|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,484 Year: 3,741/9,624 Month: 612/974 Week: 225/276 Day: 1/64 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Logic a Valid Science in the establishment of ID as Scientific.? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 105 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Sideways writes
My bet is that you will not because you cannot. Prove me wrong. I did it even before you finished your babbling. D Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes: Listen again. AXIOM. "A self evident TRUTH that needs no PROOF. An axiom is accepted as a "truth that needs no proof". If its truth isn't accepted, it isn't axiomatic. For this discussion, at least, you have no axiom. Edited by Ringo, : Second "truth" --> "proof". “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 105 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
An axiom is accepted as a "truth that needs no proof". If its truth isn't accepted, it isn't axiomatic. For this discussion, at least, you have no axiom. No. the definition does not say ACCEPTED AS Truth. It says "A Self evident TRUTH. This means it is self-supporting from its own premises. It doesnt need your approval. Further, it requires no proof. No force of Logic, not even mine, can refute it. It is therefore incontravertable. You have to demonstrate that its TRUTH is not valid and this cannot be done by the simple fract that the axiom is proof of itself. "It requires no Proof." Here it is in a syllogism, my propositon that is. Premise 1. Axioms by DEFINITON set forth Facts and Truth, the conclusion of which are incontravertable, because they require no proof Premise 2. the existence of a designer or possible existence fall into an axiom that sets for the only possible explanation for the origin of things. Conclusion. The existence of a designer is established apart from the ideas of religious thought by the means of an axiom, with the applied science of formal logic true demonstrate it validity. As we Italian's say, Bada-boom, bada-bing, der ya have it. D Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes: No. the definition does not say ACCEPTED AS Truth. Sure it does:
quote: And again:
quote: You have no "universally accepted" axiom. Therefore, your syllogism is worthless. Edited by Ringo, : Formatting nitpick. “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
reiverix Member (Idle past 5841 days) Posts: 80 From: Central Ohio Joined: |
Again it does not matter if the this THREAD is shut down in the next minute or the next month. I have established my case beyond any shadow of a doubt. Again, your method of gathering facts is not the only possible one, as I have CLEARLY demonstrated.
You are becoming a perfect example of how NOT to argue for ID. Is your plan to let the thread run out or be closed so you can get away with providing no evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5930 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Dawn Bertot
"sigh" Ok let us try this question. Is there a logical reason why God exists?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 105 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
You have no "universally accepted" axiom. Therefore, your syllogism is worthless. Nice try, go back and look at the definition that was provided by even yourself. It does not say that the Truth of the axiom is genarally ACCEPTED. It says the rule or principle itself, is genrally accepted. The Truth that is SELF-EVIDENT, self-supporting. Again, only this general principle of an axiom is the thing that is accepted. Nice try tough, Ive been doing this to long. D Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 105 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Ok let us try this question. Is there a logical reason why God exists? Yeap, Especially the one I just presented and many many more. D Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
reiverix Member (Idle past 5841 days) Posts: 80 From: Central Ohio Joined: |
Ive been doing this to long.
What's that? Avoiding the evidence and living in la-la land. I was really hoping for something spectacular from you in this thread. Disappointing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 105 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
You are becoming a perfect example of how NOT to argue for ID. Is your plan to let the thread run out or be closed so you can get away with providing no evidence? Quit crying and respond to the argument
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
reiverix Member (Idle past 5841 days) Posts: 80 From: Central Ohio Joined: |
You're such a hypocrite, little girlie.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes: It does not say that the Truth of the axiom is genarally ACCEPTED. Sure it does. Here it is again:
quote: There is nothing "self-evident" about your claim that "the existence of a designer or possible existence fall into an axiom that sets for the only possible explanation for the origin of things." Message 198 You're misusing "axiom" to mean "something you won't or can't back up". “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminWounded Inactive Member |
Please can we stop these short posts with nothing but sniping?
This whole thread is rapidly losing whatever coherence it once had. Lets not just have the same questions put to Dawn again and again, his answers to many are already there whether we are able or willing to understand them or not. If anyone has a new line of argument to bring up now would be an excellent time. Otherwise the thread is just going to turn into a circular frenzy of pseudo-logic chopping. Alternatively if Dawn has a different way to present his argument maybe that might help progress things, clearly the OP and subsequent debate have done little to facilitate any productive discussion of the threads titular question. TTFN, AW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Premise 1. Axioms by DEFINITON set forth Facts and Truth, the conclusion of which are incontravertable, because they require no proof But this is wrong-headed by inspection. It is only that for which proof has been supplied that is incontrovertible. Otherwise, what you're saying is that you can render any assertion incontrovertible simply by refusing to defend it, and that doesn't make any sense. Axioms are simply assumed to be true for purposes of argument. They may be true, or they may not be, in reality. You can pick and choose which axioms you want, because they're simply things you assume to be true and that can be anything at all. For instance, Euclid's fifth axiom has always been the subject of some interest:
quote: It turns out that you don't have to assume this is true. If you assert, instead, that "if two lines intersect a third, and the sum of their inner angles is less than two right angles, the two lines still won't ever intersect each other" you've defined geometry on a hyperbolic surface. Or you can go the opposite route. If you assume a fifth axiom that says that two lines perpendicular to a third inevitably intersect, you've defined geometry on an elliptic surface, like the surface of a sphere. As you can see, axioms are not assumed because they're "self-evident", or because they're so true you don't have to prove them, neither of which is true. Axioms do not by definition set forth facts and truth. They simply represent what has been assumed to be true, for argument's sake.
As we Italian's say, Bada-boom, bada-bing, der ya have it. I am Italian, and as we like to say, "fuggeddaboudit." Axioms aren't true by definition. Hell, "true by definition" doesn't even mean what you think it means. Axioms are true because they're assumed to be true for purposes of argument. There's no requirement that others make the same assumption. A given proof in Euclidian geometry isn't convincing in elliptic geometry, because those two geometers differ in what they assume to be true. And neither has a greater claim to truth than the other; they have no power or basis to conclude that the other one is making a wrong assumption. They're simply making different assumptions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Hi Dawn Bertot,
When logic is called a science, it is this definition of science that is in play (definitions from Answers.com)
science: 1c. Methodological activity, discipline, or study This is not the same definition of science that is meant when referring to fields like physics, geology or biology:
science: 1a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Logic can be used when thinking about the real world, but it can also be used to think about imaginary worlds. Science requires that you make logical connections between your ideas and the real world. The mere application of logic says nothing about the real world unless it includes thinking logically about evidence from the real world, because it is the real world that is the object of scientific study. So until you direct your logic at evidence from the real world, you couldn't possibly be doing science. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024