I had been reading the "Logic used to establish ID as a sciencs" thread with much interest, but I kept myself from butting in in the hopes of Dawn getting the point.
"The point" meaning that logic alone (aka. all by itself with no outside proofs or tests) cannot establish truth.
Dawn Bertot seemed to be under the impression that just because something is "accepted" as true means that it is true, absolutely and always.
Dawn Bertot's definition of "axiom" seemed to mean "someting that is true no matter what." But his defense of the definition included things which would have (or still do) needed independent confirmation in order to establish their validity (i.e. gravity).
The problem is that, even with gravity, something can come along and invalidate "scientific axioms." It is an accepted possibility, although not in the fore-front of most minds.
With an "Intelligent Designer" or an interventionist "God" logic cannot help anymore than an "atheistic naturalistic worldview" can. In either case logic flies out the door when real life evidence shows up to dispute the "axiomatic" premises.
For example, DB's "dead men tell no tales" axiom. It is accepted as true because corpses do not speak (through their vocal cords, like DB insists). However, it can be falsified. It hasn't been, yet, but it can be and it is
accepted as true because of the constant validity.
However, DB's claim of an "intelligent designer" is part of a conclusion. Not an axiomatic premise (that is kind of redundant because axioms
are premises).
Unless, of course, DB really meant to propose an ID as the
only conclusion (which is absurd, because according to his own logic we had at least two others)
That would mean that the premises had to support an ID, but they don't. He didn't spend any time clarifying or defining his position.
DB spent so much time trying to redefine logic and science that he forgot (?) to define ID as a "science."
His "axiomatic" conclusion was nothing but bluster designed to distract from his lack of knowledge of science and logic.
I would like to continue this thread with the specific purpose in mind of defining logic (although i know it was done on the previous thread) and showing how logic can and cannot establish "truth."
I'll go first.
All women have XX chromosones
I have XX chromosones
Therefore I an a woman.
DB, can you tell me that the first premise is "axiomatic?"
Can you think of a possible case when the first statement might not be true?
Can't you possibly see when "dead men tell no tales" might be in dispute? Can you say for 100% certainty that "dead men tell no tales?" You "accept it as true" because you have to. So do I, but it is not ""incontravertably" true just because I say it is. It is not TRUE.
Premises (axioms) are not true by themselves. They are accepted as true to see where the argument goes. The truth of the axioms depends on the observations and the validated conclusions.
Or else I can say that:
Gravity (your unqualified axiom) says what goes up must come down;
An airplane goes up;
Therefore it must come down
Or:
Humans can communicate better than chimpanzees; (that's an axiom...accepted as true for the sake of argument)
Jane is a human;
Melissa is a chimpanzee;
Therefore, Jane can communicate better than Melissa.
Is that true?
Or are there qualifiers? What are the qualifiers? (How are we to know the answers if the answer is always "Goddidit?)
Does logic solve this or does science (empirical) solve this?
The science will always tell us "how God did it." Or it will tell us how it happened. It is the same thing.
The logic is valid, but it is not sound. The "axiom/premise" needs to be validated in order to make the conclusion "true."
I can probably "prove" anything by logic, but that doesn't make it "true."
So, in the spirit of continuing the thread you established, here is my contribution.
"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
™ Version 4.2