No its a (sic) absolute fact that dead men talk to anyone, not a theory. This is how you test the validity and certaintly (sic) of an axiom. If not please invalidate the theory, It should be quite simple using your mighty 'scienctific (sic) mehtod. (sic) 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 (sic) unobjective (sic) to not see it.
Again, this shows a lack of understanding of logic, and of how science works.
If we are going to apply the scientific method to this, move from the abstract world of logic alone into the world or natural science, we start with a couple of premises, axioms, that we assume to be true. There is a bit of overlap between some of these, but that is intentional to cover all the bases:
We assume that there is an objective reality.
We assume that this objective reality is the same for everyone.
We assume that the evidence of reality is always true to the reality, that the evidence is fact.
We assume that we can understand this evidence, this fact of objective reality.
We assume that our understanding may be wrong or incomplete.
Philosophers have not been able to establish that these are anything more than assumptions, even though they have spent thousands of people-years at the task.
Finally we assume that supernatural action\power\behavior is not part of the understanding for natural effects\objects\behavior. This doesn't rule out supernatural actions\powers\behaviors, just make them outside the understanding of natural effects\objects\behavior. Ghosts, seances and zombies would, if true, involve supernatural action\powers\behavior.
Then we look at the evidence: do dead bodies appear able to talk or do anything immediately after death?
Then we form a theory: dead men tell no tales
(we assume "men" includes women)
Then we test the evidence: are there any instances of dead people telling tales?
People talk about the evidence of ghosts, seances and zombies. Scientists go out to see if any of these claims are true. They find evidence of scams and cons and such, but they cannot rule out positively that such things do not occur. People still believe in ghosts, seances and zombies. Literal fundamentalist believers of the bible will tell you that it is a documented historic
fact that Lazarus was risen from the dead, and lived to tell tales of it.
Can the evidence prove that dead people tell no tales? No. The reason is that for ,this to be true, it has to be true for all instances that have ever been, and that ever will be, while to be false, all it takes is one (1) instance of a dead person being observed telling tales. Whether this would demonstrate a supernatural action\power\behavior is involved is irrelevant, a single instance of a dead person telling tales refutes and invalidates the theory. It could happen tomorrow. Thus no matter how much evidence we accumulate without a single dead person telling tales, it only demonstrates that the theory is sound
so far. It is tentatively true, tentatively, until proven false.
And even if we never find actual evidence of a single tale telling dead person, logic - especially logic alone - does not make the statement true. There could still be instances that we don't know about.
On a recent radio show a man was talking about finding out about his dad. He was cleaning out his mother's house after her death, and was about to throw out a box of papers, but something made him stop and go through them. They all turned out to be letters from his dad to his mom back during WWII telling of his experiences and talking about the infant son he left behind, what he would teach him when he got home. The father was killed in the war, and these letters were the only record the son had of what his father was like. Can you prove that no 'guardian angel' made the son read the papers? Can you prove that a ghost of the father could not have been involved? Could not have even just written those letters?
We may be able to rule out supernatural action\power\behavior from our experience but can we rule it out entirely? I think not. I'm a Deist, so I take a open approach to such spiritual things and say you cannot rule it out, it may be our understanding is wrong or incomplete. I consider it possible that the people that believe in ghost, seances and zombies could be (partially) correct - there could be some truth there that we don't yet understand.
I 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 (sic) non-sensical (sic) and completley (sic) non-demonstratable (sic) from any point of fact gathering. Again if it is please provide it and quit talking about it. I wont (sic) even ask you to prove it is wrong, that dead men dont (sic) talk, just demonstrate it from any reasonable position involving FACTS. You have fun now.
Again, the argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy. The fact that you cannot believe something does not automatically make it false, you need to show a reason that it is false.
All I have provided are logical reasons why your argument is false. All I have done is demonstrate that the axioms and self-evident truths you have provided so far rely on the assumption of truth and are not true on their own.
Like the evidence for dead people talking, this also relies on all axioms and self-evident truths relying on the assumption of truth for this argument to be true, and it has to be true for all instances that have ever been and that ever will be, while to be false all it takes is one (1) instance of an axiom or a self-evident truth actually being true, 100% absolutely and positively true for one and all. So far I am batting 1000, but perhaps the next one will do the trick eh?
I'm having a ball.
Message 39The demonstratable (sic) fact and the direct evidence that dead people talk to no one (sic) is not assertion or quibbling. If it is please prove me wrong. I am not being Glib, yopu (sic) simply offer nothing of SUBSTANCE for me to reply to.
But the evidence does not demonstrate that this will always be the case. You haven't seen all the evidence. We don't have to prove you ARE wrong, we just have to prove that you CAN be wrong. That standard is met.
RAZDs (sic) 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 (sic) talk. Just say you are licked and we can move on.
Can you prove that it will never happen in a scientifically valid documented experience?
If you can prove that it is 100% absolutely and positively impossible, naturally
and supernaturally,
then we can move on.
Message 41I of course later stated what I thought all others would know to be true in what I said, that 'Something or Someone, who's (sic) existence is eternal,created (sic) all things.
But you provide no foundation for this assertion. You assume things fit your belief. I assume a point creation that enables the development of the universe as we know it, but I also know this is an assumption, and not a conclusion based on fact. I don't presume such knowledge.
Its of course, impossible as I have pointed out before to think of any others without simply rearranging these possibilites (sic) and definitons, (sic) as you have here to get any other possibilites. (sic)
This does not answer bluegenes point that each of your three possibilities do not necessarily explain existence. Because they do not necessarily explain existence, they are not necessarily a complete set of possibilities.
The natural world is and our understanding based on science are full of things that we didn't used to think possible.
When it comes down to things we don't know, the best answer we have is ... we don't know.
When bluegenes or others show that your three possibilities don't have to be true, they do not need to demonstrate a fourth possibility to prove your three are not true, because the answer can be that we don't know the reality, that we don't know what happened.
Can you prove that we do know? Can you demonstrate evidence that even one of your three premises is true?
Enjoy.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
™ Version 4.2
