The use of logic in establishing truths

Thanks, Bluegenes and my apologies to Stile and Razd for this carelessness. How so must logic be applied only outside of the Biblical record? That makes no sense to me. 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.

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: 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 themselves2)they always existed3)something created them.4)everything just came into existence with no creating, including self-creating, required, and no eternal existence required.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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

Ringo writesI 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 BertotD Bertot

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 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.

Dawn Bertot 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

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

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: I don't think this definition is very clear, and I like better what Answers.com has to say in its 3rd definition: 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:

1. Dead men tell no tales.
2. We need to keep the crime secret.
3. Spike wants to go to the police and tell his story.
4. 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

Not in the English language, it isn't. For example, I certainly came into existence, and I certainly didn't create myself. What creator? If your creator can exist without being created, so, my child, can anything else. That's logic for you.

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 guess you know I would ask what the first two definitons are. Hmmm 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

Bluegenes writesDont 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. 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