|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 11:05 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:38 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:58 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:07 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:47 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:41 pm
|
|
|
|
Berezi By whose logic do they have the high ground on? Logic isn't objective. Based on your background, you'll have a different logic system than someone else's. Given that logic is, at its core, a concern with correctness of argument, there are objective logical standards that can be applied to any argument (i.e. 'Does B follow from A?'). It would be hard to argue that theists, lacking positive proof of God, have a logical advantage when contending that God exists, given that their opponents a.) don't need positive proof and b.) have a weaker but still valid negative proof. As I've said, there are logical, deductive arguments that can be made for the existence of God, meaning that the question of whether there is empirical proof of God is not of critical importance.
Quote: Take, for example, our discussion in the other thread. I find your views to be extremely logical. I find my views to be logical as well, though the systems behind our logic are a bit different. Yes, but the difference isn't accounted for by different systems of logic. Our views are different because we start with different assumptions about the world. As such, we of course wind up drawing different conclusions. If both our views are logical, then that is because they both utilize logical reasoning to reach a conclusion. If they are different, it's because we didn't start from the same point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:08 pm
|
|
|
|
Tangled Up In Blue Berezi By whose logic do they have the high ground on? Logic isn't objective. Based on your background, you'll have a different logic system than someone else's. Given that logic is, at its core, a concern with correctness of argument, there are objective logical standards that can be applied to any argument (i.e. 'Does B follow from A?'). It would be hard to argue that theists, lacking positive proof of God, have a logical advantage when contending that God exists, given that their opponents a.) don't need positive proof and b.) have a weaker but still valid negative proof. As I've said, there are logical, deductive arguments that can be made for the existence of God, meaning that the question of whether there is empirical proof of God is not of critical importance. Quote: Take, for example, our discussion in the other thread. I find your views to be extremely logical. I find my views to be logical as well, though the systems behind our logic are a bit different. Yes, but the difference isn't accounted for by different systems of logic. Our views are different because we start with different assumptions about the world. As such, we of course wind up drawing different conclusions. If both our views are logical, then that is because they both utilize logical reasoning to reach a conclusion. If they are different, it's because we didn't start from the same point. Which is what I meant to say, just not quite in those words...
There is some universal objectiveness in logic, yes, but I also feel it isn't all it's cracked up to be simply because of how it can be used differently.
Although that doesn't exaclty mean that I still don't use logic...I use it a lot...
=)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:09 pm
|
|
|
|
Cometh The Inquisitor Berezi By whose logic do they have the high ground on? Logic isn't objective. Based on your background, you'll have a different logic system than someone else's. Well, wikipedia does at least. I could probably find you other places that have a comprehensive list of logical fallacies. Cometh, you make me happy.
I think what Tangled said is more like how I view logic.
I'm crappy at articulating things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:31 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:39 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:19 pm
|
|
|
|
zz1000zz Dark_Orophin Why is it that the view of most athiests on Gaia is that they're automatically right If you can't prove God exists? Just to be clear, I'm not saying ALL Gaian athiests are like that, just alot of them. I think their view is that because it is true. Aside from blind faith, there is no reason to believe anything without proof. So do you want to see the dragon in my garage?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:30 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:09 pm
|
|
|
|
zz1000zz Dark_Orophin Why is it that the view of most athiests on Gaia is that they're automatically right If you can't prove God exists? Just to be clear, I'm not saying ALL Gaian athiests are like that, just alot of them. I think their view is that because it is true. Aside from blind faith, there is no reason to believe anything without proof. I would like for anyone, especially an aethiest to prove scientifically, and mathematically that anyone has thoughts and emotions! Oh, by the way, you can't! Oh by the way prove math exists using only the laws of science. Or prove science by the laws of math. You can't fully prove any of it. It is impossible! So proof isn't always available the way most people say they have to have it! Prove to me that this (1) is the number one. Prove it using the laws of science or mathematically. Because I can prove to you with the same laws that it isn't. Just because you can't prove something just by science doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In fact what you don't hear from most non-Christian scientists are the things that they can't prove with science, but only by faith. For instance, after bisecting an atom you find protons, electrons and neutrons. After dividing stuff up after a while, all the scientists have found is NOTHING. Yeah, vast, empty, endless space. That goes against every law of science. Science is a theory. It is a theory of tests and measurements. Science is all about theories and then using tests and measures to prove or disprove. Just because their isn't scientific proof doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Scientists today cannot prove that George Washington existed by just using science. It is immpossible. Is George Washington a lie? No one questions his existance. So don't question the existance of my God. Prove to me that he doesn't! Please give all sources! Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 8:30 pm
|
|
|
|
jamesthelittle zz1000zz Dark_Orophin Why is it that the view of most athiests on Gaia is that they're automatically right If you can't prove God exists? Just to be clear, I'm not saying ALL Gaian athiests are like that, just alot of them. I think their view is that because it is true. Aside from blind faith, there is no reason to believe anything without proof. I would like for anyone, especially an aethiest to prove scientifically, and mathematically that anyone has thoughts and emotions! Oh, by the way, you can't! Oh by the way prove math exists using only the laws of science. Or prove science by the laws of math. You can't fully prove any of it. It is impossible! So proof isn't always available the way most people say they have to have it! Prove to me that this (1) is the number one. Prove it using the laws of science or mathematically. Because I can prove to you with the same laws that it isn't. Just because you can't prove something just by science doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In fact what you don't hear from most non-Christian scientists are the things that they can't prove with science, but only by faith. For instance, after bisecting an atom you find protons, electrons and neutrons. After dividing stuff up after a while, all the scientists have found is NOTHING. Yeah, vast, empty, endless space. That goes against every law of science. Science is a theory. It is a theory of tests and measurements. Science is all about theories and then using tests and measures to prove or disprove. Just because their isn't scientific proof doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Scientists today cannot prove that George Washington existed by just using science. It is immpossible. Is George Washington a lie? No one questions his existance. So don't question the existance of my God. Prove to me that he doesn't! Please give all sources! Thanks!
This is simply a poor translation of solipsism. The response is simple. There is no absolute truth, nor any means of proving anything *exists* in the most literal sense. Accepting this, science chooses to assume an objective universe exists, and this objective universe is the one perceived by everyone in the world. This assumption can be rejected, or it can be accepted. Science exists to allow communication of ideas amongst individuals, but it does not demand anyone accept it. If you reject it, science does not care as it is only a system of thought and reasoning.
The only reasons it is viewed as more reliable than religion is that more people accept these common perceptions than accept any particular religion, and that it is free of logical flaws.
Quote: For instance, after bisecting an atom you find protons, electrons and neutrons. After dividing stuff up after a while, all the scientists have found is NOTHING. Yeah, vast, empty, endless space. That goes against every law of science.
I would appreciate it if you would cease misrepresenting those with whom you disagree. There is no law of science which would be contradicted by the existence of nothingness, though so far nothingness has not been found.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|