“Prediction: Increasingly, logic will be seen as a covert form of theism.”
Comments
SA:
Logic points to an external standard, that evolution could not create. Evolution could not create logic by trial and error, because the entire process of trial and error depends on logic.
The scientific method depends on logic. So, science cannot test or understand logic, without using a logical process itself.
Try using a non-logical method to show how logic “emerged”.
Quite a challenge.
KFkairosfocus
July 30, 2014
July
07
Jul
30
30
2014
02:54 AM
2
02
54
AM
PDT
tee hee! As a matter of fact, I am!!!
I did make it to Gunner(Private) IInd class, mind you.... and even had the further distinction of deputising, as such for Duane Doberman, in the motor pool! I won't forgive God for that very easily.Axel
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
Axel,
Clearly you are experienced in such matters.Henry Crun
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
Henry Crun #17
Fear not, Henry. This is probably a case where ignorance is bliss. There'll always be a place for hewers of wood and drawers of water here.Axel
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
Basically, Denyse’s comment is typical of those who don’t like the implications of where logic leaves us, when applied to the evidence-evolution, old earth etc. There’s nothing profound in her comment, it’s just symbolic of her ongoing struggle against reality.
You might not have understood her Canadian humor. It's written because she likes the implications of logic.
Logic points to an external standard, that evolution could not create. Evolution could not create logic by trial and error, because the entire process of trial and error depends on logic.
The scientific method depends on logic. So, science cannot test or understand logic, without using a logical process itself.
Try using a non-logical method to show how logic "emerged".Silver Asiatic
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
The OP quote is a gem. Brilliant. I laughed at first but then the reality of that prediction became more sobering.Silver Asiatic
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
From the CatholicHerald: The Vatican has formally recognised an international association of exorcists.
These characters are called when someone is possessed by the devil. That makes sense.
If you're interested in exorcists, this book, "The Rite: The Making of a Modern Exorcist", is by a secular journalist, Matt Baglio, who researched the work of a priest who did exorcisms.
This story from Washington Post: "Priest Frees Mt. Rainier Boy Reported Held in Devil's Grip"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/features/dcmovies/exorcism1949.htm -- was the inspiration William Blatty's book (and later movie), The Exorcist. Blatty did additional research and was convinced by what he found.Silver Asiatic
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
Fallacies by the hundred, here: http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/kairosfocus
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT
HC:
Also, logic is NOT -- rpt. NOT -- a "tool."
Tools, we pick up to use and lay down when they are not the best, and we may have our choice of tool for the job: I could use a smart phone, a tablet or a PC to send this.
The metaphor is misleading in this context.
First principles of right reason are enabling, necessary criteria of rationality. As we see above and as I headlined.
They are built into the foundation and fabric of reasoned thought in such a way that they cannot be extracted, save by ripping the fabric to threads scattered by the wind.
Which, is so patently destructive that if it were to become the norm, civil society would disintegrate. Kantian reductio.
What is the case is that we make mistakes, and others, sensing an advantage, are prone to try to induce us into error. Hence, fallacies by the hundred.
And maybe the most fundamental fallacies of all are those of imagining that first principles of right reason are optional, or dubious, or are suspect(as above), or are overturned by identifiable observations (usually, misinterpreted Q-Mech observations, cf here on in the UD WACs).
Let us all agree together: first principles of right reason are inescapable, inextricably intertwined in the fabric of the foundations of reasoned thought.
They are not under test, we -- based in large part on the light they shed -- are.
KFkairosfocus
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT
Henry Crun states
Logic isn’t a religion, it’s a tool.,,,
Denyse’s comment is typical of those who don’t like the implications of where logic leaves us, when applied to the evidence-evolution, old earth etc.
But alas Mr. Crun, since you, from your materialistic premises, deny the reality of your own mind, and hence deny the reality of your own free will, you have forsaken any claim to be able to use logic as a 'tool' for your reasoning.
Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012
Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause.
By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html
"But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"
- Charles Darwin - Letter To William Graham - July 3, 1881
"Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God."
—C.S. Lewis
“It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter”.
J. B. S. Haldane ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.
Mr, Crun, you also claimed that Denyse doesn't like the 'logical' evidence for Darwinian evolution (and the evidence of a old earth).
Well Mr. Crun, much like most everybody on UD, Denyse is NOT a Young Earth Creationist, and the supposed evidence for Darwinian evolution, much like Mark Twain's premature death, has been greatly exaggerated. If you disagree, you are more than welcome to present ANY empirical evidence of unguided Darwinian processes producing just one molecular machine.
In spite of the fact of finding molecular motors permeating the simplest of bacterial life, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of even one such motor or system.
"There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject."
James Shapiro, molecular biologist, National Review, Sept. 16, 1996
The following expert doesn't even hide his very unscientific preconceived philosophical bias against intelligent design,,,
‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity,,,
Yet at the same time the same expert readily admits that neo-Darwinism has ZERO evidence for the chance and necessity of material processes producing any cellular system whatsoever,,,
,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’
Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205.
*Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA
Molecular Machines: - Michael J. Behe
Excerpt: JME is a journal that was begun specifically to deal with the topic of how evolution occurs on the molecular level. It has high scientific standards, and is edited by prominent figures in the field.,,,
In the past ten years JME has published 886 papers. Of these, 95 discussed the chemical synthesis of molecules thought to be necessary for the origin of life, 44 proposed mathematical models to improve sequence analysis, 20 concerned the evolutionary implications of current structures, and 719 were analyses of protein or polynucleotide sequences. here were zero papers discussing detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures. This is not a peculiarity of JME. No papers are to be found that discuss detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Nature, Science, the Journal of Molecular Biology or, to my knowledge, any journal whatsoever.
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm
“The response I have received from repeating Behe's claim about the evolutionary literature, which simply brings out the point being made implicitly by many others, such as Chris Dutton and so on, is that I obviously have not read the right books. There are, I am sure, evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred.” And he continues, “When I ask in which books I can find these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not, in fact, contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter anyone who knows where they exist.”
David Ray Griffin - retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology
Calling Nick Matzke's literature bluff on molecular machines - DonaldM UD blogger - April 2013
Excerpt: So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along.
Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard.
Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past.
https://uncommondescent.com/irreducible-complexity/andre-asks-an-excellent-question-regarding-dna-as-a-part-of-an-in-cell-irreducibly-complex-communication-system/#comment-453291
of related note to the fact that Darwinists have ZERO empirical evidence for Darwinian processes EVER producing a molecular machine, there are several examples that intelligence can do as such, here is one such example:
(Man-Made) DNA nanorobot – video
https://vimeo.com/36880067
Also of note, Dr. James Tour, who, in my honest opinion, currently builds the most sophisticated man-made molecular machines in the world,,,
Science & Faith — Dr. James Tour – video (At the two minute mark of the following video, you can see a nano-car that was built by Dr. James Tour’s team)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR4QhNFTtyw
,,will buy lunch for anyone who can explain to him exactly how Darwinian evolution works:
“I build molecules for a living, I can’t begin to tell you how difficult that job is. I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God."
James Tour – one of the leading nano-tech engineers in the world - Strobel, Lee (2000), The Case For Faith, p. 111
Top Ten Most Cited Chemist in the World Knows That Evolution Doesn’t Work – James Tour, Phd. – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB7t2_Ph-ck
bornagain77
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
Axel,
I'm sorry mate, but apart from the reference to Seagoon, I haven't the faintest idea what you are on about. Rush of Bloodknock to the head, perhaps?Henry Crun
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT
Here' some evidence of a poltergeist, Graham:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=enfield+poltergeist&tbm=isch&imgil=fYep-Owow4762M%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcQ_IUdQmos1u_mwHAgbztIV8zJTIi8C_Cj7a8982G_d8xhSTeuEtw%253B400%253B304%253BvwPHSEJCSBRzHM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fcryptidz.wikia.com%25252Fwiki%25252FFile%25253AEnfield-poltergeist.jpg&source=iu&usg=__82XB522quJ06Flcl-FHktcxrfaQ%3D&sa=X&ei=CIDXU7jILrPY7Abmx4HgDw&sqi=2&ved=0CD4Q9QEwBQ&biw=1280&bih=862#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=qq6og9Pj-GEorM%253A%3BYNLOTnSeWuGB4M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252F1.bp.blogspot.com%252F-fFGdN1hdDQg%252FUdx-rPdWNxI%252FAAAAAAAACtQ%252FIKRRmFDRLxQ%252Fs1600%252Fcat%252Banswers%252Bad%252B1950.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fstrangeco.blogspot.com%252F2013_07_01_archive.html%3B694%3B619
That was what I got when I tried to copy the URL from the page! Everything after the '+poltergeist' at the end of the first line was gratuitous! But, then, I have small poltergeist visits from time to time, now mostly before Holy Week.
It used to judder/freeze the TV screen, and make loud banging noises from the set. Which is strange considering they're solid-state these days. Brief prayers saw it stop. Small objects thrown, not far, but very fiercely happens in Holy Week.
That deep guttural voice the girl spoke with in one of those Googled links came over the visiting priest's loudspeaker one Sunday at the Cathedral here, also, swearing if I remember correctly.
I see the gratuity has got worse. I'd better send this in the hope you'll get it.Axel
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT
pardon typoskairosfocus
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT
HC:
Logic isn’t a religion, it’s a tool. You aren’t going to get logic gates to go off on a jihad or Crusade.
By their invidious associations (and vulgarity) ye shall know them. (On this, I suggest that there are 100+ million moaning ghosts from the past 100 years who will say, that logic gates will not go off on evolutionary materialist ideology driven totalitarian ideologies and genocides. [In short, the problem is that we can be led into great evil, not that religion is especially prone to such evil in ways that any other frame of thought capable of becoming an ideology is not.])
Of course, as was just highlighted and headlined, logic is foundaitonal to right reason, and its first principles are necessities of rasoned thought.
Which is where the big oopsie lies.
Logic gates, NANDs, NORs and neural ones alike, singly or in networks, are inherently not capable of self aware rational contemplation, the premise of reason and our first fact of conscious experience. This is because they are about chained blind cause-effect links constrained by the GIGO principle, not rational reflection. Rocks have no dreams, cf my comments here.
In fact, thought hey are called logic gates, such are not capable of actual reasoning, as cause-effect GIGO-limited bonds are not even going int eh same direction as reasoning based on insightful, rational contemplation. To confuse the two is to try to get North by going due West.
Which, unfortunately, is exactly the problem of evolutionary materialism.
Reppert puts his finger right on the spot:
. . . let us suppose that brain state A, which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [[But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [[so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.
Until you can address first principles of right reason on their own terms, and until you can ground reasoning as opposed to blindly mechanical computation, you are indeed seriously on the back foot with Holding, Garner, Croft and Daniels on top form and fresh, coming in from half way across the field with shiny new balls. (Now THOSE were the days of great Cricket!)
Which, of course are bright, shiny red.
As in:
W = { A | NOT_A }
KFkairosfocus
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT
HC: If I had any confidence that you were open to eyewitness testimony, I might be tempted to give details of a recent eyeball mark one case, in front of dozens of witnesses, including: Physicist, 1; Barrister, 1; Engineer, 1; educators, several; nurses, several; theologians, several; exorcist team, brought in to address the hard case, 1; ordinary people, dozens. But, I am sure your reaction will be, nutters, all. So, sorry, there are more than enough cases in point across time -- Hitler, BTW is one . . . just ask the White Rose martyrs, who publicly said so [at cost of their lives], and then read Shirer's unknowing testimony of characteristic symptoms -- and currently to satisfy a reasonable and open-minded person. That reality (awful though it is) is not on trial, our willingness to respond appropriately rather than with self-refuting selective hyperskepticism is. And besides, the real issue lies elsewhere, so I direct you to the headlined comment here, and to the onward links and video, for a much more central matter.kairosfocus
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT
Barry,
I believe when Skeptics, use the word skeptic, what they mean is- "skeptic smektip, who needs skeptics?
If you want to join, they give you a list of all the things to not be skeptical about.phoodoo
'Logic isn't a religion. It's a tool.' - Enrique el Crun.
Its sole merit, as a tool, is if it is venerated UNIFORMLY as a jealous god - and not adhered to capriciously as an occasionally, but only occasionally, convenient option.
You sound very disturbed by it, as well you might, Neddy. Sorry. Henry. (Give my regards to Mr Seagoon, won't you?) You were found out a long time ago, but a pithy epigram exposing your grotesque pretensions to the radiance of a search-light is tantamount to a game-changer. You'll be on the back foot more than ever from now on.Axel
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT
BA & News:
Actually, the prediction has already happened, note this from a TSZ combox for a post there that was trying to dismiss first principles of right reason, 2 1/2 years ago:
Flint on February 21, 2012 at 2:37 am said:
aleta,
I don’t think I quite understand what you are saying with some of the rest of your post. However, you have pointed out the elephant in the room: an important aspect of Stephen’s beliefs about logic is that he wants to be able to use logic, starting with “self-evidently” true logical premises (in his eyes) to prove things about the nature and existence of God, absolute morals, and so on. The view that logic without empirically validated assertions is just content-free manipulations of invented symbols directly challenges that view.
Yes. What I was trying to say (not very well, unfortunately) is that much of what Stephen wishes to derive using logic, can NOT rest on empirically validated assertions. How could one even begin to empirically validate a god, a soul, or salvation? Instead, he must start with undecidable axioms, which (not being empirical) are selected with the foregone conclusions in mind.
Aleta's reply: Yes, and well said. The elephant in the room.
This is so sadly, revealingly wrong-headed, at so many levels:
1 --> First principles of right reason, being self-evident, stand on their own merits, regardless of our particular worldview, hoped for conclusions or whatever. And to deny them is at once to end in absurdity. That is why they can serve as plumbline tests for whether we have built true and upright . . . straight and plumb.
2 --> Let us go to that notorious, Bible-thumping Fundy preacher [NOT] . . . see what ad hominems and motive mongering lead you into? . . . the philosopher Aristotle [as in, Aristotelian logic], Metaphysics Bk IV, 1011b:
. . . if it is impossible at the same time to affirm and deny a thing truly, it is also impossible for contraries to apply to a thing at the same time [--> LNC]; either both must apply in a modified sense, or one in a modified sense and the other absolutely.
Nor indeed can there be any intermediate between contrary statements [--> LEM], but of one thing we must either assert or deny one thing [--> LOI, thus too LNC], whatever it may be. This will be plain if we first define truth and falsehood. To say that what is is not, or that what is not is, is false; but to say that what is is, and what is not is not, is true [--> notice, definition of truth]; and therefore also he who says that a thing is or is not will say either what is true or what is false. [--> notice, precise description of what we now call a proposition, this is what, C. 340 BC?]
3 --> Similarly, let's look at the often dismissed Apostle Paul, to see how he addresses much the same issue, on the grounds that one should address the issue, not a caricature:
1 Cor 14:7 If even inanimate musical instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone [listening] know or understand what is played? 8 And if the war bugle gives an uncertain (indistinct) call, who will prepare for battle?[AMP]
4 --> What is going on here? Basically, we contemplate a distinct thing, say a bright red ball on a table, let's call it A. The reality of such a ball, and our contemplation of it, both reflect a world-partition:
W = { A | NOT_A }
5 --> Immediately as A is distinct and so partitioned. LOI, LNC and LEM are immediately in action:
LOI: A is itself not not itself.
LEM: As there is a distinction, nothing is in the middle or apart from the ordered partitioned set W, it is A X-OR NOT_A. And of course
LNC: We do not have A also being NOT_A
6 --> To attempt to deny any of these in fact -- as the old Apostle pointed out -- depends on distinction, just to communicate:
a [vs ~a] + l [vs ~l] + e [vs ~e] + t [vs ~t] + a [vs ~a]
7 --> So, both Flint and Aleta are sawing off the branch on which they, like the rest of us, are sitting. Not wise. Patent absurdity, in fact. We are dealing with what is seen as necessarily true on understanding what is said, on pain of absurdity.
8 --> They would have been well-advised to heed this from Wiki, sampled that very same Feb 2012, as a case of speaking against known ideological tendency on the weight of evidence:
The law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle are not separate laws per se, but correlates of the law of identity. That is to say, they are two interdependent and complementary principles that inhere naturally (implicitly) within the law of identity, as its essential nature . . . whenever we ‘identify’ a thing as belonging to a certain class or instance of a class, we intellectually set that thing apart from all the other things in existence which are ‘not’ of that same class or instance of a class. In other words, the proposition, “A is A and A is not ~A” (law of identity) intellectually partitions a universe of discourse (the domain of all things) into exactly two subsets, A and ~A, and thus gives rise to a dichotomy. As with all dichotomies, A and ~A must then be ‘mutually exclusive’ and ‘jointly exhaustive’ with respect to that universe of discourse. In other words, ‘no one thing can simultaneously be a member of both A and ~A’ (law of non-contradiction), whilst ‘every single thing must be a member of either A or ~A’ (law of excluded middle).
What’s more . . . thinking entails the manipulation and amalgamation of simpler concepts in order to form more complex ones, and therefore, we must have a means of distinguishing these different concepts. It follows then that the first principle of language (law of identity) is also rightfully called the first principle of thought, and by extension, the first principle reason (rational thought) . . .
9 --> And the same SB these so wish to dismiss observed:
[If] an object has an essence or a nature, we do, in fact, know what it is by virtue of having abstracted its universal “whatness” from the particular we encounter through our senses.
In other words, the law of non-contradiction is true
ontologically–a thing is what it is and cannot also be something else at the same time and in the same way.
logically–a proposition about that thing cannot be true and false at the same time and in the same way.
psychologically–a proposition about that thing cannot seem to be true and false at the same time and in the same way.
10 --> And, let us go back to the red ball A. To observe it is to rely on: distinct, intelligible identity. Science and inductive logic, too, sit on the very same branch Aleta and Flint would saw off.
11 --> And so the notion that empirical observation can then ground/disestablish what it is based on, is another case of trying to saw off the branch on which we are all sitting. Save, saws, branches, sitting, us, and sawing are all crucially dependent on these self-same laws.
12 --> So, we see a wrongheadedness on the part of reasonably educated people that can only trace to indoctrination and secondary lack of understanding.
13 --> where, the appeal to the empirical as court of last resort is the key clue: scientism, the notion that science and its methods [dominated of course by evolutionary materialistic ideology] delimit real or serious or credible "knowledge." This is of course actually an ideological- philosophical imposition, and so it is self-refuting.
14 --> Where, when we become committed to the false and absurd [as has been shown], it is liable to lead us to a state of stubborn confusion that rejects truth, reason and evidence.
KF
PS: Unsurprisingly, A and F also seem to be unaware of the actual evidential basis for Judaeo-Christian theism and have set up and knocked over a strawman. I suggest a 101 here on, with particular encouragement to take time to view the video. And, on the wider worldview question, including first principles of right reason, I suggest the 101 here on.kairosfocus
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT
Kf@6,
And what is your single best piece of evidence for this?Henry Crun
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PDT
Here's another prediction: Denyse's comment will be remembered about as much is anything else she's said.
The best that could be said for it is that it's just soundbite deconstructionism. Perhaps a more realistic assessment is that it's bullshit. Logic isn't a religion, it's a tool. You aren't going to get logic gates to go off on a jihad or Crusade.
Basically, Denyse's comment is typical of those who don't like the implications of where logic leaves us, when applied to the evidence-evolution, old earth etc. There's nothing profound in her comment, it's just symbolic of her ongoing struggle against reality.Henry Crun
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
02:59 AM
2
02
59
AM
PDT
G2: Has it registered that it is possible -- i.e. that there is such a possible world -- that there are orders of beings capable of interfering with humans etc? That, there may be a body of evidence that (while it does not fit with evo mat ideology and is liable to be dismissed out of hand by those imagining that "science" [= that censored by their ideology] delimits credible knowledge) there may be significant evidence that this actual world may just be one where such occurs? KFkairosfocus
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
02:47 AM
2
02
47
AM
PDT
From the CatholicHerald: The Vatican has formally recognised an international association of exorcists.
These characters are called when someone is possessed by the devil. That makes sense.
The pope ... warned Catholics to never try to “dialogue” or argue with the Devil, but to “defend yourselves with the word of God.
No, not the Onion, its the CatholicHerald again.Graham2
July 28, 2014
July
07
Jul
28
28
2014
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT
But those who contest the reality of the mind must contest the power of logic and reason. And indeed they do.News
July 28, 2014
July
07
Jul
28
28
2014
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
As to:
“Prediction: Increasingly, logic will be seen as a covert form of theism.”
But alas, 'logic' was deeply embedded in Christian Theism all along. ‘The Word’ in John 1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos is also the root word from which we derive our modern word logic
http://etymonline.com/?term=logic
John1:1
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Also of Note;
Conversations with William Dembski--The Thesis of Being as Communion - video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYAsaU9IvnI
It seems that the regular posters at TSZ are skeptical of everything but the received wisdom, accepted conventions and cherished dogmas of the academic left. Perhaps they should change the name of the site ever so slightly to The “Skeptical” Zone. The irony quotes would make the name more honest.
I have perused that site again, and over a year later my observation continues to hold.Barry Arrington
July 28, 2014
July
07
Jul
28
28
2014
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
quote “Prediction: Increasingly, logic will be seen as a covert form of theism.”
This is funny, especially since the very word "Logic" was etched in stone as one of their own holy words. It's apparently going the way of the phrase "Free Thought" as in 'freethoughts blog'. You are free to think for yourself as long as it agrees with the Consensus of approved Dweebs that dwell within that dirtbag blog.DavidD