hey all,.
i am currently studying the topic of intelligent design (id).
basically the id theory is the revival of the teleological argument for the existance of a deity.
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.
hey all,.
i am currently studying the topic of intelligent design (id).
basically the id theory is the revival of the teleological argument for the existance of a deity.
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?
hey all,.
i am currently studying the topic of intelligent design (id).
basically the id theory is the revival of the teleological argument for the existance of a deity.
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?
hey all,.
i am currently studying the topic of intelligent design (id).
basically the id theory is the revival of the teleological argument for the existance of a deity.
:ellderwho not play with full deck!
Hey, stop wasting your bandwidth
hey all,.
i am currently studying the topic of intelligent design (id).
basically the id theory is the revival of the teleological argument for the existance of a deity.
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.
hey all,.
i am currently studying the topic of intelligent design (id).
basically the id theory is the revival of the teleological argument for the existance of a deity.
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?
hey all,.
i am currently studying the topic of intelligent design (id).
basically the id theory is the revival of the teleological argument for the existance of a deity.
Fd :Logic is simply a movement from the general to the specific. ................ A universe full of rocks would still be subject to logic.
EW:Is the above a universal truth?
Fd: It is what it is. I think the problem here is that you have decided logic is a "universal truth" without really understanding what any of the words mean.
I havent decided this, it has to be.
This is my point, logical absolutes exist, they are conceptual thoughts. Existing in the mind. I think you'll agree to the fact that scientist use logical absolutes as a basis to verify their science. Although they themself cannot be tested in a lab they exist.
Since logical absolutes are conceptual they transcend all people at all times and are absolute in all circumstances. This, the atheist cannot account for. But the theist can. Or at least I have an explanation.
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.
Im not saying that some knowledge is not subjective. But logical absolutes cannot be. If they are, then nothing is true. And everything is subjective.
As far as "laws of logic" its a pink elephant in this thread. Alan F. knows exactly what to look for in definitions that a creationist will give.
:Ellderwho, I think you're way out of your depth in this discussion and you might be better served by reading up on logic, and what it is and is not.
Perhaps your right, this might make more sense in a Christian board.
hey all,.
i am currently studying the topic of intelligent design (id).
basically the id theory is the revival of the teleological argument for the existance of a deity.
Funky Derek says,
:I'm not sure how this accounts for the "laws of logic". Ellderwho obviously believes everything comes from God, and is simply declaring a specific case of this belief. But it doesn't explain anything, it just reiterates his preference for belief in a deity.
God is absolute, and the standard of truth.Therefore, the absolute laws of logic exist because they reflect the nature of an absolute God.
:Ellderwho has dismissed out of hand all attempts at explaining logic to him, because they don't fit his one criterion of coming from God.
No, I have a hard time understanding how in a atheist world of chance, absolute, conceptual abstract laws be derived from universe of matter, energy and motion.
And has yet to be explained
:Ellderwho's increasingly baffling point of view now seems to be that logic is universal
How is is not universal?
:Logic is simply a movement from the general to the specific. ................ A universe full of rocks would still be subject to logic.
Is the above a universal truth?
:and the use of logic leads us to the existence of a creator, whose existence is the only possible explanation of the existence of logic,
As I stated above.
: but who is not himself subject to logic.
No, I believe God cannot contradict himself.
hey all,.
i am currently studying the topic of intelligent design (id).
basically the id theory is the revival of the teleological argument for the existance of a deity.
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
hey all,.
i am currently studying the topic of intelligent design (id).
basically the id theory is the revival of the teleological argument for the existance of a deity.
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.
