The use of logic in establishing truths

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 downOr: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

Correct. And here we find the chink in your argument.An axiom is something that is accepted as true by concensus, meaning that is is considered with high confidence to be true based on past observation and/or testing, or just for the sake of argument (could be true, but needs further validation which the predictions of the axiom in the context of the argument may provide)."Dead men tell no tales" (in the way you define "tell") is only accepted as "true" because of past observation and testing. The fact that physical corpses cannot speak is only accepted as true because it has been repeatedly observed that physical corpses do not speak. You definition of "axiom" requires no proof, however, something, anything that is accepted as true needed proof in order to be accepted as "true." Nothing is accepted as true without some kind of "proof."Your "axiom," however, can still be invalidated if ever there comes a time when a physical corpse speaks.You proposed, in the parent thread, that a supernatural creator who designed all life was an "axiom." I think that you think that an axiom is something which cannot be refuted (and therefore needs no proof). You are correct in one aspect. In an argument (or a scientific hypothesis) an "axiom" needs no proof. It must stand on its own as a premise in order to see where the argument goes (meaning that is must be at least common sensically plausible). It is accepted as true (either based on previous testing, observation, or just as a common sense idea), but if further investigation shows that conclusions based on the axiom are invalid, then the axiom is more than likely not true (depending on multiple, independent confirmation and open to new data).Now, in pure logic, as many here have explained to you, an argument can be valid (meaning that the conclusion follows from the premises), but that doesn't make it absolutely 100% true.The premises have to be shown to be "true" in order for the conclusion to be "true" (i.e in order for the argument to be sound). And the conclusion is still subject to further testing. If the premises and the conclusion are all shown to be "true," then the logical arguent is sound. And, even then, something may come along later on to invalidate either the premises or the conclusion or all of it. None of it is True.And this is where your problem lies. You have been told, or developed on your own, the idea that logic solves everything. If you knew anything about logic you would not be so quick to believe that. Yes, we're confronted by Spock who is supposed to be the "scientific, rational" character on Star Trek, but Spock (sorry to inform you) is not a real person and his lines were written by screenwriters and not logicians or scientists or even theologians.We often hear phrases like "logically speaking" or "it's only logical" but do you, Dawn Bertot, really know what those phrases mean? Logic is not common sense. Logic, all by itself, is not adequate to explain the world we live in. You can try and it might make sense in your head, but the sense in your head is not enough to explain the world around us. The logic and the "axioms" must be tested to make sure they correspond to reality.

---

"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, 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