Intelligent Design

by Delta20 234 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  ellderwho

  FS,

  Because I have a "christian world view" I account for the laws of logic as a reflection of God.

  How does the atheist account for the laws of logic. He cannot. He has to borrow from the christian world view to argue successfully with logic.

  As AlanF has been exposed in his thinking that he himself in his mind accounts for logic. Logic being truth cannot be subjective as the human mind would make it.

  As pointed out in previous posts' the atheist will try to account for laws of logic through nature and this does not work either, he is then confusing the mind with the universe, the laws of logic are not the result of observable behavior of objects or actions. ie. we do not see in nature something that is both itself and not itself at the same time.

  Further, how can absolute, conceptual, abstract laws be derived from a universe of matter, energy and motion? let alone chance.

  On this thread Ive had to give definitions of my definitions because the atheist cannot have a "universal standard of rationality" He's just waiting for a definition he can tear down but, the onus is upon the atheist if he wants to argue using logic. At least I can account for the laws of logic the atheist cannot.

  And if we use the logic that I.D. proves the existance in the God of the bible,, we can with the same type logic come all sorts of other conclusions as well,, that takes us beyond the bible god senerio. That is if we are fair in our use of that type of logic.

  Now do you get it??

  No. Take me beyond the Bible God senerio and show me. Logically.
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  ElderWho

  Remember the TV show Macgyver? Dude could jerry rig all sorts of useful things from items used for different purposes. Natural selection also works with what's available. Its just an algorithm that can yield results that we would look upon as intelligent choices in that given situation with the given materials. A non-sentient process can mimic intelligence. There's one possibility besides the Bible god scenario that can be considered. There can be more than one as FrenchBabyFace was saying before.
• 

  ellderwho

  Dude could jerry rig all sorts of useful things from items used for different purposes.

  LOL, yeah we gota guy like that in work. In the end its better the pros take care of important problems.
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Yep...I'd rather have pros too.

  But I wouldn't mind being that ingenious.
• 

  AlanF

  One last post to you, ellderwho. It illustrates your thoroughly muddled reasoning.

  I'll keep this to short sentences so you might have a chance to comprehend it.

  You had said to Pole and funkyderek:

  : how would you account for the laws of logic?

  I then asked you to define "the laws of logic" that must be accounted for.

  You made a number of replies, never answering my simple question, even after I and other posters repeatedly asked you to.

  Then you switched tactics.

  Rather than trying to give your definition of "the laws of logic", you jumped on Narkisso's statement that "the 'laws of logic' Ellderwho referred to have not been defined."

  You stated: "Sure they have, its just not the definition Alan F. wants to tear down."

  But up to this point, in this thread, no definitions had been given by anyone -- most especially not by you.

  If you think definitions had been given in this thread, then provide the time-and-date stamp of the post or posts in which you think they were given (example: 20-Feb-05 21:12).

  Nor did I "tear down" any definitions, since no definitions had been given.

  Finally, not having realized that you changed the topic of discussion, you substituted my comments on what logic is for your definition of "the laws of logic", in an exchange you quoted from a completely different thread from last August ("Freedom to Choose God"; http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/71855/15.ashx ). You quoted:

  :: EW : If so where does this logic come from?

  :: Our brains, which evolved over several million years into the best social computers the world has ever seen, and into excellent survival machines that rely specifically on logically putting those "real, observable effects" into actions that result in survival.

  But even from these comments, it's clear that I said nothing about any "laws of logic". I stated my opinion about logic itself -- which is a very different thing from any supposed "laws of logic".

  Further illustrating your switch of discussion topic from your definition of "the laws of logic" to my comments on what logic is, you posted this:

  : AlanFs response to where does logic come from,

  : see:http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/71855/15.ashx

  I simply see no point continuing to attempt to discuss logic with anyone so completely incapable of using it to stick to a specific and clear point: defining what you mean by "the laws of logic".

  Obviously you have no idea what these "laws" are, and you know that you don't, and so you do everything in your power to avoid admitting it.

  AlanF
• 

  ellderwho

  Alan F:I simply see no point continuing to attempt to discuss logic with anyone so completely incapable of using it to stick to a specific and clear point: defining what you mean by "the laws of logic".
  

  Surley you can defend your slippery slope position better than this. Weak Al, very weak, I expected more from you.

  Your in a corner with your "logic comes from my brain" shown your error, you resort to insults that you think will deter from your ridiculous statements about the origins of logic. Logic, whether its little itty bit of logic or a great big piece of it. You said it "comes from my brain"

  :But even from these comments, it's clear that I said nothing about any "laws of logic". I stated my opinion about logic itself -- which is a very different thing from any supposed "laws of logic".

  This is what you would call "goople de goop"

  I posted the link, read the thread, I gave you a definition of logic, sorry its not the one you can tear down.

  I responed with a definition of laws of logic with universal standards of rationality.Then you state "define the terms." Why you cannot comprehend the aforementioned?

  Al, its universal, its a standard, an its being rational. But I realize you want nothing thats universal, lest your hand be shown.
• 

  AlanF

  ellderwho said:

  : I responed with a definition of laws of logic with universal standards of rationality.

  That's simply substituting one undefined term for another. It answers nothing. It immediately brings up the questions:

  How do you define "universal standards of rationality" and can you give examples?

  Will you answer by saying, "universal standards of rationality" are "the laws of logic"?

  Where do such circular "definitions" get you? Nowhere.

  :Then you state "define the terms." Why you cannot comprehend the aforementioned?

  Why can you not comprehend that circular definitions are meaningless?

  : Al, its universal, its a standard, an its being rational. But I realize you want nothing thats universal, lest your hand be shown.

  You first have to state what you think you're talking about, in clear, unambiguous language, and only then can you make statements about universality, standards and rationality.

  Again it's obvious that you refuse to make any clear definitions, because you know that once you do, your statements are open to easy refutation. So you want nothing that's clear, lest your hand be shown.

  This is exactly the tactic that Jehovah's Witness use who know that they can't defend their claims, and so resort to all manner of subterfuge to avoid answering hard questions.

  AlanF
• 

  frenchbabyface

  Ellederwho,

  So now you are talking about factors of logic without applying them or only when it fits your purpose ... "Your logic" is playing the double standard game ... if you can't apply the same logic to the same element, where is your logic ? ... not being logic ? ... and telling us we are not logic, on your logic, based on not being logic ??? ... Look that's REGRESSION the reverse of EVOLUTION ! That's when things do not connect in "your logic" which is not logic (cause the matter is logic from your own belief it should be logical for you to understand at any time or at the end if you make the connection whish seems to missing in your reasoning by now on the logical side of the concept that allow lots of possibilities (and not just one, the one that please you the most with no proof not more than ours).
• 

  Leolaia

  seattleniceguy....I'm not as familiar with the Nicaraguan data as I would like to be, but I think it has been overstated (like the situation from Hawaii also mentioned by Pinker) in too sensationalistic terms. The creative input from children has mostly been that of leveling co-existing idiosyncratic home signing systems in a peer social context, and the changes are less spectacular than creating a brand-new language ab ovo. The example of pidgins/creoles I know of much better is similar; I know of no instance of a fully-fledged creole magically arising in a single of children, through first language acquisition. Much of the change occurs in the speech of bilingual adults or children who start using a more limited pidgin as a vernacular (primary language), and the expansive changes largely draw on structures from the native language they learn from their parents. These children of the second generation learn from their pidgin-speaking parents a full knowledge (or nearly full knowledge) of their native language but as they grow older and especially in interacting with other children in the community speaking other native languages, they become more and more dominant in using pidgin -- and thus it is in the social context of contact between children in middle childhood and adults that leveling occurs and the pidgin becomes more complex and expanded in its stylistic resources. It takes another generation for children to be born who learn mostly the already-expanded or partly-expanded pidgin in first language acquisition, who then streamline the language further -- again in social contact with other speakers, especially older siblings and children in the community. In short, I don't see much evidence of creole structure as innate categories that suddenly, abruptly emerge in the first generation of children born in a community where a pidgin is spoken. The main evidence for the classic "bioprogram" theory of creole origins that Pinker mentions comes from Hawaii (as most other creoles emerged many centuries ago), and the theory is just not very plausible considering the social and linguistic facts. Many linguists also doubt whether a pidgin was involved in the origin of other creoles; and this remains a controversial question, with some opinions being pro and against.

  BTW, I'm going to write a book on this subject -- most likely to be published by a major academic press....
• 

  ellderwho

  EW : I responed with a definition of laws of logic with universal standards of rationality.

  :That's simply substituting one undefined term for another. It answers nothing.

  In whos book is it an undefined term? It answers what the laws of logic are IMHO. Ive not affraid to give a definition, maybe not the one you want to hear, nontheless its a definition. Im not the first to use it, in fact its used in many debates of atheist and creationist.

  :How do you define "universal standards of rationality" and can you give examples?

  :Will you answer by saying, "universal standards of rationality" are "the laws of logic"?

  :Where do such circular "definitions" get you? Nowhere.

  Face it Al you just cannot accept my definition, because it closes doors that you would love to get a foot in on.

  ::Then you state "define the terms." Why you cannot comprehend the aforementioned?

  :Why can you not comprehend that circular definitions are meaningless?

  Still no answer.

  :: Al, its universal, its a standard, an its being rational. But I realize you want nothing thats universal, lest your hand be shown.

  :You first have to state what you think you're talking about, in clear, unambiguous language, and only then can you make statements about universality, standards and rationality.

  See above

  :Again it's obvious that you refuse to make any clear definitions, because you know that once you do, your statements are open to easy refutation. So you want nothing that's clear, lest your hand be shown.

  Al, no matter what definition is written, I already know your position, you cannot account for logic period. If so then do it! Whether its in your "brain" or otherwise. You got caught telling me you've developed logic somehow in your "brain," its to bad its only Als logic.

  :This is exactly the tactic that Jehovah's Witness use who know that they can't defend their claims, and so resort to all manner of subterfuge to avoid answering hard questions.

  Non-statement