Intelligent Design

by Delta20 234 Replies latest watchtower bible

ellderwho

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.

I come to these conclusions by default. Atheism and or Naturalism, or evolution offer no viable answer for the order and sense that logic demands.
If my position is so far from being logical, why hasnt the atheist stepped up to help me make sense of why the order of logic is in his/her world, and why its reliable and it works?
Zen states of logic : 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.
What does collective agreement have to do with a logical outcome? In the US, would not the same logical outcome occur in China. Further what is stable or consistent about a "collective agreement"?
Alan F. states logic comes from our brain, (which makes it subjective) with no contruct of an agument presented other than evolution. But how could logical precepts be derived from an evolving world that I assume will still evolve?
Funkyderek states, that logic is universal and a "truism" to a certain extent, and that Im confused, and refuses to answer me based on my allegded stupity, and yet he cannot disagree with things he does not understand, although he wants to agree to a certain extent while not really wanting to commit to an arguement.
Liberty II says: Logic has evolved along with human intellegence. There must be a consistant base for thought processes to compare facts and observations against, otherwise our thoughts become muddled nonsense.
Here again logic is subjected to human knowledge, while stated there must be a base for comparing things, that basis, in the end is shaky due to its origins. (human knowledge) or subjectivity.
Almost atheist states: I think it order to have a logical debate you have to have some agreed upon "truths".
Is a "truth" not a truth until its agreed upon? Is this, then what logic becomes, an agreed upon truth. Subjected to a vote?
Hillary, you state, your not convinced I can grasp what logic is. Do the above posters seem to have a grasp and be in agreement?
LittleToe

Logic and science don't answer "why"s, they only answer "how"s
ellderwho

LT: Logic and science don't answer "why"s, they only answer "how"s
The real crux of the issue is what is the final reference-point required to make the "facts" and "laws" intelligble?
AlmostAtheist

Almost atheist states: I think it order to have a logical debate you have to have some agreed upon "truths". Is a "truth" not a truth until its agreed upon? Is this, then what logic becomes, an agreed upon truth. Subjected to a vote?

If you've asked me any other questions on this thread, sorry, but I missed them. I only popped in 'cause I saw LT posted and I wanted to read it.
A truth is a truth is a truth. Either there are intelligent beings beyond our solar system or there aren't. We don't know. But for purposes of discussion, we can assume there are. Or there aren't. But before we can discuss the subject, we have to agree on what we consider to be truth, or what we will allow as truth. You don't completely agree, that's why you're discussing. So in order to determine what exactly it is that you need to discuss, you have to know what represents "truth" to the parties involved. What actually IS true is irrelevant, since you don't agree on that and in many cases the truth simply can't be definitively determined.
Earlier someone made the point that "complex things require a designer" so a few said, "Ok, who designed the more-complex designer?" If you accept "all complex things require a designer" as an agreed-upon truth, then you must answer that question. If on the other hand you do not accept it, then you and the other party need to back up and agree on what you do both accept. Perhaps you both agree that "some complex things have a designer" or "all physical complex things have a designer". Those are somewhat weak statements, but if you both agree to them, then you have a basis for discussion. If you personally start with the assumption that a god exists, and you discuss with someone that has the assumption that he doesn't, you can't get anywhere on topics that brush against the "god" question. [that's why this thread is now 11-12 pages long]
Just because a conclusion is logical doesn't mean it's right. But barring actual experimentation, it's going to lead you to the best guess. At least that's been my experience. The only alternative is "faith", accepting something that can't be tested and without facts that suggest it's true. (Hebrews 11:1)
Dave
AlmostAtheist

what is the final reference-point required to make the "facts" and "laws" intelligble?

What color is this? ---> XXXXXXX
Hopefully, you think that it's "red". If so, then we agree, and we can discuss it. I think it's a fairly standard red, not dark, not pinkish. What do you think?
We agree it's red not because of "laws of logic" but because we all agree that it's red. That's what we as a people have decided to call it.
Using that agreed upon premise, we can build up conclusions. For instance, the particular red shown here is ALL red. There is no blue or green added. We could probably agree that if we add equal portions of blue and green, it will become a lighter red. Do you agree? Let's test it:
What color is this? ---> XXXXXXX
Yep, that's what happens. This has 100% of the available red and about 30% of the available green and blue. We now have another truth that we can both agree on. Adding equal amounts of blue and green to red creates a lighter shade of red. Logically, we can conclude that adding 100% of the blue and the green will create white.
A logical conclusion that we came to together, based on agreed upon assumptions. There's no "law" or overriding authority watching over logic, it's just a process.
Dave
ellderwho

If you've asked me any other questions on this thread, sorry, but I missed them. I only popped in 'cause I saw LT posted and I wanted to read it.

LOL Ive popped in other threads to see what LT had to say. To be honest he hasnt said much here, to align himself with a brotha.
edited to add: Im color blind, no just kidding.
Liberty II

Hi elderwho,
I, like many posters here, am not sure just what it is you are trying to communicate. I suppose it could be that God is logic? In any case your overly convoluted arguments about logic could be taken as a dodge of the real subject at hand, which is basically about the evidence for God's existance. I.D. proponents claim their evidence for God is that the Universe is far too complex to have come into being without an intelligent creator. The problem with this "evidence" is that God Himself is magically excempted from this otherwise absolute law. This is all fine and good except that many of us skeptics refuse to accept the absurd notion that it is OK for God to appear fully formed from the ethers without an intellegent creator when we are told by His supporters that we MUST accept that our natural Universe could not have done the same. There it is in a nut shell, plain and simple.
I really don't think you would be foolish (illogical?) enough to pay me your live savings for a baptism in my Invisible Pink Unicorn urine (which is so magical that it too is without physical substance) which, by your faith in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, would grant you eternal life. You would be justifiably skeptical of my claims and would demand some evidence. I could state that the fact you exist at all is the best evidence for the Invisible Pink Unicorn's reality. It does not take a complex understanding of logic to see that this is not good evidence for throwing away your life savings. Remove God and your Bible from it's cultural/traditional "logic protection box" and you can see how closely they resemble the Invisible Pink Unicorn. You don't believe in Zeus, Jupitor, Odin, Allah, or Shiva because these gods are outside your "logic excempt box" as well and since they are inactive, silent, and invisible they do not present any compelling evidence making them worthy of your belief. I too could say you must believe in Zeus because He made this complex Universe and the logic systems which govern it. How is your God any different?
funkyderek

ellderwho:
I come to these conclusions by default.

Nonsense. There's nothing default about it. The totality of your argument seems to be "Logic exists, therefore God exists". It's not a logical conclusion or a default position. It appears to be nothing less than a leap of faith.
Atheism and or Naturalism, or evolution offer no viable answer for the order and sense that logic demands.
You keep saying that, despite the fact you've admitted that you believe logic is absolute and therefore would work in exactly the same way whether or not there was a god.
If my position is so far from being logical, why hasnt the atheist stepped up to help me make sense of why the order of logic is in his/her world and why its reliable and it works?
This atheist has, repeatedly. You have ignored every attempt I have made. It's incredibly frustrating for me to continue explaining things, and see you asking the same questions again and again as if I'd said nothing. This will be my last post to you on the subject unless you respond properly.
Zen states of logic : 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.
What does collective agreement have to do with a logical outcome? In the US, would not the same logical outcome occur in China. Further what is stable or consistent about a "collective agreement"?
Alan F. states logic comes from our brain, (which makes it subjective) with no contruct of an agument presented other the evolution. But how could logical precepts be derived from an evolving world that I assume will still evolve?
This is the kind of stuff I have trouble understanding. I'm not sure whether it's your poor grammar, your equivocation of terms, your use of non sequiturs or a combination of all these factors.
Funkyderek states, that logic is universal and a "truism" to a certain extant, and that Im confused, and refuses to answer me based on my allegded stupity, and yet he cannot disagree with things he does not understand, although he wants to agree to a certain extant while not really wanting to commit to an arguement.
That has to be the ugliest sentence I've ever seen. It offends my intellectual and aesthetic sensibilities.
Almost atheist states: I think it order to have a logical debate you have to have some agreed upon "truths".
Is a "truth" not a truth until its agreed upon? Is this, then what logic becomes, an agreed upon truth. Subjected to a vote?
A truth is a truth whether or not anybody agrees on it. But AlmostAtheist is correct. In order to debate logically, all parties must be able to agree on some fundamentals. So let's try to have a logical debate. You and I both agree that logic is universal, and hopefully we both mean this in the sense that a conclusion that proceeds logically from true statements must be true. If that is the case, we can proceed.
So starting with the premise "Logic is universal", can you explain how you arrive at the conclusion "Logic was created by God". I know you claim you didn't arrive at that conclusion logically, but accepted it by default, but I hope you'll understand why that isn't good enough for me.
Of course you can introduce other premises to bolster your claim, but these may have to be proven is well.
hillary_step

elderwho,
So starting with the premise "Logic is universal", can you explain how you arrive at the conclusion "Logic was created by God". I know you claim you didn't arrive at that conclusion logically, but accepted it by default, but I hope you'll understand why that isn't good enough for me.
I think this well sums up the intellectual diachotony that you have got yourself into in this thread. It is exactly the scenario that I suggested would make all your arguments fail, for one *cannot* accept logic by default, that in itself is *not* logical.
Given that you have presented the notion of logic by 'default' as the foundation of your arguments regarding, where do *you* suggest that we go from here?
Best regards - HS
ellderwho

HS,
EW:Hillary, you state, your not convinced I can grasp what logic is. Do the above posters seem to have a grasp and be in agreement?

Intelligent Design

Share this