Logic..... anyone?

[theadroitoppressor]

I was browsing this forum for about 20 minutes before I decided to join and post this thread. Why is it that every anti-God, finding of Biblical contradiction, or many of the moral dilemma posts defies logic? Does anyone have a point to make that isn't hypocritical? Plain and simple God is absolute logic as is his Word. If we don't accept that there is logic and absolutes in life we cannot exist, as we are, according to any other explanations of existence, a mathematical impossibility. Oh, if you want feel more then free to contact me on AIM.

Keep cool; Later,
Dan

 

[Philosoft]

How would I go about denying that logic and absolutes exist?

 

[Brimshack]

I always find it amusing when people espuse the virtues of logic in the abstract while failing to use even the most rudimentary priciples of logic in practice.

 

[Philosoft]

Two posts. Says to contact him on AIM. You think he's coming back?

 

[Brimshack]

LOL, a Monty python skit coms to mind. Buncha vikings, singing a song about something…

 

[Jet Black]

the baked beans are off....

 

[Jet Black]

it's a shame that his post is so badly worded, or I would pull it apart.

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, Baffle them with Bullsh..."

 

[theadroitoppressor]

Perhaps my post came across as a bit more confrontational then I had intended. But I fail to see anyone who has countered my point. If you honestly think that I "espouse the virtues of the abstract" then you abandon the most logical explanation of existence in the world. We know the Bible to be the most accurate documentation of its time period. As well as all the laws and provisions that are made able to be justified through logic. The reason for my post was to have a nice thorough debate with people who felt strongly against my acceptance of God. Not to slander them for disagreeing with me. I suppose it is easy to say I have abandoned rudimentary logic, or compare me to some Monty Python movie I have never seen. However you still fail to provide convicting evidence to disprove my ideal. Oh and I apologize if my posts are poorly worded. I have a very basic educational background.

Keep cool; Later,
Dan

 

[theadroitoppressor]

By the way, Jet Black, your sig. if funny man nj lol

 

[Jet Black]

tahnks

the problem with your post is that it makes a bunch of assumptions that haven't been backed up. If you want a good conversation or so on, I politely suggest a couple of rules to work by:

try not to jumble up points, address each point individually. this improves the clarity, and makes it clear what you are trying to say... and people can't accuse you of having a poorly worded post. people as a whole don't like extracting your point from what you say themselves, and besides, this leaves things open to misinterpretation, and lengthly circumlocusions to get to the point you really want to make. Try to make sure that in a multiple point post, all the points are driving at one thing that can be discussed as a whole. this includes not posting "lists" of mutually exclusive arguments (PRATT lists, seen often in the science forum)


as a scientist I will focus on one in particular:

we are, according to any other explanations of existence, a mathematical impossibility.

when clearly we are not. the natural (scientific) approach does not find us a mathematical impossibility at all. the probability P, of us existing does not equal 0 under any calculation. in fact, the mere fact that we exist would necessitate such a calculation to be incorrect, and immediately falsified and removed from the body of scientific thought.

 

[Jet Black]

in fact, if there were any calculation that predicted the probability of life to be zero, then that calculation would nescesarrily be wrong, regardless of the existance of a God or not, simply by the fact that we are here.

 

[tcampen]

Perhaps my post came across as a bit more confrontational then I had intended. But I fail to see anyone who has countered my point. If you honestly think that I "espouse the virtues of the abstract" then you abandon the most logical explanation of existence in the world. We know the Bible to be the most accurate documentation of its time period.

It is important not to confuse references to the natural and verifiable with references to the supernatural and unverifiable. When the two are mixed in a narrative, there is still no reason to find the supernatural claims reliable just because some of the natural claims can be verified. Using this logic, you'd have to accept many other claims, including alien abductions - which are based in real, verifiable people, places, and times, and cannot be disproven.

As well as all the laws and provisions that are made able to be justified through logic. The reason for my post was to have a nice thorough debate with people who felt strongly against my acceptance of God. Not to slander them for disagreeing with me. I suppose it is easy to say I have abandoned rudimentary logic, or compare me to some Monty Python movie I have never seen. However you still fail to provide convicting evidence to disprove my ideal. Oh and I apologize if my posts are poorly worded. I have a very basic educational background. Keep cool; Later, Dan

Dan, it is important to remember that the one asserting a principle has the burden of proving it. This is among the most basic foundations of reasoned discourse. If you assert God is perfectly logical and flawless, then show examples of that premise. Then the rest of us can test it to see of your assertion stands up.

But to just show up and say "God is perfect, the bible is accurate...now prove me wrong" simply presents general concepts too broad to have any meaninful discussion about.

Narrow it down a bit. Be specific. Provide examples, with backup as necessary. This could be good for all of us.

 

[Volos]

Originally posted by: theadroitoppressor


The reason for my post was to have a nice thorough debate with people who felt strongly against my acceptance of God.

I’m sure you two are very happy together. Why would someone want to argue about that?

 

[Ben johnson]

when clearly we are not. the natural (scientific) approach does not find us a mathematical impossibility at all. the probability P, of us existing does not equal 0 under any calculation. in fact, the mere fact that we exist would necessitate such a calculation to be incorrect, and immediately falsified and removed from the body of scientific thought.

Once probability decreases to one in several thousand magnitudes, all scientific and philosophic thought DO equate it with zero. Statistically speaking, such an eponential probability is, by life itself, raised to literally the power of infinity; several times.

And to say "our existence necessiates the removal of PROBABILITY-ZERO from the body of scientific thought", exposes the bias behind the argument: THAT EVEN CONSIDERING HYPERDIMENSIONAL BIO-ENGINEERING-INTELIGENCE is by DEFINITION STUPID.

Today is Wednesday, August 13, 2003 --- this week on Coral Ridge Ministries is a discussion of "Intelligent Design Overturning Darwinism"; there is a program this Saturday, 6:00pm Central, 4:00pm Paqcific on TBN television network; but I do not know if it is THIS week's episode or NEXT. You can READ the text of the debate at: http://www.coralridge.org/impact/2003_Aug_Pg1.htm

On their main webpage (http://www.coralridge.org/), there is an entry "signs of intelligence" where you can LISTEN to the entire discussion. He does make the point about how Science has been REDEFINED to preclude God; the moment the word "CREATOR" is mentioned, all ears switch off --- so successfully have they defined "GOD" as "superstitious ignorance".

Of course, reading or listening takes a degree of "intellectual honesty"; a Willingness to listen to rational discourse. If someone is CLOSED-MINDED (which is the opposite of "scientific"), then no consideration will be given at all to "intelligent design"...

 

[Philosoft]

Of course, reading or listening takes a degree of "intellectual honesty"; a Willingness to listen to rational discourse. If someone is CLOSED-MINDED (which is the opposite of "scientific"), then no consideration will be given at all to "intelligent design"...

Why is it IDists are constantly throwing this in the face of evolution supporters? We understand what it means to be open-minded, guys. Really, we do. Just because we don't find Dembski persuasive doesn't mean we're not listening to "rational discourse." Heck, I think reading Dembski at all ought to earn me some respect, for all anyone can comprehend what he's talking about, including himself.

 

[Brimshack]

Your post wasn't too confrontational, though it did appear as a probable piece of spam (hence the MP reference). In any event, the virtue that you espouse in the abstract is logic itself. You do not use logic at all in either your OP or your follow up. Instead you merely claim that certain beliefs are exceptionally logical, accurate, etc. Those claims stand entirely undefined, and unsupported in your posts, and hence, they border on the meaningless. I'm not interested in trying to refute a barrage of sweeping claims lacking focus or supporting evidence. You may as well try and prove that my invisible friend, Bob, doesn't exist. The point being, that until you put something o the table, there is nothing to discuss.

I suppose we could discuss your claim that the Bible is the most accurate document for its time period, but wven then we'd have to start with clarifying what you mean by that, and by what criterion you determined this? Accurate about what? etc. You see, meaning is logically prior to truth value, and so until you make a few more decisions about what you mean by all this, we can't really make any decisions about whether you are right or wrong.

 

[revolutio]

Occam's Razor is not pleased young Theadroitoppressor.
Occam's Razor demands you prove yourself and your beliefs worthy before questioning the athiests.

 

[Mephster]

How about before calling oneself either atheist or christian (or what have you) a person is required to study... oh... Aristotle, Leibniz, Boole, Russell, Quine, Barwise... etc. etc.

"Logic" is nice, important (vital, really).... but its the concepts that people use that terrify me. Its a severe barometer drop sometimes when people talk/post. Why? Has everyone gone "stupid?" I doubt it, I think folks are just overzealous (maybe like the starter of this thread?)

 

[Michali]

Yeah I mean, I know what he's tryin to say here. There is some sort of unexplainable substance to existence. What is it? How is it the way it is? How far can you break down it's matter before you find out just how to explain the rules and regulations it follows. There is almost a magical property to it. A miracle that cannot be denied because we are a part of it. There must be something beyond it's limits where there is a solid constant. The omnipotent God theory is a very plausible theory when in regard to the explanation of reality. A being who conceived the inconceivable. Who created something out of nothing, yet created nothing itself. A realm beyond limits.

 

[Brimshack]

Well perhaps you could provide some reason to believe each (or any one) of the following claims:

There is some sort of unexplainable substance to existence.

There is almost a magical property to it. A miracle that cannot be denied because we are a part of it.

There must be something beyond it's limits where there is a solid constant.