Laws of Logic and science itself are only possible because of the existence of God
gabriel
Atheists are "coming out of the closet" and becoming more vocal
about their message that "there is no God." Professor Richard
Dawkins (Britain's leading atheist) is encouraging those who
share his views to express their opinion. Author of The God
Delusion, Dawkins says he wants to "free children from being
indoctrinated with the religion of their parents or their
community."1 Will Christians be prepared to "give an answer" to
the atheists' claims?2
Materialistic atheism is one of the easiest worldviews to refute.
A materialistic atheist believes that nature is all that there
is. He believes that there is no transcendent God who oversees
and maintains creation. Many atheists believe that their
worldview is rational-and scientific. However, by embracing
materialism, the atheist has destroyed the possibility of
knowledge, as well as science and technology. In other words, if
atheism were true, it would be impossible to prove anything!
Here's why:
Reasoning involves using the laws of logic. These include the law
of non-contradiction which says that you can't have A and not-A
at the same time and in the same relationship. For example, the
statement "My car is in the parking lot, and it is not the case
that my car is in the parking lot" is necessarily false by the
law of non-contradiction. Any rational person would accept this
law. But why is this law true? Why should there be a law of
non-contradiction, or for that matter, any laws of reasoning? The
Christian can answer this question. For the Christian there is an
absolute standard for reasoning; we are to pattern our thoughts
after God's. The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God
thinks. The law of non-contradiction is not simply one person's
opinion of how we ought to think, rather it stems from God's
self-consistent nature. God cannot deny Himself ( 2 Timothy
2:13), and so, the way God upholds the universe will necessarily
be non-contradictory.
Laws of logic are God's standard for thinking. Since God is an
unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, the laws of logic are
abstract, universal, invariant entities. In other words, they are
not made of matter-they apply everywhere and at all times. Laws
of logic are contingent upon God's unchanging nature. And they
are necessary for logical reasoning. Thus, rational reasoning
would be impossible without the biblical God.
The materialistic atheist can't have laws of logic. He believes
that everything that exists is material-part of the physical
world. But laws of logic are not physical. You can't stub your
toe on a law of logic. Laws of logic cannot exist in the
atheist's world, yet he uses them to try to reason. This is
inconsistent. He is borrowing from the Christian worldview to
argue against the Christian worldview. The atheist's view cannot
be rational because he uses things (laws of logic) that cannot
exist according to his profession.
The debate over the existence of God is a bit like a debate over
the existence of air.3 Can you imagine someone arguing that air
doesn't actually exist? He would offer seemingly excellent
"proofs" against the existence of air, while simultaneously
breathing air and expecting that we can hear his words as the
sound is transmitted through the air. In order for us to hear and
understand his claim, it would have to be wrong. Likewise, the
atheist, in arguing that God does not exist must use laws of
logic that only make sense if God does exist. In order for his
argument to make sense, it would have to be wrong.
How can the atheist respond?
The atheist might say, "Well, I can reason just fine, and I don't
believe in God." But this is no different than the critic of air
saying, "Well, I can breathe just fine, and I don't believe in
air." This isn't a rational response. Breathing requires air, not
a profession of belief in air. Likewise, logical reasoning
requires God, not a profession of belief in Him. Of course the
atheist can reason; it's because God has made his mind and given
him access to the laws of logic-and that's the point. It's
because God exists that reasoning is possible. The atheist can
reason, but within his own worldview he cannot account for his
ability to reason.
The atheist might respond, "Laws of logic are conventions made up
by man." But conventions are (by definition) conventional. That
is, we all agree to them and so they work-like driving on the
right side of the road. But if laws of logic were conventional,
then different cultures could adopt different laws of logic (like
driving on the left side of the road). So, in some cultures it
might be perfectly fine to contradict yourself. In some societies
truth could be self-contradictory. Clearly that wouldn't do. If
laws of logic are just conventions, then they are not universal
laws. Rational debate would be impossible if laws of logic were
conventional, because the two opponents could simply pick
different standards for reasoning. Each would be right according
to his own arbitrary standard.
The atheist might respond, "Laws of logic are material-they are
made of electro-chemical connections in the brain." But then the
laws of logic are not universal; they would not extend beyond the
brain. In other words, we couldn't argue that contradictions
cannot occur on Mars, since no one's brain is on Mars. In fact,
if the laws of logic are just electro-chemical connections in the
brain, then they would differ somewhat from person to person
because everyone has different connections in their brain.
Sometimes an atheist will attempt to answer with a more pragmatic
response: "We use the laws of logic because they work."
Unfortunately for him, that isn't the question. We all agree the
laws of logic work; they work because they're true. The question
is why do they exist in the first place? How can the atheist
account for absolute standards of reasoning like the laws of
logic? How can non-material things like laws exist if the
universe is material only?
As a last resort, the atheist may give up a strictly
materialistic view and agree that there are immaterial, universal
laws. This is a huge concession; after all, if a person is
willing to concede that immaterial, universal, unchanging
entities can exist, then he must consider the possibility that
God exists. But this concession does not save the atheist's
position. He must still justify the laws of logic. Why do they
exist? And what is the point of contact between the material
physical world and the immaterial world of logic? In other words,
why does the material universe feel compelled to obey immaterial
laws? The atheist cannot answer these questions. His worldview
cannot be justified; it is arbitrary and thus irrational.
Conclusions
Clearly, atheism is not a rational worldview. It is self-refuting
because the atheist must first assume the opposite of what he is
trying to prove in order to be able to prove anything. As Dr.
Cornelius VanTil put it, "[A]theism presupposes theism." Laws of
logic require the existence of God-and not just any god, but the
Christian God. Only the God of the Bible can be the foundation
for knowledge (Proverbs 1:7; Colossians 2:3). Since the God of
Scripture is immaterial, sovereign, and beyond time, it makes
sense to have laws of logic that are immaterial, universal, and
unchanging. Since God has revealed Himself to man, we are able to
know and use logic. Since God made the universe and since God
made our minds, it makes sense that our minds would have an
ability to study and understand the universe. But if the brain is
simply the result of mindless evolutionary processes that
conveyed some sort of survival value in the past, why should we
trust its conclusions? If the universe and our minds are simply
the results of time and chance, as the atheist contends, why
would we expect that the mind could make sense of the universe?
How could science and technology be possible?
Rational thinking, science, and technology make sense in a
Christian worldview. The Christian has a basis for these things;
the atheist does not. This is not to say that atheists cannot be
rational about some things. They can because they too are made in
God's image and have access to God's laws of logic. But they have
no rational basis for rationality within their own worldview.
Likewise, atheists can be moral, but they have no basis for that
morality according to what they claim to believe. An atheist is a
walking bundle of contradictions. He reasons and does science,
yet he denies the very God that makes reasoning and science
possible. On the other hand, the Christian worldview is
consistent and makes sense of human reasoning and experience.
VoiceOfReason
gabriel wrote:
> www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/atheism-irrational
<snip raving intolerance>
> Here's why:
> Reasoning involves using the laws of logic. These include the law
> of non-contradiction which says that you can't have A and not-A
> at the same time and in the same relationship. For example, the
> statement "My car is in the parking lot, and it is not the case
> that my car is in the parking lot" is necessarily false by the
> law of non-contradiction. Any rational person would accept this
> law. But why is this law true? Why should there be a law of
> non-contradiction, or for that matter, any laws of reasoning? The
> Christian can answer this question. For the Christian there is an
> absolute standard for reasoning; we are to pattern our thoughts
> after God's. The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God
> thinks. The law of non-contradiction is not simply one person's
> opinion of how we ought to think, rather it stems from God's
> self-consistent nature. God cannot deny Himself ( 2 Timothy
> 2:13), and so, the way God upholds the universe will necessarily
> be non-contradictory.
So only Christians can do logic and science? No other religions are
capable of it?
The folks at AIG get weirder and weirder every day...
Juan M
"VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
news:73ed1c67-5589-4634...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
And then, some Christian denominations have it wrong, but "mine" has the
only "true" answer! (What an amazingly egotistical conicidence!)
BTW is there such a thing as a thrice-born Christian? That should trump the
born-agains.
ken
Tell us....Have you EVER convinced even ONE person with this worthless
CCPed BULLCRAP?
Erwin Moller
> www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/atheism-irrational
>
> Atheists are "coming out of the closet" and becoming more vocal
> about their message that "there is no God." Professor Richard
> Dawkins (Britain's leading atheist) is encouraging those who
> share his views to express their opinion. Author of The God
> Delusion, Dawkins says he wants to "free children from being
> indoctrinated with the religion of their parents or their
> community."1 Will Christians be prepared to "give an answer" to
> the atheists' claims?2
What is with the 1 and 2?
And Dawkins is of course right when he says children should be free of
religious indoctrination.
If they want to become religious out of free will: fine.
But please don't teach them fairytales as facts.
Are you and your kind maybe afraid the kids won't turn to Christianity
if they happen upon it when they reach the age of, say, 18?
If this God of you, and his holy scriptures, are so strong and
convincing, why is it that creationists parants start brainwashing their
kids from scratch?
>
> Materialistic atheism is one of the easiest worldviews to refute.
You always claim a lot but never have anything substantial to add when
you nonsense is refuted.
The proof is in all the threads in here where you cowardly disappear
when somebody don't agree with you.
> A materialistic atheist believes that nature is all that there
> is. He believes that there is no transcendent God who oversees
> and maintains creation. Many atheists believe that their
> worldview is rational-and scientific. However, by embracing
> materialism, the atheist has destroyed the possibility of
> knowledge, as well as science and technology. In other words, if
> atheism were true, it would be impossible to prove anything!
Some claim....
>
> Here's why:
> Reasoning involves using the laws of logic. These include the law
> of non-contradiction which says that you can't have A and not-A
> at the same time and in the same relationship. For example, the
> statement "My car is in the parking lot, and it is not the case
> that my car is in the parking lot" is necessarily false by the
> law of non-contradiction. Any rational person would accept this
> law. But why is this law true? Why should there be a law of
> non-contradiction, or for that matter, any laws of reasoning?
Wow, you ask a good question for a change.
And a hard one.
For clearity's sake: I don't think I have a solid answer to that one.
> The Christian can answer this question.
Of course they cannot.
> For the Christian there is an
> absolute standard for reasoning; we are to pattern our thoughts
> after God's. The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God
> thinks. The law of non-contradiction is not simply one person's
> opinion of how we ought to think, rather it stems from God's
> self-consistent nature. God cannot deny Himself ( 2 Timothy
> 2:13), and so, the way God upholds the universe will necessarily
> be non-contradictory.
You call that an answer to your (good) question?
It answers nothing, since you ommited:
1) Where this God got His Holy Logic from
2) You forgot to put any proof on the table for your the existance of
this particular God.
So your answer is as good as: "We can think logically because The Big
Tree on Mars radiates logic onto Earth."
Do you like that answer? I don't.
That answer suffers from the same 2 problems I mentioned above.
It does not 1) proof where the big tree got his logic from, and 2) it
hasn't proved the existance of that tree in the first place.
For somebody who discusses logic you make peculiar jumps.
>
> Laws of logic are God's standard for thinking. Since God is an
> unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, the laws of logic are
> abstract, universal, invariant entities. In other words, they are
> not made of matter-they apply everywhere and at all times. Laws
> of logic are contingent upon God's unchanging nature. And they
> are necessary for logical reasoning. Thus, rational reasoning
> would be impossible without the biblical God.
blablabla.
>
> The materialistic atheist can't have laws of logic.
Why not?
> He believes
> that everything that exists is material-part of the physical
> world. But laws of logic are not physical.
Why not?
Why wouldn't the laws of logic apply to the material world?
Why do you claim whatever suits you without proving it?
> You can't stub your
> toe on a law of logic. Laws of logic cannot exist in the
> atheist's world, yet he uses them to try to reason. This is
> inconsistent. He is borrowing from the Christian worldview to
> argue against the Christian worldview. The atheist's view cannot
> be rational because he uses things (laws of logic) that cannot
> exist according to his profession.
>
WEAK.
> The debate over the existence of God is a bit like a debate over
> the existence of air.3 Can you imagine someone arguing that air
> doesn't actually exist?
Yes, I even found people who deny evolution, so I am not surprised by
people who think air doesn't exist.
> He would offer seemingly excellent
> "proofs" against the existence of air, while simultaneously
> breathing air and expecting that we can hear his words as the
> sound is transmitted through the air. In order for us to hear and
> understand his claim, it would have to be wrong. Likewise, the
> atheist, in arguing that God does not exist must use laws of
> logic that only make sense if God does exist. In order for his
> argument to make sense, it would have to be wrong.
>
You are somehow under the delusion that YOU, being a creationist, are
the One that can describe the rest of the world what logic is and where
it came from.
Before you get carried away by this you might consider checking your
argumentation.
> How can the atheist respond?
> The atheist might say, "Well, I can reason just fine, and I don't
> believe in God." But this is no different than the critic of air
> saying, "Well, I can breathe just fine, and I don't believe in
> air." This isn't a rational response. Breathing requires air, not
> a profession of belief in air.
Haha. Nonsense.
What about this one?
I claim the Big Tree Of Mars is radiating logic to Earth, without
proving it.
Then I continue like you:
What would a nonbeliever in The Big Tree say to the fact he can think
logically?
He would say: "Well, I can reason just fine, and I don't believe in The
Big Tree." But this is no different than the critic of air
saying, "Well, I can breathe just fine, and I don't believe in
air." This isn't a rational response. Breathing requires air, not
a profession of belief in air.
Are you capable of seeing the analogy to your 'argument'?
> Likewise, logical reasoning
> requires God, not a profession of belief in Him. Of course the
> atheist can reason; it's because God has made his mind and given
> him access to the laws of logic-and that's the point. It's
> because God exists that reasoning is possible. The atheist can
> reason, but within his own worldview he cannot account for his
> ability to reason.
>
> The atheist might respond, "Laws of logic are conventions made up
> by man." But conventions are (by definition) conventional. That
> is, we all agree to them and so they work-like driving on the
> right side of the road. But if laws of logic were conventional,
> then different cultures could adopt different laws of logic (like
> driving on the left side of the road). So, in some cultures it
> might be perfectly fine to contradict yourself. In some societies
> truth could be self-contradictory. Clearly that wouldn't do. If
> laws of logic are just conventions, then they are not universal
> laws. Rational debate would be impossible if laws of logic were
> conventional, because the two opponents could simply pick
> different standards for reasoning. Each would be right according
> to his own arbitrary standard.
Hence the Big Tree of Mars exists.
I rest my case.
>
> The atheist might respond, "Laws of logic are material-they are
> made of electro-chemical connections in the brain." But then the
> laws of logic are not universal; they would not extend beyond the
> brain. In other words, we couldn't argue that contradictions
> cannot occur on Mars, since no one's brain is on Mars. In fact,
> if the laws of logic are just electro-chemical connections in the
> brain, then they would differ somewhat from person to person
> because everyone has different connections in their brain.
Instead of making an argument against your own fantasy-atheist, why
don't you ASK what they actually think?
Maybe they think something else.
Maybe some atheists think this, and another thinks that?
Do you think your strawman bears any weight?
>
> Sometimes an atheist will attempt to answer with a more pragmatic
> response: "We use the laws of logic because they work."
> Unfortunately for him, that isn't the question. We all agree the
> laws of logic work; they work because they're true. The question
> is why do they exist in the first place? How can the atheist
> account for absolute standards of reasoning like the laws of
> logic? How can non-material things like laws exist if the
> universe is material only?
Again, that is a good question.
The problem is you seem totally unfit to approach it in a logical way.
Asking why there seems to be logic in our universe is close to asking
why the universe is like it is. Or where the laws of physics come from.
You don't answer these questions at all.
You can only repeat the old-record: God-did-it.
If you are sincerely interested in REAL answers, you won't find any in
your holy scriptures.
If humanity will ever be able to answer these great questions, the
answer surely won't come from creationists, since they don't answer a
thing and they don't investigate the world in a meaningfull way.
>
> As a last resort,
We don't need that last resort, since you are attacking your strawman.
> the atheist may give up a strictly
> materialistic view and agree that there are immaterial, universal
> laws. This is a huge concession; after all, if a person is
> willing to concede that immaterial, universal, unchanging
> entities can exist, then he must consider the possibility that
> God exists.
Do you really think that an atheists is afraid to CONSIDER that a god
exists?
Your have a really twisted worldview.
Try to get out more often and actually TALK to smart atheists instead of
talking to the ones you find in your imagination.
Your reasoning is pure bullshit.
> But this concession does not save the atheist's
> position. He must still justify the laws of logic. Why do they
> exist? And what is the point of contact between the material
> physical world and the immaterial world of logic? In other words,
> why does the material universe feel compelled to obey immaterial
> laws? The atheist cannot answer these questions. His worldview
> cannot be justified; it is arbitrary and thus irrational.
Well, a honest (scientific) person doesn't mind saying: "I don't know
the answer to that question (yet).".
An creationist will know no such hesitation, since a creationist was
born with absulte true knowledge about the nature of the universe.....
I know on who I will place my bets when it comes to gaining
understanding about the nature of the universe.
>
> Conclusions
> Clearly, atheism is not a rational worldview. It is self-refuting
> because the atheist must first assume the opposite of what he is
> trying to prove in order to be able to prove anything. As Dr.
> Cornelius VanTil put it, "[A]theism presupposes theism." Laws of
> logic require the existence of God-and not just any god, but the
> Christian God.
Shocking arrogance.
Why couldn't another God pull that same trick?
You lack logical skills.
> Only the God of the Bible can be the foundation
> for knowledge (Proverbs 1:7; Colossians 2:3).
Oh, now I get it. It is like that because it was written so....
> Since the God of
> Scripture is immaterial, sovereign, and beyond time, it makes
> sense to have laws of logic that are immaterial, universal, and
> unchanging. Since God has revealed Himself to man, we are able to
> know and use logic. Since God made the universe and since God
> made our minds, it makes sense that our minds would have an
> ability to study and understand the universe. But if the brain is
> simply the result of mindless evolutionary processes that
> conveyed some sort of survival value in the past, why should we
> trust its conclusions? If the universe and our minds are simply
> the results of time and chance, as the atheist contends, why
> would we expect that the mind could make sense of the universe?
> How could science and technology be possible?
Not a very strong argument.
WEAK.
>
> Rational thinking, science, and technology make sense in a
> Christian worldview. The Christian has a basis for these things;
> the atheist does not.
A chistian doesn't have a basis for these questions, he only THINKS he
has a basis because he was so gullible.
> This is not to say that atheists cannot be
> rational about some things. They can because they too are made in
> God's image and have access to God's laws of logic. But they have
> no rational basis for rationality within their own worldview.
> Likewise, atheists can be moral, but they have no basis for that
> morality according to what they claim to believe.
Morality?
I am an agnost (hanging very firmly towards atheism), and I have moral
because I want to do what is best for fellowcreatures on this planet.
You appearantly need a stick (hell) and carrot (heaven) to do so.
> An atheist is a
> walking bundle of contradictions. He reasons and does science,
> yet he denies the very God that makes reasoning and science
> possible. On the other hand, the Christian worldview is
> consistent and makes sense of human reasoning and experience.
>
You need a working brain.
Hail to the Big Tree of Mars and His Holy Logic Radiation!
Don't you see your God is as feasable as the Big Tree?
You should talk/write less, and think better/more honest.
Oh yes: Try talking with smart atheists instead of that one in your
head. You will be suprised how badly they match.
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Juan M
"When a poor person dies of hunger, it has not happened because God did not
take care of him or her.
It has happened because neither you nor I wanted to give that person what he
or she needed." -Mother Theresa
It was once said that the moral test of Government is how that Government
treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the
twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the
sick, the needy and the handicapped.
Hubert Humphrey
The bottom line is not what dogma we believe, which leader we follow, nor
which creed we espouse, but how we treat our fellow human beings, regardless
of their economic or social status.
gabriel
<papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
:
No, you skipped what answered your question. Read it again. Logic
only exists because of God. The idea that there's no God, that
natural processes explain everything, cannot account for the
existence of logic - this makes their worldview irrational as it
cannot explain why there's logic. They borrow from a Christian
worldview while claiming the Christian world view is false.
:
: The folks at AIG get weirder and weirder every day...
gabriel
wrote:
: Your rambling illogic is only evidence of your lack of sound knowledge of
: science and the real world.
:
: There is no objective verifiable evidence for the existence of any real
: gods.
Sure there is. A building is logical proof of a builder, moreso
one that's so advanced it can act on its own as if it's "alive",
and build other buildings just like it - even more evidence it's
proof of a designer / creator. Even if you could never meet the
builder or ever see any building getting built. No one would be
foolish enough to believe it would "just happen" over time no
matter how many billions of years supposedly passed by.
In like matter even a single cell in it's far greater
organization and complexity is proof of a creator / designer,
even if you want to deny that creator / designer is God. A single
cell: more meaningfully encoded information in the DNA than the
entire volume sets of Encyclopedia Britannica, and the ability
for that huge amount of information to be meaningfully decoded
and acted up - all proof of an intelligent designer / creator for
someone who is a free thinker and not blinded by their need to
deny an intelligent designer / creator at all costs.
: It IS obvious all god beliefs are no more than the IMAGINATIONS of
: man.
No, the imaginations of man lead to things like populations of
tiny fish evolving over generations into hippos, giraffes, eagles
and human beings.
:
:
: There are a thousands different religious/god beliefs. If there was a REAL
: god, why would he permit all this misleading information to mislead and
: confuse his flock?
Same reason He permits people to believe populations of tiny fish
evolved over generations into hippos, giraffes, eagles and human
beings: because mankind's heart is wicked and they deny and spit
on Him if given the choice. And He wants people to love Him by
choice, not by being forced.
Second of all, it doesn't confuse his flock - His flock only
consists of those who submit to the righteousness of God by
obeying His leading to repent (turn from our wicked ways, in
great sorrow for all the sins we've committed), and trust only in
what His Son, Jesus Christ, did on the cross for us. And those
people are not confused by it.
"I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise
perish.
Luke 13:3 KJVR
Only those who are lost get confused by it, and try to make their
own version of a god to suit their personal wickedness, or reject
God altogether out of their own logic-denying foolishness. And we
are all born lost, not yet reconciled to God - not yet His flock.
"To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in
his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done
abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalms 14:1 KJVR
:
:
:
: Man can communicate with the whole world via TV, Radio, Cell Phone and the
: Internet.
:
: Certainly any real God should be able to do equally well! Why would he not
: announce directly from his heaven that he is the real god and all the others
: are fakes?
"For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to
faith: as it is written. The just shall live by faith.
Romans 1:17 KJVR
We have His Word, and the life of Jesus Christ, along with what
He said exactly. We have only to check His Word to easily spot
which ones are fake.
For example: if a church doesn't condemn someone who performs an
abortion, and just accepts it, do you think that is a real
God-following Church, or fake? The fact is, many will think
that's a real God-following Church (clearly as you can see
ignoring God's Word). And the list goes on. The blind leading the
blind, be it a church, or the religion of populations of tiny
fish evolving over generations into eagles and human beings.
: Why would he not smite all the fakes?
He will.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in
unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is
manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the
invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even
his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God,
neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and
their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be
wise, they became fools,
Romans 1:18-22 KJVR
But He's rich in mercy, giving those people a chance to come to
the truth before it's too late - before He smites them and their
false religions.
:
:
:
: Why does he permit all this confusion and doubt?
Why do people reject and spit on the One who created them?
People have the truth available to them and still spit on Him,
living in confusion and doubt.
: The objective evidence is
: that all gods are purely the creation of men to assuage his panic fear of
: the finality of death.
No one is objective - they start with the assumption there's no
God because they refuse to have to be accountable to Him.
:
:
:
: Does anyone have OBJECTIVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE that ANY god actually
: exists??? The millions of opinions expressed over the centuries are not
: evidence. They are merely 'opinions'!
See above. The evidence is right under our noses.
It answers all your questions, which are just variations of the
same question asked many times.
God will allow you to spit on Him and sin as much as you want,
and believe you evolved from fish. But in the end, such a person
will also answer for their lifetime of rejecting His forgiveness
and choosing to die in their trespasses and sins.
"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and abominable, and murderers,
and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars,
shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and
brimstone: which is the second death.
Revelation 21:8 KJVR
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal
life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 6:23 KJVR
"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count
slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any
should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
2 Peter 3:9 KJVR
"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end
thereof are the ways of death.
Proverbs 14:12 KJVR
:
:
:
: Why has no god ever communicated directly with the sane members of society?
:
:
:
: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
: Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
: Is he both able and willing? Then where does evil come from?
: Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him a God?
:
:
:
: What distinguishes theology from mythology and astrology? All three are
: founded on myth, folklore and legend. NONE are based on scientific knowledge
: and objective, verifiable, reproducible evidence.
:
:
:
: The religious faiths are not founded on faith in God but faith in Priests,
: Ministers, Shaman, ayatollahs and other religious leaders.
:
:
:
: Religious texts? They were created centuries before the invention of the
: printing press. Written, interpreted, hand copied, modified, altered and
: recopied by hundreds of MEN over thousands of years by other MEN. Inspired
: by God? So MEN say. Which books are Scripture? The ones chosen by MEN. What
: do they mean? What MEN say they mean. Dictated by God? Just the OPINION of
: errant MEN. What is God telling you? Whatever MEN (ordinary selfish. self
: promoting, errant humans) CLAIM he is telling you. These religious texts are
: nothing but folklore, myth, contradictory and impossible stories created by
: MEN. There is not one shred of objective verifiable evidence that ANY of
: these ancient documents are the word of ANY God. They are purely myths and
: fables.
:
:
:
: Of all the hundreds of God beliefs and claims, how do we know which is the
: real God and which are fakes? What MEN tell their flock is the real God
:
:
:
: There is a wealth of different religious documents that proclaim the
: validity of various Gods. Which, if any, are correct?
:
:
:
: Here are just some of the religious texts and documents;
:
:
:
: Baha'i Sacrid writtings
:
: Life of Buddha - Dhammapada - Pali cannon
:
: The Bible - Christian religious documents - 18 English versions alone.
:
: NO, NADA originals of the old or new testaments exist.
:
: The Book of Mormon - Church of Latter Day Saints
:
: The Analects - Confuscianism
:
: The Eddas and Sagas - Icelandic beliefs
:
: Wicca - Neo paganism of Greece and Rome
:
: Bhagavgita and Rig Veda - Hinduism
:
: Qur'an - Islam
:
: Adi Granth and Dasam Granth - canonical scripture of the Sikhs
:
: Tanakh - Jewism
:
: Tao-Te-Ching - Taoism
:
: Nag Hammadi - Gnostics
:
: Zhuan Falun - Falun Gong
:
:
:
: Of all these different Gods and belief systems which is the true one, if
: any, and which are fakes? None of these documents are any objective
: evidence. They are all documents written, hand copied, modified and further
: copied, over the centuries, by errant men with their own personal and
: selfish motivations. All of these documents, except the Book of Morman, were
: hand written and hand copied over the centuries before the invention of the
: printing press. There is no way to determine authenticity or accuracy of any
: of these. The objective evidence is that they are a mixture of inaccurate
: history, myth, folklore and legend.
:
:
:
: Does it make sense to base ones life on myths and fables of ancient men of
: unknown veracity???
:
:
:
: There are hundreds of different religious and god beliefs. Here is a list
: of most of these.
:
:
:
: Which one, if any, is the real god???
:
: Baha'i Faith
: Buddhism
: Adventist
: Jehovah's Witnesses
: British Israelism
: Southern Baptists
: American Baptists
:
: Catholics
: Christian Science
: Amish
: Brethren
: Mennonites
: Quakers
: Shakers
: Plymouth Brethren
: Fundamentalists
: Twin Oaks
: Confucianism
:
: Christian ( over 300 different sects)
: Hinduism
: Islam
: Jainism
: Judaism
: Shinto
: Sikhism
: Taoism
: Vodun (Voodoo)
: Neopagan Religious Faiths
: Asatru (Norse Paganism)
: Druidism
: Goddess Worship
: Wicca
: Witchcraft
: Caodaism
: Damanhur Community
: Druse
: Eckankar
: Elian Gonzalez religious movement
: Gnosticism
: Gypsies
: Hare Krishna - ISKCON
: Lukumi
: Macumba
: Mowahhidoon
: Native American Spirituality
: Rom, Roma, Romani, Rroma, (a.k.a. Gypsies)
: Santeria Elian Gonzalez religious movement
: Satanism; The Church of Satan
: Scientology
: Unitarian-Universalism
: The Creativity Movement
: Zoroastrianism
:
:
: Gods:
:
: Ahura Mazda, Allah, Aphrodite, Ares, Athena, Apollo, Artemis, Babaluaye,
: Bacchus,
: Baldur, Bast, Bellona, Brahma, Brigid, Ceres, Cupid, Cerridwen,
: Demeter, Diana, Dione, Dionysus, Eris, Eos, Eleggua, , El Shaddai, Elohim
: Eshu, Ereshkigal,
: Frigga, Frey, Freya, Gaea, Lord Genesa, Hades, Hebe, Hera, Helios, Hel,
: Hephaestus,
: Hermes, Hestia, Horus, Ibeji, Ifa, Inanna, Indra, Ishana, Ishtar,
: Isis, Janus, Juno, Jehovah, Jove, Jupiter, Kali. Krishna Kronos, Korravai,
: Loki, Lugh, Lord Indra, Manitou, Mars, Mercury, Minerva, Mercurius,
: Morrigan,
:
: Nahuiquiahuitl, Nanahuatzin, Nephthys, Neptune, Obatala, Odin, Ogun,
: Oshosi, Oshun, Osiris, Oya, Orunmila, Olokun, Olodumare, Pluto,
: Persephone, Poseidon, Proserpina, Quetzalcoatl, Ra, Lord Rama, Rhea, Saturn,
: Set,
: Selene, Shango, Lord Siva, Tammuz, Thor, Tir, Tiw, Uranus, Venus, Vesta,
: Vishnu,
: Vesta, Vulcan, Wotan, Yahweh, Yemaya, Zeus, XodA.
:
:
: African gods:
:
: Abassi [Sky]
: Abonsam [Evil]
: Abora [Supreme]
: Abzu [Water]
: Acoran [Supreme]
: Adaheli [Sun]
: Adro [Sky]
: Adroa [Sky]
: Agassou [Panther]
: Agbe-Naete [Water]
: Age [Animals]
: Aigamuxa [Monster]
: Ajalamo[Unborn Children]
: Aje [Wealth]
: Ajok [Supreme]
: Akonadi [Oracle]
: Akongo [Supreme]
: Akuj [Supreme]
: Ala [Earth/Fertility]
: Alatangana [Creator]
: Amma [Creator]
: Anansi [Trickster]
: Anyiewo [Snake]
: Aondo [Creator]
: Apa [Creator]
: Apedemak [War]
: Arawa [Moon]
: Arebati [Sky]
: Arom [Contracts]
: Arsan Duolai [Underworld]
: Asase Ya [Earth]
: Ashiakle [Wealth]
: Asis [Sun]
: Astar [Sky]
: Ataa Naa
: Nyongmo
: [Creator]
: Ataokoloinona [Supreme]
: Atete [Fertility]
: Avrikiti [Fishermen]
: Ayabba
: [Ayaba] [Hearth]
:
:
: Bacax [Cave]
: Bagba [Wind]
: Balubaal [Earth+]
: Bandara [Superior Gods]
: Banga [Clear water]
: Behanzin [Fish]
: Beher [Sea]
: Bera Pennu [Vegetation]
: Bo [Warriors]
: Bomazi[Ancestors]
: Buadza [WInd]
: Buck[River]
: Buku [Sky]
: Bumba [Creator]
:
:
: Cagn [Creator]
: (!Kaggen)
: Cghene [Creator]
: Chiuke
: (Chuku) [Creator]
: Chiata [Supreme]
: Chwezi [Hero]
: Col [Rain]
: Chikara [Sky]
:
:
: Danh
: (Dan Ayido Hwedo) [Snake]
: Deng [Sky]
: Deohako [Beans+]
: Dii Mauri [Moorish Gods]
: Dongo [Outer Space]
: Dugbo [Earth]
: Dxui [Creator]
:
:
:
: Emeli-hi [Supreme]
: Eranoranhan [Protector]
: Eshu (Elegba) [Trickster]
:
:
:
: Fa [Destiny]
: Famien [Fertility]
: Faro [Sky/Water]
: Fidi Mukullu [Creator]
:
:
:
: Garang and Abuk [First Humans]
: Gbeni [Chief]
: Gei (Gou) [Moon]
: Gu [War/Smiths]
: Gua [Sky]
: Gulu [Supreme]
: Gunab [Evil]
: Guruhi [Evil]
: Gurzil [Bull]
: Gwalu [Rain]
: Hammon [Setting Sun]
: Harun and Haruna [Water Spirits]
: Heitsi-Eibib [Sorcerer]
: Hevioss [Thunder]
: Huntin [Tree]
: Huvean [Creator]
:
:
:
: Ifa [Oracul]
: Ikenga [Supreme]
: Imana [Creator]
: Iruwa [Sun]
: Juok [Creator]
: Kalumba [Creator]
: Kalunga Supreme]
: Katavi [Demonic]
: Ka Tyeleo [Supreme]
: Khebieso [Lightening]
: Kho-dumo-dumo [Demon]
: Kholomodumo [Monster]
: Khuzwane [Creator]
: Kibuka [War]
: Kokola [Guardian]
: Kwammang-a [Supreme]
: Kwoth [Spirit]
: Kyala [Creator]
:
:
:
: Legba [Trickster]
: Leza [Chief]
: Libanza [Supreme]
: Lisa [Chameleon]
: Lyangombe[Chief]
: Macardit [Demon]
: Mantis [Creator]
: Massim-Biambe [Creator]
: Mawu [Sky]
: Mawu-Lisa [Supreme Couple]
: Mbotumbo [Supreme]
: Medr [Earth]
: Moomb [Creator]
: Mon [?]
: Mugasa
: Mugu [Sky]
: Mujaji [Rain]
: Mukasa [Supreme]
: Mula Djadi [Creator]
: Muluku [Supreme]
: Mulungu
: Mungu [Creator]
: Mungo (Mungu) [?]
: Musa (Teaching]
: Musisi [Supreme]
: Mwari [Supreme]
:
:
: Nampa [Personal]
: Nana-Bouclou [First Gods]
: Nana Buluk [Creator]
: Ndjambi [Sky]
: Ndriananahary [Supreme]
: Nduru [Jungle]
: Nenaunir [Storm]
: Nesshoue [River]
: Ngai ('Ngai) [Creator]
: Ngewo-wa [Creator]
: Ngworekara [Demon]
: Niamye [Supreme]
: Nkosi Yama'kosi [Supreme]
: Nommo [Elemental]
: Nommo [Spirit]
: Nyama [Animal]
: Nyambe [Supreme]
: Nyambi (Nyambe) [Supreme]
: Nyame
: Nyami-Nyami [Guardian]
: Nyankopon (Ashanti:Nyame) [Supreme]
: Nyamia Ama [Supreme]
: Nyasaye [Supeme]
: Nzambi (Nzambi)
: Mpunguo) [Supreme]
: Nzame [Supreme]
:
:
: Obassi Osaw [Supreme]
: Obatala [Sky]
: Oduduwa (Odudua) [Earth]
: Ogun (Ogoun) War]
: Olokula [Sea]
: Olorun [Supreme]
: Omumbo-Rombonga [Tree of Life]
: Orahan [Supreme]
: Orisa Nla [Creator]
: Orishako [Agriculture]
: Orunjan [Midday Sun]
: Orunmila [Compassion]
: Oshalla [?]
: Osun [Beauty and Love]
: Oya [Passion and Power]
:
:
: Pemba (Bemba) Mother]
: Qandisa [Demon]
: Qamata[Quamta] Supreme]
:
: Rock-Sene [Supreme]
: Ruwa [Supreme]
: Sagbata [Smallpox]
: Sakarabru [Medicine]
: Sakpata [Smallpox]
: Sango [Thunder]
: Shango [Thunder]
: So [Lightening]
:
:
: Tano [River]
: Tore [Forest]
: Trowu[Spirits]
: Tsui'goab [Rain]
: Twe [Lake]
:
: Umvelinqangi [Creator]
: Unkulunkulu [Supreme]
: Unumbotte [Creator]
:
: Waka [Rain]
: Wele [Supreme]
: Wulbari [Supreme]
: Wuni [Supreme]
:
:
: Xewioso [Thunder]
: Yemaja [Creation]
: Yo [Impersonal]
:
: Zin [Water]
:
: Table of Asian Gods:
:
: BUDDHIST
:
: Abhijnaraja [Physician]
: Abhimukhi [One of the Bhumis]
: Acala [?]
: Adhimukticarya [One of the Bhumis]
: Adhimuktivasita [One of the Bhumis]
: Adibuddha [First]
: Adidharma [Primeval]
: Aizen Myo-o [Protective]
: Ajaya [?]
: Akasagarbha(Tibetan Nam-mkhai
: Aksayajnana-Karmanda [Literature]
: Aksobhya (Japanese Ashuku, Chinese A-Chu'u) [One of the Dhyani]
: Amida [Savior]
: Amitabha [A Dhyani]
: Amitayus [Longevity]
: Amoghapasa [see Avalokitesvara]
: Amoghasiddhi [A Dhyani]
: Anantamukhi [Literature]
: Arapacana [Book and Sword]
: Arcismati [Bhumis]
: Arhat [A Saint]
: Arthapratisamvit [Logical Analysis]
: Arya-Tara [Sakti]
: Asokakanta [avatar Marici]
: Asokottamasri [Physician]
: Astabhuja-Kurukulla [avatar Kurukulla]
: Asura [Group of Demons]
: Avalokitesvara(Avalokita, Lokesvara) [Dhyani Present Age]
: Ayurvasita[One vasitas]
:
: Balaparamita [Philosophy]
: Bhaisajyaguru(Sman-bla, Otaci,Yao-shih-fo, Yakushi)[Physician]
: Bhima[Attendant]
: Bhrkuti[Female]
: Bhrkuti-Tara [Mother]
: Bhumi [Spiritual Spheres]
: Bhutadarma [Demon Controller]
: Bi-har [Protector]
: Bodhidharma [Monk]
: Bodhisattva (Chinese Pu-sa) [Born to be Englightened]
: Buddhabodhiprabhavasita [Vasitas]
: Buddhalocana [Female Buddha]
: Budha [Mercury]
: Butcho [?]
:
: Chandarosana [Mahayana]
: Charcika (Carcika) [Mahayana]
: Chakravartin [World Ruler]
: Chattrosnisa [An Usnisa]
: Chaturmaharajas (Caturmaharajas) [Four Great Kings]
: Chittavista [Vashitas]
: Citipati [Graveyard Demons]
: Cunda [Literature]
: Da-shi-zhi [Bodhisattva]
: Dadimunda [Temples]
: Dainichi' [Purity/Wisdom]
: Dakini [Demons]
: Dala Kadavara [Demon]
: Devaputra [Gods of Lower Rank]
: Dhanada [avatar Amoghasiddhi]
: Dharani [Mystical Texts]
: Dharmadhatuvagisvara [Dharma]
: Dharmakirtisagaraghosa [Physician]
: Dharmamegha [Bhumis]
: Dharmapala ,Chinese Fu Ha [Protective Dieties]
: Dharmapratisamvit [Nature Analysis]
: Dharmavasita [Vasitas]
: Dhritarashtra (Pali Dhatarattha) [One of the 4 World Guardians]
: Dhupa [Mother]
: Dhupatara [Mahayana]
: Dhvajagrakeyura [avatar Aksobhya]
: Dhyanaparamita [Philosophy]
: Dhyani-Bodhisattvas [Five Bodhisattvas]
: Dhyani-Buddhas [Five Meditators]
: Di-zang [Bodhisattvas of Hell]
: Dvarapala [?]
:
: Ekajata [Terrible]
: Emma-o [Judges the Dead]
:
: Fudo [WIsdom]
:
: Guan Yin [bodhisattva]
:
: Hariti [Ate Children]
: Hayagriva [Protection]
: Heruka [Protection]
: Hevajra [Protection]
:
: Ida-Ten [Law/Monestaries]
:
: Jambhala [avatar Vausravana]
: Janguli [Snakebite cure]
: Jian Lao [Earth/Permanence]
: Jizo [Compassion]
: Juichimen [Mercy]
:
: Kali devia [avatar Lha-mo]
:
: Kannon [Japanese bodhisattva]
: Khasarpana(Khasarpana-Lokesvara) [Indian bodhisattva]
: Ki Fudo [avatar Fudo-Myo-o]
: Krodhadevatas [Inspire Terror]
: Ksitigarbha [One of 8 bodhisattva]
: Kuan-yin (Kwannon) [Mercy]
: Kujaku Myoo [Esoteric]
: Kurukulla [?]
:
: Locana [?]
:
: Mahasthamaprata [Chinese bodhisattva]
: Maitreya [Future]
: Manjughosa [Nepalese bodhisattva]
: Manjusri [bodhisattva]
: Mara [Evil]
: Marici [Sun]
: Mi-lo Fo (Pu-Sa) [Chinese bodhisattva
: Miroku [Japanese bodhisattva
: Mo-Li [Protects Temples]
:
: Padmanartesvara [avatar Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara]
: Pancaraksa[5 Goddesses]
: Pandara [?]
: Paramasva [?]
: Parnasavari [?]
: Prajna [Femaleness]
: Prajnaparamita [Buddhist Text]
: Ran-deng [Beggar and Future Buddha]
: Ratnapani [Dhyani-Bodhisattva]
: Ratnasambhava [Dhyani-Buddha]
: Remanta [King of the Horse gods]
:
: Sakyamuni [Japanese]
: Samantabhadra [Bodhisattvas]
: Saptaksara [avatar Heruka]
: Shakra [King of the Gods]
: Ssu Ta T'ien Wang [Kings of Heaven]
: Sumbharaja [Buddhist Krodhadevata]
:
: Tennin (Tennyo) [angels]
:
: Usnisavijaya [?]
:
: Vairocana [Dhyani-Buddhas]
: Vaisravana (Pali Vessavana, Chinese Do Wen) [Guards World]
: Vajrabhairava [?]
: Vajrapani [Bodhisattvas]
: Vajrasattva [Nepal Dhyani-Buddha]
: Vajravarahi [?]
: Vajrayogini [Initiation]
: Vajrayogini [Riches]
: Vidyadharas [?]
: Vidyujjvalakarali [?]
: Vighnantaka [?]
: Virudhaka (Pali Virulha, Chinese Zheng Zhang) [Guards World]
: Virupaksa (Pali Virupakkha, Chinese Guand Mu) [Guards Western Heaven]
: Visvapani [Dhyani-Bodhisattva]
:
: We-to [Divine General]
:
: Yakushi Nyorai [Healing]
: Yama [?]
: Yamantaka [Krodhadevatas]
:
: Zhu Dian (Zhu Tian) [Chinese Buddhist gods]
:
: CHINESE GODS
:
: Ao [Sea]
: Awun [Destruction]
:
: Ba [Drought]
: Ba Gua [Basis of Divination]
: Bo Hsian [Taoist]
:
: Cai-Shen [Riches]
: Can Cong [Silkworms]
: Cao Guo-jiu [Actors]
: Chang Fei [War]
: Chang Hs'ien [Children]
: Chang Kuo-lao [?]
: Ch'ang E (Ch'ang-o Huang E) [Moon]
: Chang Tao Ling [Afterlife]
: Cheng-huang (Ch'eng Huang) [Guardians]
: Chen Jen [Spiritual Beings]
: Cheng San-Kung [Fishermen]
: Cheng Yuan Ho (Ch'ang-o Huang E) [Buskers]
: Chih Nu [Weavers]
: Chih Sung-Tzu (Chi Sung Tzu) [Rain]
: Chih-Yu [Inventor]
: Ch'in-Shu-Pao [Guardian]
: Chou Wang [Sodomy]
: Chu-Chuan Shen [Pigsties]
: Chu Jung [Fire]
: Chu Lung [Day/Night]
: Chung K'uei [Afterlife]
: Chung-li Ch'uan [Immortal]
: Confucius [Philosopher]
:
: Di Zhang Xia [?]
: Dong-yo Da-di [Helps Sky God]
:
: Erh-Lang [Guardian]
:
: Fan-K'uei [Butchers]
: Fei Lien (Fei Lian) [Wind]
: Feng-Huang (Hoang-female Phuong-male) [Many Meanings]
: Feng Po (Feng-Po) [Human form of the wind]
: Feng P'o-p'o (Feng-Po-Po) [Female wind]
: Fo [Buddha]
: Fu His [Taught Humanity]
: Fu Hsing [Happiness]
: Fu Shen [Happiness]
: Fu-Shou-Lu [Collection of Gods]
: Fu-xi [Hero]
:
: Gao Yao (Ting-jian) [Judgement]
: Gong Gong [Common Workers]
: Gou Mang and Ru Shou [Messengers]
: Guan Di (Kuan Ti) [War/Fortune Telling]
: Gui Xian [Demon]
:
: Han Hsiang [Immortal]
: Han Xiang-zi [Immortal]
: He Bo (Bing-yi) [Rivers]
: Heng E (Change-e) [Moon]
: He Xian-gu [Immortal]
: Heng-Ha-Erh-Chiang [Temples]
: Heng-o [Moon]
: Ho Hsien-ku [Immortal]
: Ho Po [River]
: Hou Chi [Harvest]
: Hou I [Archer]
: Hou T'u [Earth]
: Hsien [Taoists]
: Hsi Ho [Sun's Creator]
: Hsi Wang Mu [Guardian]
: Hsuan-T'ien-Shang-Ti [Dark Heaven]
: Hua Hsien [Flower]
: Huang-di (Huang Ti) (Shun) [Hero]
: Huang Fei-hu (Fei) [Mountain]
: Hu-Shen [Hail]
:
: I [Bowmen]
: Infoniwoo [Generation]
: I-Ti [Wine]
:
: K'ai Lu Shen [Purges Evil]
: Kuan Yu [War]
: K'uei Hsing [Examinations]
:
: Lan Cai-he [Immortal]
: Lao T'ien Yeh [Supreme]
: Lao-Tzu (Lao-zi) [Philosopher]
: Lei Kung [Storm]
: Lei-zi [Thunder]
: Li [Fire]
: Li Tie-guai [Immortal]
: Liu [Crops]
: Lu Dong-bin (Lu Yan) [Immortal]
: Lu-Hsing [Salaries/Employees]
: Lung Wang [Dragon King]
: Lupan [Carpenters]
:
: Ma-Mien [Bureaucrat]
: Meng (Meng P'o) [Underworld]
: Meng-T'ien [Writing Brush]
: Men Shen [Doors, includes sometimes Wei Cheng]
: Mu Gong [Immortals]
:
: Niu-Y'oun [Police]
: Nu Gua (Nu Kua, Nu Wa) [Creator and Marriage]
:
: O-Mi-T'o Fo [Amitabha]
:
: Pa [Drought]
: Pa-Cha [Anti-locusts]
: Pa-Hsien [Eight Immortals]
: P'an-Chin-Lien [Prostitues]
: 'P'an Ku (Panku, Pangu) [Cosmos]
: Pi-Hsia-Yuan-Chun [Childbirth]
: Puhsien [Sun]
:
: Ran-deng [Future Buddha]
:
: San Ch'inga [Three Taos]
: Shang Di (Shang Ti) [Supreme]
: She Chi (Thu) [Earth]
: Shen [Spirit]
: Sheng Jen [Holy]
: Shen-nong(Shen Nung) [Hero]
: Shen-T'u [Guardian]
: Shen Yi [Sun]
: Shiang Ku [Magician]
: Shih-Tien Yen-Wang [Committe of Ten]
: Shou-Hsing [Longevity]
: Shou Lao (Shou Xing Lao Tou-zi) [Long Life]
: Shou-Ts'ang [Servant]
: Shui-Fu [Water]
: Shui-Kuan [Defender]
: Ssu Ming [Life and Death]
: Sung-Chiang [Theives]
: Sun Hou-Tzu [Monkey]
: Sun Hou-zi [Apes]
: Sun-Pin [Cobblers]
:
: T'ai I [High]
: Tai-sui-xing [Time]
: Tai-yi [Sky]
: T'ai Yueh Ta Ti (Tung-Yueh-Ta-Ti, T'ai-Yo, Ta-Ti) [Peak]
: Thu [Earth]
: Tian [Sky]
: Tian-zhu [Catholic]
: Tien (T'ien) [Sky]
: Tien-Hou (T'ien Fei) [Heaven]
: T'ien-Kuan [Happiness]
: T'ien Lung [Dragon]
: Tien Mu [Lightening]
: Tien-Wang (Mo-Li) [Kings]
: Ti-Kuan [Foregiveness]
: Ti Nu (Ti-ya) [Earth]
: Ti-Tsang-Wang-Pu-Sa [Mercy]
: Ti Yu [Afterlife]
: Tou Nu [North Star]
: Ts'ai-Lun [Stationers]
: Ts'ai Shen [Wealth]
: Tsan [Demons]
: Ts'ang Chien [Hearth]
: Tsao Shen [?]
: Tsao-Wang [Hearth]
: Tu [Earth]
: Tung Wang Kung [Ruled Male Immortals]
: T'u-ti (Ti-Ti) [Locality]
:
: Wang [Palace Door]
: Wang-Mu-Niang-Niang [Guardian]
: Wen Ch'ang (Wen-Chang-Ta-Ti) [Literature]
: Wen-Shu Yen-K'ung [Manjushri]
: Wen Pu [Epidemics]
: Wu Ti [Myth]
:
:
: Xian [Spirits]
: Xi-Wang-mu [Immortality]
:
: Yama [Seventh hell]
: Yan-lo (Yan Wang) [Underworld Prince]
: Yao [Wind Conqueror]
: Yao-shi-fo [Physician]
: Yao Wang [Medicine]
: Yeng-Wang-Yeh [Death]
: Yen Wang (Yen Lo) [Underworld Judge]
: Yin and Yang [Male and Female]
: Yo Fei [War]
: Yu-Chiang [Ocean Winds]
: Yu-di (Yu Huang) [Supreme]
: Yueh Fei [War]
: Yu Huang (Yu-Huang-Shang-Ti) [High]
: Yun T'ung [Clouds]
: Yu-qiang [Sea]
: Yu Shih [Rain]
: Yu-tzu [Rain]
:
: Zao Jun [Kitchen]
: Zhang Guo-lao [Immortal]
: Zhong-Kui [Literature and Examinations]
: Zhong-li Quan [Immortal]
:
: [Sources: Brief History of Ancient Chinese Mythology]
:
:
: Finnish Gods:
:
:
: Ahto [Water]
: Akka [Harvest]
:
: Egres [Vegetation/Fertility]
:
: Hiisi [Forest/Evil]
:
: Ilma [Air]
: Ilmarinen [Sky]
: Inmar [Sky]
:
: Juma [Sky]
: Jumala (Mader-Atcha, Ukk) [Thunder+]
:
: Kalevanpojat [Demons]
: Kalma [Death]
: Kekri [Fertility Feast]
: Kipu-Tytto [Illness]
: Kondos [Sowing Crops]
: Kuu [Moon]
:
: Lemminkainen [Hero]
: Louhi [Sorcery/Evil]
: Loviatar [Disease]
: Luonnotar [Creator]
:
: Madderakka [Dwarves]
: Maahiset [Dwarves]
:
: Naaki [Water]
: Nyrckes [?]
:
: Olmai (Olmay) [Divine properties]
:
: Pajainen [?]
: Pajonn [Thunder]
: Para [Goblin Like]
: Pellonpekko [Barley]
:
: Raudna [?]
: Rutu [Devil]
:
: Sampsa [Vegetation]
: Seides [Stones]
:
: Rauni [?]
:
: Tapio [Forest]
: Tiermes [Thunder]
: Tuoni [Underworld
: Tursas [Monster]
:
: Ukko (Isainen) [Thunder]
:
: Vainamoinen [Hero]
: Veralden-radien [World Pillars]
:
: Waralden Olmai [World]
:
: JAPANESE GODS
:
:
: Aji-Suki-Taka-Hi-Kone (Aji-Shiki-Taka-Hiko-Ne) [Thunder]
: Ama-No-Minakanushi-No-Kumi [Pole Star]
: Ame-No-Oshido-Mimi [Refusal]
: Ama-No-Uzume [Fertility]
: Ama-Tsu-Kami [Heavenly Gods]
: Amatsu Mikaboshi [Evil]
: Ame-No-Hohi [Disappeared]
: Ame-No-Wakahiko [Ruled Earth]
:
: Bimbo-Gami [Poverty]
: Bishamon [War]
:
: Chimata-No-Kami [Rain/Sea]
:
: Daikoku [Wealth]
:
: Ebisu [Labor]
:
: Fuchi [Fire]
: Fukurokuju (Fukuro kuju) [Wisdom]
: Futsunushi [Lightening]
:
: Gozu-Tenno [Plague]
:
: Haya-Ji (Haya-Tsu-Muji-No-Kami) [Whirlwind]
: Hikohohodemi [Hero]
: Hinokagutsuchi [Fire]
: Hiruko [Morning Sun]
: Hoderi [?]
: Hisa-Me [Devils]
: Ho-Masubi (Kagu Zuchi) [Fire]
: Hosuseri [?]
: Hotei [Laughter]
:
: Inari [Prosperity]
: Izanagi [Creator]
: Izanami [Mother]
:
: Jikoku [Guardians]
: Jimmu Tenno [Founder]
: Jurojin (Jorojin) [Longevity]
:
: Kagu-tsuchi [Fire]
: Kamado-gami [Hearth]
: Kami [Divinities]
: Kami-Musubi (Kami-mi-masubi) [?]
: Kami-Nari [Thunder]
: Kamui [Sky]
: Kappa [Water]
: Kawa-No-Kami [Rivers]
: Kishijoten [Luck]
: Kishimojin [Demon]
: Komoku [South]
: Kompira [Wealth]
: Kono-Hana-Sakuya-Hime (Kono-no-hana-saku-ya-hime) [?]
: Kono-Hana-Sakuya-Hime Kuni-Toko-tachi [First]
: Kuni-Tsu-Kami [Earth]
: Kura-Okami [Rain/Snow]
:
: Nai-No-Kami [Earthquakes]
: Naka-Yama-Tsu-Mi [Mountain Slopes]
: Ningyo [Mermaid]
: Ninigi [Ruler Earth]
:
: O-Kuni-Nushi (Okuninushi) [Medicine/Sorcery]
: Onamuji [Earth]
: Omiwa [Protective]
: Oni [Demons]
: O-Wata-Tsumi [Sea]
: O-Yama-Tsu-Mi (O-yama-tsuni) [Mountain]
:
: Raiden [Thunder]
: Ryo-Wo [Sea]
: Ryujin (Ryugin) [Thunder/Rain]
:
: Sae-No-Kami [Roads]
:
: Sengen-Sama [Guarded Holy Moutain]
: Sennin [Immortals]
: Shichi-Fukujin [Luck]
: Shiko-Me [Devils]
: Shine-Tsu-Hiko [Wind]
: Shitatera-Hime [?]
: Shi-tenno [Cardinal Direction Guardians]
: Shojo [Satyrs]
: Soko-No-Kuni [Underworld]
: Suitengu [Sea]
: Sukuna-bikone (Suku-na-biko) [Hot Springs]
: Shoki [Enemy of Devils]
: Susanowo (Susanoo, Susa-no-wo) [Storms]
: Takamimusubi (Taka-mi-masubi) [Royal Family]
: Takemikadzuchi [Thunder]
: Take-Mi-Musubi [Sun]
: Taki-Tsu-Hiko [Rain]
: Tatsuta-hime [Autumn]
: Ten-gu (Tengu) [Mountain/Forest]
: Tenjin (Temmangu) [Learning/Calligraphy]
: Tsuki-Yomi (Tsukiyomi) [Moon]
:
: Uji-gami [Ancestors]
: Uke-Mochi-No-Kami (Ukemochi, Waka-Uke-Nomi, Toyo-Uke-Bime) [Fertility and
: Food]
: Uzume [Mirth]
:
: Wakahiru-me [Rising Sun]\
: Wata-tsu-mi [Sea]
:
: Yabune [House]
:
: Zocho [South]
:
: Shinto Amaterasu [Sun]
:
: Ama-Tsu-Mara [Smiths]
:
: Ame-No-Kagase-Wo [Astral]
: Ame-No-Mi-Kumari-No-Kami [Water]
: Amenominakanushi (Ame-No-Minaka-Nushi-No-Kami) [Supreme]
: Am-No-Tanabata-Hime-No-Mikoto [Weavers]
: Ame-No-Toko-Tachi-No-Kami [Elemental]
: Ame-no-uzume [Dancers]
:
: Benten (Benten-San, Benzaiten, Benzaiten) [Eloquence+]
:
: Fujin [Wind]
:
: Hachiman [War]
: Ho-musubi [Fire]
:
: Kami [Idols]
:
: SOUTH ASIAN GODS
:
: Cao Dai(Chinese: Gao-Tai) [Supreme]
:
: Debata [?]
:
: Empung Luminuut [?]
:
: Hainuwele [?]
:
: Hananim [Sky]
:
: Hmin [Ague]
:
: Karei [Supreme]
: Kinharingan [Creator]
: Kud [Evil]
:
: Laseo [Sun]
: Lature Dano [Supreme]
: Lowalangi(Lowalani) [World Above]
:
: Mahatala (Mahataral) [Supreme?]
: Ma-zu [?]
:
: Nanmata (Namite) [Primeval]
: Narbrooi [Woodlands]
: Nemu [Primodial]
:
: Palk [Sun]
: Puang Matowa [Sky]
: Pulug [Thunder]
:
: Reahu [Dark Demon]
: Rigenmucha [Supreme]
:
: Silewe Nazarata [?]
: Sirao [First]
:
: Ta Pedn [?]
: Tnong [Sun]
: Tumbrenjak [Original Man]
:
: Upulevo [Sun]
:
: Wunekau [Sun]
:
: CENRAL AND WEST ASIAN GODS
:
: Abyrga [Snake]
: Afi [Rain/Thunderstorms]
: Aitvaras [Evil]
: Alardi [Spirit]
: Aralo [Agriculutre]
: Armaz [Supreme]
: Auseklis (Ausrine) [Stellar]
:
: Baba [Spirit]
: Baba Yaga (Jezi-Baba) [Ogress]
: Bagvarti [?]
: Bangputys [Sea]
: Bannik [Baths]
: Bagisht [Flood/Prosperity]
: Barastir (Barastaer) [Underworld]
: Bardha [Elves]
: Beg-tse (Cam-srin) [War]
: Beng [Satan]
: Biegg-Olmai [Wind]
: Bogatyri [Heroes]
: Boldogasszony (Kisboldogasszony) [Protector Women/Children]
: Bolla (Bullar) [Demon]
: Buga [Supreme]
: Bukura e dheut
: [Good Spirit]
: Bukuri e qiellit [Jehovah]
: Byelobog (Bielbog) [?]
: Byelun [?]
:
: Chernobo(Czarnobog, Czerneboch, Cernobog) [?]
: Chors [Sun]
:
: Dabog [Sun]
: Deive [Stone Spirits]
: Dieva deli [?]
: Dievini [Less Known Gods]
: Dievs [Sky]
: Djall [Devil]
: Domovoi (Domovoy) [Household]
: Donbittir [Water/Fish]
: Drag-gshed [Eight Terrible Gods]
: Dud [Heavenly Spirit]
: Dvorovoi [Courtyard]
: Dyavo [Demons]
:
: En [?]
: Erlik [King of the Dead]
: Es [Sky]
:
: Fatit [Destiny]
: Fene [Demon]
:
: Gabija (Gabieta, Gabeta) [Fire]
: Gabjauja [Corn]
: Giltine [Death]
: Guta [Demon]
:
: Hadur [War]
: Himavat [Himalayas]
: Horagalles [War]
:
: Isdustaya and Papaya [Fate]
: Isten [Supreme]
:
: Jagaubis [Fire]
: Jarovit (Gerovitus) [War]
: Jessis [avatar Jupiter]
: Jumis [Fertility]
: Juras Mate [Water]
:
: Kaka-Guia [Funerary]
: Kalvis [Smith]
: Karta [Fate]
: Kaukas [?]
: Khors [Health/Hunting]
: Khyung-gai mGo-can [?]
: Kikimora [Household]
: K'op'ala [Protective]
: Kukuth (Kukudhi) [Sickness]
: Kulshedra (Kucedre) [Demon]
: Kun-tu-bzan-po [Chief Bon]
: Kupala [Water/Magic/Herbs]
: Kurdalaegon [Blacksmiths]
:
: Laima [Fate]
: Lamaria [Hearth]
: Laskowice (Leshcia) [Forest]
: Lauka Mate [Fields/Fertility]
: Laume [Fairy]
: Leshy [Forest]
: Lha [Bon Gods]
: Lhamo [?]
: Ljeschi (Lychie) [Fauns and Satyrs]
: Ljubi [Demon]
:
: Manzasiri [Primeval]
: Mate [Mother]
: Mati Syra Zemlya [Earth]
: Medeine (Mejdejn) [Woods]
: Meness [Moon]
: Menulis [Moon]
: Meza Mate [Nature]
: Mirsa [Light]
: Mokos [Fertility]
: Mu (rMu) [Heavenly]
: Muma Padura [Wood]
: Myesyats (Czarnobog, Czerneboch, Cernobog) [Moon]
:
: Nang Lha [Household]
: Nari [Demon]
: Nari [Sky]
: Num [Sky]
:
: Odqan [Fire]
: Ora [Protective]
: Ordog [Dark]
:
: Pekar (Pehar) [Demon]
: Peko [Barley]
: Perendi [Jehovah]
: Perit [Mountain Spirits]
: Perkons [Thunder]
: Perkunas [Thunder]
: Perun (Peroun) [Thunder]
: Polevik [Field]
: Poludnitsa [Field]
: Pon [Sky]
: Porenutius (Porevit) [?]
: Preas Eyn [?]
: Preas Eyssaur [Destructive]
: Preas Prohm [Primeval]
:
: Prende (Prenne) [Love]
: Psezpolnica (Polish Poludnica) [Midday]
: Pugu [Sun]
:
: Qormusta (Chormusta) [High]
:
: Rugievit [War]
: Rusalki (Rusalka) [Water/Woodlands]
:
: Safa [Weapens]
: Sanda [?]
: Sarkany [Weather]
: Saule [Sun]
: Saules meitas [?]
: Selardi [Moon]
: Shen-Lha-od-dkar [Bon]
: Shen-rab [Founder Bon]
: Sipe Gyalmo [Bon]
: Shiwini [Sun]
: Shosshu [Smiths]
: Siwini [Sun]
: Srat [Demon]
: Sri [Demon]
: Sridevi [?]
: Stribog [Winds]
: Svantevit (Svantoveit, Svantovitus) [War/Agriculture]
: Svarog [Sky]
: Syen [Guardian]
: Stihi [Demon]
:
: Teljavelik [Heavenly Smith]
: Telyaveli [Smiths]
: Tengri [Heavenly Beings]
: Tesheba [Weather]
: Thab-lha [Hearth]
: Triglav (Trigelawus) [War]
:
: Uacilla [Thunder/Rain]
: Ulgen [Creator]
: Urme [Fate]
: Usins [?]
:
: Vadatajs [Evil]
: Vampire [Soul of Dead]
: Veela [Kindess]
: Veja mate [Winds]
: Veles (Volos) [Underworld]
: Velnias [Devil]
: Velu mate [Dead]
: Verbti [Fire/North Wind]
: Vila [Water]
: Vilkacis (Lithuanian Vilkatas) [Werewolf]
: Vlkodlaks (Vookodlaks) [Werewolf]
: Vodnik [Demon]
: Vodyanoi [Water]
: Volos (Volusu) [Cattle]
:
: We [Supreme]
:
: Xhindi [Spirits]
:
: Yarilo [Love]
:
: Zaltys [Grass Snake]
: Zemepatis (Zemempatis) [Supreme]
: Zemes mate [Mother]
: Zemyna (Zemyneles) [Earth]
: Zorya [Guardian]
: Zvezda Dennitsa and Zvezda Vechernyaya [Morning and Evening Star]
:
:
:
: SIBERIAN GODS
:
: Ai Tojon [Light]
: Ajysyt [Mother]
: Anky-Kele [Sea]
: Ayi [Creator]
:
: Hittavainen, Hittauanin [Hare-Hunters]
: Hinkon [Death Demon]
:
: K'daai [Fire Demon]
: Kaltes [The Goddess]
: Ke'lets [Death Demon]
: Kurkil [Creator]
: Kutkinnaku [Good Spirit]
:
: Mayin [Supreme]
:
: Picvu'cin [Hunting/Wild Animals]
:
: Shurdi [Thunderstorms]
:
: Tomam [Bird]
: Tomor(Tomorr) [Father Creator]
:
: Xucau [Supreme]
:
: Ye'loje (Pugu) [Sun]
:
:
:
:
: "gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: news:i0t2a5tkefph5r36q...@4ax.com...
: > www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/atheism-irrational
: >
:
Notice you didn't refute a thing that was said, which is the only
point.
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
You have no support for that claim.
>The idea that there's no God, that
>natural processes explain everything, cannot account for the
>existence of logic
That assertion is unsubstantiated.
>- this makes their worldview irrational as it
>cannot explain why there's logic. They borrow from a Christian
>worldview while claiming the Christian world view is false.
Christianity is not a logical belief system. You seem to be confused
about what the word _logic_ means.
VoiceOfReason
So it's "a Christian worldview"? Again, that implies that the source
of logic is Christianity, which is demonstrably false.
Logic is the art and science of reasoning. Humans are not the only
species to use reasoning, as research on other primates clearly
shows. There no evidence to suggest that reasoning ability cannot
evolve just like every other ability.
A blanket assertion that [fill-in-the-blank] can only come from God is
silly, to say the least.
gabriel
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
: On 4 Sep, 21:12, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
: [snipped for focus and brevity]
:
: > The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God
: > thinks.
:
: [snipped for focus and brevity]
:
: If this is so, then how is it that logic as a discipline only dates
: back to Aristotle?
So the universal logical truth of, for example, "p or not p"
failed to exist before Aristotle? Or was he the perhaps the first
to notice its universal truth?
Bob LeChevalier
Absolute nonsense.
>The idea that there's no God, that
>natural processes explain everything, cannot account for the
>existence of logic - this makes their worldview irrational as it
>cannot explain why there's logic. They borrow from a Christian
>worldview while claiming the Christian world view is false.
Funny how logic was invented before Christianity, and not by any
"people of the book". And there are many kinds of logic, some of them
without certain of the "laws" of logic, though I am not sure whether
any significant use is made of any form of logic without the law of
non-contradiction.
Thus:
>: > The law of non-contradiction is not simply one person's
>: > opinion of how we ought to think
is irrelevant rather than true. The law of non-contradiction is
merely held to be USEFUL in that it produces satisfactory results, by
most people who engage in logic.
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier
>On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 16:29:22 +0100, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net>
>wrote:
>
>: Your rambling illogic is only evidence of your lack of sound knowledge of
>: science and the real world.
>:
>: There is no objective verifiable evidence for the existence of any real
>: gods.
>
>Sure there is. A building is logical proof of a builder,
No it isn't. The use of the word "building" is suggestive of a
builder, but the choice of that word is a human choice.
>No one would be
>foolish enough to believe it would "just happen" over time no
>matter how many billions of years supposedly passed by.
Invalid argument based on personal incredulity.
>In like matter even a single cell in it's far greater
>organization and complexity is proof of a creator / designer,
Nope.
>For example: if a church doesn't condemn someone who performs an
>abortion, and just accepts it, do you think that is a real
>God-following Church, or fake?
It better be a real one, because that was the norm for all churches
until the last hundred years or so.
>People have the truth available to them and still spit on Him,
>living in confusion and doubt.
You spit on him with every lie you tell about evolution.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:46:02 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
><mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>: On 4 Sep, 21:12, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>:
>: [snipped for focus and brevity]
>:
>: > The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God
>: > thinks.
>:
>: [snipped for focus and brevity]
>:
>: If this is so, then how is it that logic as a discipline only dates
>: back to Aristotle?
>
>So the universal logical truth of, for example, "p or not p"
It isn't a "universal logical truth". It is a law of Aristotelian
logic.
There exist non-Aristotelian logics which deny the law of
contradiction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aristotelian_logic
Devils Advocaat
> On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:46:02 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>
>
> : On 4 Sep, 21:12, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :
> : [snipped for focus and brevity]
> :
> : > The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God
> : > thinks.
> :
> : [snipped for focus and brevity]
> :
> : If this is so, then how is it that logic as a discipline only dates
> : back to Aristotle?
>
> So the universal logical truth of, for example, "p or not p"
> failed to exist before Aristotle? Or was he the perhaps the first
> to notice its universal truth?
That is not all there is to logic, as you should know.
And if logic is the God given gift you claim it to be then the author
of Titus didn't possess it.
For he writes (Titus 1:12): Even one of their own prophets has said,
"Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons".
And then goes on to declare this to be true, which it cannot be as the
one he was quoting was a Cretan.
Rusty Sites
It is a product of language and the definitions that go with it, twit.
gabriel
<Since_humans_read_this...@spamyourself.com>
wrote:
: gabriel wrote:
: > www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/atheism-irrational
: >
: > Atheists are "coming out of the closet" and becoming more vocal
: > about their message that "there is no God." Professor Richard
: > Dawkins (Britain's leading atheist) is encouraging those who
: > share his views to express their opinion. Author of The God
: > Delusion, Dawkins says he wants to "free children from being
: > indoctrinated with the religion of their parents or their
: > community."1 Will Christians be prepared to "give an answer" to
: > the atheists' claims?2
:
: What is with the 1 and 2?
: And Dawkins is of course right when he says children should be free of
: religious indoctrination.
No, Dawkins (and others) want children to be indoctrinated with
his mythological, God-rejecting fairy tales that populations of
tiny fish once upon a time evolved, over generations eventually
into hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings. Hitler was a
great believer in Darwinian evolution, and look where it got us -
countless millions murdered - helping along the creation of his
master race.
And given over 50 million babies being murdered since 1973 in the
name of convenience, adultery, fornication, lying, sexual
perversion, kids with absolutely no respect for any authority and
murdering that have all become the staple of our society, I'd say
it's the fish to man version of evolution that needs to be kept
away from our kids, teaching them they're nothing more than the
mindless offspring of fish and eventually ape-like animals over
generations once upon a time. =(
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put
darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for
sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their
own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
Isaiah 5:20-21 KJVR
We need to come back to the truth of God to not steal, not lie,
not commit adultery (even in the heart by lusting after others),
honor they mother and father, and love God with all our heart and
soul.
"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble
themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their
wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their
sin, and will heal their land.
2 Chronicles 7:14 KJVR
: If they want to become religious out of free will: fine.
Tim Miller
> And given over 50 million babies being murdered since 1973 in the
> name of convenience, adultery, fornication, lying, sexual
> perversion,
Gee. Lying. Isn't that one of your Big No-Nos??
Free Lunch
<replyton...@invalid.invalid> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Not if he's lying because his god is so pathetic that his weak little
god will disappear if Gabriel doesn't lie for him. Gabriel has a twisted
version of a god, but he never read "Small Gods" to understand that his
fake faith makes his god weaker every day.
Erwin Moller
> On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:04:29 +0200, Erwin Moller
> <Since_humans_read_this...@spamyourself.com>
> wrote:
>
> : gabriel wrote:
> : > www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/atheism-irrational
> : >
> : > Atheists are "coming out of the closet" and becoming more vocal
> : > about their message that "there is no God." Professor Richard
> : > Dawkins (Britain's leading atheist) is encouraging those who
> : > share his views to express their opinion. Author of The God
> : > Delusion, Dawkins says he wants to "free children from being
> : > indoctrinated with the religion of their parents or their
> : > community."1 Will Christians be prepared to "give an answer" to
> : > the atheists' claims?2
> :
> : What is with the 1 and 2?
> : And Dawkins is of course right when he says children should be free of
> : religious indoctrination.
>
Hi Spinny,
(I seriously try to be friendly this posting in the hope you respond
honestly to what I say)
> No, Dawkins (and others) want children to be indoctrinated with
> his mythological, God-rejecting fairy tales that populations of
> tiny fish once upon a time evolved, over generations eventually
> into hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings.
Yes, that is what you claim.
All scientific evidence however point to evolution.
It is by far the best explanation we have.
If you don't agree with this point of view, you should debunk evolution:
with facts.
But you, and the other creationists, never did.
> Hitler was a
> great believer in Darwinian evolution, and look where it got us -
> countless millions murdered - helping along the creation of his
> master race.
Who cares what that nutcase believed?
I understood that Darwin was forbidden literature during his reign, so I
think you have your facts wrong.
If I tell you your God doesn't exist because the Inquisition existed,
with all it unreasonable horrors, will that convince you?
(Read up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition)
Of course not!
The fact that a bunch of dangerous nutcases believes that factX is true,
doesn't mean that factX is false.
Look: Hitler believed the Earth was round. Does that make all 'Round
Earth Believers' nutcases?
Using Hitler to 'proof' your point is very weak.
>
> And given over 50 million babies being murdered since 1973 in the
> name of convenience, adultery, fornication, lying, sexual
> perversion, kids with absolutely no respect for any authority and
> murdering that have all become the staple of our society, I'd say
> it's the fish to man version of evolution that needs to be kept
> away from our kids, teaching them they're nothing more than the
> mindless offspring of fish and eventually ape-like animals over
> generations once upon a time. =(
A lie.
Most divorces and teenpregnancies in the USA are happening in religious
circles. (I live in Europe, but I don't have n 'our' numbers ready.)
That aside: What has that got to with evolution being true or false?
>
> "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put
> darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for
> sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their
> own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
> Isaiah 5:20-21 KJVR
I agree to that.
Why don't you try to life up to that yourself?
I try to be honest myself. I try to look at facts instead of (often
failing) hunches.
>
> We need to come back to the truth of God to not steal, not lie,
> not commit adultery (even in the heart by lusting after others),
> honor they mother and father, and love God with all our heart and
> soul.
I do not steal, lie, commit adultery (and if I did it shouldn't be any
of your noosy religious business).
I do so because I strongly agree to:
"Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you."
and also:
"Do to others what you would like to happen to you (if they like it too)"
I do NOT need a God with his Holy Carrots (heaven) or Evil Sticks (hell)
for that.
I do it out of my free will (if such a thing exists).
I, and many other atheists, came to that conclusion using logic and a
little social insight and empathy. It is not that hard.
Tell me Spinny, please do: How comes I life a morally (reasonably) good
life, if I don't have any faith in your religion, or any other religion?
>
> "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble
> themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their
> wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their
> sin, and will heal their land.
> 2 Chronicles 7:14 KJVR
Good, nice chap.
I would do the same: If somebody really hurted me, and that person was
sincerely sorry for it afterward, I would also forgive.
Would you?
Again: I don't need a God for this.
Spinny: You are describing to me some forms of good behaviour, and
somehow link them exclusively to your religion/God.
I cannot agree to that.
It is arrogant.
Can you understand why I say that?
>
> : If they want to become religious out of free will: fine.
> : But please don't teach them fairytales as facts.
> :
> : Are you and your kind maybe afraid the kids won't turn to Christianity
> : if they happen upon it when they reach the age of, say, 18?
> :
> : If this God of you, and his holy scriptures, are so strong and
> : convincing, why is it that creationists parants start brainwashing their
> : kids from scratch?
> :
Shame you didn't respond to the above.
Shame you didn't respond to that either.
I claim that your argumentation follows the same lines as my stupid
marstree.
Please respond to that.
> :
> : >
> : > Laws of logic are God's standard for thinking. Since God is an
> : > unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, the laws of logic are
> : > abstract, universal, invariant entities. In other words, they are
> : > not made of matter-they apply everywhere and at all times. Laws
> : > of logic are contingent upon God's unchanging nature. And they
> : > are necessary for logical reasoning. Thus, rational reasoning
> : > would be impossible without the biblical God.
> :
> : blablabla.
> :
> : >
> : > The materialistic atheist can't have laws of logic.
> :
> : Why not?
> :
> : > He believes
> : > that everything that exists is material-part of the physical
> : > world. But laws of logic are not physical.
> :
> : Why not?
> : Why wouldn't the laws of logic apply to the material world?
> : Why do you claim whatever suits you without proving it?
> :
Please respond to this too.
And a lot of other points you didn't address. :-(
Regards,
Erwin Molller
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:46:02 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
: ><mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
: >
: >: On 4 Sep, 21:12, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >:
: >: [snipped for focus and brevity]
: >:
: >: > The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God
: >: > thinks.
: >:
: >: [snipped for focus and brevity]
: >:
: >: If this is so, then how is it that logic as a discipline only dates
: >: back to Aristotle?
: >
: >So the universal logical truth of, for example, "p or not p"
:
: It isn't a "universal logical truth". It is a law of Aristotelian
: logic.
So in other words, you believe that in some parts of the world
that don't know about Aristotle's logic, it's possible to have,
say, "p" and "not p" be true at the same time, but only in places
where they follow Aristotle's logic is such a thing never true?
:
: There exist non-Aristotelian logics which deny the law of
Bob LeChevalier
>So in other words, you believe that in some parts of the world
>that don't know about Aristotle's logic, it's possible to have,
>say, "p" and "not p" be true at the same time, but only in places
>where they follow Aristotle's logic is such a thing never true?
My answer remains the same:
gabriel
<Since_humans_read_this...@spamyourself.com>
wrote:
: gabriel schreef:
: > On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:04:29 +0200, Erwin Moller
: > <Since_humans_read_this...@spamyourself.com>
: > wrote:
: >
: > : gabriel wrote:
: > : > www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/atheism-irrational
: > : >
: > : > Atheists are "coming out of the closet" and becoming more vocal
: > : > about their message that "there is no God." Professor Richard
: > : > Dawkins (Britain's leading atheist) is encouraging those who
: > : > share his views to express their opinion. Author of The God
: > : > Delusion, Dawkins says he wants to "free children from being
: > : > indoctrinated with the religion of their parents or their
: > : > community."1 Will Christians be prepared to "give an answer" to
: > : > the atheists' claims?2
: > :
: > : What is with the 1 and 2?
: > : And Dawkins is of course right when he says children should be free of
: > : religious indoctrination.
: >
:
: Hi Spinny,
:
: (I seriously try to be friendly this posting in the hope you respond
: honestly to what I say)
Calling someone "spinny" is being friendly? You can't even
respond without lying in your first sentence, saying you'll be
friendly the very line after you just got done trying to insult.
:
: > No, Dawkins (and others) want children to be indoctrinated with
: > his mythological, God-rejecting fairy tales that populations of
: > tiny fish once upon a time evolved, over generations eventually
: > into hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings.
:
: Yes, that is what you claim.
: All scientific evidence however point to evolution.
Actually, the fish to man version is not observable and not
testable/verifiable. Please provide a single observation OR
test/verification that shows the fish to man version of evolution
actually happening.
: It is by far the best explanation we have.
Being the "best explanation" in your eyes does not change the
fact that this explanation is not observable AND not
testable/verifiable - which is what actual science is.
Please provide such an observation OR test/verification to prove
otherwise. Not what you believe when looking at dead bones and
fossils, but an observation OR test/verification of the belief
itself actually happening. The fact is, not one scientist can -
one can only believe in it.
:
: If you don't agree with this point of view, you should debunk evolution:
Erwin Moller
Gabriel,
Excuse me, I was confusing you with Spintronic, who we all call Spinny.
Don't be so dramatic about that: calling me a liar and telling me that I
deliberately insulted you.
You overreact heavily.....
>
> :
> : > No, Dawkins (and others) want children to be indoctrinated with
> : > his mythological, God-rejecting fairy tales that populations of
> : > tiny fish once upon a time evolved, over generations eventually
> : > into hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings.
> :
> : Yes, that is what you claim.
> : All scientific evidence however point to evolution.
>
> Actually, the fish to man version is not observable and not
> testable/verifiable. Please provide a single observation OR
> test/verification that shows the fish to man version of evolution
> actually happening.
Your strawman "fish to man evolution actually happening" only shows that
you don't understand what ToE is saying.
It is NOT happening right now, but happened in the past.
You will NOT see fish-to-man-evolution today.
And no matter how much evidence is laid out before you that shows all
kind of different animals that evolved out of a fish, you will deny that
man also evolved, and had a fish as as ancestor.
You are actually claiming that all modern biologist are wrong and
creationism is right without putting any(!) evidence on the table.
You ask me to put a single observation on the table that shows that
mankind evolved out of fish.
Here are two strong things for you to consider:
1) We share an enormous amount of DNA with a modern fish. Many of our
proteins (coded by DNA) are the same as in fish.
That is a very strong indication we share a common ancestor.
2) When you were a very small Gabriel, you looks like a fish in your
mothers whomb. You actually developed gills for a short time.
Here you can see evolution at work: It morphes the animal through
different stages during development, using WORKING BUILDINGPLANS, and
builds on that, creating you as an endresult.
Why whould an efficient designer do such stupid things?
Don't answer Gods ways are mystical, because that means you don't have
an enswer.
Now it is your turn Gabriel: Give me 2 strong indications that God
created the Earth a few millenia ago and evolution is a lie.
>
> : It is by far the best explanation we have.
>
> Being the "best explanation" in your eyes does not change the
> fact that this explanation is not observable AND not
> testable/verifiable - which is what actual science is.
Why do you repeat evolution is not observable while it clearly IS
observable?
Or are again 99.9% of the biologists wrong?
They all claim it is observable, and have written kilometers of books on
evolution with lots of examples.
Get informed.
>
> Please provide such an observation OR test/verification to prove
> otherwise. Not what you believe when looking at dead bones and
> fossils, but an observation OR test/verification of the belief
> itself actually happening. The fact is, not one scientist can -
> one can only believe in it.
You prefer using the word 'believing' to try to get a level playingfield
with random religions, but you fail.
Evolution is not about believing but about studying nature, collecting
evidence, thinking critically, etc.
It is not like believing at all.
That aside: You ask again for evidence.
I gave you two examples.
You don't want me to repeat the whole shebang of the last 150 years of
biological inquiry for you here, do you?
We have DNA, we know roughly how a fertilized cell grows into a mature
being using that very DNA.
We know HOW DNA codes for proteins.
We understand how proteins work (allthough one is never finished
studying them futher.)
We know about natural selection, we know about succesfull individuals in
population, we know about mutations and the like, we can predict all
kinds of diseases that have a genetical origin, etc. etc. etc.
And there walk in Gabriel, asking me to show him one piece of evidence
that man is a product of evolution.....
I ask you: WHAT would you consider convincing evidence?
And using your 'standards' for proof: Can you please provide me evidence
of Gods existance and all kind of other claims you creationists have?
>
> :
> : If you don't agree with this point of view, you should debunk evolution:
> : with facts.
> : But you, and the other creationists, never did.
> :
That still stands.
> :
> : > Hitler was a
> : > great believer in Darwinian evolution, and look where it got us -
> : > countless millions murdered - helping along the creation of his
> : > master race.
> :
> : Who cares what that nutcase believed?
> : I understood that Darwin was forbidden literature during his reign, so I
> : think you have your facts wrong.
> :
> : If I tell you your God doesn't exist because the Inquisition existed,
> : with all it unreasonable horrors, will that convince you?
> : (Read up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition)
> :
> : Of course not!
> : The fact that a bunch of dangerous nutcases believes that factX is true,
> : doesn't mean that factX is false.
> : Look: Hitler believed the Earth was round. Does that make all 'Round
> : Earth Believers' nutcases?
> :
> : Using Hitler to 'proof' your point is very weak.
> :
I see you left that point untouched.
For obvious reason I expect: You see now how weak that argument was.
Be a man and admit it, or at least respond to it.
> : >
> : > And given over 50 million babies being murdered since 1973 in the
> : > name of convenience, adultery, fornication, lying, sexual
> : > perversion, kids with absolutely no respect for any authority and
> : > murdering that have all become the staple of our society, I'd say
> : > it's the fish to man version of evolution that needs to be kept
> : > away from our kids, teaching them they're nothing more than the
> : > mindless offspring of fish and eventually ape-like animals over
> : > generations once upon a time. =(
> :
> : A lie.
> : Most divorces and teenpregnancies in the USA are happening in religious
> : circles. (I live in Europe, but I don't have n 'our' numbers ready.)
> :
> : That aside: What has that got to with evolution being true or false?
Why quote my response if you don't have anything to say about it?
I won't quote the rest of my response.
I see you didn't respond to any of my remarks/objections.
But I am getting used to that.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
Erwin Moller
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:13:57 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
> <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> : gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : >On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:46:02 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
> : ><mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> : >
> : >: On 4 Sep, 21:12, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : >:
> : >: [snipped for focus and brevity]
> : >:
> : >: > The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God
> : >: > thinks.
> : >:
> : >: [snipped for focus and brevity]
> : >:
> : >: If this is so, then how is it that logic as a discipline only dates
> : >: back to Aristotle?
> : >
> : >So the universal logical truth of, for example, "p or not p"
> :
> : It isn't a "universal logical truth". It is a law of Aristotelian
> : logic.
>
> So in other words, you believe that in some parts of the world
> that don't know about Aristotle's logic, it's possible to have,
> say, "p" and "not p" be true at the same time, but only in places
> where they follow Aristotle's logic is such a thing never true?
You don't get it Gabriel.
Instead of repeating all the things that can be said about different
systems of logic in here, why don't you follow the link posted to Wikipedia?
Read and learn.
I can give you a famous example of trouble that can arise:
Gabriel, answer this simple question: Is the following statement (p)
true or false?
statement p: "This statement is not true."
There you have a p and a not-p seemingly at the same time.
Does the universe collapse?
Did cause and effect stop to exist?
Logic is a human concept, and subject to growing knowledge.
There is even a six-valued logic out there (allthough I never studied
it) that has 4 more values beside true and false.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
>
> :
> : There exist non-Aristotelian logics which deny the law of
> : contradiction
> : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aristotelian_logic
> :
> : lojbab
> : ---
> : Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
> : loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Free Lunch
<Since_humans_read_this...@spamyourself.com> wrote in
alt.talk.creationism:
Either that or he thinks that spinny is a complete loon, too, and
thought you were being intentionally offensive.
You win either way.
Juan M
Jesus was a skeptic, as were most great thinkers including Einstein, Newton,
Galileo, Darwin, Pasteur and Columbus, as they all questioned the existing
order.
Bob LeChevalier
>: > No, Dawkins (and others) want children to be indoctrinated with
>: > his mythological, God-rejecting fairy tales that populations of
>: > tiny fish once upon a time evolved, over generations eventually
>: > into hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings.
>:
>: Yes, that is what you claim.
>: All scientific evidence however point to evolution.
>
>Actually, the fish to man version is not observable and not
>testable/verifiable. Please provide a single observation OR
>test/verification that shows the fish to man version of evolution
>actually happening.
It already happened, dodo.
Erwin Moller
Hi Juan,
What are you excactly replying to?
Why don't you quote the part of the text you are replying to?
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >So in other words, you believe that in some parts of the world
: >that don't know about Aristotle's logic, it's possible to have,
: >say, "p" and "not p" be true at the same time, but only in places
: >where they follow Aristotle's logic is such a thing never true?
:
: My answer remains the same:
:
: >: There exist non-Aristotelian logics which deny the law of
: >: contradiction
: >: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aristotelian_logic
Exactly. So in other words, you believe the illogical idea that
in some parts of the world that don't know about Aristotle's
logic, or before Aristotle made such claims, that it *IS*
possible to have, say, "P" and "NOT P" be true at the same time.
This is clearly false and only shows yet again how far people
will go to deny the obvious.
In short, "P and NOT P" is false everywhere whether anyone
noticed it (or not) and created a notation to represent this
universal, timeless truth. "P or NOT P" is true everywhere
whether anyone noticed it (or not) and created a notation to
represent this universal, timeless truth.
This universal truth is explained quite logically by the
Christian world view. This universal truth makes no sense in a
secular fish to man evolutionary world view where God supposedly
does not exist, that's just created by natural chance. Their
world view cannot account for the laws of logic, showing their
world view is irrational. Their world view of nothing but natural
chance cannot count on universal laws of logic, hence science
would not even be possible. But they believe science is possible
because they borrow from a Christian world view that explains the
existence of universal laws of logic, while denying that world
view is true. It's like trying to claim you don't believe in air,
while breathing air to give your message.
:
: lojbab
gabriel
<Since_humans_read_this...@spamyourself.com>
wrote:
: gabriel schreef:
Logical fallacy.
-----
www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Liar-paradox
"In philosophy and logic, the liar paradox encompasses
paradoxical statements such as "This sentence is false." or "The
next sentence is false. The previous sentence is true." These
statements are paradoxical because there is no way to assign them
a consistent truth value. Consider that if "This statement is
false" is true, then what it says is the case; but what it says
is that it is false, hence it is false. On the other hand, if it
is false, then what it says is not the case; thus, since it says
that it is false, it must be true. Image File history File links
Broom_icon. ... For other uses, see Philosophy (disambiguation).
... Logic (from Classical Greek λόγος logos; meaning word,
thought, idea, argument, account, reason, or principle) is the
study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and
demonstration. ... Look up paradox in Wiktionary, the free
dictionary. ...
This is to be distinguished from the common colloquial expression
"I tell a lie." when the speaker has realized that he has just
accidentally told an untruth."
-----
:
: There you have a p and a not-p seemingly at the same time.
: Does the universe collapse?
: Did cause and effect stop to exist?
:
: Logic is a human concept, and subject to growing knowledge.
No, choosing which side of the road to drive on is a human
concept.
People did not (and cannot) create the concept that it's
impossible to have P, and NOT P true at the same time. That's a
fact before it was ever discovered as being a logical fact. Same
with "P OR NOT P" being true all the time. No one made up that
fact - it's true whether people are ever made aware of that logic
or not.
And even if it were so that people could just make up their own
rules of logic (which it's not), then different people could come
to different conclusions depending on what rules of logic they
want to follow in their part of the world - growing knowledge
would be impossible.
Science is only possible because of logic. Logic is inexplicable
in a Godless, natural chance world view (showing their world view
is irrational). Logic is perfectly explained in a Christian world
view - they borrow from the Christian world view in order for
science (logical thought) to even be possible. This is yet
another logical proof of the existence of God. Scientific proof?
No. Logical proof nonetheless.
: There is even a six-valued logic out there (allthough I never studied
Bob LeChevalier
>On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:44:49 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: >So in other words, you believe that in some parts of the world
>: >that don't know about Aristotle's logic, it's possible to have,
>: >say, "p" and "not p" be true at the same time, but only in places
>: >where they follow Aristotle's logic is such a thing never true?
>:
>: My answer remains the same:
>:
>: >: There exist non-Aristotelian logics which deny the law of
>: >: contradiction
>: >: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aristotelian_logic
>
>Exactly. So in other words, you believe the illogical idea that
>in some parts of the world that don't know about Aristotle's
>logic, or before Aristotle made such claims, that it *IS*
>possible to have, say, "P" and "NOT P" be true at the same time.
It is not only possible then, but it is quite possible in parts of the
world fully conversant in Aristotle. It is NOT "illogical", and
indeed it is often university professors of logic who write about such
things.
>This is clearly false and only shows yet again how far people
>will go to deny the obvious.
As the cited Wikipedia article shows, it is quite true. Logic is a
human creation, and humans make the rules.
>In short, "P and NOT P" is false everywhere
where human beings decide that it is the rule.
>This universal truth is explained quite logically by the
>Christian world view.
Christianity has nothing to do with logic.
Erwin Moller
Hi Gabriel,
> Logical fallacy.
>
Correct!
And it shows neatly why bi-valued logic (classical true/false) isn't
always enough.
<snipped description of the liar paradox>
> :
> : There you have a p and a not-p seemingly at the same time.
> : Does the universe collapse?
> : Did cause and effect stop to exist?
> :
> : Logic is a human concept, and subject to growing knowledge.
>
> No, choosing which side of the road to drive on is a human
> concept.
That too.
>
> People did not (and cannot) create the concept that it's
> impossible to have P, and NOT P true at the same time.
Actually humans DID come up with that concept.
If there is intelligent life out there in the universe I expect they
will draw similar conclusions.
The universe behaves in the way it behaves, following the laws of
nature. What else can it do?
We are only describing it and came up, amongst other things, with logic
as a great tool.
And indeed: it looks like it that in our universe P being true and
untrue at the same time seems impossible.
Allthough it must be mentioned in this context that it can also be
impossible to say if P is true or false (as in our liarparadox).
I tend to agree with you that logic was there before humans came up with
the concept, but that is a twisted way of looking at it.
Electromagnetism was there too before humans described it and understood
it. DOes that mean something important too?
I say no: It just means the universe is the way it is and the moment we
start describing/studying/understanding it we will find all these
characteristics like logic and electromagnetism, etc.
I don't see anything 'magical' in logic per se.
That's a
> fact before it was ever discovered as being a logical fact. Same
> with "P OR NOT P" being true all the time. No one made up that
> fact - it's true whether people are ever made aware of that logic
> or not.
Same goes for gravitational force, electromagneticism, etc.
>
> And even if it were so that people could just make up their own
> rules of logic (which it's not), then different people could come
> to different conclusions depending on what rules of logic they
> want to follow in their part of the world - growing knowledge
> would be impossible.
Agree.
But I would like to make a point about logic I think is important:
Logic, in itself, is NOT enough to gain understanding about the
universe. Logic only lives in its own world.
The moment you want to try logic, and only logic, in the real world,
you'll have all kind of problems.
Let me clarify what I mean.
Suppose you are a perfect logician. But that is all you know.
You are thrown onto Earth.
I ask you: "Will this apple fall if I let it go 1 meter above the ground?"
How would you, being a perfect logician, approach that question?
Maybe you would an experiment or 1000, and discover the apples always fall.
Can you then draw the conclusion it will fall the 1001th time?
Being a perfect logician, you would not.
But WHAT can you do?
I think the best thing you can do is starting to study the whole shebang
we call our universe. You'll develop statistical methods, you'll develop
instruments to do measurement, you'll start making hypothesis, etc.
In short: You'll reinvent the scientific method (and probably going a
lot faster than humankind since you are a perfect logician).
My point is clear I think: Logic by itself, even though we cannot do
without, is not enough to understand the universe.
Do you agree to that?
>
> Science is only possible because of logic.
Agree.
> Logic is inexplicable
> in a Godless, natural chance world view (showing their world view
> is irrational).
I am not quite sure what a "Godless, natural chance world view" is in
your book, but I ask you this:
- Is gravity inexplicable in a Godless, natural chance world view?
- Is electromagneticism inexplicable in a Godless, natural chance world
view?
In general: Is ANYTHING explainable in a "Godless, natural chance world
view" according to you?
Here is the coreproblem: Nobody on Earth is allknowing. Maybe you don't
like that fact, but it still is a fact.
The best we can do is investigate the universe the best we can.
The best method so far is what we call the scientific method, and it
uses logic.
> Logic is perfectly explained in a Christian world
> view - they borrow from the Christian world view in order for
> science (logical thought) to even be possible.
Logic is NOT explained by the Christian world view.
It explains exactly as much as: "Logic is there in the universe because
I told you so.".
Gabriel, I have NO troubles at all if you learn important lesson from
Jesus, but don't try to pass it as it were science, because it isn't.
The 'Christian world view' is also an extremely vague concept, and will
have different implementations depending on the person you ask.
There is no such thing as a coherent, settled 'Christian world view'.
> This is yet
> another logical proof of the existence of God. Scientific proof?
> No. Logical proof nonetheless.
No it is not.
You are deeply mistaken.
What about this:
"I state that the universe is created by the excrements of sick goats."
Then, following your line of 'logic', I can cunclude my 'sickish goat
world view' must be correct.
That simply doesn't make sense.
Regards,
Eriwn Moller
>
>
> : There is even a six-valued logic out there (allthough I never studied
> : it) that has 4 more values beside true and false.
> :
> : Regards,
> : Erwin Moller
> :
> : >
> : > :
> : > : There exist non-Aristotelian logics which deny the law of
> : > : contradiction
> : > : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aristotelian_logic
> : > :
> : > : lojbab
> : > : ---
> : > : Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
> : > : loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
gabriel
<papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
:
:
: gabriel wrote:
: > On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 15:53:31 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
No, the source of logic is God - the God of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob - which is a Christian world view. Mankind only discovered
these rules of logic - they can't decide to change them to be
whatever they want. For example, "P and NOT P" is false, and no
one can "design" it to be otherwise.
:
: Logic is the art and science of reasoning.
Reasoning would not be possible without the rules of logic. Art
and science did not invent those rules - they merely discovered
their existence, then used them to perform reasoning with. But
the point still stands, their world view of naturalism cannot
account for where these universal laws of logic came from that we
discovered. A Christian world view does account for them
perfectly - they come from God and the mind of God. So those with
a naturalistic world view borrow from the Christian (there is a
God) world view in order for science and reasoning to even be
possible - this shows how irrational their world view is - which
shows it's a false world view.
: Humans are not the only
: species to use reasoning, as research on other primates clearly
: shows.
Which shows it's not a human construct - it's a universal
constant that exists everywhere, whether someone is formally
schooled in them or not.
: There no evidence to suggest that reasoning ability cannot
: evolve just like every other ability.
If it could just evolve, this means people are able to create
their own versions of logic.
"P and NOT P" cannot be true at the same time no matter who wants
to design their own version of logic that says they can both be
true at the same time.
"P or NOT P" - one of them must be true at all times, no matter
who wants to design their own version of logic to say otherwise.
So again, this proves the naturalistic world view (that all
things came about from nature alone and natural chance, with no
God) is irrational.
:
: A blanket assertion that [fill-in-the-blank] can only come from God is
:
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
So in other words, someone could invent a version of logic where
"P" and "NOT P" are both true at the same time?
If not, then the fact that "P" and "NOT P" cannot both be true at
the same time is a universal logical truth that existed before
mankind discovered their existence, which is the point. Such
logical truth is accounted for in the Christian world-view (that
there is a God, and it's the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,
and He created logic and the laws of nature) - such logical truth
cannot be accounted for in the naturalistic world view (that
there is no God, and that everything just came about by natural
chance).
They borrow from the Christian world view in order for science
and reasoning to even be possible.
: And there are many kinds of logic, some of them
Bob LeChevalier
>On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:43:41 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
><papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>: > No, you skipped what answered your question. Read it again. Logic
>: > only exists because of God. The idea that there's no God, that
>: > natural processes explain everything, cannot account for the
>: > existence of logic - this makes their worldview irrational as it
>: > cannot explain why there's logic. They borrow from a Christian
>: > worldview while claiming the Christian world view is false.
>:
>: So it's "a Christian worldview"? Again, that implies that the source
>: of logic is Christianity, which is demonstrably false.
>
>No, the source of logic is God
Nonsense.
- the God of Abraham, Isaac and
>Jacob - which is a Christian world view. Mankind only discovered
>these rules of logic - they can't decide to change them to be
>whatever they want. For example, "P and NOT P" is false, and no
>one can "design" it to be otherwise.
Sorry, but I have shown you cites of logics where it has indeed been
designed to be otherwise.
>: Logic is the art and science of reasoning.
>
>Reasoning would not be possible without the rules of logic.
Which were invented by Aristotle (who was not in the least bit
Christian).
>Art and science did not invent those rules
Man invented the rules. Man can change the rules, if man deems the
result of doing so to be useful.
> Christian world view does account for them
>perfectly - they come from God and the mind of God.
Nonsense.
>: Humans are not the only
>: species to use reasoning, as research on other primates clearly
>: shows.
>
>Which shows it's not a human construct - it's a universal
>constant that exists everywhere, whether someone is formally
>schooled in them or not.
That does not follow.
>: There no evidence to suggest that reasoning ability cannot
>: evolve just like every other ability.
>
>If it could just evolve, this means people are able to create
>their own versions of logic.
They can, and do.
>"P and NOT P" cannot be true at the same time no matter who wants
>to design their own version of logic that says they can both be
>true at the same time.
Reality proves you wrong.
>"P or NOT P" - one of them must be true at all times,
No.
"The present king of France is bald". is a statement P that is neither
true nor not true.
>So again, this proves the naturalistic world view (that all
>things came about from nature alone and natural chance, with no
>God) is irrational.
That proves NOTHING, except that you do not have a useful concept of
"proof"
Bob LeChevalier
>On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:58:45 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>: Funny how logic was invented before Christianity, and not by any
>: "people of the book".
>
>So in other words, someone could invent a version of logic where
>"P" and "NOT P" are both true at the same time?
That doesn't follow from what I said, but it happens to be factual.
There are such versions, as I have cited to you in prior posts.
>If not, then the fact that "P" and "NOT P" cannot both be true
is not a fact. It is an axiom (assumption/rule) of Aristotelian
logic.
>Such logical truth
Logical truth is entirely subject to the assumptions on which it is
based. It is possible to logically prove all sorts of nonsense,
merely by choosing convenient assumptions, which of course may have
nothing to do with reality.
>is accounted for in the Christian world-view (that
>there is a God, and it's the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,
>and He created logic and the laws of nature)
There is no evidence for any of those assumptions.
>such logical truth cannot be accounted for in the naturalistic world view
Logical truth isn't "accounted for". It is *assumed* as a consequence
of the axioms and the rules of inference. It hence is entirely
orthogonal to reality.
>They borrow from the Christian world view in order for science
>and reasoning to even be possible.
Nope. Science and reasoning has existed in pre-Christian and
non-Christian cultures, and seems to be more effective in agnostic or
atheistic cultures that are willing and able to tell you religious
fundies to get lost.
VoiceOfReason
Unsupported assertion.
> - the God of Abraham, Isaac and
> Jacob - which is a Christian world view.
Bigoted, unsupported assertion.
> Mankind only discovered
> these rules of logic - they can't decide to change them to be
> whatever they want.
Unsupported assertion.
> For example, "P and NOT P" is false, and no
> one can "design" it to be otherwise.
>
> :
> : Logic is the art and science of reasoning.
>
> Reasoning would not be possible without the rules of logic. Art
> and science did not invent those rules - they merely discovered
> their existence, then used them to perform reasoning with. But
> the point still stands, their world view of naturalism cannot
> account for where these universal laws of logic came from that we
> discovered. A Christian world view does account for them
> perfectly - they come from God and the mind of God.
Unsupported assertion.
> So those with
> a naturalistic world view borrow from the Christian (there is a
> God) world view in order for science and reasoning to even be
> possible - this shows how irrational their world view is - which
> shows it's a false world view.
Non sequitur based on unsupported assertions.
> : Humans are not the only
> : species to use reasoning, as research on other primates clearly
> : shows.
>
> Which shows it's not a human construct - it's a universal
> constant that exists everywhere, whether someone is formally
> schooled in them or not.
>
> : There no evidence to suggest that reasoning ability cannot
> : evolve just like every other ability.
>
> If it could just evolve, this means people are able to create
> their own versions of logic.
They do. Have you never taken a class in logic?
> "P and NOT P" cannot be true at the same time no matter who wants
> to design their own version of logic that says they can both be
> true at the same time.
>
> "P or NOT P" - one of them must be true at all times, no matter
> who wants to design their own version of logic to say otherwise.
>
> So again, this proves the naturalistic world view (that all
> things came about from nature alone and natural chance, with no
> God) is irrational.
This proves only that you make invalid conclusions based on
unsupported assertions.
> : A blanket assertion that [fill-in-the-blank] can only come from God is
> : silly, to say the least.
> :
At the very least!
gabriel
<Since_humans_read_this...@spamyourself.com>
wrote:
: gabriel schreef:
: > On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:02:39 +0200, Erwin Moller
No overreaction - you made an attempt at insulting, after
claiming you were going to be "friendly." You lied - just
pointing out that fact.
:
:
: >
: > :
: > : > No, Dawkins (and others) want children to be indoctrinated with
: > : > his mythological, God-rejecting fairy tales that populations of
: > : > tiny fish once upon a time evolved, over generations eventually
: > : > into hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings.
: > :
: > : Yes, that is what you claim.
: > : All scientific evidence however point to evolution.
: >
: > Actually, the fish to man version is not observable and not
: > testable/verifiable. Please provide a single observation OR
: > test/verification that shows the fish to man version of evolution
: > actually happening.
:
:
: Your strawman "fish to man evolution actually happening" only shows that
: you don't understand what ToE is saying.
: It is NOT happening right now, but happened in the past.
: You will NOT see fish-to-man-evolution today.
Of course it happened in the past. When did I said it happened
now? Although according to your beliefs, it should still be
happening now - and we should see living organisms that are in
transition from one animal (over generations) to another. We
don't. The *point* is, their belief that it happened in the past
(and should supposedly even be going on now, albeit slowly) is
not observable, not testable and not verifiable - one can only
take their word for it that their beliefs about fossils means it
happened. Meanwhile science can repeatedly show such things never
happen at all no matter how much populations of animals adapt
over generations for every animal alive.
:
: And no matter how much evidence is laid out before you that shows all
: kind of different animals that evolved out of a fish, you will deny that
: man also evolved, and had a fish as as ancestor.
:
: You are actually claiming that all modern biologist are wrong and
: creationism is right without putting any(!) evidence on the table.
:
: You ask me to put a single observation on the table that shows that
: mankind evolved out of fish.
: Here are two strong things for you to consider:
: 1) We share an enormous amount of DNA with a modern fish. Many of our
: proteins (coded by DNA) are the same as in fish.
: That is a very strong indication we share a common ancestor.
No, this is a *belief* that it means we have a common ancestor.
Show an observation or test/verification to back up this belief:
populations of [rats] evolving over generations into animals that
are no longer [rats], then show us how their DNA compares. Then
use this information to infer other ancestral relationships once
you scientifically establish what it means if animals share some
DNA. Now that would be science.
:
: 2) When you were a very small Gabriel, you looks like a fish in your
: mothers whomb.
We look like mere cells even earlier than that. Does that mean we
evolved form cells, too, once upon a time? Of course not - just a
belief once again what it means that we seem similar at such a
primitive stage to something else at a primitive stage. In fact,
most animals seem completely identical when they are first
conceived and are barely a few cells - using your logic this
proves everything evolved from everything else since they all
look alike, which only shows how illogical that belief is.
: You actually developed gills for a short time.
Wrinkles in the neck do not qualify as gills.
: Here you can see evolution at work: It morphes the animal through
No, I didn't ask for *reasons why* you have faith in what you
believe. I could give you a ton of reasons why many believe in
God and why the same evidence (homology, DNA similarity,
meaningfully encoded information and the ability for it to be
meaningfully decoded, the Cambrian Explosion, and more) points
more logically to God doing exactly what He said He did (but of
course you would just dismiss those reasons - and point out how
they're also not science, which you're right - science is too
impotent to deal with any origins theory, including creation). I
asked for an actual *observation* or test/verification that shows
it in action. You only offer reasons why you have faith in your
beliefs, which only goes to show you again it's not science in
the least. Don't believe it? Read what scientists will say when
creationists point to patterns, and why they think all that
evidence points more logically to God - they will rightfully
respond "Show a single observation or test/verification that
shows God creating anything" - bingo.
So if you have an actual observation of what you believe
happening over generations, please present it - it seems clear
you do not (no one does) since you launch into reasons you have
faith in your unobservable, untestable, unverifiable beliefs.
Welcome to religion. If you can provide an actual observation,
I'll respond.
Take care.
: You don't want me to repeat the whole shebang of the last 150 years of
Bob LeChevalier
>: Your strawman "fish to man evolution actually happening" only shows that
>: you don't understand what ToE is saying.
>: It is NOT happening right now, but happened in the past.
>: You will NOT see fish-to-man-evolution today.
>
>Of course it happened in the past. When did I said it happened
>now? Although according to your beliefs, it should still be
>happening now - and we should see living organisms that are in
>transition from one animal (over generations) to another.
It is. Every animal is in transition from its parents to its
children, and the children are different animals than the parents.
That humans usually choose to classify them as the same "kind" of
animal is a human decision based on human criteria.
>We don't.
We do.
>The *point* is, their belief that it happened in the past
>(and should supposedly even be going on now, albeit slowly) is
>not observable, not testable and not verifiable
Unfortunately for you, it is all three of those.
>: You ask me to put a single observation on the table that shows that
>: mankind evolved out of fish.
>: Here are two strong things for you to consider:
>: 1) We share an enormous amount of DNA with a modern fish. Many of our
>: proteins (coded by DNA) are the same as in fish.
>: That is a very strong indication we share a common ancestor.
>
>No, this is a *belief* that it means we have a common ancestor.
It is not a "belief". It is a theory supported by humongous amounts
of evidence. Evidence you refuse to recognize, much less understand.
>Show an observation or test/verification to back up this belief:
>populations of [rats] evolving over generations into animals that
>are no longer [rats], then show us how their DNA compares. Then
>use this information to infer other ancestral relationships once
>you scientifically establish what it means if animals share some
>DNA. Now that would be science.
Look at all the examples of speciation in the oft-cited pages.
>: 2) When you were a very small Gabriel, you looks like a fish in your
>: mothers whomb.
>
>We look like mere cells even earlier than that. Does that mean we
>evolved form cells, too, once upon a time?
Single-celled lifeforms? Indeed!
>: You prefer using the word 'believing' to try to get a level playingfield
>: with random religions, but you fail.
>: Evolution is not about believing but about studying nature, collecting
>: evidence, thinking critically, etc.
>: It is not like believing at all.
>:
>: That aside: You ask again for evidence.
>: I gave you two examples.
>
>No, I didn't ask for *reasons why* you have faith in what you
>believe. I could give you a ton of reasons why many believe in
>God and why the same evidence (homology, DNA similarity,
>meaningfully encoded information and the ability for it to be
>meaningfully decoded, the Cambrian Explosion, and more) points
>more logically to God doing exactly what He said He did
The only way that ANYTHING could point to God doing anything of the
sort, would be that you provide evidence that God exists (which you
can't), and then make predictions comparable to those made by the
theory of evolution based on the Goddidit hypothesis (which you
can't).
Erwin Moller
Gabriel,
I only made a mistake, for which I even excused myself, and you insist
that I try to insult you.
If you insist in overeacting, fine.
Honestly, I think you are trying to loose focus on the issues we are
discussing here and are trying to make me look bad.
A famous approach in your circles (see your nazi-claims hereunder), but
it won't work with me.
I'll stay polite and ask you for facts.
Read on.
>
> :
> :
> : >
> : > :
> : > : > No, Dawkins (and others) want children to be indoctrinated with
> : > : > his mythological, God-rejecting fairy tales that populations of
> : > : > tiny fish once upon a time evolved, over generations eventually
> : > : > into hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings.
> : > :
> : > : Yes, that is what you claim.
> : > : All scientific evidence however point to evolution.
> : >
> : > Actually, the fish to man version is not observable and not
> : > testable/verifiable. Please provide a single observation OR
> : > test/verification that shows the fish to man version of evolution
> : > actually happening.
> :
> :
> : Your strawman "fish to man evolution actually happening" only shows that
> : you don't understand what ToE is saying.
> : It is NOT happening right now, but happened in the past.
> : You will NOT see fish-to-man-evolution today.
>
> Of course it happened in the past. When did I said it happened
> now?
> Although according to your beliefs, it should still be
> happening now - and we should see living organisms that are in
> transition from one animal (over generations) to another.
And this is the problem.
There is NO TRANSITION going on in the simplistic way you protrait
evolution.
There is no animal 'trying to become the next animal'.
That is a childish and totally wrong description of evolution.
The main driving factor in evolution is the selection on variation you
can find in every population.
So you won't find a fish 'trying to become a human' or anything in
between that HAPPENED to be the former path of fish-to-man.
Species are not 'trying to become' anything else.
Individuals in such a population are more succesfull or less, which
results in a change in allelefequencies you'll find in a population.
It is no rocketscience...
> We don't.
Correct. That is because you want to use a suspect concept you name
'transitional lifeforms'. Such a thing doesn't exist. You simply have
lifeforms that changed, and in ONLY IN RETROSPECTIVE one can say a
certain lifeform was a transition between species X and species Y.
But if you ask the 'transitional lifeform between X and Y' how it is
doing, it won't answer: "I am busy becoming species Y".
It will simply try to survive, and if it succeeds, AND it changes enough
from it ancestors, you'll have your new species one day.
But there is no sharp line to be drawn betwen speciesX and speciesY.
THAT is the conceptual problem you have: you don't get that.
> The *point* is, their belief that it happened in the past
> (and should supposedly even be going on now, albeit slowly) is
> not observable, not testable and not verifiable - one can only
> take their word for it that their beliefs about fossils means it
> happened. Meanwhile science can repeatedly show such things never
> happen at all no matter how much populations of animals adapt
> over generations for every animal alive.
Can you substantiate that false claim?
>
> :
> : And no matter how much evidence is laid out before you that shows all
> : kind of different animals that evolved out of a fish, you will deny that
> : man also evolved, and had a fish as as ancestor.
> :
> : You are actually claiming that all modern biologist are wrong and
> : creationism is right without putting any(!) evidence on the table.
> :
> : You ask me to put a single observation on the table that shows that
> : mankind evolved out of fish.
> : Here are two strong things for you to consider:
> : 1) We share an enormous amount of DNA with a modern fish. Many of our
> : proteins (coded by DNA) are the same as in fish.
> : That is a very strong indication we share a common ancestor.
>
> No, this is a *belief* that it means we have a common ancestor.
> Show an observation or test/verification to back up this belief:
> populations of [rats] evolving over generations into animals that
> are no longer [rats], then show us how their DNA compares. Then
> use this information to infer other ancestral relationships once
> you scientifically establish what it means if animals share some
> DNA. Now that would be science.
You want examples of speciation?
Start reading here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
>
> :
> : 2) When you were a very small Gabriel, you looks like a fish in your
> : mothers whomb.
>
> We look like mere cells even earlier than that. Does that mean we
> evolved form cells, too, once upon a time?
In this case: yes.
Single celled organisms were your grand-grand-etc parents.
But don't worry, they turned into fish first before giving rise to humans.
> Of course not - just a
> belief once again what it means that we seem similar at such a
> primitive stage to something else at a primitive stage. In fact,
> most animals seem completely identical when they are first
> conceived and are barely a few cells - using your logic this
> proves everything evolved from everything else since they all
> look alike, which only shows how illogical that belief is.
Thank you for giving an alternate explanation for the fact that you once
had gills like fish during your development.
You don't have one of course.
>
> : You actually developed gills for a short time.
>
> Wrinkles in the neck do not qualify as gills.
You know nothing about development.
But I won't claim that the mere facts you had gill-like structures when
you were becoming a baby-Gabriel in your mother's whomb, is a proof of
evolution. It is just a strong indication.
I hoped it would open your eyes a litlle.
So let us focus on on speciation then. I gave you a link.
But please tell me, why did our creator decide to let humans go through
many the stages of our presumed ancestors (fish in this case) during
development?
What is excactly the creationist reasoning behind that peculiar fact?
>
> : Here you can see evolution at work: It morphes the animal through
> : different stages during development, using WORKING BUILDINGPLANS, and
> : builds on that, creating you as an endresult.
> : Why whould an efficient designer do such stupid things?
> :
> : Don't answer Gods ways are mystical, because that means you don't have
> : an enswer.
> :
> :
> : Now it is your turn Gabriel: Give me 2 strong indications that God
> : created the Earth a few millenia ago and evolution is a lie.
> :
Silence?
No examples?
As expected.
> :
> : >
> : > : It is by far the best explanation we have.
> : >
> : > Being the "best explanation" in your eyes does not change the
> : > fact that this explanation is not observable AND not
> : > testable/verifiable - which is what actual science is.
> :
> :
> : Why do you repeat evolution is not observable while it clearly IS
> : observable?
> : Or are again 99.9% of the biologists wrong?
> : They all claim it is observable, and have written kilometers of books on
> : evolution with lots of examples.
> : Get informed.
Again no response?
It is soo easy for you to dismiss the opinion of almost every expert in
the field?
> :
> :
> : >
> : > Please provide such an observation OR test/verification to prove
> : > otherwise. Not what you believe when looking at dead bones and
> : > fossils, but an observation OR test/verification of the belief
> : > itself actually happening. The fact is, not one scientist can -
> : > one can only believe in it.
> :
> :
> : You prefer using the word 'believing' to try to get a level playingfield
> : with random religions, but you fail.
> : Evolution is not about believing but about studying nature, collecting
> : evidence, thinking critically, etc.
> : It is not like believing at all.
> :
> : That aside: You ask again for evidence.
> : I gave you two examples.
>
A response!
I wonder if it contains an answer to my question: "Now it is your turn
Gabriel: Give me 2 strong indications that God created the Earth a few
millenia ago and evolution is a lie.".
> No, I didn't ask for *reasons why* you have faith in what you
> believe. I could give you a ton of reasons why many believe in
> God and why the same evidence (homology, DNA similarity,
> meaningfully encoded information and the ability for it to be
> meaningfully decoded, the Cambrian Explosion, and more) points
> more logically to God doing exactly what He said He did (but of
> course you would just dismiss those reasons - and point out how
> they're also not science, which you're right - science is too
> impotent to deal with any origins theory, including creation). I
> asked for an actual *observation* or test/verification that shows
> it in action.
And I answered that for you.
Here it is again:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Do you want me to copy paste it all?
I couldn't write any clearer myself.
If that page is over your head, skip to the part named:
5.0 Observed Instances of Speciation
So there you have a bunch of examples.
I still await yours.
You said you have so many: "homology, DNA similarity,
meaningfully encoded information and the ability for it to be
meaningfully decoded, the Cambrian Explosion, and more"
So how hard can it be to put one on the table and show the whole field
of modern biology wrong?
You can get Nobelprizes for that Gabriel!
> You only offer reasons why you have faith in your
> beliefs, which only goes to show you again it's not science in
> the least. Don't believe it? Read what scientists will say when
> creationists point to patterns, and why they think all that
> evidence points more logically to God - they will rightfully
> respond "Show a single observation or test/verification that
> shows God creating anything" - bingo.
You keep repeating that, but you don't put anything on the table.
That is the problem with creationistic 'logic': It only claims, but
never researches or stand up to defend the claims.
You keep trying to switch the table, but it is so obvious it gets tiring.
Now stop claiming and put your proof on the table for creationism.
Be sure to approach the matter with the same rigid standards for
evidence you want science to apply.
>
> So if you have an actual observation of what you believe
> happening over generations, please present it - it seems clear
> you do not (no one does) since you launch into reasons you have
> faith in your unobservable, untestable, unverifiable beliefs.
> Welcome to religion. If you can provide an actual observation,
> I'll respond.
I posted the excelent link to you.
Now first read, then come back.
I see no point in repeating that excellent page in here.
And Gabriel, try to get this into your head: I would prefer a God above
no God, in case it is an all-loving God, and not an evil one.
I would too like to life forever happily in the afterlife.
But I rather life in reality, and I haven't found the slighest clue yet
for such a God in reality.
So please stop you silly insinuations about my 'beliefs' in evolution.
It is not a matter of believe, it is simply (by far) the best
explanation for what we see on Earth when it comes to lifeforms.
You 'creationists science' have never been able to put anything
substantial on the table.
And don't forget about this:
You seem to think that if you debunk evolution, you can conclude God exists.
That is a logical fallacy.
It's like my dear brother putted it: "Since modern science doesn't
understand the nature of dark matter, Santa Claus must exist."
>
> Take care.
>
> : You don't want me to repeat the whole shebang of the last 150 years of
> : biological inquiry for you here, do you?
> :
> : We have DNA, we know roughly how a fertilized cell grows into a mature
> : being using that very DNA.
> : We know HOW DNA codes for proteins.
> : We understand how proteins work (allthough one is never finished
> : studying them futher.)
> : We know about natural selection, we know about succesfull individuals in
> : population, we know about mutations and the like, we can predict all
> : kinds of diseases that have a genetical origin, etc. etc. etc.
> :
> : And there walk in Gabriel, asking me to show him one piece of evidence
> : that man is a product of evolution.....
> :
> : I ask you: WHAT would you consider convincing evidence?
Answer that question please, after you read about speciation in the link
provided.
> :
> :
> : > :
> : > : > Hitler was a
> : > : > great believer in Darwinian evolution, and look where it got us -
> : > : > countless millions murdered - helping along the creation of his
> : > : > master race.
> : > :
> : > : Who cares what that nutcase believed?
> : > : I understood that Darwin was forbidden literature during his reign, so I
> : > : think you have your facts wrong.
> : > :
> : > : If I tell you your God doesn't exist because the Inquisition existed,
> : > : with all it unreasonable horrors, will that convince you?
> : > : (Read up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition)
> : > :
> : > : Of course not!
> : > : The fact that a bunch of dangerous nutcases believes that factX is true,
> : > : doesn't mean that factX is false.
> : > : Look: Hitler believed the Earth was round. Does that make all 'Round
> : > : Earth Believers' nutcases?
> : > :
> : > : Using Hitler to 'proof' your point is very weak.
> : > :
> :
> :
> : I see you left that point untouched.
> : For obvious reason I expect: You see now how weak that argument was.
> : Be a man and admit it, or at least respond to it.
You still didn't reply to that.
You come in here insinuating that people who think evolution is real are
actually nazilike, but when I proof you wrong you go all silent.
WEAK.
Was my response unclear?
Why don't you stand up to defend your former claims?
> :
> :
> : > : >
> : > : > And given over 50 million babies being murdered since 1973 in the
> : > : > name of convenience, adultery, fornication, lying, sexual
> : > : > perversion, kids with absolutely no respect for any authority and
> : > : > murdering that have all become the staple of our society, I'd say
> : > : > it's the fish to man version of evolution that needs to be kept
> : > : > away from our kids, teaching them they're nothing more than the
> : > : > mindless offspring of fish and eventually ape-like animals over
> : > : > generations once upon a time. =(
> : > :
> : > : A lie.
> : > : Most divorces and teenpregnancies in the USA are happening in religious
> : > : circles. (I live in Europe, but I don't have n 'our' numbers ready.)
> : > :
> : > : That aside: What has that got to with evolution being true or false?
> :
> :
> : Why quote my response if you don't have anything to say about it?
Also this strange claim of yours you left untouched too.
So, bottomline:
1) I gave you a bunch of examples for speciation, which you claim is
never observed, and I await your response to that.
2) I await your proof for the existance of your God, where you will use
the same standards for proof you demand of evolution.
3) I await your response on your low insinuations that evolution leads
to nazism.
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:44:49 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
: ><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: >
: >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >: >So in other words, you believe that in some parts of the world
: >: >that don't know about Aristotle's logic, it's possible to have,
: >: >say, "p" and "not p" be true at the same time, but only in places
: >: >where they follow Aristotle's logic is such a thing never true?
: >:
: >: My answer remains the same:
: >:
: >: >: There exist non-Aristotelian logics which deny the law of
: >: >: contradiction
: >: >: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aristotelian_logic
: >
: >Exactly. So in other words, you believe the illogical idea that
: >in some parts of the world that don't know about Aristotle's
: >logic, or before Aristotle made such claims, that it *IS*
: >possible to have, say, "P" and "NOT P" be true at the same time.
:
: It is not only possible then, but it is quite possible in parts of the
: world fully conversant in Aristotle.
Please prove that "P" and "NOT P" can be true at the same time.
: It is NOT "illogical", and
Bob LeChevalier
>On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:56:46 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: >On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:44:49 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>: ><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>: >
>: >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: >: >So in other words, you believe that in some parts of the world
>: >: >that don't know about Aristotle's logic, it's possible to have,
>: >: >say, "p" and "not p" be true at the same time, but only in places
>: >: >where they follow Aristotle's logic is such a thing never true?
>: >:
>: >: My answer remains the same:
>: >:
>: >: >: There exist non-Aristotelian logics which deny the law of
>: >: >: contradiction
>: >: >: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aristotelian_logic
>: >
>: >Exactly. So in other words, you believe the illogical idea that
>: >in some parts of the world that don't know about Aristotle's
>: >logic, or before Aristotle made such claims, that it *IS*
>: >possible to have, say, "P" and "NOT P" be true at the same time.
>:
>: It is not only possible then, but it is quite possible in parts of the
>: world fully conversant in Aristotle.
>
>Please prove that "P" and "NOT P" can be true at the same time.
I merely cite one of those logics in the above Web page, where such is
the case BY DEFINITION.
That is your problem. Logic is a human creation, and it follows
whatever rules that humans choose to have it follow, as long as the
rules don't change (there may even be logics where the rules change in
some sort of systematic manner, but I haven't explored any such.
The form of logic most commonly used, does say that they cannot be
true at the same time.
But let us take an example. A pair of bleached blue jeans. On its
own, you might say "these jeans are blue". But if provided a standard
of blue like a clear mountain lake, those jeans are NOT blue. The
jeans are blue and not blue at the same time.
This can be important in racial politics. A man can be "black"
because of having one black ancestor by the one drop rule. But he and
his parents may have considered "white" by appearance. Of course his
skin color is neither white nor black, but some shade of more or less
pale olive brown color. So he is white and NOT white at the same
time, and any statement you make about his race is both true and NOT
true.
Live with it.
gabriel
<Since_humans_read_this...@spamyourself.com>
wrote:
: gabriel schreef:
: > On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:43:57 +0200, Erwin Moller
Hi Erwin,
:
:
: > Logical fallacy.
: >
:
: Correct!
: And it shows neatly why bi-valued logic (classical true/false) isn't
: always enough.
:
: <snipped description of the liar paradox>
No, you gave a statement that cannot be assigned a truth value.
The statement "This sentence is false" cannot be assigned a truth
value. If you say that statement is true, it contradicts itself
because the statement itself says it's false. If you say that
statement is false, then it's not true that the sentence is
false, hence it must be true, but the statement says it's false!
So you cannot assign a truth value of "true" or "false" to the
statement "This sentence is false" - hence it's a fallacy to try
using that statement to prove other laws of logic work or do not
work.
www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Liar-paradox
"In philosophy and logic, the liar paradox encompasses
paradoxical statements such as "This sentence is false." or "The
next sentence is false. The previous sentence is true." **These
statements are paradoxical because there is no way to assign them
a consistent truth value.** Consider that if "This statement is
false" is true, then what it says is the case; but what it says
is that it is false, hence it is false. On the other hand, if it
is false, then what it says is not the case; thus, since it says
that it is false, it must be true. Image File history File links
Broom_icon. ... For other uses, see Philosophy (disambiguation).
... Logic (from Classical Greek λόγος logos; meaning word,
thought, idea, argument, account, reason, or principle) is the
study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and
demonstration. ... Look up paradox in Wiktionary, the free
dictionary
:
:
: > :
: > : There you have a p and a not-p seemingly at the same time.
: > : Does the universe collapse?
: > : Did cause and effect stop to exist?
: > :
: > : Logic is a human concept, and subject to growing knowledge.
: >
: > No, choosing which side of the road to drive on is a human
: > concept.
:
: That too.
No one can design "P AND NOT P" to be true concerning statements
that can be assigned a truth value. It's a fact before anyone
ever designed it. If you want to claim otherwise, please give a
statement P that can be assigned a truth value for which P AND
NOT P will be true at the same time.
:
: >
: > People did not (and cannot) create the concept that it's
: > impossible to have P, and NOT P true at the same time.
:
: Actually humans DID come up with that concept.
If that's true, then you're claiming faulty things:
[1] that people could instead have designed logic to state "P AND
NOT P" is always true, which is clearly not the case.
[2] That people could design their own versions of logic in
different parts of the world, hence growing knowledge would be
impossible
: If there is intelligent life out there in the universe I expect they
: will draw similar conclusions.
:
: The universe behaves in the way it behaves, following the laws of
: nature.
Speaking of the Laws of Nature - who created them? Inexplicable
in a nature only world view, showing that world view is
irrational. Perfectly accounted for in a Christian world view
(the view the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob created everything
exactly like He said He did).
: What else can it do?
: We are only describing it and came up, amongst other things, with logic
: as a great tool.
:
: And indeed: it looks like it that in our universe P being true and
: untrue at the same time seems impossible.
: Allthough it must be mentioned in this context that it can also be
: impossible to say if P is true or false (as in our liarparadox).
:
: I tend to agree with you that logic was there before humans came up with
: the concept, but that is a twisted way of looking at it.
There's nothing twisted about claiming the fact that "P AND NOT
P" was always false before anyone ever discovered that truth, or
regardless if no one yet noticed.
:
: Electromagnetism was there too before humans described it and understood
: it. DOes that mean something important too?
Yes - it means we didn't invent electromagnetism - just like we
didn't invent the laws of logic.
: I say no: It just means the universe is the way it is and the moment we
: start describing/studying/understanding it we will find all these
: characteristics like logic and electromagnetism, etc.
:
: I don't see anything 'magical' in logic per se.
:
: That's a
: > fact before it was ever discovered as being a logical fact. Same
: > with "P OR NOT P" being true all the time. No one made up that
: > fact - it's true whether people are ever made aware of that logic
: > or not.
:
: Same goes for gravitational force, electromagneticism, etc.
So you're agreeing now that "P AND NOT P" was always true now?
:
:
: >
: > And even if it were so that people could just make up their own
: > rules of logic (which it's not), then different people could come
: > to different conclusions depending on what rules of logic they
: > want to follow in their part of the world - growing knowledge
: > would be impossible.
:
: Agree.
:
: But I would like to make a point about logic I think is important:
: Logic, in itself, is NOT enough to gain understanding about the
: universe. Logic only lives in its own world.
But the point is: without logic, scientific thought and all it
implies would not be possible at all. They rely on the Christian
world view: that God created universal, unchanging logic for us
to think, just so they can do science at all and claim there is
no God only nature.
:
: The moment you want to try logic, and only logic, in the real world,
: you'll have all kind of problems.
:
: Let me clarify what I mean.
: Suppose you are a perfect logician. But that is all you know.
: You are thrown onto Earth.
: I ask you: "Will this apple fall if I let it go 1 meter above the ground?"
:
: How would you, being a perfect logician, approach that question?
: Maybe you would an experiment or 1000, and discover the apples always fall.
: Can you then draw the conclusion it will fall the 1001th time?
: Being a perfect logician, you would not.
: But WHAT can you do?
: I think the best thing you can do is starting to study the whole shebang
: we call our universe. You'll develop statistical methods, you'll develop
: instruments to do measurement, you'll start making hypothesis, etc.
: In short: You'll reinvent the scientific method (and probably going a
: lot faster than humankind since you are a perfect logician).
:
: My point is clear I think: Logic by itself, even though we cannot do
: without, is not enough to understand the universe.
:
: Do you agree to that?
Of course. But without universal logic, it would be impossible to
come to any understanding of the universe. And in a nature-only
world view, we can't trust that there's an unchanging universal
logic to rely on - they borrow from a Christian world view in
order for science to even be possible.
:
:
: >
: > Science is only possible because of logic.
:
: Agree.
:
: > Logic is inexplicable
: > in a Godless, natural chance world view (showing their world view
: > is irrational).
:
: I am not quite sure what a "Godless, natural chance world view" is in
: your book,
A world where there's only nature - no God. Hence where did life
come from? What created the big bang? What created the laws of
logic? And so on.
: but I ask you this:
: - Is gravity inexplicable in a Godless, natural chance world view?
If you ask "where did it come from - what made it true that a big
mass creates gravity (assuming that's the exact reason gravity
exists of course)" it is inexplicable in a godless, natural
chance world view.
: - Is electromagneticism inexplicable in a Godless, natural chance world
: view?
Same.
:
: In general: Is ANYTHING explainable in a "Godless, natural chance world
: view" according to you?
Of course - how God's creation works in the present day that is
observable, testable and verifiable. Operational science.
But there are many things that defy explanation and become
irrational when we have a world view of naturalism: everything
came from nature alone and natural chance. Such a world view
cannot account for the laws of nature or the laws of logic - how
they came to be - they borrow from a Christian world view, where
a Christian world view states they came from God and from the
mind of God. Is this proof they did? No, but it's *accounted* for
perfectly in that view, which is the point, showing it remains a
rational world view. A naturalism world view cannot account for
the obviously eternal, unchanging laws of logic, and instead have
to borrow from a world view where God exists, showing that world
view of naturalism is irrational.
:
: Here is the coreproblem: Nobody on Earth is allknowing. Maybe you don't
: like that fact, but it still is a fact.
Tell that to evolutionists, who (probably also) think it's a fact
that nothing created everything, that the universe started with a
big bang, and that then evolutionism kicked in after life got
created from nothing to turn populations of tiny fish over
generations into eventually hippos, giraffes, eagles and human
beings. They clearly feel they are all knowing, passing off such
science fiction as fact, when it's not only not fact, it doesn't
even qualify as science.
: The best we can do is investigate the universe the best we can.
: The best method so far is what we call the scientific method, and it
: uses logic.
And logic makes no sense in a "nature created everything" world
view, as they cannot account for how universal, unchanging laws
of logic came into existence and always were, not to mention the
laws of nature, that they depend on so heavily.
:
: > Logic is perfectly explained in a Christian world
: > view - they borrow from the Christian world view in order for
: > science (logical thought) to even be possible.
:
: Logic is NOT explained by the Christian world view.
It's accounted for: God upholds the universe and created the laws
of logic - they are from the mind of God.
Where did they come from in a world view of everything came from
nature alone, with no God? Nowhere.
:
: It explains exactly as much as: "Logic is there in the universe because
: I told you so.".
:
: Gabriel, I have NO troubles at all if you learn important lesson from
: Jesus, but don't try to pass it as it were science, because it isn't.
:
: The 'Christian world view' is also an extremely vague concept, and will
: have different implementations depending on the person you ask.
: There is no such thing as a coherent, settled 'Christian world view'.
Actually there is - Jesus Christ, who attested to the scriptures
as being the Word of God - we have the Bible. Any other beliefs
that get away from Christ being the only begotten Son of God is
not a Christian world view.
There's much evidence that backs up the historical record of
Genesis and more - and even recently they realized they
previously discovered Gold coins of Joseph from Egypt recorded in
Genesis.
Psalms 46:10 KJVR Be still, and know that I am God: I will be
exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.
:
:
: > This is yet
: > another logical proof of the existence of God. Scientific proof?
: > No. Logical proof nonetheless.
:
: No it is not.
: You are deeply mistaken.
:
: What about this:
: "I state that the universe is created by the excrements of sick goats."
:
: Then, following your line of 'logic', I can cunclude my 'sickish goat
: world view' must be correct.
:
: That simply doesn't make sense.
I think you misunderstood what I said. Your example does not make
sense - why would goat excrement create laws of logic?
I was saying that laws of logic are perfectly accounted for by
the Christian world view: they came from the mind of God. And
that is more logical proof (not scientific, mind you, but
logical) proof of God, since it also shows how irrational a
naturalism world view is, and they in fact borrow from the
Christian world view to make science possible.
Thank you for posting.
:
: Regards,
Bob LeChevalier
>: >
>: > No, choosing which side of the road to drive on is a human
>: > concept.
>:
>: That too.
>
>No one can design "P AND NOT P" to be true concerning statements
>that can be assigned a truth value.
That is incorrect.
>It's a fact before anyone ever designed it.
No statement made using language is a fact before anyone ever designed
it. All human language is a human creation, and language obeys rules
that humans decide.
>If you want to claim otherwise, please give a
>statement P that can be assigned a truth value for which P AND
>NOT P will be true at the same time.
Any statement can be assigned any such, because we are perfectly
capable of choosing rules of logic that allow it.
>: > People did not (and cannot) create the concept that it's
>: > impossible to have P, and NOT P true at the same time.
>:
>: Actually humans DID come up with that concept.
>
>If that's true, then you're claiming faulty things:
>
>[1] that people could instead have designed logic to state "P AND
>NOT P" is always true, which is clearly not the case.
>
>[2] That people could design their own versions of logic in
>different parts of the world, hence growing knowledge would be
>impossible
Neither of those follows from anything that anyone has said.
>: If there is intelligent life out there in the universe I expect they
>: will draw similar conclusions.
>:
>: The universe behaves in the way it behaves, following the laws of
>: nature.
>
>Speaking of the Laws of Nature - who created them?
Why must they have been created?
>Inexplicable in a nature only world view, showing that world view is
>irrational.
Why must everything be explicable, in order for a world view to be
rational? That sounds like an irrational requirement.
>Perfectly accounted for in a Christian world view
Your world-view accounts for nothing. It merely handwaves all
questions as "goddidit", which in fact answers no questions at all.
>: Electromagnetism was there too before humans described it and understood
>: it. DOes that mean something important too?
>
>Yes - it means we didn't invent electromagnetism - just like we
>didn't invent the laws of logic.
Except that we DID invent the laws of logic.
>: > And even if it were so that people could just make up their own
>: > rules of logic (which it's not), then different people could come
>: > to different conclusions depending on what rules of logic they
>: > want to follow in their part of the world - growing knowledge
>: > would be impossible.
>:
>: Agree.
>:
>: But I would like to make a point about logic I think is important:
>: Logic, in itself, is NOT enough to gain understanding about the
>: universe. Logic only lives in its own world.
>
>But the point is: without logic, scientific thought and all it
>implies would not be possible at all.
Wrong. Without deductive logic, mathematical thought would not be
possible. But different forms of logic give rise to different kinds
of mathematics (there are other kinds besides the one that talks about
2+2=4)
>They rely on the Christian world view: that God created universal, unchanging logic for us
>to think,
That has nothing to do with "the Christian world view"
>: My point is clear I think: Logic by itself, even though we cannot do
>: without, is not enough to understand the universe.
>:
>: Do you agree to that?
>
>Of course. But without universal logic, it would be impossible to
>come to any understanding of the universe.
Wrong. After all, just look what nutcase Christians like you do.
>: > Logic is inexplicable
>: > in a Godless, natural chance world view (showing their world view
>: > is irrational).
>:
>: I am not quite sure what a "Godless, natural chance world view" is in
>: your book,
>
>A world where there's only nature - no God. Hence where did life
>come from?
It just happened, like everything else in nature.
>What created the big bang?
Nothing did. It just happened, like everything else in nature.
>What created the laws of logic?
Human beings.
>: but I ask you this:
>: - Is gravity inexplicable in a Godless, natural chance world view?
>
>If you ask "where did it come from - what made it true that a big
>mass creates gravity (assuming that's the exact reason gravity
>exists of course)" it is inexplicable in a godless, natural
>chance world view.
Since "goddidit" is not an explanation, then your claim is that
everything is inexplicable.
gabriel
<papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
:
:
: gabriel wrote:
: > On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:43:41 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
Hi VOR,
No different than the unsupported assertion that nothing created
everything.
:
: > - the God of Abraham, Isaac and
: > Jacob - which is a Christian world view.
:
: Bigoted, unsupported assertion.
Bigoted? How so?
:
: > Mankind only discovered
: > these rules of logic - they can't decide to change them to be
: > whatever they want.
:
: Unsupported assertion.
It's a supported assertion. No one could just decide that "P" and
"NOT P" can both be true at the same time. We had no choice but
to *admit* that "P" and "NOT P" cannot both be true at the same
time. This proves it's not a man-made construct, but a universal
truth that's been in existence since the beginning of time.
If you want to prove otherwise, please show us how it can be
possible that someone could instead decide that "P" (which has a
truth value of true or false) and "NOT P" (which has a truth
value of true or false) can both be true at the same time.
:
: > For example, "P and NOT P" is false, and no
Read above. You're trying to make the incorrect claim that if we
wanted to, we could decide that "P" and "NOT P" can both be true
at the same time, instead of the fact that only one of them can
be true..
:
: > "P and NOT P" cannot be true at the same time no matter who wants
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:43:41 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
: ><papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
: >: > No, you skipped what answered your question. Read it again. Logic
: >: > only exists because of God. The idea that there's no God, that
: >: > natural processes explain everything, cannot account for the
: >: > existence of logic - this makes their worldview irrational as it
: >: > cannot explain why there's logic. They borrow from a Christian
: >: > worldview while claiming the Christian world view is false.
: >:
: >: So it's "a Christian worldview"? Again, that implies that the source
: >: of logic is Christianity, which is demonstrably false.
: >
: >No, the source of logic is God
:
: Nonsense.
:
: - the God of Abraham, Isaac and
: >Jacob - which is a Christian world view. Mankind only discovered
: >these rules of logic - they can't decide to change them to be
: >whatever they want. For example, "P and NOT P" is false, and no
: >one can "design" it to be otherwise.
:
: Sorry, but I have shown you cites of logics where it has indeed been
: designed to be otherwise.
:
: >: Logic is the art and science of reasoning.
: >
: >Reasoning would not be possible without the rules of logic.
:
: Which were invented by Aristotle (who was not in the least bit
: Christian).
Hi Bob,
So in other words, if Aristotle wanted to, he could instead have
defined that "P" and "NOT P" are both true at the same time,
instead of only one of them being allowed to be true at the same
time?
:
: >Art and science did not invent those rules
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:58:45 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
: ><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
:
: >: Funny how logic was invented before Christianity, and not by any
: >: "people of the book".
: >
: >So in other words, someone could invent a version of logic where
: >"P" and "NOT P" are both true at the same time?
:
: That doesn't follow from what I said, but it happens to be factual.
: There are such versions, as I have cited to you in prior posts.
Hi Bob,
If you have, I checked and didn't see it in any of your posts.
Please post again here how it's possible that "P" (that has a
truth value of true or false) and "NOT P" (which has a truth
value of true or false) could both be true if we simply wanted
them to be by definition (rather than the fact that no matter
what we want to say, it's not possible that they're both true at
the same time). Thank you.
:
: >If not, then the fact that "P" and "NOT P" cannot both be true
gabriel
<Since_humans_read_this...@spamyourself.com>
wrote:
: gabriel schreef:
: > On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:11:35 +0200, Erwin Moller
Hi Erwin,
I don't see how pointing out the truth is over-reacting. Thank
you for admitting that you contradicted yourself.
:
: Honestly, I think you are trying to loose focus on the issues we are
I never said "trying to become the next animal" - I said
populations of [flies] producing, over generations, animals that
are clearly no longer [flies]. Just like hippos, giraffes, eagles
and human beings are all clearly no longer fish, even though they
make the fantastic claim that all of them and more evolved from
populations of fish once upon a time.
: That is a childish and totally wrong description of evolution.
The "childish description" was of your own making - I never said
it. =( Then you go on to refute your own claim in the paragraphs
that follow. =(
:
: The main driving factor in evolution is the selection on variation you
Sure thing - populations of [flies] only ever, over generations,
no matter how much they adapt, produce more [flies], and never
animals that are no longer [flies] at all. Same is true for every
animal you replace with [flies]. Different species of [flies]?
Sure. But the critical point is they are still [flies].
Evolutionism makes the fantastic claim some populations of those
[flies] will eventually evolve over generations into animals that
are no longer [flies] at all. Never observed. Not Speciation
either.
If you have such a case that proves me wrong here, please present
it.
:
:
: >
: > :
: > : And no matter how much evidence is laid out before you that shows all
: > : kind of different animals that evolved out of a fish, you will deny that
: > : man also evolved, and had a fish as as ancestor.
: > :
: > : You are actually claiming that all modern biologist are wrong and
: > : creationism is right without putting any(!) evidence on the table.
: > :
: > : You ask me to put a single observation on the table that shows that
: > : mankind evolved out of fish.
: > : Here are two strong things for you to consider:
: > : 1) We share an enormous amount of DNA with a modern fish. Many of our
: > : proteins (coded by DNA) are the same as in fish.
: > : That is a very strong indication we share a common ancestor.
: >
: > No, this is a *belief* that it means we have a common ancestor.
: > Show an observation or test/verification to back up this belief:
: > populations of [rats] evolving over generations into animals that
: > are no longer [rats], then show us how their DNA compares. Then
: > use this information to infer other ancestral relationships once
: > you scientifically establish what it means if animals share some
: > DNA. Now that would be science.
:
: You want examples of speciation?
:
: Start reading here:
: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
I already told you: Speciation is populations of [flies]
evolving, over generations, perhaps into a new species of [flies]
but they are **still [flies]**. That's not evolutionism (the fish
to man version) - their version states populations of those
[flies] would eventually evolve over generations into animals
that are clearly no longer [flies]. Speciation *never* shows
this. Just like the belief that populations of fish evolved, over
generations, into hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings -
animals that are clearly no longer fish to say the least.
:
:
: >
: > :
: > : 2) When you were a very small Gabriel, you looks like a fish in your
: > : mothers whomb.
: >
: > We look like mere cells even earlier than that. Does that mean we
: > evolved form cells, too, once upon a time?
:
: In this case: yes.
: Single celled organisms were your grand-grand-etc parents.
: But don't worry, they turned into fish first before giving rise to humans.
:
:
: > Of course not - just a
: > belief once again what it means that we seem similar at such a
: > primitive stage to something else at a primitive stage. In fact,
: > most animals seem completely identical when they are first
: > conceived and are barely a few cells - using your logic this
: > proves everything evolved from everything else since they all
: > look alike, which only shows how illogical that belief is.
:
: Thank you for giving an alternate explanation for the fact that you once
: had gills like fish during your development.
: You don't have one of course.
:
:
: >
: > : You actually developed gills for a short time.
: >
: > Wrinkles in the neck do not qualify as gills.
:
: You know nothing about development.
I know enough to have seen them point out it's wrinkles in the
baby's neck, not gills. Please cite, and quote the relevant
sentences in the peer-reviewed scientific research that proves
they are actually gills.
:
: But I won't claim that the mere facts you had gill-like structures when
Please cite the scientific paper that proves they all claim the
fish to man version of evolution is *observable* in action,
rather than just believing it happened when they look at fossils
and dead bones.
: and have written kilometers of books on
: > : evolution with lots of examples.
: > : Get informed.
:
:
: Again no response?
Please cite where it's factually shown that 99.9% of all
biologists believe in evolution.
In the meantime, is that your version of science, that if
everyone believes the same thing, this makes it true? Well then,
the earth must still be flat using that logic, which I'm sure
you'd see the fallacy of that belief that numbers makes it right.
:
: It is soo easy for you to dismiss the opinion of almost every expert in
: the field?
No, it's easy to dismiss that which is not observable and not
testable/veritable as the dishonest claim that it's science.
Notice you have yet to offer an actual observation to back it up
- only Speciation which is not evolutionism in the least.
:
:
: > :
: > :
No, you still have not provided an observation of evolutionism
(populations of [flies] producing, over generations, animals that
are no longer [flies] at all) - you only provide observations of
Speciation (populations of [flies] producing, over generations, a
new claimed species of [flies] that are *still [flies]*). That is
not evolutionism (the fish to man version of evolution).
If you are seriously after the truth, ask yourself why you
support this one field of "science" that doesn't have a single
observation to back up their beliefs.
If you have such an observation (and Speciation is not it),
please present it - but no one has it.
Thank you for posting.
: Now first read, then come back.
Bob LeChevalier
>So in other words, if Aristotle wanted to, he could instead have
>defined that "P" and "NOT P" are both true at the same time,
Yep.
And others have indeed done so, and explored the logic that results.
Sometimes the results are more useful. I provided a cite, multiple
times, which you have ignored. Try learning something for a change
instead of repetitively making a fool of yourself.
Logic is just a tool, which comes in many shapes to serve many
different purposes. Traditional logic is especially weak because it
gives results that are no better than the assumptions.
And your assumptions are pretty gross.
Bob LeChevalier
>: > - the God of Abraham, Isaac and
>: > Jacob - which is a Christian world view.
>:
>: Bigoted, unsupported assertion.
>
>Bigoted? How so?
Both Judaism and Islam worship "the God of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob". And neither shares a Christian world view. For that matter,
most Christians don't share a world view that includes Biblical
inerrancy, which you appear to rely on.
>: > Mankind only discovered
>: > these rules of logic - they can't decide to change them to be
>: > whatever they want.
>:
>: Unsupported assertion.
>
>It's a supported assertion.
No visible means of support.
>No one could just decide that "P" and "NOT P" can both be true at the same time.
Says who?
>We had no choice
of course we have a choice.
>but to *admit* that "P" and "NOT P" cannot both be true at the same
>time.
No visible means of support. The only reason one makes such an
admission is that they have CHOSEN to define logic to follow those
rules.
>This proves it's not a man-made construct,
It proves no such thing.
>but a universal truth that's been in existence since the beginning of time.
It proves no such thing.
>If you want to prove otherwise, please show us how it can be
>possible that someone could instead decide that "P" (which has a
>truth value of true or false) and "NOT P" (which has a truth
>value of true or false) can both be true at the same time.
Voila! I have just done so. Therefore it is possible. Q E D
By the way, where do you get off assuming that "P" necessarily has a
truth value of true or false?
>: > : There no evidence to suggest that reasoning ability cannot
>: > : evolve just like every other ability.
>: >
>: > If it could just evolve, this means people are able to create
>: > their own versions of logic.
>:
>: They do. Have you never taken a class in logic?
>
>Read above. You're trying to make the incorrect claim that if we
>wanted to, we could decide that "P" and "NOT P" can both be true
>at the same time, instead of the fact that only one of them can
>be true..
We CAN do so. People HAVE done so. There is nothing that stops
anyone from doing so. No one is obliged to follow your peculiar
concept of logic, just as no one is obliged to follow your very
peculiar religion.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 12:43:53 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: >On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:58:45 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>: ><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>:
>: >: Funny how logic was invented before Christianity, and not by any
>: >: "people of the book".
>: >
>: >So in other words, someone could invent a version of logic where
>: >"P" and "NOT P" are both true at the same time?
>:
>: That doesn't follow from what I said, but it happens to be factual.
>: There are such versions, as I have cited to you in prior posts.
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>If you have, I checked and didn't see it in any of your posts.
>
>Please post again here how it's possible that "P" (that has a
>truth value of true or false) and "NOT P" (which has a truth
>value of true or false) could both be true if we simply wanted
>them to be by definition (rather than the fact that no matter
>what we want to say, it's not possible that they're both true at
>the same time). Thank you.
One more time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aristotelian_logic
Read and learn.
Bob LeChevalier
>: And this is the problem.
>: There is NO TRANSITION going on in the simplistic way you protrait
>: evolution.
>: There is no animal 'trying to become the next animal'.
>
>I never said "trying to become the next animal" - I said
>populations of [flies] producing, over generations, animals that
>are clearly no longer [flies].
Your statement above is better stated by substituting "species X" for
flies.
>I never said "trying to become the next animal" - I said
>populations of [species X] producing, over generations, animals that
>are clearly no longer [species X].
Every instance of speciation fits that description, because the
definition of speciation requires that the animals are clearly no
longer [species X] bit rather are [species Y]
>Sure thing - populations of [flies] only ever, over generations,
>no matter how much they adapt, produce more [flies], and never
>animals that are no longer [flies] at all. Same is true for every
>animal you replace with [flies]. Different species of [flies]?
>Sure. But the critical point is they are still [flies].
>Evolutionism makes the fantastic claim some populations of those
>[flies] will eventually evolve over generations into animals that
>are no longer [flies] at all. Never observed. Not Speciation
>either.
Populations of species X DO produce, over generations, some which are
no longer species X. That is the definition of speciation. That is
what is true of every example of speciation in the three cited files.
[flies] is not a species, which is why your statement is fallacious.
>: Start reading here:
>: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
>
>I already told you: Speciation is
... what scientists say it is, not what Gabriel says it is. All of
the examples in the above FAQ ARE "speciation", whether you like it or
not. You have lost the argument BY DEFINITION.
>: > : You actually developed gills for a short time.
>: >
>: > Wrinkles in the neck do not qualify as gills.
>:
>: You know nothing about development.
>
>I know
nothing about development.
>: > : > : It is by far the best explanation we have.
>: > : >
>: > : > Being the "best explanation" in your eyes does not change the
>: > : > fact that this explanation is not observable AND not
>: > : > testable/verifiable - which is what actual science is.
>: > :
>: > :
>: > : Why do you repeat evolution is not observable while it clearly IS
>: > : observable?
>: > : Or are again 99.9% of the biologists wrong?
>: > : They all claim it is observable,
>
>Please cite the scientific paper that proves they all claim the
>fish to man version of evolution is *observable* in action,
It is "observable" *by definition* if the model makes predictions
about what will be observed in the world, given the model as an
assumption, and we are able to observe what was predicted.
We cannot *directly* observe nuclear fission. But nuclear fission is
observable because our models of nuclear fission indicate that certain
particles will be produced that will possess certain properties. We
observe - again indirectly - that those properties indeed exist
exactly as predicted, and thus we conclude that we have indeed
observed nuclear fission.
>: Again no response?
>
>Please cite where it's factually shown that 99.9% of all
>biologists believe in evolution.
Anyone who does not accept evolution at this point in time, is by
definition NOT a biologist, since there is nothing in modern biology
that isn't dependent on the theory of evolution.
>In the meantime, is that your version of science, that if
>everyone believes the same thing, this makes it true?
Science doesn't give a damn what anyone "believes", nor does it care
what is "true". It does require explanations of observed data that
lead to new and testable predictions. Evidence is what is important,
not truth.
>Well then, the earth must still be flat using that logic, which I'm sure
>you'd see the fallacy of that belief that numbers makes it right.
There is plenty of evidence that the earth is not flat.
>: > So if you have an actual observation of what you believe
>: > happening over generations, please present it - it seems clear
>: > you do not (no one does) since you launch into reasons you have
>: > faith in your unobservable, untestable, unverifiable beliefs.
>: > Welcome to religion. If you can provide an actual observation,
>: > I'll respond.
>:
>: I posted the excelent link to you.
>
>No, you still have not provided an observation of evolutionism
>(populations of [flies] producing, over generations, animals that
>are no longer [flies] at all) - you only provide observations of
>Speciation
speciation IS evolution. *By definition*.
>That is not evolutionism (the fish to man version of evolution).
Yes it is.
One entails the other.
Devils Advocaat
> No, the source of logic is God - the God of Abraham, Isaac and
> Jacob - which is a Christian world view.
Tell me now, where in the Bible does it say that God is the source of
logic?
And one small point here, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were not Christians
and didn't worship the Christian God.
> Mankind only discovered
> these rules of logic - they can't decide to change them to be
> whatever they want.
Mankind is in the habit of changing things all the time.
> For example, "P and NOT P" is false, and no
> one can "design" it to be otherwise.
I can say to you wood is soft and not soft, are you going to tell me
that I am wrong?
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Please show us where God taught logic. As far as I can tell from your
approach, either you ignored the lessons or God got it wrong.
>:
>: Logic is the art and science of reasoning.
>
>Reasoning would not be possible without the rules of logic. Art
>and science did not invent those rules - they merely discovered
>their existence, then used them to perform reasoning with. But
>the point still stands, their world view of naturalism cannot
>account for where these universal laws of logic came from that we
>discovered.
No, logic, like all branches of mathematics, is a human invention.
>A Christian world view does account for them
>perfectly - they come from God and the mind of God. So those with
>a naturalistic world view borrow from the Christian (there is a
>God) world view in order for science and reasoning to even be
>possible - this shows how irrational their world view is - which
>shows it's a false world view.
>
>: Humans are not the only
>: species to use reasoning, as research on other primates clearly
>: shows.
>
>Which shows it's not a human construct - it's a universal
>constant that exists everywhere, whether someone is formally
>schooled in them or not.
How illogical of you to assert that conclusion.
>: There no evidence to suggest that reasoning ability cannot
>: evolve just like every other ability.
>
>If it could just evolve, this means people are able to create
>their own versions of logic.
>
>"P and NOT P" cannot be true at the same time no matter who wants
>to design their own version of logic that says they can both be
>true at the same time.
It's easy to invent such a logic, religious zealots use it all the time,
but that logical system isn't very useful.
>"P or NOT P" - one of them must be true at all times, no matter
>who wants to design their own version of logic to say otherwise.
Sort of like creationists who assert that everything must be created and
God is not created. That sort of logic?
>So again, this proves the naturalistic world view (that all
>things came about from nature alone and natural chance, with no
>God) is irrational.
Once again, you come to a conclusion unsupported by valid assumptions
and clear logical arguments.
Juan M
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:3fd6d5pval3psm78h...@4ax.com...
Didn't the ancient Greeks (Socrates-Plato) formalize logic in pre-Christian,
pagan times?
Of course, Socrates met a bad end for daring to use it. Some things never
change.
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:56:46 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
Wrong. One has to be able to accurately claim if a statement is
true or not before continuing. In your example, we can't even say
if something is blue to begin with, so it's futile to
subsequently ask if it's "not blue". A basic college course in
logic teaches such things.
So by whatever definition of blue one is using at that moment,
are those jeans blue, or not? If someone says they are by the
current definition, then they can't be "not blue" at the same
time by that same definition. If someone says they are not blue
by that definition, then they can't be "blue" at the same time by
that same definition.
:
: This can be important in racial politics. A man can be "black"
: because of having one black ancestor by the one drop rule.
And by that definition of black, he cannot then be "not black" at
the same time using the same definition.
: But he and
: his parents may have considered "white" by appearance.
So if he's considered now "not black" by THAT definition, he
can't be called "black" at the same time by that very definition.
Once truth is established, calling something "P" and "NOT P" at
the same time is impossible, as you've just helped prove.
Thank you for posting.
: Of course his
Bob LeChevalier
>On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:41:29 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>: The form of logic most commonly used, does say that they cannot be
>: true at the same time.
>:
>: But let us take an example. A pair of bleached blue jeans. On its
>: own, you might say "these jeans are blue". But if provided a standard
>: of blue like a clear mountain lake, those jeans are NOT blue. The
>: jeans are blue and not blue at the same time.
>
>Wrong. One has to be able to accurately claim if a statement is
>true or not before continuing.
In other words, you are assuming your conclusion.
Sorry, but in real life, such ASSumptions are foolish.
>In your example, we can't even say
>if something is blue to begin with, so it's futile to
>subsequently ask if it's "not blue".
In real life, that is the most common situation. That is why "logic"
isn't much use outside of religion and philosophy and mathematics,
where one can ignore the real world and ASSume an ideal that (in the
case of religions especially) has nothing to do with the real world.
>A basic college course in logic teaches such things.
Unfortunately, an advanced course in logic teaches other things.
>So by whatever definition of blue one is using at that moment,
>are those jeans blue, or not?
Yes. They are blue and not-blue.
>If someone says they are by the current definition,
Which current definition? In real life, there are no absolute
definitions.
>then they can't be "not blue" at the same time by that same definition.
Of course they can. That is because definitions can be as fuzzy as
logic.
>: This can be important in racial politics. A man can be "black"
>: because of having one black ancestor by the one drop rule.
>
>And by that definition of black, he cannot then be "not black" at
>the same time using the same definition.
Of course there are many people for whom we don't know if their
ancestry includes one ancestor. And there are many others who have
such an ancestor, but who are considered white anyway.
Because human beings don't follow your rules of logic and definition.
And they don't have to, thank ghod.
>: But he and
>: his parents may have considered "white" by appearance.
>
>So if he's considered now "not black" by THAT definition, he
>can't be called "black" at the same time by that very definition.
But he can, because others may judge his appearance differently. The
definition is subjective.
In real life MOST definitions are subjective.
>Once truth is established,
Truth is NEVER established in real life. It is either ASSumed are it
is deduced based on arbitrary ASSumptions.
>calling something "P" and "NOT P" at
>the same time is impossible, as you've just helped prove.
Except that it isn't impossible.
Because no one is obliged to play by your rules. And people DON'T
play by your rules.
Erwin Moller
<snipped>
To Bob: Thank you Bob: Gabriel's wordsalad made me too dizzy to respond.
Gabriel: Please respond to Bob. He wrote very clearly.
I have only 2 things to add:
1) Gabriel: I don't think you actually READ the page I posted a few times.
Here it is again:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Is is ABOUT speciciation.
It is ABOUT your objections to it.
It contains examples.
The fact that you do not consider a new species of flies/plants/whatever
to be actually a new species BECAUSE it still looks like its ancestors,
that is really your problem.
We have a definition for species, and according to that definition we
DID observe several new species 'coming into existence'.
2) Gabriel wrote:
"Please cite the scientific paper that proves they all claim the
fish to man version of evolution is *observable* in action,
rather than just believing it happened when they look at fossils
and dead bones."
Gabriel: You keep insisting biologists should provide "fish to man
version of evolution *observable* in action".
I tried to tell you this is a conceptual problem on your side.
I told you there is no fish trying to become a man.
You said you knew that and understand it.
But you don't.
I'll spell it out again (very loud):
NOBODY CAN GIVE YOU OBSERVATIONS OF FISH TO MAN EVOLUTION BECAUSE THAT
IS NOT HAPPING (ANYMORE).
It happened in the past, so your addition: "rather than just believing
it happened when they look at fossils and dead bones." only shows you
REALLY STILL DON'T GET IT.
Sometimes I think you simply should read a good textbook about evolution
instead of trying to make point against something you don't understand.
:-(
Really, the basics of evolution are not that difficult.
Once you understand a little about evolution you will also understand
why your demand for peer-reviewed papers that show
fish-to-human-evolution-happing-right-now is hilarious.
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >: > - the God of Abraham, Isaac and
: >: > Jacob - which is a Christian world view.
: >:
: >: Bigoted, unsupported assertion.
: >
: >Bigoted? How so?
:
: Both Judaism and Islam worship "the God of Abraham, Isaac and
: Jacob".
Actually they don't - they've made up a false version of god and
worship that god instead, even if this false version of a god is
a version they believe was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
: And neither shares a Christian world view.
John 14:5-7 KJV Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither
thou goest; and how can we know the way? 6 Jesus saith unto
him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto
the Father, but by me. 7 If ye had known me, ye should have
known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have
seen him.
: For that matter,
Bob LeChevalier
>On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 00:23:55 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: >: > - the God of Abraham, Isaac and
>: >: > Jacob - which is a Christian world view.
>: >:
>: >: Bigoted, unsupported assertion.
>: >
>: >Bigoted? How so?
>:
>: Both Judaism and Islam worship "the God of Abraham, Isaac and
>: Jacob".
>
>Actually they don't - they've made up a false version of god and
>worship that god instead,
Actually, YOU have made up a false version of that God. Just ask any
Orthodox Jew.
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 00:23:55 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: >: > - the God of Abraham, Isaac and
>: >: > Jacob - which is a Christian world view.
>: >:
>: >: Bigoted, unsupported assertion.
>: >
>: >Bigoted? How so?
>:
>: Both Judaism and Islam worship "the God of Abraham, Isaac and
>: Jacob".
>
>Actually they don't - they've made up a false version of god and
>worship that god instead, even if this false version of a god is
>a version they believe was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Name a religion that doesn't worship a false god and demonstrate, step
by step, why that religion is correct.
...
Wild Bill
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahah! You realize, of course, that you're asking the
impossible from the deluded set.
>
>
> ...
Erwin Moller
Hi Gabriel,
>
> :
> :
> : > Logical fallacy.
> : >
> :
> : Correct!
> : And it shows neatly why bi-valued logic (classical true/false) isn't
> : always enough.
> :
> : <snipped description of the liar paradox>
>
> No, you gave a statement that cannot be assigned a truth value.
> The statement "This sentence is false" cannot be assigned a truth
> value. If you say that statement is true, it contradicts itself
> because the statement itself says it's false. If you say that
> statement is false, then it's not true that the sentence is
> false, hence it must be true, but the statement says it's false!
> So you cannot assign a truth value of "true" or "false" to the
> statement "This sentence is false" - hence it's a fallacy to try
> using that statement to prove other laws of logic work or do not
> work.
Clear.
But here is the problem: Despite all your objections I still ask you to
answer my question:
statement p: "This statement is not true."
Is that question true or false?
I AM aware of the problem with that statement, no need to repeat that or
explain it to me. (I posted it myself, remember?)
I merely used it as an example to show you that your approach for
bi-valued logic only gets you so far.
We both agree that the above statement p is neither true or false: The
statement itself is always a lie.
So "true" or "false" isn't enough to describe statement p.
We need something else: A 'liars-statement' in this case.
So now we have true/false/liar as values to assign to a statement.
Add to that 'unknown', and you have your fourth, as in:
statement q: "excactly 5 years from now it will rain on Gabriel's head."
I think we both agree that we simply don't know (now!) if statement q is
correct.
And then even more (see six-valued logic link I posted for details. I
cannot explain it very well in here.)
The point I want to make to you is this: We can observe an increased
insight in logic.
We started with 2 (true/false), but after some
philosophers/scientists/logicians/mathematicians thought about it a
little better we find more nuances.
That clearly shows that logic is a human concept.
Possibly it is also a Godlike concept (I cannot be sure about this), but
since you and me are both not Gods, how can we know?
And who tells me for sure an omnipotent God cannot let P and not-P be
both happening at the same time?
It is all very confusing when you add omnipotence into the mix. ;-)
So I rather stay with both feet on Earth, and conclude that logic is a
great tool to describe the universe.
I also conclude it is manmade (see the 'evolution' from 2 valued logic
to six).
> : > :
> : > : There you have a p and a not-p seemingly at the same time.
> : > : Does the universe collapse?
> : > : Did cause and effect stop to exist?
> : > :
> : > : Logic is a human concept, and subject to growing knowledge.
> : >
> : > No, choosing which side of the road to drive on is a human
> : > concept.
> :
> : That too.
>
> No one can design "P AND NOT P" to be true concerning statements
> that can be assigned a truth value. It's a fact before anyone
> ever designed it. If you want to claim otherwise, please give a
> statement P that can be assigned a truth value for which P AND
> NOT P will be true at the same time.
I cannot, but I can give you statements that are neither true or false.
And possibly your (not mine) onmipotent God can do so.
The best thing you and me and any human can do is trying to discover the
rules this universe is governed by.
In this process we use logic and the scientific approach.
>
>
> :
> : >
> : > People did not (and cannot) create the concept that it's
> : > impossible to have P, and NOT P true at the same time.
> :
> : Actually humans DID come up with that concept.
>
> If that's true, then you're claiming faulty things:
>
> [1] that people could instead have designed logic to state "P AND
> NOT P" is always true, which is clearly not the case.
>
> [2] That people could design their own versions of logic in
> different parts of the world, hence growing knowledge would be
> impossible
Your conclusion is not right.
Here is why:
People can come up with ANY FORM OF LOGIC they like ('design their own
logic' as you say), but that doesn't mean their logic is in concert with
the universe we are living in.
We are merely discovering the rules and laws of the universe we live in.
Logic being one of them.
Of course, we TRY to make sensible theories, like logic, but they stay a
human concept.
>
> : If there is intelligent life out there in the universe I expect they
> : will draw similar conclusions.
> :
> : The universe behaves in the way it behaves, following the laws of
> : nature.
>
> Speaking of the Laws of Nature - who created them? Inexplicable
> in a nature only world view, showing that world view is
> irrational.
Who created them?
Who created the hole in the ground where a tree was standing yesterday?
The heavy storm?
The tree that was not healthy anymore?
Earth, that created the storm?
The universe because it was the way it was and thus there was a storm?
Some questions are quite meaningless without proper context.
I think the question: "Why is the universe the way it is?" is a good
question.
I think: "Why is the universe created the way it is?" is a bad question.
> Perfectly accounted for in a Christian world view
> (the view the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob created everything
> exactly like He said He did).
Well, if you think that is an explanation....
I think it explains nothing.
'Christian world view', whatever that may be excactly, explains little.
Does it explain the structure of living cells?
Does it explain what proteins are?
Does it explain what virusses are and how they replicate?
Does it explain the math behind, let's say, gravity?
etc.
etc.
We both know very well Christianity does NOT explain these things.
It explains almost nothing.
It is a religion, and religion are NOT in the business of explaining
things, religion is in the business of CLAIMING things without
explanation and/or proof.
Don't give me that 'Christian world view'.
>
> : What else can it do?
> : We are only describing it and came up, amongst other things, with logic
> : as a great tool.
> :
> : And indeed: it looks like it that in our universe P being true and
> : untrue at the same time seems impossible.
> : Allthough it must be mentioned in this context that it can also be
> : impossible to say if P is true or false (as in our liarparadox).
> :
> : I tend to agree with you that logic was there before humans came up with
> : the concept, but that is a twisted way of looking at it.
>
> There's nothing twisted about claiming the fact that "P AND NOT
> P" was always false before anyone ever discovered that truth, or
> regardless if no one yet noticed.
And there is nothing wrong with saying "The moon orbitted the Earth
before humans were around to see it.".
But does that mean somehow God exists and created the universe?
non sequitur.
>
> :
> : Electromagnetism was there too before humans described it and understood
> : it. DOes that mean something important too?
>
> Yes - it means we didn't invent electromagnetism - just like we
> didn't invent the laws of logic.
We discovered them. We invented them. Semantics.
There is not a very clear line between inventing and discovering.
Discovering implies something was there to be discovered, but that also
can be said about ANY invention.
I think we you are making the discussion unneeded complicated by this.
The way I look at it: The universe seems to be a non-chaotic place. It
seems to have certain laws/rules, like gravity, electromagnetism, etc.
I think we both agree on that.
The fact that we (humans) describe and try to understand these laws
leads to the development of a theoretical/practical framework we call
science.
We start using logic, math, experiments, etc.
All these instruments (including logic and mathematics) were first
developed by former humans.
We use these tools because they seem to get the job done.
So logic, math, theory of gravity, curved space, etc, etc are nothing
more than human concepts THAT HAPPEN TO WORK IN CONCERT WITH THE
UNIVERSE WE OBSERVED SO FAR.
That approach makes you whole point about "impossibility of statement P
being true and not true at the same time" moot in my opinion.
Of course I agree to it: I never saw it happening and it firmly
irritates anything I know about the universe, so as far as I am
concerned p and not-p cannot both be true at the same time.
That says something about our universe AND it says something about us,
humans, that discovered that.
It doesn't say a thing about God/creator.
>
> : I say no: It just means the universe is the way it is and the moment we
> : start describing/studying/understanding it we will find all these
> : characteristics like logic and electromagnetism, etc.
> :
> : I don't see anything 'magical' in logic per se.
> :
> : That's a
> : > fact before it was ever discovered as being a logical fact. Same
> : > with "P OR NOT P" being true all the time. No one made up that
> : > fact - it's true whether people are ever made aware of that logic
> : > or not.
> :
> : Same goes for gravitational force, electromagneticism, etc.
>
> So you're agreeing now that "P AND NOT P" was always true now?
Oh yes.
I think, according to our current definition/understanding, that that is
right.
>
> :
> :
> : >
> : > And even if it were so that people could just make up their own
> : > rules of logic (which it's not), then different people could come
> : > to different conclusions depending on what rules of logic they
> : > want to follow in their part of the world - growing knowledge
> : > would be impossible.
> :
> : Agree.
> :
> : But I would like to make a point about logic I think is important:
> : Logic, in itself, is NOT enough to gain understanding about the
> : universe. Logic only lives in its own world.
>
> But the point is: without logic, scientific thought and all it
> implies would not be possible at all. They rely on the Christian
> world view: that God created universal, unchanging logic for us
> to think, just so they can do science at all and claim there is
> no God only nature.
I fail to see why that should be called 'Christian world view'.
Any idiot will stumble across it sooner or later because it is so bloody
obvious.
> :
> : The moment you want to try logic, and only logic, in the real world,
> : you'll have all kind of problems.
> :
> : Let me clarify what I mean.
> : Suppose you are a perfect logician. But that is all you know.
> : You are thrown onto Earth.
> : I ask you: "Will this apple fall if I let it go 1 meter above the ground?"
> :
> : How would you, being a perfect logician, approach that question?
> : Maybe you would an experiment or 1000, and discover the apples always fall.
> : Can you then draw the conclusion it will fall the 1001th time?
> : Being a perfect logician, you would not.
> : But WHAT can you do?
> : I think the best thing you can do is starting to study the whole shebang
> : we call our universe. You'll develop statistical methods, you'll develop
> : instruments to do measurement, you'll start making hypothesis, etc.
> : In short: You'll reinvent the scientific method (and probably going a
> : lot faster than humankind since you are a perfect logician).
> :
> : My point is clear I think: Logic by itself, even though we cannot do
> : without, is not enough to understand the universe.
> :
> : Do you agree to that?
>
> Of course. But without universal logic, it would be impossible to
> come to any understanding of the universe.
What is the difference between 'logic' and 'universal logic'?
> And in a nature-only
> world view, we can't trust that there's an unchanging universal
> logic to rely on - they borrow from a Christian world view in
> order for science to even be possible.
No.
Not one science borrows from your Christian world view.
We don't need it.
It is actually in the way and obstructs progress like Christianity did
for many many ages.
And logic is NOT copyrighted by Jesus, no matter how many times you
claim that.
>
> :
> :
> : >
> : > Science is only possible because of logic.
> :
> : Agree.
> :
> : > Logic is inexplicable
> : > in a Godless, natural chance world view (showing their world view
> : > is irrational).
> :
> : I am not quite sure what a "Godless, natural chance world view" is in
> : your book,
>
> A world where there's only nature - no God. Hence where did life
> come from? What created the big bang? What created the laws of
> logic? And so on.
Great questions.
- I cannot answer you where the universe came from.
- I do have some ideas how life came into the picture (you need a
selfreplication mechanism)
- I cannot answer you what created the laws of logic.
As to the 'and so ons' I expect you can easily keep asking difficult
questions I ALSO do not have an answer to.
Here is the bottomline: I don't MIND AT ALL saying I don't have an answer.
You claim you hold answers but fail to proof anything.
Your claims, and almost all creationists claims, are just that: claims.
You never enter the science arena where you have to proof what you
claim, as all serious scientists do.
So why should I believe the explanations coming from 'Christian science'?
There is only 1 science, and it is not christian, nor hindu, nor muslim.
It is the science that bothers to proof claims, make them plausible.
It is the kind of science where people dare to make statements that can
actually be tested and *falsified*.
>
> : but I ask you this:
> : - Is gravity inexplicable in a Godless, natural chance world view?
>
> If you ask "where did it come from - what made it true that a big
> mass creates gravity (assuming that's the exact reason gravity
> exists of course)" it is inexplicable in a godless, natural
> chance world view.
You and I do not know that.
We don't know where the big bang came from, how or why it happened.
The difference is that you CLAIM you know, where I, more modest and
honest, simply say: I do not know, it is under investigation by much
greater minds than mine, but maybe we will NEVER have an answer to such
question.
Look at your 'explanations': "We must explain fact X/Y/Z (take your
pick). Your explanation is ALWAYS: God-did-it."
Really....... It is all so childish. Your 'science' is not science. It
is just always the same old record: God-did-it.
That explains nothing. It is just some faith.
How refreshing it would be to meet a creationist honest enough to say:
"I don't know why/what/how." instead of the always soooo-sure God-did-it.
>
> : - Is electromagneticism inexplicable in a Godless, natural chance world
> : view?
>
> Same.
>
> :
> : In general: Is ANYTHING explainable in a "Godless, natural chance world
> : view" according to you?
>
> Of course - how God's creation works in the present day that is
> observable, testable and verifiable. Operational science.
>
> But there are many things that defy explanation and become
> irrational when we have a world view of naturalism: everything
> came from nature alone and natural chance. Such a world view
> cannot account for the laws of nature or the laws of logic - how
> they came to be - they borrow from a Christian world view, where
> a Christian world view states they came from God and from the
> mind of God. Is this proof they did? No, but it's *accounted* for
> perfectly in that view, which is the point, showing it remains a
> rational world view. A naturalism world view cannot account for
> the obviously eternal, unchanging laws of logic, and instead have
> to borrow from a world view where God exists, showing that world
> view of naturalism is irrational.
We have been over that.
I state: You don't have an explanation for the existance of the
universe, nor do you have one to explain why it is the way it is.
If you think you have something, write it down here.
I will not accept claims because you say so, or because some holy
website/book says so.
Where is your proof for this God that is behind all your God-did-it
'explanations'?
Nowhere.
Your kind of people have had thousands of years to produce some proof
for this obvious God, but somehow He keeps eluding us all.
In the meantime I think I stay on the sane side and I will not *assume*
there is a God, just because it 'answers' some difficult questions.
If we all thought the way you do we would still believe Thor made the
lightning.
>
> :
> : Here is the coreproblem: Nobody on Earth is allknowing. Maybe you don't
> : like that fact, but it still is a fact.
>
> Tell that to evolutionists, who (probably also) think it's a fact
> that nothing created everything, that the universe started with a
> big bang, and that then evolutionism kicked in after life got
> created from nothing to turn populations of tiny fish over
> generations into eventually hippos, giraffes, eagles and human
> beings. They clearly feel they are all knowing, passing off such
> science fiction as fact, when it's not only not fact, it doesn't
> even qualify as science.
Your above description closely follows what I think.
But with one important addition: I do not know these thing for sure. And
the only reason I believe them are becuase there is much proof for each
individual statement.
I do NOT BELIEVE them because some book/religion tells me to.
>
> : The best we can do is investigate the universe the best we can.
> : The best method so far is what we call the scientific method, and it
> : uses logic.
>
> And logic makes no sense in a "nature created everything" world
> view, as they cannot account for how universal, unchanging laws
> of logic came into existence and always were, not to mention the
> laws of nature, that they depend on so heavily.
Nonsense.
Logic makes clearly a LOT of sense in a naturalistic world view.
And by the way, this "nature created everything"-worldview you just
conjured up, is very vague.
I think the word you should use is 'scientific worldview' or maybe
'naturalistic worldview'.
And I also don't think that it has a lot to do where the universe came
from.
That is a very important question, and I would LOVE to know the answer
to it, but I expect that even if I was told the answer my brains
wouldn't be equiped to understand such an answer.
>
> :
> : > Logic is perfectly explained in a Christian world
> : > view - they borrow from the Christian world view in order for
> : > science (logical thought) to even be possible.
> :
> : Logic is NOT explained by the Christian world view.
>
> It's accounted for: God upholds the universe and created the laws
> of logic - they are from the mind of God.
Well, according to that ANYTHING is explained by the Christian world view.
And as often with 'explanations' that explain everything, they explain
nothing on futher investigation.
>
> Where did they come from in a world view of everything came from
> nature alone, with no God? Nowhere.
This questions keeps popping up. Let me answer it very clearly. ;-)
I DO NOT KNOW!
I DO NOT KNOW WHERE THE UNIVERSE CAME FROM!
POSSIBLY MY BRAINS CANNOT EVEN COMPREHEND THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION
(If a sensible answer can be given from inside our universe).
>
> :
> : It explains exactly as much as: "Logic is there in the universe because
> : I told you so.".
> :
> : Gabriel, I have NO troubles at all if you learn important lesson from
> : Jesus, but don't try to pass it as it were science, because it isn't.
> :
> : The 'Christian world view' is also an extremely vague concept, and will
> : have different implementations depending on the person you ask.
> : There is no such thing as a coherent, settled 'Christian world view'.
>
> Actually there is - Jesus Christ, who attested to the scriptures
> as being the Word of God - we have the Bible. Any other beliefs
> that get away from Christ being the only begotten Son of God is
> not a Christian world view.
So what?
What proof is that?
That a guy named Jesus walked around in Jerusalem that claimed to be the
son of God?
SO WHAT?
Did this guy also give us some way of crosschecking his claims?
Did he proof anything he claimed?
>
> There's much evidence that backs up the historical record of
> Genesis and more - and even recently they realized they
> previously discovered Gold coins of Joseph from Egypt recorded in
> Genesis.
There is none.
That is a blunt lie.
Genesis is just a story and your historical evidence absent.
Proof me wrong.
>
> Psalms 46:10 KJVR Be still, and know that I am God: I will be
> exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.
Common loony talk.
Visit your local mental institution to find a few that talk like that.
You and I both know this all proof nothing.
Can you proof God exists without using Jesus' word for it?
Why is it that this God is hidden so well?
You creationists had thousands of years to produce some proof, but in
all that time you couldn't even make it plausible!
>
> :
> :
> : > This is yet
> : > another logical proof of the existence of God. Scientific proof?
> : > No. Logical proof nonetheless.
> :
> : No it is not.
> : You are deeply mistaken.
> :
> : What about this:
> : "I state that the universe is created by the excrements of sick goats."
> :
> : Then, following your line of 'logic', I can cunclude my 'sickish goat
> : world view' must be correct.
> :
> : That simply doesn't make sense.
>
> I think you misunderstood what I said. Your example does not make
> sense - why would goat excrement create laws of logic?
Good question.
I wonder the same thing.
But according to your line of logic, the proof would be something like this:
1) I think the excrements of sick goats created the universe.
2) These excements are responsible for creating anything inside this
universe, inlcuding suns, planets, life, and also logic.
3) Since statement p and statement not-p cannot be true at the same
time, the laws of logic are clearly created by the abovementioned goat
excements.
Do you spot the error in my argument?
>
> I was saying that laws of logic are perfectly accounted for by
> the Christian world view: they came from the mind of God.
Nono, that is where you go wrong.
They came from sick goat excrements. I gave you the proof.
The laws of logic are prefectly accounted for by the 'sick goat worldview'.
> And
> that is more logical proof (not scientific, mind you, but
> logical) proof of God, since it also shows how irrational a
> naturalism world view is, and they in fact borrow from the
> Christian world view to make science possible.
I cannot imagine a scientific proof that is not logical.
Science includes logic in my humble opinion.
How can anybody be a scientist without using logic?
I think that is impossible.
So I don't like your division between 'logical proof' and 'scientific
proof'.
>
> Thank you for posting.
>
Thank you too. :-)
Regards,
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 12:43:53 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
: ><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: >
: >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >: >On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:58:45 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
: >: ><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: >:
: >: >: Funny how logic was invented before Christianity, and not by any
: >: >: "people of the book".
: >: >
: >: >So in other words, someone could invent a version of logic where
: >: >"P" and "NOT P" are both true at the same time?
: >:
: >: That doesn't follow from what I said, but it happens to be factual.
: >: There are such versions, as I have cited to you in prior posts.
: >
: >Hi Bob,
: >
: >If you have, I checked and didn't see it in any of your posts.
: >
: >Please post again here how it's possible that "P" (that has a
: >truth value of true or false) and "NOT P" (which has a truth
: >value of true or false) could both be true if we simply wanted
: >them to be by definition (rather than the fact that no matter
: >what we want to say, it's not possible that they're both true at
: >the same time). Thank you.
:
: One more time.
:
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aristotelian_logic
This is logic where things are assigned believed truth values on
the spectrum of varying degrees of truth, not just "true" or
"false" which is the debate we're having.
You might want to read the entire section in that page you cited
"Use in science fiction" that shows how this sort of fuzzy logic
was used.
Meanwhile, when we're talking about something being true or false
only, it stands that something cannot be both TRUE and NOT TRUE
at the same time.
Thanks for posting.
:
: Read and learn.
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >: And this is the problem.
: >: There is NO TRANSITION going on in the simplistic way you protrait
: >: evolution.
: >: There is no animal 'trying to become the next animal'.
: >
: >I never said "trying to become the next animal" - I said
: >populations of [flies] producing, over generations, animals that
: >are clearly no longer [flies].
:
: Your statement above is better stated by substituting "species X" for
: flies.
: >I never said "trying to become the next animal" - I said
: >populations of [species X] producing, over generations, animals that
: >are clearly no longer [species X].
Wrong. Your version only shows that populations of [flies] can
produce another species of [flies] (one species producing another
species) but they are still [flies]! Your version of evolution
(the fish to man version), in sharp contrast, states that
populations of [flies] can produce, over generations, animals
that are clearly no longer [flies] at all! (Just like hippos,
giraffes, eagles and human beings are all no longer fish at all,
though you believe they all evolved from populations of fish over
generations).
But your version of evolution is not observable, not testable,
and not verifiable. Please back up your claim that it is and
provide such a case. You'd be the first.
Meanwhile you obfuscate what Speciation is and is not in the
following paragraphs, which becomes meaningless because it's not
the version of evolution you believe in. Still waiting for you to
back up your claim by providing such a case. You'd be the first.
Until anyone does, it's as I've always said: no origin theory,
including evolutionism, the big bang, even creation by God, can
qualify as science: as they are not observable, not testable, not
verifiable. But it's logically undeniable nonetheless that we
were created - the only faith part: was it the God of Abraham,
Isaac and Israel? Or perhaps aliens? Most people will go with God
any day.
Thanks for posting.
:
: Every instance of speciation fits that description, because the
gabriel
<Since_humans_read_this...@spamyourself.com>
wrote:
: Bob LeChevalier wrote:
:
: <snipped>
:
: To Bob: Thank you Bob: Gabriel's wordsalad made me too dizzy to respond.
:
: Gabriel: Please respond to Bob. He wrote very clearly.
Actually he as always tries to claim Speciation (populations of
[flies] producing, over generations, more [flies], even if they
are different species of [flies] but still [flies]) is the same
thing as populations of [flies] producing, over generations,
animals that are clearly no longer [flies] at all. They are
clearly two drastically different things.
:
: I have only 2 things to add:
Well you've already made it clear you have no desire to learn
from the responses to points you make, so I won't waste my time
repeating what's already been said that refutes what you claim.
If you're interested, feel free to go back to my response before
that addresses all of what you wrote below.
Take care.
: 1) Gabriel: I don't think you actually READ the page I posted a few times.
gabriel
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
: On 4 Oct, 13:33, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
: > No, the source of logic is God - the God of Abraham, Isaac and
: > Jacob - which is a Christian world view.
:
: Tell me now, where in the Bible does it say that God is the source of
: logic?
It doesn't. But since God clearly is logical, it's only natural
to assume these laws came from Him. It makes sense to consider He
created it along with everything else.
In the world view of "nothing created everything" and "life by
natural chance only" - there's no explanation to how logic came
to be - logic that is necessary for science to even be possible -
they borrow from the Christian world-view to account for logic,
where we believe it came from God, which only shows how illogical
their world view is, and how the Christian world view remains
intact.
:
: And one small point here, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were not Christians
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 00:06:48 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
><mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>: On 4 Oct, 13:33, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>:
>: > No, the source of logic is God - the God of Abraham, Isaac and
>: > Jacob - which is a Christian world view.
>:
>: Tell me now, where in the Bible does it say that God is the source of
>: logic?
>
>It doesn't. But since God clearly is logical, it's only natural
>to assume these laws came from Him. It makes sense to consider He
>created it along with everything else.
There's nothing clearly logical about God. You don't get to merely
assert such a silly thing. If you want to show that God is logical, do
the work. Demonstrate it. Don't be so lazy.
>In the world view of "nothing created everything"
one of your favorite strawmen (that is, you have intentionally
misrepresented what is said about the Big Bang for your own dishonest
amusement)
>and "life by natural chance only"
another one of your favorite strawmen (that is, you have intentionally
misrepresented what is said about evolution for your own dishonest
amusement)
> - there's no explanation to how logic came
>to be - logic that is necessary for science to even be possible -
>they borrow from the Christian world-view to account for logic,
>where we believe it came from God, which only shows how illogical
>their world view is, and how the Christian world view remains
>intact.
Why do you imply that logic exists independent of human thought?
Greek logicians existed long before Christianity was invented.
...
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:12:50 +0100, Erwin Moller
><Since_humans_read_this...@spamyourself.com>
>wrote:
>
>: Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>:
>: <snipped>
>:
>: To Bob: Thank you Bob: Gabriel's wordsalad made me too dizzy to respond.
>:
>: Gabriel: Please respond to Bob. He wrote very clearly.
>
>Actually he as always tries to claim Speciation (populations of
>[flies] producing, over generations, more [flies], even if they
>are different species of [flies] but still [flies]) is the same
>thing as populations of [flies] producing, over generations,
>animals that are clearly no longer [flies] at all. They are
>clearly two drastically different things.
Are you really arguing that all flies are the same species? Really?
Anyway, it appears that you are then areguing that apes are the same
species (including humans).
>: I have only 2 things to add:
>
>Well you've already made it clear you have no desire to learn
>from the responses to points you make, so I won't waste my time
>repeating what's already been said that refutes what you claim.
You have offered no responses that people can or should learn from. You
sell false doctrines and lie to support your false claims.
>If you're interested, feel free to go back to my response before
>that addresses all of what you wrote below.
You repeat lies and claim they are the truth.
...
Bob LeChevalier
>On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 00:26:31 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>: >Please post again here how it's possible that "P" (that has a
>: >truth value of true or false) and "NOT P" (which has a truth
>: >value of true or false) could both be true if we simply wanted
>: >them to be by definition (rather than the fact that no matter
>: >what we want to say, it's not possible that they're both true at
>: >the same time). Thank you.
>:
>: One more time.
>:
>: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aristotelian_logic
>
>This is logic where things are assigned believed truth values on
>the spectrum of varying degrees of truth, not just "true" or
>"false" which is the debate we're having.
No it isn't.
>You might want to read the entire section in that page you cited
>"Use in science fiction" that shows how this sort of fuzzy logic
>was used.
It is used in a lot of other things besides science fiction.
>Meanwhile, when we're talking about something being true or false
>only, it stands that something cannot be both TRUE and NOT TRUE
>at the same time.
Of course it can.
A classic example: "Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus".
Bob LeChevalier
>On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:12:50 +0100, Erwin Moller
><Since_humans_read_this...@spamyourself.com>
>wrote:
>
>: Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>:
>: <snipped>
>:
>: To Bob: Thank you Bob: Gabriel's wordsalad made me too dizzy to respond.
>:
>: Gabriel: Please respond to Bob. He wrote very clearly.
>
>Actually he as always tries to claim Speciation (populations of
>[flies] producing, over generations, more [flies], even if they
>are different species of [flies] but still [flies]) is the same
>thing as populations of [flies] producing, over generations,
>animals that are clearly no longer [flies] at all. They are
>clearly two drastically different things.
They are exactly the same thing, since "different species of [flies]
but still [flies]" is a purely arbitrary distinction.
Juan M
"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:ifkdf5dqtfflhmii6...@4ax.com...
Arguing with Gabriel reminds me of the old saw, "Never argue with a pic. al
you will do is get yourself dirty and the pig has a good old time."
Devils Advocaat
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 00:06:48 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>
>
> : On 4 Oct, 13:33, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :
> : > No, the source of logic is God - the God of Abraham, Isaac and
> : > Jacob - which is a Christian world view.
> :
> : Tell me now, where in the Bible does it say that God is the source of
> : logic?
>
> It doesn't. But since God clearly is logical, it's only natural
> to assume these laws came from Him. It makes sense to consider He
> created it along with everything else.
So you admit that there is nothing in the Bible that says that God is
the source of logic, and yet you insist without evidence that God is
logical, perhaps you can explain how you can reach such a conclusion.
>
> In the world view of "nothing created everything" and "life by
> natural chance only" - there's no explanation to how logic came
> to be - logic that is necessary for science to even be possible -
> they borrow from the Christian world-view to account for logic,
The "nothing created everything" scenario is a Creationist strawman,
as is the "life by natural chance only" (whatever "natural chance"
is).
Actually logic existed long before the Christian worldview emerged
into the world, so it is the Christians that have borrowed logic from
the Greeks.
> where we believe it came from God, which only shows how illogical
> their world view is, and how the Christian world view remains
> intact.
Who is this "we" you are referring to?
And are you going to admit that you are not being exactly truthful
regarding the origin of logic?
>
> :
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:41:29 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
: ><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
:
: >: The form of logic most commonly used, does say that they cannot be
: >: true at the same time.
: >:
: >: But let us take an example. A pair of bleached blue jeans. On its
: >: own, you might say "these jeans are blue". But if provided a standard
: >: of blue like a clear mountain lake, those jeans are NOT blue. The
: >: jeans are blue and not blue at the same time.
: >
: >Wrong. One has to be able to accurately claim if a statement is
: >true or not before continuing.
:
: In other words, you are assuming your conclusion.
:
: Sorry, but in real life, such ASSumptions are foolish.
:
: >In your example, we can't even say
: >if something is blue to begin with, so it's futile to
: >subsequently ask if it's "not blue".
:
: In real life, that is the most common situation. That is why "logic"
: isn't much use outside of religion and philosophy and mathematics,
: where one can ignore the real world and ASSume an ideal that (in the
: case of religions especially) has nothing to do with the real world.
When we're talking about "P" and "NOT P" being true, we're
talking a statement being either being true or false. The logic
that Aristotle discovered that always existed. That you try to
bring into this fuzzy logic where things are now only 80% true
and so on shows you have no intention of admitting the obvious:
that when things are either true or not true, such things cannot
be both "TRUE" and "NOT TRUE" at the same time.
Good luck.
:
: >A basic college course in logic teaches such things.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:33:50 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>: >In your example, we can't even say
>: >if something is blue to begin with, so it's futile to
>: >subsequently ask if it's "not blue".
>:
>: In real life, that is the most common situation. That is why "logic"
>: isn't much use outside of religion and philosophy and mathematics,
>: where one can ignore the real world and ASSume an ideal that (in the
>: case of religions especially) has nothing to do with the real world.
>
>When we're talking about "P" and "NOT P" being true, we're
>talking a statement being either being true or false.
That's nice. It is also useless in much of human thought.
>Yhe logic that Aristotle
... invented
>that always existed.
Your evidence is entirely lacking.
>That you try to
>bring into this fuzzy logic where things are now only 80% true
>and so on shows you have no intention of admitting the obvious:
>that when things are either true or not true,
which is rarely the case.
The world doesn't choose to limit itself to fit your procrustean bed
of formal 2-value logic.
Human language isn't conveniently suited to fit logic. Something I
know considerably better than you after spending 20-odd years
specifically researching the topic.
Juan M
syllogism
Everything I believe is true
That statement (or fact or theory) conflicts with what I believe
therefore...
That statement is untrue.
gabriel
<Since_humans_read_this...@spamyourself.com>
wrote:
: gabriel schreef:
: > On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:47:31 +0200, Erwin Moller
No, what you present is an example where a statement CANNOT be
assigned a true/false value - a logical fallacy, which you claim
to be aware of. We are not talking about tricky logical fallacy
statements a person invents that makes no sense.
The debate is about statements that CAN be assigned a boolean
logical value. Such statements that can be assigned true or false
values cannot be both TRUE AND NOT TRUE at the same time, which
is the point. Aristotle didn't define that as a universal truth,
Aristotle discovered that as a universal truth and formalized it
so that scientists could then use it to discover more truths
about how God's world and universe operates in the present day.
:
: We both agree that the above statement p is neither true or false: The
: statement itself is always a lie.
: So "true" or "false" isn't enough to describe statement p.
: We need something else: A 'liars-statement' in this case.
:
: So now we have true/false/liar as values to assign to a statement.
Only to statements that were designed to be a logical fallacy.
:
: Add to that 'unknown', and you have your fourth, as in:
: statement q: "excactly 5 years from now it will rain on Gabriel's head."
: I think we both agree that we simply don't know (now!) if statement q is
: correct.
But it doesn't change the fact that we CANNOT say it will be BOTH
TRUE AND FALSE at the same time when it happens, which is the
point. Aristotle could not have defined logic so that it's
suddenly possible to say "It rained and did not rain on my head
at this exact moment in time" - No one could define logic to work
that way. It's either true that it rained on a person's head at a
moment in time, or it's false. That's the point. it can't be both
true and false at the exact same moment in time using the exact
same definition.
:
: And then even more (see six-valued logic link I posted for details. I
: cannot explain it very well in here.)
:
: The point I want to make to you is this: We can observe an increased
: insight in logic.
: We started with 2 (true/false), but after some
: philosophers/scientists/logicians/mathematicians thought about it a
: little better we find more nuances.
There are no nuances to things that are not logical fallacies,
like cleverly constructed sentences that contradict themselves
before we can assign a true/false value to it. Either something
did happen (TRUE) or it did not happen (FALSE) at a given moment.
:
: That clearly shows that logic is a human concept.
Not so. If that's true, then according to you it's possible for
it to rain on my head, and not rain on my head at the exact same
moment in time, which is false.
You have extended logical fallacy to act like something can be
both true and false at the same time, when it cannot, as I've
said, and as you've shown yet again with your raining example.
You've then gone on to use your logical fallacy example to make
many other points in this thread, which are all useless since
they're based on logical fallacy, not statements that are
assigned a true of false value by one definition at one moment in
time, which is what the debate is about.
Thank you for writing.
: Possibly it is also a Godlike concept (I cannot be sure about this), but
Devils Advocaat
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:48:24 +0100, Erwin Moller
> : But here is the problem: Despite all your objections I still ask you to
> : answer my question:
> : statement p: "This statement is not true."
> : Is that question true or false?
> :
> : I AM aware of the problem with that statement, no need to repeat that or
> : explain it to me. (I posted it myself, remember?)
> : I merely used it as an example to show you that your approach for
> : bi-valued logic only gets you so far.
>
> No, what you present is an example where a statement CANNOT be
> assigned a true/false value - a logical fallacy, which you claim
> to be aware of. We are not talking about tricky logical fallacy
> statements a person invents that makes no sense.
>
you should be able to tell everyone which category of logical fallacy
it fits into.
Bob LeChevalier
>: Clear.
>: But here is the problem: Despite all your objections I still ask you to
>: answer my question:
>: statement p: "This statement is not true."
>: Is that question true or false?
>:
>: I AM aware of the problem with that statement, no need to repeat that or
>: explain it to me. (I posted it myself, remember?)
>: I merely used it as an example to show you that your approach for
>: bi-valued logic only gets you so far.
>
>No, what you present is an example where a statement CANNOT be
>assigned a true/false value - a logical fallacy, which you claim
>to be aware of.
It is NOT a logical fallacy. It is everyday life, where MOST
statements cannot be assigned a true/false value.
>The debate is about statements that CAN be assigned a boolean
>logical value.
Such statements are of trivial interest, since anything not extremely
simple has to be expressed in stilted language in order to be modeled
by logic.
>Such statements that can be assigned true or false
>values cannot be both TRUE AND NOT TRUE at the same time, which
>is the point.
The point is worthless, since you've limited the subject to a tiny
subject of statements
>Aristotle didn't define that as a universal truth,
"Universal truth" is a logical fallacy.
>Aristotle discovered that as a universal truth
He discovered no such thing. He invented a system of analysis wherein
such a tool could be applied to "well-formed statements"
>and formalized it so that scientists could then use it to discover more truths
There were no real scientists in Aristotle's day.
>about how God's world
Aristotle didn't believe in God, dodo. He believed in the (Greek)
gods, and thus had no interest in discovering truths about a "God's
world" that he did not believe in.
>and universe operates in the present day.
Aristotle lived more than 2000 years ago, and had no interest in our
present day, but rather in his, which had gods rather than a God.
And anyone with knowledge of the history of science knows that
Aristotle got lots of "truths" wrong about "God's world", like its
being at the center of the solar system.
Which shows that logic doesn't buy you much when it operates on false
data, gathered based on preconceived and erroneous assumptions - like
yours.
>: We both agree that the above statement p is neither true or false: The
>: statement itself is always a lie.
>: So "true" or "false" isn't enough to describe statement p.
>: We need something else: A 'liars-statement' in this case.
>:
>: So now we have true/false/liar as values to assign to a statement.
>
>Only to statements that were designed to be a logical fallacy.
Nope.
>: Add to that 'unknown', and you have your fourth, as in:
>: statement q: "excactly 5 years from now it will rain on Gabriel's head."
>: I think we both agree that we simply don't know (now!) if statement q is
>: correct.
>
>But it doesn't change the fact that we CANNOT say it will be BOTH
>TRUE AND FALSE at the same time when it happens,
Of course you can. You could also say it is "neither". The world
doesn't operate according to your neat little boxes.
>Aristotle could not have defined logic so that it's
>suddenly possible to say "It rained and did not rain on my head
>at this exact moment in time"
Why not?
>No one could define logic to work that way.
Of course they could. It would lead to different results than
standard Aristotelian logic, but so what?
>It's either true that it rained on a person's head at a
>moment in time, or it's false.
That is an assumption you are making.
>That's the point. it can't be both
>true and false at the exact same moment in time using the exact
>same definition.
Of course it can. Simple: I define it to be possible to be raining
and not raining at the same time. Voila!
>: And then even more (see six-valued logic link I posted for details. I
>: cannot explain it very well in here.)
>:
>: The point I want to make to you is this: We can observe an increased
>: insight in logic.
>: We started with 2 (true/false), but after some
>: philosophers/scientists/logicians/mathematicians thought about it a
>: little better we find more nuances.
>
>There are no nuances to things that are not logical fallacies,
There is nuance to EVERYTHING expressed in the language of human
beings.
That is why mathematicians invented special mathematical language for
logic, so they could avoid the problem of human language and limit the
problems to the subset of language wherein they could control all the
rules.
And even within that limited language, there are still sentences that
cannot be clearly assigned a true/false value.
>: That clearly shows that logic is a human concept.
>
>Not so. If that's true, then according to you it's possible for
>it to rain on my head, and not rain on my head at the exact same
>moment in time, which is false.
It is quite possible, because the words "rain", "head", and "exact
same time" all have "nuance".
gabriel
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
: On 7 Nov, 13:40, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 00:06:48 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
: >
: > <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
: >
: > : On 4 Oct, 13:33, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > :
: > : > No, the source of logic is God - the God of Abraham, Isaac and
: > : > Jacob - which is a Christian world view.
: > :
: > : Tell me now, where in the Bible does it say that God is the source of
: > : logic?
: >
: > It doesn't. But since God clearly is logical, it's only natural
: > to assume these laws came from Him. It makes sense to consider He
: > created it along with everything else.
:
: So you admit that there is nothing in the Bible that says that God is
: the source of logic, and yet you insist without evidence that God is
: logical, perhaps you can explain how you can reach such a conclusion.
I said there's nothing in the Bible that literally says what
you're requesting. That doesn't mean, which you wish to imply,
that God is not the source of logic. God is clearly the source of
logic as witnessed by his glorious creation of the earth, life
and the universe, and keeping it all intact.
No, there's no literal statement in the Bible that says "God is
the source of logic".
Genesis 1:1 KJV
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
John 1:1-3 KJV
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing
made that was made.
But in a world of "nothing created everything" it makes no sense
that logic just happened to be created by natural chance - the
"nothing created everything" cannot account for logic - the
Christian world-view does account for it, and they borrow from
the Christian world-view to make science even possible.
And the fact that, for statements that are either true or false,
no one can claim that such a true or false statement can be both
true and false at the same time proves mankind didn't invent
logic either. Mankind could not decide to say "a statement that's
either true or false can be both true and false at the same
time". This was a truth since the beginning that mankind only
eventually discovered and expounded upon.
Thanks for posting.
: >
: > In the world view of "nothing created everything" and "life by
Bob LeChevalier
>: So you admit that there is nothing in the Bible that says that God is
>: the source of logic, and yet you insist without evidence that God is
>: logical, perhaps you can explain how you can reach such a conclusion.
>
>I said there's nothing in the Bible that literally says what
>you're requesting. That doesn't mean, which you wish to imply,
>that God is not the source of logic. God is clearly the source of
>logic
No, He isn't.
>as witnessed by his glorious creation of the earth, life
>and the universe, and keeping it all intact.
None of which has the slightest thing to do with logic.
>But in a world of "nothing created everything" it makes no sense
>that logic just happened to be created
Logic wasn't "created".
>cannot account for logic
It doesn't need to be accounted for.
>the Christian world-view does account for it,
The Christian world-view accounts for nothing.
>And the fact that, for statements that are either true or false,
>no one can claim that such a true or false statement can be both
>true and false at the same time proves mankind didn't invent
>logic either.
It proves no such thing. You fail your logic test by claiming it.
>Mankind could not decide to say "a statement that's
>either true or false can be both true and false at the same
>time".
"Mankind" doesn't decide things or say things. Individuals do both.
>This was a truth since the beginning that mankind only
>eventually discovered and expounded upon.
No. They were axioms that were chosen, because they "worked" (i.e.
were useful).
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:33:50 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
[snip]
: >That you try to
: >bring into this fuzzy logic where things are now only 80% true
: >and so on shows you have no intention of admitting the obvious:
: >that when things are either true or not true,
:
: which is rarely the case.
When we're dealing with specific definitions, it's the case the
vast majority of the time that statements will either be assigned
true or false based on that current definition.
:
: The world doesn't choose to limit itself to fit your procrustean bed
: of formal 2-value logic.
:
: Human language isn't conveniently suited to fit logic.
Who's talking about human language? Logic exists, where things
are either true or false based on specific definitions at that
time, which is the point. Any statement that can be assigned a
truth value of true or false based on specific definitions cannot
be both true and false at the same time by those same
definitions. No one invented that - no one could decide that they
want statements that are either true or false based on specific
definitions to be both true and false at the same time based on
those same definitions. To claim otherwise is to be ignorant or
dishonest.
: Something I
: know considerably better than you after spending 20-odd years
: specifically researching the topic.
All the research in the world won't allow you to define logic so
that something that can be assigned a truth value of true and
false based on specific definitions can be both true and false at
the same time based on specific definitions.
Thanks for posting.
:
: lojbab
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >: Clear.
: >: But here is the problem: Despite all your objections I still ask you to
: >: answer my question:
: >: statement p: "This statement is not true."
: >: Is that question true or false?
: >:
: >: I AM aware of the problem with that statement, no need to repeat that or
: >: explain it to me. (I posted it myself, remember?)
: >: I merely used it as an example to show you that your approach for
: >: bi-valued logic only gets you so far.
: >
: >No, what you present is an example where a statement CANNOT be
: >assigned a true/false value - a logical fallacy, which you claim
: >to be aware of.
:
: It is NOT a logical fallacy.
Not true.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox
: It is everyday life, where MOST
: statements cannot be assigned a true/false value.
Give ten statements from "everyday life" that cannot be assigned
a truth value of true or false based on specific definitions.
:
: >The debate is about statements that CAN be assigned a boolean
Bob LeChevalier
>On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 04:59:15 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: >On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:33:50 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>[snip]
>: >That you try to
>: >bring into this fuzzy logic where things are now only 80% true
>: >and so on shows you have no intention of admitting the obvious:
>: >that when things are either true or not true,
>:
>: which is rarely the case.
>
>When we're dealing with specific definitions, it's the case the
>vast majority of the time that statements will either be assigned
>true or false based on that current definition.
A lot of words, signifying nothing.
>: The world doesn't choose to limit itself to fit your procrustean bed
>: of formal 2-value logic.
>:
>: Human language isn't conveniently suited to fit logic.
>
>Who's talking about human language?
You are talking IN human language. To avoid the problems of logic and
human language, you have to go to mathematical language, which is
still a human-invented language, but one designed to handle logic.
In other words, it is impossible to discuss logic or use logic, except
by using that which humans invented.
>Logic exists
Because human beings made it exist, and devised rules for using it.
>where things
>are either true or false based on specific definitions at that
>time, which is the point.
You have no point.
>Any statement that can be assigned a
>truth value of true or false based on specific definitions cannot
>be both true and false at the same time by those same
>definitions.
But we aren't limited to your definitions. This is human language,
remember?
>No one invented that
Of course they did. All definitions were invented by humans, since
they are human words that are being defined.
>- no one could decide that they
>want statements that are either true or false based on specific
>definitions to be both true and false at the same time based on
>those same definitions. To claim otherwise is to be ignorant or
>dishonest.
No. Merely iconoclastic - a very human trait.
>: Something I
>: know considerably better than you after spending 20-odd years
>: specifically researching the topic.
>
>All the research in the world won't allow you to define logic so
>that something that can be assigned a truth value of true and
>false based on specific definitions can be both true and false at
>the same time based on specific definitions.
Sorry, but you are wrong. Among other things, I can use a specific
definition of "true" that includes things that are sometimes false.
AND YOUR OPINION IS UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to whether I can do so. Such a
definition may make traditional logic less useful, but man is not a
slave to logic, so that isn't generally a problem.
Bob LeChevalier
>Give ten statements from "everyday life" that cannot be assigned
>a truth value of true or false based on specific definitions.
There are plenty of definitions of "love" that prevent one from
assigning a truth value to "I love you". The same is true for all
human emotions, and more relevantly, all matters of faith.
Thus "There is a God" cannot be assigned a truth value, if the
definition of "true" requires the production of independently
reproducible evidence. That startement is neither true nor false,
without first choosing it (or its equivalent) as a
postulate/assumption.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Give ten statements from "everyday life" that cannot be assigned
>>a truth value of true or false based on specific definitions.
>
>There are plenty of definitions of "love" that prevent one from
>assigning a truth value to "I love you". The same is true for all
>human emotions, and more relevantly, all matters of faith.
>
>Thus "There is a God" cannot be assigned a truth value, if the
>definition of "true" requires the production of independently
>reproducible evidence. That startement is neither true nor false,
>without first choosing it (or its equivalent) as a
>postulate/assumption.
That is true, but it is also true that a specific, well-defined god can
be shown not to exist as described.
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
I notice you deleted what you were not truthful about:
Devils Advocaat
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:01:13 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
>
> <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> : >Give ten statements from "everyday life" that cannot be assigned
> : >a truth value of true or false based on specific definitions.
> :
> : There are plenty of definitions of "love" that prevent one from
> : assigning a truth value to "I love you". The same is true for all
> : human emotions, and more relevantly, all matters of faith.
> :
> : Thus "There is a God" cannot be assigned a truth value, if the
> : definition of "true" requires the production of independently
> : reproducible evidence. That startement is neither true nor false,
> : without first choosing it (or its equivalent) as a
> : postulate/assumption.
> :
> : lojbab
> : ---
> : Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
> : loj...@lojban.org Lojban languagewww.lojban.org
>
> I notice you deleted what you were not truthful about:
>
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 19:13:54 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
>
> <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> : >: Clear.
> : >: But here is the problem: Despite all your objections I still ask you to
> : >: answer my question:
> : >: statement p: "This statement is not true."
> : >: Is that question true or false?
> : >:
> : >: I AM aware of the problem with that statement, no need to repeat that or
> : >: explain it to me. (I posted it myself, remember?)
> : >: I merely used it as an example to show you that your approach for
> : >: bi-valued logic only gets you so far.
> : >
> : >No, what you present is an example where a statement CANNOT be
> : >assigned a true/false value - a logical fallacy, which you claim
> : >to be aware of.
> :
> : It is NOT a logical fallacy.
>
> Not true.
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox
So how about you tell everyone how a paradox can be a logical fallacy?
Bob LeChevalier
Thanks for the support.
The word "fallacy" does not even appear in the cited page.
At the end, they give 5 different analyses of the liars paradox:
Tarski says that it is a phenomenon of particular kinds of languages,
and hence dependent on language and not on logic.
Prior says that there is nothing paradoxical.
Kripke says that whether there is a paradox is contingent.
Barwise and Etchemendy say that the sentence is ambiguous.
Priest says that the sentence is *both true and false*, leading to
"dialetheism" and "paraconsistent logics" - i.e. logics in which a
statement need not be assigned either a true or a false value -
precisely the sort of thing you claimed didn't exist.
None of those say that it is a fallacy. All of them deal with the
question of whether it can be assigned a true/false value, and come up
with different answers which is the same as coming up with no answer
at all for someone like you who likes to pretend that logic is some
sort of immutable ideal that always produces unambiguous Truth.
You lose, loser.
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:01:13 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
: ><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: >: >No, what you present is an example where a statement CANNOT be
: >: >assigned a true/false value - a logical fallacy, which you claim
: >: >to be aware of.
: >:
: >: It is NOT a logical fallacy.
: >
: >Not true.
: >en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox
:
: Thanks for the support.
:
: The word "fallacy" does not even appear in the cited page.
Doesn't have to, Bob, unless the reader doesn't know basic
vocabulary.
Look up the word "paradox" - here: let me help you:
"An assertion that is essentially self-contradictory, though
based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises."
Logic is about assertions, contradictions, deductions. A paradox
has to do with someone trying to fit logic in a misleading way,
Bob. If that's not enough for you (and I'm almost sure it won't
be, since your only goal on any post seems to be to just keep
kicking up smoke until the truth gets covered up). Look up
fallacy: paradox is a synonym, Bob.
"This statement is false" is a paradox - a logical fallacy. It
can't be assigned a truth value of true or false.
But when something can be assigned a truth value based on a
specific definition, then using that very definition, a statement
cannot be both true and false at the same time, Bob. You still
haven't provided a single case where this is possible. You
instead provide multiple definitions of one word - but as I keep
telling you: pick ONE of those definitions, stick with it, and
then a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time
based on that specific definition. A basic truth of the universe
before any human being ever uncovered that universal truth.
:
: At the end, they give 5 different analyses of the liars paradox:
: Tarski says that it is a phenomenon of particular kinds of languages,
: and hence dependent on language and not on logic.
: Prior says that there is nothing paradoxical.
: Kripke says that whether there is a paradox is contingent.
: Barwise and Etchemendy say that the sentence is ambiguous.
: Priest says that the sentence is *both true and false*, leading to
: "dialetheism" and "paraconsistent logics" - i.e. logics in which a
: statement need not be assigned either a true or a false value -
: precisely the sort of thing you claimed didn't exist.
:
: None of those say that it is a fallacy. All of them deal with the
: question of whether it can be assigned a true/false value, and come up
: with different answers which is the same as coming up with no answer
: at all for someone like you who likes to pretend that logic is some
: sort of immutable ideal that always produces unambiguous Truth.
:
: You lose, loser.
Sorry you have so much hatred, Bob. :-(
:
: lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:06:54 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: >On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:01:13 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
>: ><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>: >: >No, what you present is an example where a statement CANNOT be
>: >: >assigned a true/false value - a logical fallacy, which you claim
>: >: >to be aware of.
>: >:
>: >: It is NOT a logical fallacy.
>: >
>: >Not true.
>: >en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox
>:
>: Thanks for the support.
>:
>: The word "fallacy" does not even appear in the cited page.
>
>Doesn't have to, Bob, unless the reader doesn't know basic
>vocabulary.
>Look up the word "paradox" - here: let me help you:
>"An assertion that is essentially self-contradictory, though
>based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises."
A paradox is not a fallacy.
>Logic is about assertions, contradictions, deductions.
Sometimes.
>A paradox has to do with someone trying to fit logic in a misleading way,
No it doesn't. It has to do with the flaws in that inherently exist
in any logical system. There is no "misleading" involved.
>Bob. If that's not enough for you
It is enough for me to know that you again are clueless confusing two
unrelated concepts.
Logical fallacies occur when someone violates the rules of logic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_fallacy
Paradoxes occur when the rules of logic themselves fail, by producing
self-contradictory results.
(Actually, most fallacies of argumentation do not in fact violate the
rules of logic, but rather the rules of argument. Some of these are
called "logic fallacies", but are really violating the rules of
language rather than the rules of logic.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
>(and I'm almost sure it won't
>be, since your only goal on any post seems to be to just keep
>kicking up smoke until the truth gets covered up).
You wouldn't know any "truth" if it bit you on the behind.
>Look up fallacy: paradox is a synonym, Bob.
No.
Main Entry: fal�la�cy
1 a obsolete : guile, trickery b : deceptive appearance : deception
2 a : a false or mistaken idea <popular fallacies> b : erroneous
character : erroneousness
3 : an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference
no "paradox" in there.
Main Entry: par�a�dox
1 : a tenet contrary to received opinion
2 a : a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common
sense and yet is perhaps true b : a self-contradictory statement that
at first seems true c : an argument that apparently derives
self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable
premises
3 : one (as a person, situation, or action) having seemingly
contradictory qualities or phases
no "fallacy" in there
They are NOT synonyms.
>"This statement is false" is a paradox
Yes.
>- a logical fallacy.
No.
>It can't be assigned a truth value of true or false.
Correct.
>But when something can be assigned a truth value based on a
>specific definition, then using that very definition, a statement
>cannot be both true and false at the same time, Bob.
You appear to be trying to define your way out of your problem. I
don't accept your definition.
>You instead provide multiple definitions of one word
Because in fact that is the way languages work.
>but as I keep telling you: pick ONE of those definitions,
I am not required to do so.
>stick with it,
Why should I?
>A basic truth of the universe before any human being ever uncovered that universal truth.
Nonsense. Before there were human beings, there was no language, and
there were no definitions, so your conditions could not have been met.
>: At the end, they give 5 different analyses of the liars paradox:
>: Tarski says that it is a phenomenon of particular kinds of languages,
>: and hence dependent on language and not on logic.
>: Prior says that there is nothing paradoxical.
>: Kripke says that whether there is a paradox is contingent.
>: Barwise and Etchemendy say that the sentence is ambiguous.
>: Priest says that the sentence is *both true and false*, leading to
>: "dialetheism" and "paraconsistent logics" - i.e. logics in which a
>: statement need not be assigned either a true or a false value -
>: precisely the sort of thing you claimed didn't exist.
>:
>: None of those say that it is a fallacy. All of them deal with the
>: question of whether it can be assigned a true/false value, and come up
>: with different answers which is the same as coming up with no answer
>: at all for someone like you who likes to pretend that logic is some
>: sort of immutable ideal that always produces unambiguous Truth.
>:
>: You lose, loser.
>
>Sorry you have so much hatred, Bob. :-(
I think that the better word is "disgust", at ignorant assholes like
you abusing the words "logic" and "science".
Juan M
course I took as an undergrad. It was called introduction to logic.
The link below is a treasure house of common logical fallacies.
It's worth checking out.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/