The use of logic in establishing truths

So, which part of the 8 paragraphs preceeding the "could be evolved, created or designed" conclusion was the axiom?And even if there was one, why would a designer be any more supported by the evidence than the other two possibilities (oh, and I like how you combined created and designed further down the line...shows even more how ID and Christian creationism are deep in bed with each other)? You do realize that your thread was supposed to show that, right? Instead, you concentrated on defending your definition of axiom. That is how creationists/Idists work, you put forth an untenable position and then decide to quibble about the unrelated points hoping that everyone forgets about the original argument. The original argument was supposed to show that logic supports an Intelligent Designer. Instead of showing how logic does so, you debated people on the definition of axiom until the alloted 300 posts ran out and you have probably declared victory with your friends (or maybe just yourself). Granted, actual logicians, mathematicians and scientists challenged you on the definition of axiom, but who are they to challenge your 35 years of debating? Who are they to challenge your one definition from one dictionary? They're all idiots who do not understand your supreme, super-knowledgeable, misspelled, gramatically incorrect (but in mostly CAPITALS) arguments about a subject that you don't even understand?It's "self-evident" and, therefore, not subject to further debate.We're all wowed, I'm sure.Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

So axioms do need proof...er...no, wait, they need disproof?So how did the "axiom" become an "axiom" in the first place? Just common sense observation or scientific "proof?"Gravity (which you also used briefly in the last thread) is a common observation (and which I would hazard a guess was observed long before Newton). The difference between common sense observation and "proof" is science and mathematical calculations. Objects always fell, there was always an opposite and equal reaction to an action, planets and stars always behaved in the ways that they do but the laws and the calculations were put into print by mathematicians and scientists and those laws and calculations are still being used today. Common sense (which told us that the sun revolved around the earth and that the stars moved backwards and forwards across the skies) is not being used so much.So that says, to me, that "axioms" need to be proven. Either through past testing or through future testing. The "axioms" still need to be "proved."Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

I can't believe I skipped over this. I was not even in the original thread. I can't possibly be "licked." Unless, of course, we are all the same and no matter what we say it is just "blah blah evolutionist blah blah" to you.You cannot see how what you said is in dispute, but...it is. That would give me (stupid, irrational atheist that I am) pause. To find that so many people disagree with me would prompt me to bolster my claim or, at least, look it up. I do it on Christian sites. I do it on conspiracy theory sites. I do it on mainstream news sites. Even if one or two people disagree with me. I look it up and figure it out. I may come back to my original conclusion, but I don't accuse my debaters of being stupid. I back it up. However, I cannot disprove a positive statement of a designer. Nor can you prove an intelligent designer. If all we have is logic, then we can "prove" anything. I exist in the real world and I am concerned about the real world.You have made the "argument" for an Intelligent Designer...so prove it. It is not my job, nor anyone else's to disprove it. (Start your own thread to "prove" an ID...we're all waiting)This is not the thread. This is a thread to establish logic as a valid method of discerning "true" things. You got any? If you do, show how. Don't just assert.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

So here are the three, from the other thread: How all things are here:1)They created themselves2)they always existed3)something created them.I can rule out the first one, on the basis that some things didn't create themselves (I didn't create myself, neither did this computer), and some things are part of "all things".I can rule out the second one, on the basis that both myself and the computer have not always existed, and we are part of "all things".I can rule out the third one, on the basis that "something" is part of "all things", and therefore it's a logical contradiction.I think your problem here is your sloppy use of language, Dawn.Did you mean "How the universe came into existence" rather than "how all things are here"?? How life occured on this planet:1) It evolved2) It was created or it was designed to evolveAbiogenesis is a possibility for "how life occurred on this planet" that you don't seem to have mentioned here.I think that you need to be much more precise with language if you want to talk about something like logic, Dawn.

Argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy. Someone once told me that if something is obvious you don't need to say it.btw "incontravertable" is properly spelled incontrovertible. You consistently make the same errors in spelling. You may have convinced yourself, but you haven't convinced anyone else. Nor did you refute the argument that

• there are people that believe in ghosts, seances and zombies
• the axiom "dead men tell no tales" is neither self-evident nor seen as "true" for those people
• therefore it is NOT a self evident truth

Likewise your argument does not derive any objective FACT that exists in the real world. Logic alone cannot do that. Logic plus fact is no longer just logic nor can it establish an objective fact in the real world. This is where you are wrong. In the formal science of logic all you have are opinions, usually well formed from years of study of the methodology of making sound logical arguments, but still opinion, opinion unrelated to objective FACTS in the real objective world.In essence what you have is a theory. You can test this theory against objective facts in the real objective world, and those facts CAN invalidate the theory, but they can never prove it: this is how science works by the scientific method. It is not logic that proves the objective fact is real. Again, the only person you seem to have convinced is yourself. If your argument were logical and valid and sound then it would have convinced others. Logic, the pure logic of the science of logic, of the investigation of the abstract methodology of logic, does not deal with facts or the real world. In that world axioms and self-evident truths are used to start a (hopefully) sound logical argument. They are assumed to be true for the sake of the argument. The evidence shows you are wrong. I have, several times. Let me repeat it:

• there are people that believe in ghosts, seances and zombies
• the axiom "dead men tell no tales" is neither self-evident nor seen as "true" for those people
• therefore it is NOT a self evident truth that is obviously 100% absolutely and positively true for everyone.

QEDDo you deny that such people exist? Do you deny that they think dead people can tell tales?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.

I don't think you understand what I was trying to say. This "confidence" you speak of did not rely on "ongoing observations from increasing numbers of people" therefore it wasn't "most confident" in the way my table describes. This confidence you speak of is more like a stubborn "gut feeling". Gut feelings are so low on the confidence scale I'm talking about that they didn't even get a spot. I agree. And so does my table/description of confidence. The table deals with masses making observations that agree. If it's just masses "agreeing", that's not confidence (in the sense of my table) at all. That table is defining what "confidence" means. You can't use another definition (even if it is the most general/popular one) and then talk about something else. It just doesn't make sense.

I wrote: Dawn chuckled: Razd restated: Dawn replied to Razd: But Dawn, although you have been sort of glib in dismissing my statement and Razd's excellent paraphrasing thereof, you haven't actually addressed it. Simply once again asserting your point doesn't weaken the statement.And where the heck are you getting 3 billion years? Are you trying to insist that we have 3 billion years of data of dead people not talking?

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

Exactly!* And this is evidence obtained from the real world. It is not derivable from logic without an examination of the real world.* only based on a particularly restricted definition of "tell tales". Which DB has been forced to more to by the evidence presented.

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

Dawn, we're not questioning your observation that dead men don't talk. What we're doing is questioning your assertion that the observation proves unequivocally that dead men can never talk. The observation doesn't PROVE it. That several billion dead people who have come before us never talked does not ENSURE that the next person who dies won't be able to speak after death. It simply does not. It predicts it...with almost absolute certainly, but not WITH absolute certainty. Is it so unlikely as to make the whole discussion ridiculous? Yes. Can science consider it impossible given what we know of the world? Almost certainly. Do either of these last two sentences, which are observations, ENSURE an outcome for the next dead person? No.

And if you pay attention you'll note that I didn't say that it was.And what the heck did you mean by 3 billion years?

But it's you who's just licked yourself. The common conclusion that dead men don't talk is arrived at by evidence, the result of observation. It has nothing to do with reaching conclusions by sheer logic alone.From accumulated human experience and observation, we know that one of the symptoms of being dead is that corpses can no longer hold conversations. Another such symptom is that they start to smell after a while.I think that you want to say something about intelligent design like:"Either life on earth was designed, or it wasn't."That's a kind of truism, and it in no way makes the case for I.D. scientific.