The use of logic in establishing truths

PurpleYoukos earlier definition of truth from post 5. {qsMy own personal usage of the word could be described as follows.that which represents the actual state of reality in the universe, whether we are aware of it or not.'FACT' means pretty much the same thing to me.[/qs]Qustion for you. Do you remember this definiion of TRUTH you gave in post no. 5 of this thread. Just about everything you have said since then contradics the above definition of truth and Facts.D Bertot

It simply is no evidence that people believe things.Enough said. ALIVE, DEAD. ALIVE, DEAD. Jesus was then alive. Hence the foundation of the Christian belief. Hence he was not dead. Dead men tell no tales. The expression animated corpes is a contradiction of terms. I am not trying to be funny here, only to help you see that it is an axiom of the highest order.D Bertot

Your a hard case frog man. Something cannot be taken as true, if it can be shown, to be not true. Further that is not the definition of axiom. The axioms that apply to these mathmatical processes may or may not be true depending on the accuracy of the mathmatical premises. However, axioms that apply to the real world are testable and at times can be demonstrated completely accurate, with no fear of contradiction. Axioms are of course more applicable to natural science than they are to any other abstract method or fact gathering.D Bertot

I beg your pardon. if you say, Just came into existence, without a creator or a creative act, then what was its source. If its not saying, created itself or came from nowhere, what are the other possibilites. It isnt an answer to say we just dont know. But keep trying it is interesting to watch. It is an axiom of the highest order.Ever forwardD Bertot

I have read it several times, and while the fella is very gifted with verbage, its no substitute for and answer to the simple proposition. Provide me with the evidence that dead men do indeed talk to people. You fellas always chastize the believer on this web site because you say they dont provide the evidence in these situations. I have. Now quit with the Sophistry BS and provide the evidence please. You cant have it both ways. You either believe the stories the people tell or you dont, choose a side and quit riding the fence. Quit using WHAT THEY SAY OR BELIEVE as a response or quit refering to them at all. All this talk about my inability to do this or that is an obvious fact that, you cannot provide the evidence to the contrary. I have been doing this long enough to recognize crap when I see it. Maybe RAZD needs to get with PurpleYoulo and figure out what actual evidence is in response to an argument. Now put that in your Smipe and Poke it.
D Bertot

Ok , please stay with the propositions. RAZDs simple proposition and cahallenge to me was provide an axiom, the truth of which is INCONTROVERTIBLE. I provided that in this axiom. It is simply evassive and almost foolishness to sit there and contend that because it hasnt happened after 1 to 3 billon years, that we might be expected to. You can IF and MAYBE all day long. "If worms had machine guns birds wouldnt mess with them". See how the, ya but, can go on forever.C. The answer is (C) that this is an axiom of the highest order. It is clear proof (that which you fellas are always seeking) that if the EVIDENCE demonstrates to the contrary for this long a period of time, its a good axiomatic TRUTH to move forward with. Now to be reasonable and completely honest this is and does constitute proof by any strech of the imagination. I understand what RAZD is saying, its just that, at some point you need to acquiesce and acknowledge the OBVIOUS and accept that which is clearly demonstratable. It is proof as much as anyone can have proof and therefore is PROOF.D Bertot

None. Thats why it is an axiom of the highest order. Yes I do and I am still waiting for it.What can i say?
You are basically redefining the meaning of "dead" so that no example can ever debunk your idea. That is called moving the goalposts.
Basically you are saying that even if a dead man gets up and talks then you will define him as being alive for the purpose of your argument.
That is total BS.
Plenty of people believe in animated corpses. Zombies they call them. Take a look at some of the voodoo beliefs. Zombies are often involved there and that too invalidates your assertion that your 'axiom' is really a self evident truth.
The evidence is that they believe it.
We need nothing more.
The fact that anyone believes it is more than enough to prove that your 'axiom' is NOT self evident.[/qs] It simply is no evidence that people believe things.Enough said.
You really don't have a clue do you?
Do you even know what evidence means?Your assertion == "Dead men tell no tales" is a self evident truth, an AXIOM.
This absolutely requires that everybody who sees this statement HAS to believe it. If it is self evident then they have no choice.
Therefore your assertion is that EVERYBODY sees the obvious truth in it.What kind of evidence could invalidate/debunk/nullify your assertion?Simple. Evidence that any person DOES NOT see the obvious truth in it.
I provided evidence of one person at least who does not agree with you. It is utterly irrelevent whose belief is correct. The actual evidence in this situation is very simply that not everyone sees your 'axiom' as a self evident truth. As long as there are those who believe otherwise then it cannot be self evident.
If you can't even understand the concept that this utterly destroys your assertion then I am wasting my valuable time on you. What can i say?
You are basically redefining the meaning of "dead" so that no example can ever debunk your idea. That is called moving the goalposts.
Basically you are saying that even if a dead man gets up and talks then you will define him as being alive for the purpose of your argument.
That is total BS.
Plenty of people believe in animated corpses. Zombies they call them. Take a look at some of the voodoo beliefs. Zombies are often involved there and that too invalidates your assertion that your 'axiom' is really a self evident truth.[/qs]How do redefine the word dead? If a dead person gets up and talks to you , then they are not dead. Are you starting to get it now. You cant debunk this axiom, because is it is irrefutable. I dont care what people believe, its what they can demonstrate. If you show me a Zombie that is both dead and alive at the same time, I will believe you. Fair enough. Heck if you can even show me a dead Zombie talking, Ill believe. As you can see though, Im not worried that this is going to happen. As I told JB1740 and RAZD. You need to quit using these people as examples if you dont even belive in their stories. that dosent make much sense.Its funny here, I almost sound like the skeptic now and you guys sound like the believers. Theres an irony for you.D Bertot

Well said, but that has been the point all along, that if you are going to limit the word science to mean only your definiton of science, then of course from your perspective nothing else will be science or evidence. Now without rehearsing all of Modulous, SilentH, RAZDs and PaulKs very eloquent definitions of science, they simply do not say that those are the only ways to gather Facts, as I have demonstrated to the contrary. You can of course demonstrate the science of ID outside of your very narrow and monopolized definition of science by the simple definiton and explanation of an axiom and the application of logic directed twords axioms.If it is true (as you assert) that Facts are not really facts even after we discover them. Then it would follow that nothing that yopu provide from the so-called scientific method is reliable or dependable either. In other words, the way I am establishing the validity of ID is as valid a method as yours according to your own definitions and explanations, so either are valid or neither are valid, you cant have it both ways. Or have it one way for you and another for us. It is science just not your definition of science.D BertotOh crap here we go again.

RAZD writesIf big daddy Bertot is still in the mix. Here we go, thanks RAZD for finally admitting that facts can indeed be established and understood outside of the 'Scienctific-method', this is of course a big step in the right direction, thank you. I guess the force of an axiom brings that reality home with stinging accuaracy. This statement is nothing more (and excuse me for being very rude here) an out and out lie. I have made every attempt to meet every argument presented to me, if not directly as there are so many, I have done it in substance. I have demonstrated and reinforced every point that I have presented. More specifically I have shown and demonstrated that the fact and reality of a designer, well falls within the parameters of a science method, that of, deductive reasoning applied through the demonstration of an axiom, the conclusion of which is obvious and demonstratable. When we are speaking of the origins of things or existence of things, we are of course speaking of their source. This of course is what is meant by its origin.. It makes absolutley no sense to speak of the origin of life on earth, then make no application to the source of its parts. In other words, is it only important to determine how it operates,(scientific method) without consideration of the source or origin of its materials and properties. And of course as I have demonstrated this can be done by the simple application of an axiom initially, (outside the ideologies of the religious context.)then cooberated by the obvious design in nature itself. The realization of a designer is most definatley a concept to be considered and evaluated in the question of the origins of things in reality. In other words it exalts itself as a LOGICAL and VALID consideration that should be presented, that is neither strickly religious or fanciful. It falls awell within the DEMONSTRATION of actual FACTS. Further, as I stated on the PBS WEBSITE, evolutionists need to demonstrate that design absolutley did not take place, not to simply, disagree with it or be contentious with it. Even if, they believe evolution was the process, it falls to them to demonstrate that it was not designed to evolve in that manner. Of course things could be designed to evolve. Now this is not an aquiesence on the part of the IDer/Creationist, only to point up the fact, that A creator and or designer in and of itself is a valid conclusion that should of course be considered and taught as to the origins of things, materials, properties and even existence itself. Thank you and of course this is exacally what we are saying and maintaining that our position does.Sorry for my absence, I have been very bust you know., ie the axioms of life.D Bertot

RAZD writesAll of the above statments are the truest example of evasion and unobjectivity, the equivolent of saying, I steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the truth and obvious stability of truth in fact, until it is disproven, only then will it be demonstrsted, to not be true, therefore it cannot really be considered a fact at present, until it disproven., (in this case the axiom I had presented). This type of reasoning, is the highest form of stubborness and lack of objectivity on the part of an individual. If a fact exists and is real and demonstratable beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt, (like those I have presented), it could only be ones stubborn refusal to accept its obvious conclusions, by maintaining that it cannot REALLY be accepted, because at some future point it might, even by some strech of the imagination be refuted. This is simply dirty pool and foul play.EnjoyD Bertot

How many times do I need to demonstrate that I AM NOT SAYING you establish a fact from LOGIC ONLY. Please pay attention. Cleaarly you have not learned yet what the force of an axiom can demonstrate. Having shown conclusively, with no fear of contradiction other than silly examples of peoples wacky beliefs(not direct evidence), the conclusion of which is irrefutable. Still waiting for any shread of evidence to the contray. This of course is what you need to demonstrate that you cannot do. As I have clearly have, as I am still waiting for the evidence. Something you are clearly unable to provide. Next time you should be careful about challenging someone to such a simple task. Still waiting for the evidence that they can talk to anyone, have talked to anyone, or will talk to anyone. How long should we wait and how many people do we need to get to agree with us before its an actual, in truth and reality, fact. I think you are starting to see your obvious difficluty. Again I have noticed that you have failed to demonstrate why peoples opinions constitute any real kind of evidence to the contrary. How can a person of your obvious education make such an ASSUMPTION. In the posts from you I had just recently quoted from you, you simply disavow that concept. By making the obvious statements that facts are facts before we discover them, and the such. The ridiculous idea that because some people disagree with the conclusions, that it of course must not be true, is somehow an argument. How many times do I need to say that this is not an answer to the propositon that I am setting forth, its only an assertion. It does not matter whaT PEOPLE BELIEVE BUT WHAT THEY CAN DEMONSTRATE, (wheres the beef). Why would I respond to something that by any strech of the imagination requires no respone. Now listen RAZD. I will be more than happy to do this when you provide me with DIRECT EVIDENCE, PHYSICAL IN NATURE OR SUBSTANCE, not merely rehtoric and non-sensical ramblings of individuals, that demonstrates the axiom I have set out is not demonstratable, conclusive and incontravible and atleast presently a fact in reality and truthful in reaity. You assignment Mr. Phelps, should you decide to accept it, is to accomplish this simple task. It is a fact in reality, demonstratable by the simple premise of AN AXION BY THE APPLICATION OF DEDUCTIVE REASONING. Now you can refute all of this simply by providing one SINGLE PARTICLE of EVIDENCEto the contrary.Have fun.D Betot
D Bertot