|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The use of logic in establishing truths | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
bluegenes writes: Buz, when you quote someone and attribute the quote, I think you should make sure you've got the right person. Thanks, Bluegenes and my apologies to Stile and Razd for this carelessness.
bluegenes writes: In the rest of your post, you seem to be regarding a speculation about the future as something that might be regarded as a truth, which is odd. You're also confusing "logic" with "faith" when you talk about your views on the Bible and the flood. How so must logic be applied only outside of the Biblical record? That makes no sense to me.
bluegenes writes: You mean that all the religions believed in today might be rejected as false, as so many others have been in the past? Perhaps we should stop programming children with religions, then. Not at all. My point was that what is widely programmed into the masses should be open to logical reasoning pertaining to other data. The same goes with religion. Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2507 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
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. I'm not being evasive, I'm just trying to get you to be more careful with your English, so we can be sure of what you're talking about. For example, once again:
DB writes: 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. In English, that's nonsense, because it reads as if the 'Something or Someone whose existence is eternal' is not part of 'all things'. However, I think I know what you mean. Your fourth alternative is that everything just came into existence. So: 1)They created themselves 2)they always existed 3)something created them. 4)everything just came into existence with no creating, including self-creating, required, and no eternal existence required.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Percy writes: So you're saying that even for something that is self-evident to everyone, because everyone could be wrong it still can't be considered axiomatic, which means that Dawn Bertot's criteria for being axiomatic is incorrect? I'm saying that much of what is axiomatic to the masses is not logically compatible to the data and/or the interpretation of data which others holding a minority view may apply. I'm still not sure how that goes with the DP view or whether it's even relative to his view on the meaning of axiomatic. Merriam Webster's #1 definition of axiomatic is "taken for granted." BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: Merriam Webster's #1 definition of axiomatic is "taken for granted." There's the keyword again: "granted". Who granted it? "Taken for granted" doesn't mean one person like Dawn Bertot assumed it. It means there's a consensus. Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2507 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: bluegenes writes: ....You're also confusing "logic" with "faith" when you talk about your views on the Bible and the flood. How so must logic be applied only outside of the Biblical record? That makes no sense to me. What I meant was that there's nothing logical about having faith in the literal truth of Jewish creation mythology in the first place. There are many other creation mythologies, as you know, and you could choose to have an arbitrary faith in the veracity of any of them, but none of them are believed in due to logical thought processes. If you disagree, you can describe the train of logical thought that led you to disbelieve in Hindu mythology, and to believe in Jewish mythology.
Not at all. My point was that what is widely programmed into the masses should be open to logical reasoning pertaining to other data. The same goes with religion. If something is programmed into the masses, it will be something for which there's no evidence (like all religious beliefs, for example). Don't confuse teaching people stuff for which there is evidence with such programming.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
4)everything just came into existence with no creating, including self-creating, required, and no eternal existence required. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Ringo writes
"Taken for granted" doesn't mean one person like Dawn Bertot assumed it. It means there's a consensus. I 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 Bertot D Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
The 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.
I already addressed this in my earlier post. Do you believe that Jesus resurrected people? Did they talk afterward?Do you believe that Jesus himself rose from the dead and spoke to people? Furthermore do you believe he was raised as a living man? With a giant hole in his side? I think not. He was a dead man and he spoke. Now I personally don't believe a word of this but I can assure you that many millions of people do believe it so to them, the phrase "dead men tell no tales" is completely untrue. Then there people who are absolutely certain that they can hear the dead speak to them.These include people who go to seances or mediums, Ancestor worshippers and many many others. You can't possibly deny that there is a not one single person on this planet who honestly believes that they or someone else has ever received a message from a dead person. If you really insist then I will have no trouble in filling the entire available space of this server with documented examples of people who believe that the dead can, do and have spoken. The internet is so full of them that it isn't even worth while to bother giving you an example.However just to prove the point, here is one anyway When we die our spirit go in heaven and live with God as I hear during funerals as priest and pastors said. Are the spirits of dead evil? They are our ancestors, My greatgrandma, my great grandfather my aunties and uncles comunicated me through dreams about the inheritance land that was abandoned for about forty years. After 13 dreams I got the title of land in my name. I have many dreams that turned into reality. If you don't fully understand about this matter you just jump into conclusion "Evil". These spirits of dead people are living in the spirit world together with the holy spirit and they can comunicate directly and will give us messages. That is my understanding.
This person quite obviously believes that you are wrong and that is all it takes.To this person your 'axiom' is quite patently NOT a self evident truth. Whether I or anyone here believes it to be possible for the dead to speak is utterly irrelevent. The fact is that some people believe they can and do. That is all we need.In order for your phrase to be an Axiom, everybody has to agree to it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Dawn Bertot
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. Ok so let us take the premise that you are trying to establish as fact, Intelligent Design.Could you summarize here what Intelligent Design means according to you? "Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere." Albert Einstein
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Buz, making up bullshit excuses is not logic nor can it really be called an interpretation of data. If you think otherwise then you're wrong. Plain and simple.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes: Before the first human was here, there were facts waiting to be discovered. And that discovery depends on consensus among the discoverers. If Mr. A thinks he's discovered X and Mr. B claims it's Y, where is the "fact"? Facts is facts only as far as people agree that they're facts. You seem to be confusing perceived reality with "real" reality or "absolute" reality. If there is an absolute reality, we can never know what it is. We can only know what we perceive. And our perceptions are more reliable if they agree with the perceptions of others. That's why most of us don't believe it when some perceive dead men talking. The individual perception is trumped by the consensus. Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
We need to agree about definitions. If we're talking about axioms in natural science, as the title of this thread along with its history suggests, then we need to use the definition of axiom used in natural science. This is from Wikipedia:
Wikipedia writes: In natural sciences theories, an axiom is considered as an evident truth which does not need any explanation and is accepted without any demonstration or proof in their application domain. The weakness, applicability or utility of such logically correct theories depends on the arbitrary choice of their axioms. I don't think this definition is very clear, and I like better what Answers.com has to say in its 3rd definition:
Answers.com writes: A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate. I think there's a wide range of interpretation about what Dawn is doing, but it seems to me that Dawn is attempting to draw logical conclusions about the real world which he then declares to be axioms that are incontrovertibly true. He doesn't seem to understand that axioms are starting points, not conclusions. Axioms are usually concisely expressed fundamental concepts or assumptions, such as Euclid's 1st postulate ("Any two distinct points define a straight line"). "Dead men tell no tales" is not what we would normally in science consider an axiom, but it could be an axiom if used as a fundamental starting point for some line of logical argument:
The problem, as many have pointed out, is that axioms are not incontrovertibly true. Forensics, which someone already mentioned in this thread, could be sufficient for the murder victim to tell his tale to the police, enabling them to trace the crime to the murderers. And even just the fact of a murder tells a tale ("Someone's trying to cover up something," figures the detective). "Dead men don't talk" might be a better axiom, as has also been pointed out. Whether explicitly stated or not, those who have argued here against the "incontrovertibly true" portion of Dawn's argument are making a point about the tentativity of scientific knowledge of the natural world. By definition, nothing in science is "incontrovertibly true", so if by some logical process directed at the natural world Dawn convinces himself that ID is "incontrovertibly true", then ID's lack of tentativity rules it out as science. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2507 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Dawn B writes: bluegenes writes: 4)everything just came into existence with no creating, including self-creating, required, and no eternal existence required. And of course, "Just came into existence", is the exact same as saying the created themselves.", Not in the English language, it isn't. For example, I certainly came into existence, and I certainly didn't create myself.
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. What creator? If your creator can exist without being created, so, my child, can anything else. That's logic for you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
In natural sciences theories, an axiom is considered as an evident truth which does not need any explanation and is accepted without any demonstration or proof in their application domain. The weakness, applicability or utility of such logically correct theories depends on the arbitrary choice of their axioms. I don't think this definition is very clear, and I like better what Answers.com has to say in its 3rd definition: 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 don't think this definition is very clear, and I like better what Answers.com has to say in its 3rd definition: Answers.com writes:A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate. I guess you know I would ask what the first two definitons are. Hmmm
"Dead men tell no tales" is not what we would normally in science consider an axiom, but it could be an axiom if used as a fundamental starting point for some line of logical argument: Dead men tell no tales. We need to keep the crime secret. Spike wants to go to the police and tell his story. If we kill Spike, then the crime will remain secret.The problem, as many have pointed out, is that axioms are not incontrovertibly true. Forensics, which someone already mentioned in this thread, could be sufficient for the murder victim to tell his tale to the police, enabling them to trace the crime to the murderers. And even just the fact of a murder tells a tale ("Someone's trying to cover up something," figures the detective). "Dead men don't talk" might be a better axiom, as has also been pointed out. Whether explicitly stated or not, those who have argued here against the "incontrovertibly true" portion of Dawn's argument are making a point about the tentativity of scientific knowledge of the natural world. By definition, nothing in science is "incontrovertibly true", so if by some logical process directed at the natural world Dawn convinces himself that ID is "incontrovertibly true", then ID's lack of tentativity rules it out as science. --Percy 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Bluegenes writes
Not in the English language, it isn't. For example, I certainly came into existence, and I certainly didn't create myself. Dont 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.
What creator? If your creator can exist without being created, so, my child, can anything else. That's logic for you. 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024