Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

FFT*: Charles unmasks the anti-ID trollish tactic of attacking God, Christian values and worldview themes

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a current thread on SJW invasions in engineering education,  in which yet another anti-ID commenter crosses over into troll territory, Charles does a very important worldviews and cultural agendas dissection. One, that is well worth headlining as *food for thought (as opposed to a point by point across-the-board endorsement):

Charles, 51>>The point of the original post was that Engineering was being contaminated with Social Justice Warrior values & viewpoints. As any engineer knows, what makes engineering “Engineering” is the rigorous adherence to physical reality, analysis, and testing to design something that is reliably fit for purpose. As the author’s article at American Conservative elaborates, Prof. Riley’s SJW viewpoint is the antithesis of sound Engineering. kairosfocus summarized this point with his comment that:

“Bridges gotta stand up under load.”

[Troll X’s]  snide and dismissive comment that

”How’s that [bridges needing to stand up under load] working out for ID?”

juxtaposed civil engineering with ID, impugning that ID was not Engineering. That is a fallacious comparison on several levels, not least of which is Engineering’s maturity born of hundreds of years of applied science, advancing technology, and development of best practices, contrasted with ID in its relative infancy, as well as engineering being all about “how to design” versus ID which endeavors to reduce to practice the “recognition of design”.

Implicit in [Troll X’s] comment is the presumption that evolution (or materialism or atheism) has a laudable track record over ID similar to engineering. As if to say “evolution” is a successful, testable, reliable theory like “engineering”, whereas ID is an engineering failure.

But evolution has no such track record of theoretical success. Modern evolution doesn’t even have a theory that makes testable predictions, and moreover, all of Darwinian evolution’s predictions (such as transition forms will be found in the geologic record)) have all failed, which I likened to engineering failures in my response to [Troll X]:

As compared to Darwinian Evolution’s collapsed bridges, toppled buildings, crashed airplanes and lack of repeatable, testable theory?

john_a_designer then affirms that [Troll X] hadn’t thought through the implications of his atheism, namely that atheism is bankrupt and contributes nothing intellectually, summed up as

“Haven’t we been told that atheism is “just disbelief”?”

Indeed.

At which point, I elaborated that while atheists claim they “just disbelieve”, atheists are not content with just disbelieving. That in fact, atheists fear and worry they are wrong as evidenced by the effort they put out to convince “believers” that there is no evidence for their belief in God or Jesus Christ.

When someone “just disbelieves” there is little or no concern attached to the disbelief. I gave the example of disbelieving in a flat earth. When someone argues the earth is flat, the atheist might criticize that belief and show a space station picture of our spherical green, blue and white “marble”, but they don’t define themselves by their disbelief – they don’t call themselves “aflatearthers”, they don’t write volumes on the philosophy of aflatearthism, they don’t dedicate websites to flatearth skepticism, they don’t spend countless man-years holding flatearthers up to ridicule. No. They shrug, and move on.

As wrong headed as flatearthers are, why don’t disbelievers define themselves as “aflatearthers” and lobby for flatearth beliefs to be eliminated from society? Because they don’t care, because they have a confidence born of evidence and experience that the earth is round, and flatearth arguments just don’t matter.

But atheists define themselves as A-Theists – against, without, absent, sans, theism. They invariably in social or political gatherings are self-compelled to declare, to signal, their atheistic world view and how it is self-evident to be intellectually superior over Christians in specific and over religionists in general (cowards that they are, they rarely take specific exception with Muslims or Islam). And atheists write volumes about their self-labeled viewpoint, they fill libraries, they write textbooks, they lobby legislatures, they put signs on buses, all to advance their self-defined atheistic world view. They are very concerned and discontent about their disbelief.

Why?

Because they are intellectually threatened. Because “The Enlightenment” and atheism’s ascendancy is over. Back in the day, when we didn’t know about the Big Bang, when we didn’t know how the universe was fine-tuned for our life, when we didn’t know how exquisitely mechanized are cellular functions, when we didn’t know that DNA and RNA were actually huge complex information programs densely encoded in precisely folded chemical molecules that have no natural tendency to otherwise so organize themselves (let alone replicate and error correct), and then there is the little matter of human consciousness. Back then being an atheist was easy, almost automatic. It was easy to say “random chance did it” – but that was an ignorant and arrogant presumption.

Today, the materialist, the atheist, has no answer for any of that. They have a multitude of speculations, yes, but no engineering-like understanding or scientific theories that make testable predictions. Evolutionary “theory” in all its claims (setting aside its failures) has nothing like our level of understanding of relativity, quantum mechanics, chemistry, or information theory. In fact the scientists who are expert in those subjects [—> will often] acknowledge that “chance” could not have begun our fine-tuned universe or life.

The modern atheist is forced into special pleading for a multi-verse, that free-will is imaginary and then piggyback on Christian morality as they have no basis in their own materialism to justify good or evil other than personal preference in any particular situation. About all of which, they could be complacent if it weren’t for Christian theists.

While the atheist has no defense against the failure of science to prove a multiverse or that life arose from inert chemicals, the Christian has an affirmative argument for what the atheist can’t prove. The Bible records that God made the Heavens and Earth, ex nihilo (the Big Bang), created life with consciousness and morality, and gave us free will to love and obey God, or not. Only the Christian is so audacious as to confront atheism directly.

Hence the atheist or materialist drive to remove Christian prayer from schools, thought from universities, and gatherings from public places. And the atheist was not content to merely suppress Christian viewpoints, but now seeks to impose atheist behavior on Christians; Christians must bake cakes for homosexual weddings, Christian chaplains must teach Islam, Christian schools must hire atheists and allow them to teach “diversity”. What the atheist can not achieve by intellectual persuasion, they seek to impose by legislation and force of confiscation and imprisonment.

All the foregoing while atheists cloak themselves in a false morality that they hijacked from aspects of Christianity. Atheists talk of being opposed to murder, except when Muslims murder homosexuals and then it’s abject silence. Atheists talk of being for equal rights for women, except unborn women or Muslim women. Atheists talk of doing good for mankind, but atheists don’t start hospitals, didn’t start universities (like Harvard or Princeton), and you don’t see atheists organizing charities or feeding the homeless. [–> NB: There are exceptions to this, we don’t have to endorse every claim to think something is worth headlining.]

The atheist argues that religious views have no justification in society’s laws, yet declaring bankruptcy has its roots in Judeo “jubilee” forgiveness of debt and servitude, marriage is a Judeo Christian sacrament, and the legal prohibitions on murder, theft, and lying all are millennia’s old Judeo-Christian teachings.

To Christian arguments against the atheist, the atheist in variably responds with a) “science will some day prove _____” and b) “there is no evidence for God (and the Bible doesn’t count as evidence)”

The problem for the atheist is that a) science is further away than ever of proving “chance” underlay the big bang and our information-based life. In fact, information may also underlie the laws of physics and the hence the fine-tuned universe in which we live, and b) there is evidence for the existence of God, some of it logical, philosophical arguments, some of it forensic proofs.

And now we come to the atheists’ discomfort with their own disbelief. So, not only is materialistic evolution a theoretical failure and scientific near impossibility, the atheist has no alternative proven scientific explanation for what the Bible plainly declares were creative acts of God. The atheist is forced to borrow and impose biblical concepts just to maintain a civil society (while banning Christian beliefs the atheist dislikes). Lastly the atheist is further confronted with evidence for God’s existence and that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior. That forensic evidence is fulfilled biblical prophecy in which God supernaturally declares to Daniel several hundred years in advance that the Messiah would appear, and forensic evidence further shows that prophecy to have been fulfilled by Jesus Christ.>>

Let’s “embed” a highly relevant video that we need to be reminded of:

[vimeo 17960119]

Food for thought, let us ponder and let us discuss responsibly, noting that we are not here endorsing every point or claim but rather think it is well worth pondering together. END

Comments
JDK, retroactive laws is precisely the direct implication of what you have put up. I start from that, and point onward: just what is it that you are enabling collectively, and where will it end if unchecked? Good night, KFkairosfocus
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT
PPS: As this is -- just coincidentally! -- happening on Mother's Day, let me put up some food for thought reading.kairosfocus
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT
re 421 #2: I'm not aware that anyone in this discussion has suggested any retroactive laws #3: I'm not aware that anyone in this discussion has suggested radical, violent revolution I haven't even taken any position on the issue: I've been discussing the situation from the metaview of the role the definition of murder plays in the discussion. kf writes,
So, the answer is reformation fired by moral truth and led with prudent responsibility.
I agree with this. My own thoughts (which go beyond the discussion about logic that I've been engaged in) is that there is quite a few prudent and moral actions that could be done that would reduce the number of abortions. I have no idea what "snide dismissal" kf is talking about.jdk
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT
PS: Let me ask, just what is it that is being killed in the womb? A little blob of parasitical tissue? Or, a human being in the earliest and most vulnerable stages of his or her life, by leading millions of women to do an utterly unnatural thing, destroy their children? And if your answer is a blob (or what is tantamount to same), kindly explain what remains as a matter of principle to turn back the slide over the cliff from abortion, to infanticide to "voluntary" euthanasia and onward to compulsory mass slaughter of those the power elites and their dupes deem Lebensunwertes Leben -- as Schaeffer and Koop warned us 44 years ago now. And, as is already taking place around us as the moral foundations of our civilisation crumble as its Judaeo-Christian core is ever more scapegoated, stigmatised, despised, denigrated, demonised and discarded.kairosfocus
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
Folks, Predictably, a loaded tangent. 1: Murder implies knowing intent, and of course neatly side-stepped is the little matter of generations and billions spent on suppressing recognition of the reality of what is being done to posterity in the womb. As in, deliberately induced mass delusion. 2: The little matter of the difference between a moral premise and an established law, and the terrible danger of retroactive law is ducked. No sane state will set up retroactive laws that would put millions at exposure to a capital crime, and this is so well known that the argument being advocated previously was simply a dishonest exercise in toxic rhetoric. It was utterly unsound by way of failing to deal with key material realities. 3: Likewise, the highly relevant issue of reformation vs radical revolution and where they end is studiously side-stepped. Radical revolutions typically end in tyranny and rivers of blood, the precise opposite of what any sane polity will want. And that is precisely what the nonsensical, toxic, holocaust-enabling suggestion would require. 4: Repeatedly, I adverted to such factors by way of a highly material historical exemplar, Wilberforce. The slave trade was rooted in kidnapping and piracy, with traders involved in a horror whereby the death toll just from their point of purchase was fully at holocaust levels. So, why didn't the independently wealthy Wilberforce commission privateers and directly attack the wicked trade? 5: because that would have put him also in the wrong. Even before bringing down the Royal Navy on his head. 6: Instead, what he actually did led to the Royal Navy standing on patrol off W Africa (at great but enthusiastically supported expense) for a full century, as well as setting up abolition in the British Empire and far beyond. 7: Of course, all of this was repeatedly pointed out but was studiously ignored, as the truth or a fair result was not the object. Providing talking points to enable continued holocaust was. I hope you are proud of yourselves. 8: Instead of such, Wilberforce, his circle, men like Equiano (a former slave who bought his freedom here in MNI in 1766) and the Evangelicals led a reformation that started with slavery and went on through the Victorian reformations. Wilberforce himself was direct leader or sponsor of sixty-nine other reform movements beyond the anti slavery movement. 9: So, the answer is reformation fired by moral truth and led with prudent responsibility. Just what it is now utterly plain from the above, that you would turn into an object of snide dismissal. FOR SHAME! KFkairosfocus
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
Yes, I think Armand Jack's point is that if one considers abortion murder (which involves one's definition of murder) the logical conclusion is that one who aborts should be charged with murder. Conversely, the many people who support existing laws about abortion do not consider abortion murder (and of course neither does the law.) Again, it is the definition of murder which is the issue, which is much more than a purely logical issue.jdk
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT
I may be the only one on this blog but elsewhere is a different story BTW I agree with jdk's post at 417. Issue becomes definition of a murder http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article125859554.htmlEugen
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT
hammaspeikko and jdk: I agree with your conclusions. Even those on this blog who claim to live and die by the rules of logic, would not agree to the logical conclusion of the anti abortion argument which is that women having abortions should be charged with murder. (Eugen seems to be the only one).Pindi
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
to Eugen at 415: Without getting involved in the actual discussion about abortion itself, I'd like to point out that this is a good example of another aspect of using logic as a tool to discuss real world situations. I assume that we agree with the conditional, "if one murders, they should be charged with a crime". The question then becomes wrapped up with the definition of murder, as there are a number of ways in which one can kill someone and have it not be considered murder, such as self-defense and in a war. So the meta-issue here is the role of definitions, as they are beginning elements in chains of logical thought. Often definitions include, explicitly or implicitly, assumptions that play a role in further logical arguments: assumptions which may be open to empirical investigation, or may reflect judgments and choices about values and other normative commitments. Logic itself can't give us a definition: that is something people need to agree on if they want to build a logical chain of argument with other people.jdk
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT
Eugen:
If someone commits a murder he should be charged, I don’t see a problem with that.
OK, almost nobody would support murder charges against a woman who has an abortion.hammaspeikko
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
If someone commits a murder he should be charged, I don't see a problem with that.Eugen
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
JDK, I agree. Logic is only one half of the issue. Although Armand Jacks' logic was sound, nobody would support murder charges against a woman who has an abortion. At times we simply have to be honest with ourselves and admit that our opinion is not logically consistent but that we refuse to impose the consequences that logic would dictate.hammaspeikko
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
I think the issue is the one I brought up in 398. Arguments involve both logic and statements about the world, including about people's values, emotions, informed conclusions, worldview assumptions, etc. One should be logical in structuring one's statements and the connections between them, but logic itself doesn't determine whether those statements about the world are true, or not.jdk
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT
Logic is a double edged sword. When it supports our opinion, we wield it like a sword. When it doesn't, we twist ourselves in a knot in attempts to Justify our positions rather than change our position. I good example is the argument made by the recently departed Armand Jacks about abortion and premeditated murder. His logic was irrefutable, yet many here went through great efforts to try.hammaspeikko
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
I vaguely remember that, and may even have been involved. In typical fashion, the discussion was rather combative, but I think the issue was not about whether the laws of logic are correct, but rather about some of the differences between logic as a formal system and applying logic to the real world. The same issue comes up when discussing math (which is also a logical system.)jdk
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT
I remember discussion of few years ago when some atheists argued against laws of logic. I can't remember their names. That was an eye opener for me.Eugen
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT
KF,
DS, the message I am getting from continued side-tracks (notice, this is not the claimed substantial issue) and half-stories is that my concern about loaded questions is justified. I have already indicated that I will try to be reasonably and responsibly clear bearing in mind a very hostile general environment. Remember, part of what I have to deal with is stalking behaviour by agit prop activists who from some of their games would see my family starve if they could. KF
I'm sorry to hear of these stalking problems. That being said, I don't see what effect it could have on discussions of these rather dry, academic matters of logic such as the order of quantifiers. In any case, I'm just making some suggestions which I think could improve the quality of dialog here. Strictly my 2 cents.daveS
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
JDK, it is good that we start from key common ground on the import of distinct identity. As for deep rooted, multifaceted incoherence of evo mat scientism, that is directly tied to LNC. It is also the case that an irretrievably incoherent scheme of thought is necessarily false, so I must disagree, the core laws do in fact also speak to truth; as proof by reduction of alternative to absurdity routinely applies. I agree, if we focus on the issues on the merits and deal with that, it would make for a better discussion. Unfortunately, circumstances in today's atmosphere, too often are not like that, as I just had to point out. When uninvolved family have been stalked, there is cyber-bullying, where slander has been used and where there have been attempts to "box bread out of your mouth" the matters at stake take on a very different colour. I doubt you knew that, but such is part of the background context for even innocuous-seeming exchanges here at UD. KFkairosfocus
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
ES Science is simply incapable of proving the reality of God; it can't even prove the laws of thermodynamics beyond, strictly, provisional inference to best explanation. That's not even a criminal law court standard proof. For that matter, post Godel, Math has in it a lot more faith than many are willing to admit, and that seemed to be a slice of the difference of views on the significance of Euler's result that 0 = 1 + e^i*pi as an index of broad and deep coherence. In any case the real "proof" of God on offer is life-transforming encounter, with millions of cases in point. That such has nil effect on the more determined skeptics already speaks volumes. KFkairosfocus
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
Hi kf. I fully acknowledge the validity of the three primary laws of logic: the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle. I'm not sure how you jumped from there to "evolutionary materialist scientism", but that doesn't apply to me. My point to Eugen was simply that when people use logic to argue, logic is a tool to correctly manipulate statements about the world, but whether those statements are true or not goes beyond the mere use of logic. Arguing for a position involves more than just correctly using logic, although of course logic must be used. My other point was that there are ways to effectively have a civil and productive conversation with others that goes beyond both logic and argument, and involves how to treat people so that there is benefit to everyone, irrespective of their perhaps competing positions.jdk
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
DS, the message I am getting from continued side-tracks (notice, this is not the claimed substantial issue) and half-stories is that my concern about loaded questions is justified. I have already indicated that I will try to be reasonably and responsibly clear bearing in mind a very hostile general environment. Remember, part of what I have to deal with is stalking behaviour by agit prop activists who from some of their games would see my family starve if they could. KFkairosfocus
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
KF,
DS, clarity is a two-way street, especially when there are cases where we deal with complex unity, or where worldview commitments or pre-existing views colour concepts; the mere existence of distinct identity (of which LOI, LNC and LEM are corollaries) does not settle such.
Of course. If anyone thinks I am unclear about some point, I expect them to hold my feet to the fire as well.
For example, ponder on the exchanges on traversal of endlessness in steps across the past 18 months or so. For further instance, we have had a recent discussion on what omniscience means, where there are conceptual issues. I suspect Grudem’s principle may have some’at to teach us all: “[i]n systematic theology, summaries of biblical teachings must be worded precisely to guard against misunderstandings and to exclude false teachings.” [Systematic Theology, Zondervan (1994), p. 24.] KF
Yes, we should strive to word our posts precisely if we wish to be understood. That's partly why I made my suggestion above.
PPS: It is noteworthy that serious works in systematic theology seem to start at about 1,000 pp, and go up by an order of magnitude from there. Grudem’s 1,000 pp work is an introductory one. the Nicene Creed fits into a couple of pp, and 1 Cor 15:1 – 20 does so also, though that would require several more pp of key texts to broaden out. My favourite general survey Russian Physics books seem to be structured around multi-volume works of 400 pp per. And I think a good first serious Electronics text (e.g. my 4th edn Boylestad and Nashelsky opr the ARRL handbook) would weigh in at about 1,000 – 1,500 pp also. Not everything will fit into a nutshell.
The yes/no questions I have in mind are much more straightforward. You will recall an exchange in which I asked whether some statement of yours had the form ∀n∃x P(x, n), ∃x∀n P(x, n), or something else. Literally a multiple choice question, which could be answered in a few words. By two applications of the LEM, exactly one of the above three options is true, but I don't know that we ever got an unequivocal answer.daveS
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
jdk No problem. My position is there is no and should not ever be a scientific proof of God's existence because it is His will that we choose to believe in Him absolutely freely without any necessity of a mathematical corollary. He says in the book of Wisdom: Son, give my your heart. However, once you believe, the world becomes like 3D color whereas before it was only black and white 2D picture. Everything acquires a meaning, your life, everything, including science - it clicks into its place in the big magnificent living painting whose Author is God.EugeneS
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
DS, clarity is a two-way street, especially when there are cases where we deal with complex unity, or where worldview commitments or pre-existing views colour concepts; the mere existence of distinct identity (of which LOI, LNC and LEM are corollaries) does not settle such. For example, ponder on the exchanges on traversal of endlessness in steps across the past 18 months or so. For further instance, we have had a recent discussion on what omniscience means, where there are conceptual issues. I suspect Grudem's principle may have some'at to teach us all: “[i]n systematic theology, summaries of biblical teachings must be worded precisely to guard against misunderstandings and to exclude false teachings.” [Systematic Theology, Zondervan (1994), p. 24.] KF PS: The issue of complex, loaded questions is unfortunately dominant over cases where simple issues can be safely simply answered y/n. And, there is the possibility of after- the- fact loading (twisting) by a 3rd party. Cf the Nicene, Athanasian and Apostles' creedal statements and also the Barmen declaration. PPS: It is noteworthy that serious works in systematic theology seem to start at about 1,000 pp, and go up by an order of magnitude from there. Grudem's 1,000 pp work is an introductory one. the Nicene Creed fits into a couple of pp, and 1 Cor 15:1 - 20 does so also, though that would require several more pp of key texts to broaden out. My favourite general survey Russian Physics books seem to be structured around multi-volume works of 400 pp per. And I think a good first serious Electronics text (e.g. my 4th edn Boylestad and Nashelsky opr the ARRL handbook) would weigh in at about 1,000 - 1,500 pp also. Not everything will fit into a nutshell.kairosfocus
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
JDK, in my experience at UD, there is a major problem with first principles of right reason in our day, including particularly their self-evident nature -- and let me hasten to add, the mere argument forms P =>Q, P so Q or ~Q so ~P are not what are in mind, things like A AND ~A = 0 are more like what is focal. This pattern reflects the wider decay of our civilisation. Issues usually come up over coherence (where, it is readily shown that evolutionary materialist scientism is inescapably and deeply incoherent in many ways), and I have seen problems with distinct identity also. When it comes to sufficient reason, there is a struggle with even weak forms, and on this, with issues of cause and need for adequate cause. I suspect the difference between an enabling but essential "on/off" causal factor and a sufficient cluster of factors is also problematic. Some struggle due to the common misconception that quantum physics overturns such first principles. And more, especially when it comes to broader self evident truths such as error exists, and what it implies. KF PS: WJM has aptly summed up several challenges:
If you do not assume the law of non-contradiction, you have nothing to argue about. If you do not assume the principles of sound reason, you have nothing to argue with. If logic is not assumed to be a causally independent, authoritative arbiter of true statements, there’s no reason to apply it. If you do not assume libertarian free will, you have no one to argue against. If you do not assume morality to be an objective commodity, you have no reason to argue in the first place. If you do not assume mind is primary, there is no “you” to make any argument at all.
kairosfocus
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
My bad, and I apologize - you posted right after him and I didn't pay attention to the difference in names. It's too late to edit my post, but my mistake is now clearly documented.jdk
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
jdk Eugen and EugeneS are two different people. In other words, #386 is not my comment :)EugeneS
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
EugeneS at 386 says,
OK, but if there’ll be any debates, beforehand we all have to agree to follow some basic rules like the Laws of logic. I’ve seen many discussions on UD. Atheists can have feelings and opinions but they are not proper response to arguments or logic.
The laws of logic are fairly few, and the primary one we use in arguments is "if p, then q", going on to show that p is true, and therefore concluding that q is true. However, as soon as you start to use logic in arguments, additional factors arise–ones which themselves are not part of logic–as to whether the conditional itself is true, and then whether p is true. For instance, "if it is cloudy, then it is raining" is a conditional that is not true, so pointing out that it is cloudy doesn't imply it is raining. So I really don't think that the problem is very often that people aren't following the laws of logic. Rather the problem is usually differences about what is in fact true about the world, in respect to whatever is being discussed. I think the issue that DaveS brings up is more important: rules for civil and productive discussion among people with different viewpoints. It would be an interesting project for participants here, of different persuasions, to try to develop a set of guidelines for such discussions. Added in edit: logic and argument are different things. Logic is a tool of argument, but pure logic, without established connection to true statements about the world, can't in and of itself, produce or validate a meaningful argument about the world.jdk
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
Eugen,
DaveS Question like “Did you stop beating your wife?” cannot be answered yes,no or I don’t know. It’s a trap. We expect that type of question only from dishonest people.
Yes, that's clearly a loaded question, which as I stated above, is exempt from my suggestion.daveS
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
Kairos John8:8 is beautiful. All that could be applied today. DaveS Question like "Did you stop beating your wife?" cannot be answered yes,no or I don't know. It's a trap. We expect that type of question only from dishonest people.Eugen
May 14, 2017
May
05
May
14
14
2017
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 18

Leave a Reply