Intelligent Design

by Delta20 234 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek

    ellderwho:

    Since logical absolutes are conceptual they transcend all people at all times and are absolute in all circumstances.

    Lots of things are conceptual but neither transcendent nor absolute. I think you're using vague terms inappropriately either because you're confused or because you're trying to confuse.

    However, I believe that logic is universal in that it is nothing more than a way of rearranging information to reveal less obvious information. I'm baffled as to what part of that truism you think requires a god.

    This, the atheist cannot account for. But the theist can. Or at least I have an explanation.

    No you don't. Or at least nothing you've said so far has come close to qualifying as such.

    Observing nature or natural occurances for absolutes cannot be done, since everything that is in nature has not yet been discovered or observed. Then this becomes subjective. And how can you observe something that isnt there.

    Again, that makes no sense. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I just don't know what you're trying to say.

    The argument you seem to be attempting is something like this:

    God is absolute.
    Logic is absolute.
    Therefore logic comes from God.

    Of course the premise "God is absolute" requires you to first prove the existence of God, and then that he is "absolute" whatever that may mean. You haven't done that.

    I could accept the second premise if I knew precisely what you meant by "absolute". I'll assume you mean that its existence is necessarily true in any conceivable universe. If so, then I concur.

    Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. Even if God and logic are both "absolute" and the word means the same in both cases, it does not follow that one requires the other. In fact, if logic is indeed universal as we both seem to believe it would follow that it would exist in exactly the same way whether or not a god existed. Or do you believe that God could create a universe where, for example, all elephants are grey and Jumbo is an elephant but Jumbo is not grey. If you believe he could, then clearly logic is not universal and is simply an artificial construct; alternatively, even God is subject to logic meaning that it can exist without him. So which is it?

    Perhaps your right, this might make more sense in a Christian board.

    No it wouldn't, but you might find more people willing to gloss over the gaping holes in your argument because they like your conclusions.

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    elderwho,

    I have followed this thread with interest and I am still not convinced that you understand what logic, or even logical progresssion is. Logic is merely a form of measurement, it is not the conclusion. It is a process which leads us to an conclusion. One cannot approach this subject from an already concluded but *unproven* viewpoint, as you seem to.

    I quote Isaac Watts, a Christian writer of another era. His definition of the process of knowledge might serve to illuminate the matter.

    'It was a saying of the ancients, that "truth lies in a well"; and to carry on that metaphor, we may justly say, that logic supplies us with steps whereby we may go down to reach the water".

    In viewing this subject from a Christian dimension as you claim, it is incumbent upon you to show us the steps of logic that led to that dimension in the first place. It would ironic if you argue a conclusion on the matter of logical progression without showing us the steps of logic that led you there to begin with.

    Best regards - HS

  • ellderwho
    ellderwho

    FD, help me out here,

    FD:However, I believe that logic is universal in that it is nothing more than a way of rearranging information to reveal less obvious information. I'm baffled as to what part of that truism you think requires a god.

    All of it. I attribute it to God

    We both agree that logic is universal. I attribute logic to Gods existence.( I realize this doesnt fly with you)

    What do you attribute logic to? In your view what is logic derived from?

    Observing nature or natural occurances for absolutes cannot be done, since everything that is in nature has not yet been discovered or observed. Then this becomes subjective. And how can you observe something that isnt there.

    Again, that makes no sense. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I just don't know what you're trying to say.

    Tell me how the above statement broke down. You state "I dont make sense", but you dont totally "disagree"

    What can I clear up?

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek
    FD, help me out here,

    I wish I could, but it may be beyond my abilities.

    All of it. I attribute it to God

    I know that. I still don't know why.

    We both agree that logic is universal. I attribute logic to Gods existence.( I realize this doesnt fly with you)

    Again, I know that. But beyond repeatedly stating it, you've done nothing to support that claim.

    What do you attribute logic to? In your view what is logic derived from?

    If you understood what logic is, you'd realise how pointless that question is. You could claim ignorance at the start of this discussion. You no longer have such an excuse.

    Tell me how the above statement broke down. You state "I dont make sense", but you dont totally "disagree"

    I can't disagree with something that I don't understand. I'm pretty sure I'd disagree with it if I understood it, if that helps.

  • ellderwho
    ellderwho
    We both agree that logic is universal. I attribute logic to Gods existence.( I realize this doesnt fly with you)

    Again, I know that. But beyond repeatedly stating it, you've done nothing to support that claim.

    Fine, forget about my claim, whats yours?

    What do you attribute logic to? In your view what is logic derived from?

    If you understood what logic is, you'd realise how pointless that question is. You could claim ignorance at the start of this discussion. You no longer have such an excuse.

    Your just evading the question.

    Tell me how the above statement broke down. You state "I dont make sense", but you dont totally "disagree"

    I can't disagree with something that I don't understand. I'm pretty sure I'd disagree with it if I understood it, if that helps.

    No it doesnt help, futher you predispose yourself to disagree, sounds like a closed mind to me.

    HS, Ive never stated once that logic is what led me to have faith in a creator. Your putting words in my mouth.

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    ellderwho not play with full deck!

    AlanF

  • ellderwho
    ellderwho

    :ellderwho not play with full deck!

    Hey, stop wasting your bandwidth

  • zen nudist
  • zen nudist
    zen nudist

    logic is an abstracted set of symbols which is taken to represent manipulation of items of experience which have an apparent consistancy, stability, and collective agreement... it is neither universal nor necessarily representative of anything more than experiences within ones own mind.

    Fuzzy logic which was developed in the US in the 40s was rejected by western minds because it deals in a logic where more than 100% is common... this lead to is discoverer to bring it to japan where their zen way of looking at things fit right in, and many projects on the market which work far better in real time than traditional logic systems are making loads of money.... the new space station docking port is one of the biggest western applications of fuzzy logical systems which are still rare in the US and Europe.

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    elderwho,

    HS, Ive never stated once that logic is what led me to have faith in a creator. Your putting words in my mouth.

    And I did not imply that at all. Reread my post. You cannot suggest that God is the encapsulation of all logic without first proving the logical progression that led you to this conclusion. As all your conclusions to date regarding the process of logic orient around God being the finality of truth and logic, then there must be a process of logic to show this. Without this all your arguments fail.

    Of course if you were to present your views as a hypothesis, then perhaps we will all understand what you are getting at.

    Best regards - HS

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit