Intelligent Design (page 14)

LittleToe

Didier:
Thanks. I didn't think it sounded right, considering the quote you offered earlier
It looks as if I may need to resort to Derek's babelfish (I love the Hitchhicker's connotations) and a dose of common sense.

ellderwho

Funky Derek,

ellderwho:
Pole, Derek how would you account for the laws of logic?

Logic is a method for determining whether an argument or piece of reasoning is likely to be correct. It's impossible to argue usefully without using some form of logic.

You really didnt answer my question, although you agree that logic is needed to argue, you fail to aknowledge how logic is derived from a world of matter energy and motion?

Deputy Dog

Lib II

Wow, it looks to me like just saying that if you don't believe in something (like Fridays), that would relieve a person of responsibility of obeying the "rules" of logic. I put rules in quotes because, most would call them "laws of logic". I would call them laws, because it makes no difference weather we believe in them or not, they are true. If I jump off my roof, I will fall. I believe your example of Fridays and paydays are examples of conventions or are conventional, not laws.

I don't believe the laws of logic can evolve because they are true, regardless of human intelligence. They are true and will always be true. These laws maintain an order in the universe. It is this order that is established by natural laws and laws of logic, that I believe can only by supported by a Theistic world view. I don't believe an atheistic world view can account for this much order and complexity in the universe.

As for the laws of logic, I have yet to see any rational explanation for their origin, from an atheists point of view.

ellderwho

how logic is derived from a world of matter energy and motion?

That is a good question?

D Dog

AlanF

ellderwho said:

: Pole, Derek how would you account for the laws of logic?

This is an extremely stupid question, akin to asking, 'How would you account for the laws of arithmetic, such as the fact that 1 + 1 makes 2?' Or, 'How would you account for the fact that God cannot make an object so heavy that he cannot lift it?'

The point is that you can play word games all you want, but word games don't necessarily reflect reality and they don't necessarily make sense. One and one are going to make two in any universe that makes sense. The "laws of logic" -- whatever they happen to be -- are going to make sense in any possible universe, because by definition, anything that doesn't make sense is not "logical".

Ellderwho, you haven't even managed to state what you think "the laws of logic" are. You seem to be the sort of Christian apologist -- a type I've seen countless times before on the Net -- who throws out vague, fuzzy notions in the hope that they'll trip up skeptics. Well it ain't gonna happen. Skeptics tend to be clued in to these sort of foolish tactics.

Now, if you really want to have a discussion on the origin of "the laws of logic", then state those laws clearly. Also state any assumptions you've made in coming up with them. If you don't do this, then no one -- including you -- will have a clue what you're talking about.

AlanF

hillary_step

"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no Good car sold by FORD'." Ford User Manual pg 3

Until this moment, only my wife was allowed to call me a fool without my weeping uncontrollably.

elderwho,

You really didnt answer my question, although you agree that logic is needed to argue, you fail to aknowledge how logic is derived from a world of matter energy and motion?

Logic has been devised as a means of intellectual measurement from of a sense of neccessity, just as in the Western World every tape measure measures a foot at twelve inches, or its decimal equivalent for an obvious reason. The measurements of distance developed by man are a language of standardized communication and are no more proof of intelligent design than are the measurements of a standardized logic.

Mathematics for example, has been developed to measure time and space, not the other way around.

HS

Narkissos

Logic presupposes language; actually it is language rationalising its own relationship with the world of experience and phenomena. IMO logic is the worst possible place to find "God", if this "God" is to be the cause of the universe (as in ID) and not just an element of man's symbolical construction.

"theos èn ho logos // the (word>mind>reason>language) was God" is destructive to theism; perhaps a Freudian slip of "God"?

Pole

elder,

You really didnt answer my question, although you agree that logic is needed to argue, you fail to aknowledge how logic is derived from a world of matter energy and motion?

Are you making ground for committing the relativist fallacy now? I'm trying to think of what other point you may want to make (I hope you do make it finally). Ok, so perhaps you want to relativise the popular forms of logic? And then you may want to question them just like Eucledian geometry was questioned by Rieman or Lobaczewski?

And once you suggest there are a number of possible systems of logics, what next? How exactly does that help you to show that the Intelligent Design theory is not out of keeping with its own methodology and premises? What is your point anyway?

As I said above, whichever system of logics or reasoning you choose, you have to be honest about your methodology. Otherwise you end up lying, pretending and - most pathetically - relativising everything. If you go for mysticism - fine, but be honest about it and just dont tell me it's science anymore.

Cheers,

Pole

onacruse

Pole:

I honestly believe believing or not believing is linked to the biology of the brain.

Interesting that you say that. There is, as I'm sure you know, increasing speculation, and some fair amount of evidence, that our individual brains are "hard-wired" (genetically ) to interpret our circumstances in life from a virtually pre-determined POV. Some years ago, I bought a book at a college fair (a whole $2.00!!!!) that explored this concept. I thought it was hogwash, and gave the book to Goodwill.

Objectively speaking of course there's no necessity to believe, I believe .

Now, see there! That's the fascinating kind of self-revelation, and open admission, that we were denied as JWs. Life can be a simple as just saying "This is what I believe, and I believe it simply because I believe it!"

Ain't being unique a grand thing?

Pole

Logic presupposes language; actually it is language rationalising its own relationship with the world of experience and phenomena. IMO logic is the worst possible place to find "God", if this "God" is to be the cause of the universe (as in ID) and not just an element of man's symbolical construction.

Unless you believe that language is God-Given.

Pole

onacruise,

Now, see there! That's the fascinating kind of self-revelation, and open admission, that we were denied as JWs. Life can be a simple as just saying "This is what I believe, and I believe it simply because I believe it!"

I have no problem with this line of reasoning, because it has a clearly-stated methodology.

Pole

Intelligent Design

Share this