And there you have it!

_{William Dembski

August 23, 2009

Eyes Rolling, Religion, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Janna Levin, Columbia astrophysicist, gives us the cutting-edge science on the origin of the universe: there was nothing, really nothing, nothing at all … but the potential to exist. Was it Aristotle who said that nothing admits no predicates? So where did nothing get the potential to exist and then bring the universe into existence? Not to worry. Janna does give us this assurance: “We know that something happened.” Yes, this is science at its best. Let’s not bring God or design into this discussion — we wouldn’t want to be accused of “acting stupidly.” Oh, one more thing, she’s an assistant professor (go here). Want to bet that she doesn’t have problems getting tenure? Compare this to Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State.

YouTube Source

Comments

---Rob: "StephenB, why did you give me five examples of principles when I explicitly asked for your definition of “principle” rather than examples" You used the example of a biconditional logical formulation. On the other hand, logical principles are those rules by which logic operates. Without them, there is no logic. In other words, it is the principle of non-contradiction that supports the biconditional that you put forth. OK now? Given that you now understand the definition of a logical principle, would you now comment on the five I listed. Here are a few: [not all] [a.] something cannot come from nothing, yes or no. Diffaxial thinks it can. [b.] physical events cannot occur without causes, yes or no. Diffaxial says physical events can occur without causes. [c] a thing cannot be and not be, yes or no. [Your phrasing A or not A has limited value but it does not address the point whether you think it applies to the real world. Diffaxial says it doesn't apply to the real world.] What do you think? [d] a proposition cannot be true and false at the same time and under the same formal circumstances. Yes or no. [e.] the whole is always greater than any one of its parts. Diffaxial, as far as I know, is stuck on the meaning of “greater.” Where are you on this one?StephenB_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

---Rob: "You can’t cure a non sequitur by throwing out the word “therefore”. Sorry. The argument is still invalid. To make it valid, you could replace “sufficient to cause” with “necessary to cause” or “sufficient and necessary to cause”. Two simple yes or no's will suffice. No formal arguments needed. [A] Can physical events occur without causes? [B] In the example cited, the wet streets, is a sufficient cause required.StephenB_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

Me:
To make it valid, you could replace “sufficient to cause” with “necessary to cause” or “sufficient and necessary to cause”.
Sorry, on reading the argument, that obviously wouldn't work. My bad. You could always add the premise of strict determinism, but then your conclusion follows immediately from that premise.R0b_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT}

StephenB, why did you give me five examples of principles when I explicitly asked for your definition of "principle" rather than examples?
If you don’t like the word “therefore,” throw it out.
You can't cure a non sequitur by throwing out the word "therefore". Sorry. The argument is still invalid. To make it valid, you could replace "sufficient to cause" with "necessary to cause" or "sufficient and necessary to cause".R0b_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

On 217. Please don't ask me to add all the other possible sufficient causes. The point is, if the event occurs A sufficient cause must be present.StephenB_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

---Rob: "No I don’t, because it does not work. Your conclusion is a non sequitur. “Therefore if the event occurs, then at least one sufficient cause had to happen” does not follow from the preceding statements. (And please don’t pretend that I’m saying that the conclusion wrt streets getting wet is false." If you don't like the word "therefore," throw it out. Here we go again: Without the presence of water molecules the streets cannot get wet [necessary cause] Rain is sufficient to cause the streets to get wet [sufficient cause]\ A water sprinkler is sufficient to cause the streets to get wet [sufficient cause] If the event occurs, [if the streets get wet], then at least one sufficient cause had to happen.StephenB_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

---Rob: "Can you define your usage of “principle”? (Note that I’m asking for a definition, not an example.)" Wow, you catch on quick. Back to the drawing board to a question I asked long ago--[about PRINCIPLES] Did I say that loud enough. Here are a few: [not all] [a.] something cannot come from nothing, yes or no. Diffaxial thinks it can. [b.] physical events cannot occur without causes, yes or no. Diffaxial says physical events can occur without causes. [c] a thing cannot be and not be, yes or no. [Your phrasing A or not A has limited value but it does not address the point whether you think it applies to the real world. Diffaxial says it doesn't apply to the real world.] What do you think? [d] a proposition cannot be true and false at the same time and under the same formal circumstances. Yes or no. [e.] the whole is always greater than any one of its parts. Diffaxial, as far as I know, is stuck on the meaning of "greater." Where are you at. Before you tell me you need further definitions, be advised that no one else, except Darwinists looking for loopholes, has any difficulty answering these questions as asked. On the whole/part relationship, Wikipedia had no difficulty understanding what it meant solely on those terms.StephenB_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
Without the presence of water molecules the streets cannot get wet [necessary cause] Rain is sufficient to cause the streets to get wet [sufficient cause]\ A water sprinkler is sufficient to cause the streets to get wet [sufficient cause] Therefore if the event occurs, [if the streets get wet], then at least one sufficient cause had to happen. See how that works.
No I don't, because it does not work. Your conclusion is a non sequitur. "Therefore if the event occurs, then at least one sufficient cause had to happen" does not follow from the preceding statements. (And please don't pretend that I'm saying that the conclusion wrt streets getting wet is false.) If you knew how to construct formal proofs, and if your logic were valid, you could prove it formally and there would be no disagreement. Unfortunately, neither of those necessary conditions obtains. Here's another example: (1) In order for a particle to pass through slit A in a double-slit experiment, it must be emitted from the source. (Necessary condition) (2) There are conditions under which the particle would be guaranteed to go through slit A. (Sufficient conditions) (3) Therefore, if the particle goes through slit A, conditions existed such that the particle was guaranteed to go through slit A. This is an invalid argument. You have to add another premise, namely hidden variables, in order to make the argument valid.R0b_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

---Rob: "For heaven’s sakes, StephenB, I used the example of bits and binary digits precisely because they are biconditionally related." For heavens sake, Rob, I know. It doesn't apply to the situation. Once again, by the numbers. Without the presence of water molecules the streets cannot get wet [necessary cause] Rain is sufficient to cause the streets to get wet [sufficient cause]\ A water sprinkler is sufficient to cause the streets to get wet [sufficient cause] Therefore if the event occurs, [if the streets get wet], then at least one sufficient cause had to happen. Absorb, absorb, absorb.StephenB_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

---Diffaxial: "Pssst. Stephen. Pssst. No, don’t look this way. Act nateral (I mean, real stiff)." Sorry to disturb your meditation: Let it be so: Causes come and go--let it be so; causes come and go--let it be so; causes come and go--Oh please let it be so. Repeat and rinse.StephenB_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
By your lights, that application cannot be made.
Completely false. I have never said or implied that logic can't be applied.
That is a bi-conditional expression which does not qualify as a principle.
Can you define your usage of "principle"? (Note that I'm asking for a definition, not an example.)
Usually, IF X then Y does not translate into If Y, then X.
Hallelujah! Now you can apply that ~~principle~~ statement to sufficiency and finally understand that "the presence of x necessarily implies the presence of y" does not imply "the presence of y necessarily implies the presence of x".
On the other hand, you are apparently unaware that, rarely, biconditional expressions actually do apply. You labor under the illusion that they never do..
For heaven's sakes, StephenB, I used the example of bits and binary digits precisely because they are biconditionally related.R0b_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 209:
—-Validation: All binary digits are bits, and all bits are binary digits Nope. That is not a logical principle. That is a bi-conditional expression which does not qualify as a principle. Biconditionals are seldom the case. Usually, IF X then Y does not translate into If Y, then X. On the other hand, you are apparently unaware that, rarely, biconditional expressions actually do apply. You labor under the illusion that they never do. You simply don’t know how to apply logic. Sorry. To be more precise, you do not understand the concept of a logical principle. Try again.
Pssst. Stephen. Pssst. No, don't look this way. Act nateral (I mean, real stiff). R0bs's example vis bits is a parody. Don't tell him I told you.Diffaxial_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

R0b and Diffaxial remind me of John Wither from Lewis’s book That Hideous Strength, where they intentionally use vague language instead of concrete terms and propositions.
Clive, can you be less vague about this? Please tell me where I've been vague so I can make it more explicit for you. In 101 and 176 I laid out the relevant logic formally. There is no way to make logic less vague than to formalize it. And I have seen nothing in Diffaxial's comments that needs disambiguation. Point to any of his comments, and I can tell you what he's saying. If StephenB would admit to not understanding something, I would gladly explain it. It's absurd to conclude that someone is bluffing because they haven't explained something such that StephenB understands it. I don't understand the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, but it would be arrogant in the extreme for me to conclude from this that Andrew Wiles is bluffing.R0b_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

---Rob: "LOL. Whatever. Here’s a proof of a logical principle, StephenB-style:" After you study 207 in order to grasp the relationship between necessary and sufficient causes, hearken back to my examples and find fault with them. Here's one you can comment on. Principle: No physical event can occur without a cause." Example: Your paragraph did not write itself. By your lights, that application cannot be made. ----Logic: If all x are y, then all y are x. ----Validation: All binary digits are bits, and all bits are binary digits Nope. That is not a logical principle. That is a bi-conditional expression which does not qualify as a principle. Biconditionals are seldom the case. Usually, IF X then Y does not translate into If Y, then X. On the other hand, you are apparently unaware that, rarely, biconditional expressions actually do apply. You labor under the illusion that they never do. You simply don't know how to apply logic. Sorry. To be more precise, you do not understand the concept of a logical principle. Try again.StephenB_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

Clive,
R0b and Diffaxial remind me of John Wither from Lewis’s book That Hideous Strength, where they intentionally use vague language instead of concrete terms and propositions.
What? Are you accusing ROb of using "vague language"? I find his posts very clear and understandable. Maybe I'm missing something.yakky d_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

---Rob: "Being born in Texas is sufficient to attain American citizenship. Therefore, if you have American citizenship, you must have been born in Texas" Your example doesn't show the tension between necessary and sufficient. Here is a better offering, using my infamous “streets getting wet” example. Without the presence of water molecules the streets cannot get wet [necessary cause] Rain is sufficient to cause the streets to get wet [sufficient cause]\ A water sprinkler is sufficient to cause the streets to get wet [sufficient cause] Therefore if the event occurs, [if the streets get wet], then at least one sufficient cause had to happen. See how that works.StephenB_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
If, on the other hand, they can’t put flesh, blood, and bones on their conceptual skeleton, that is, if they can’t transform their abstract theory into a concrete example, they don’t understand the subject at all, in spite of all their protests to the contrary. If, without oversimplifying, a person cannot distill a difficult principle into its simplest essence such that a twelve year old could understand it, he doesn’t know what he is talking about. He is bluffing.
C.S. Lewis said, to paraphrase, that if a man couldn't explain what he meant in plain language, then he really didn't know what he meant. R0b and Diffaxial remind me of John Wither from Lewis's book That Hideous Strength, where they intentionally use vague language instead of concrete terms and propositions. It's a common tactic, but I've never seen it so eloquently displayed as it is in the character of John Wither.Clive Hayden_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

As I am going out the door: —Rob: “Logic: Nothing can fly to the moon. —”Validation: My car can’t fly to the moon. —”Are we on candid camera here? Your ignorance is truly astounding. “Nothing can fly to the moon” is not a logical principle. Its another bluff wrapped up in another fog.
LOL. Whatever. Here's a proof of a logical principle, StephenB-style: Logic: If all x are y, then all y are x. Validation: All binary digits are bits, and all bits are binary digits.R0b_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

Have a good vacation, StephenB. If you need some reading material, here is #176 in plain English: (1) By definition, sufficient conditions must include necessary conditions. Otherwise, the sufficient conditions could not guarantee the occurrence of the event. (2) Your currently stated position posits the necessity of sufficient conditions. With this condition included in the necessary conditions, the necessary conditions are also sufficient. The above (2) renders nonsensical the notion of a complete set of necessary conditions that is not sufficient. So when you talk about necessary conditions that are not sufficient, you must be referring to a subset of all necessary conditions. But every event has a subset of necessary conditions that are insufficient, except for events that have only one necessary condition. The first sentence of your argument is therefore a claim that all events with more than one necessary condition are unpredictable, spontaneous, and not uncaused. If you still don't understand it, I'll try to bring it down to the level of a 12-year old. Shall I use puppets? Seriously, I hope you have a good vacation, and that you forget about UD the minute you step out the door.R0b_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

As I am going out the door: ---Rob: "Logic: Nothing can fly to the moon. ---"Validation: My car can’t fly to the moon. ---"Are we on candid camera here? Your ignorance is truly astounding. "Nothing can fly to the moon" is not a logical principle. Its another bluff wrapped up in another fog.StephenB_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
You need more practice. If an event [graduation] requires certain physically NECESSARY conditions to occur, [being alive in order to graduate] but if those conditions are not SUFFICIENT for its occurrence, [one must also be alive and attend classes] and, if the event does occur, [graduation], then obviously the person was alive and attended classes.
I'll repeat myself, since you didn't get it the first time: To say that "one must also be alive and attend classes" is to say that those are necessary conditions. Since you're obviously incapable of analyzing logic without examples, here's one: Being born in Texas is sufficient to attain American citizenship. Therefore, if you have American citizenship, you must have been born in Texas.
[Translation for Darwinists: If an event happened, the sufficient conditions HAD to be present.]
No translation needed. x⇒y does not imply y⇒x. This is called affirming the consequent. Back to freshman logic for you.R0b_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
Logic: A thing cannot be and not be at the same time. Validation: Pluto cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Get a life. Logic: A physical event cannot occur without a cause. Validation: The post you just wrote required an author. Get a life.
Logic: Nothing can fly to the moon. Validation: My car can't fly to the moon. Are we on candid camera here?R0b_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

I have noticed one thing about honest people who really know their subject. They go for clarity at every opportunity. If they are honest, they will answer questions and probe more deeply into the subject. If they are smart and knowledgeable, they will find an illustration, or a metaphor to communicate the message, or they will utilize some other linguistic approach to sharpen their theme. Most important, they will apply concrete examples to bring the point home. If, on the other hand, they can’t put flesh, blood, and bones on their conceptual skeleton, that is, if they can’t transform their abstract theory into a concrete example, they don’t understand the subject at all, in spite of all their protests to the contrary. If, without oversimplifying, a person cannot distill a difficult principle into its simplest essence such that a twelve year old could understand it, he doesn’t know what he is talking about. He is bluffing. Rob and Diffaxial fail to make their points clear and avoid concrete examples for one simple reason. They do not know what they are talking about. They are indeed, bluffing. As materialist/Darwinists, they believe that the logic of their mind has nothing at all to do with the logic of nature. Indeed, they don’t even know that nature has a logic which the logic of the mind can apprehend. It all sounds so “dualistic” to them. Obviously, that puts them both at a severe disadvantage and explains why they cannot make sense out of anything. Since they have nothing else to talk about, they try to attack my credibility. Fortunately, I was around when it happened, so they were not successful. I am now going on vacation, finally, and I trust that they will continue their Darwinist love fest, attacking me, and avoiding all hard questions. Interpret their behavior for what it is---a bluff wrapped up in a fog.StephenB_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
I plugged in two concrete examples using the same language and both make perfect sense.
I already pointed out why your first example was bogus. Attending class was stated as a necessary condition, so of course it follows from the fact of graduation. That does not demonstrate that sufficient conditions follow from the occurrence of the event. Your second example is also bogus, because "x trained his will" does not follow from the premises. Nor does your sentence, "Accordingly, if one knows the good, [a necessary cause] but does not train his will to follow it, his knowledge will not lead to virtue", because you did not state that training his will is necessary. x may be virtuous under some other set of conditions, which would necessarily includes knowing the good, but would not necessarily include training the will. This is the classic fallacy of affirming the consequent. That you need to have this explained to you should be deeply embarrassing to you. And your notion that logic can be validated by applying the logic to an example and then claiming that the example makes perfect sense is high comedy. How do you determine that the example makes perfect sense? Self-evidence?R0b_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 107:
We cannot say, for example, IF A is true, then B MUST be true, unless we can also say that C through Z are impossible.
All horses like apples. Therefore Arabian horses like apples. Nah.Diffaxial_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

----Rob: "It does not follow from this that y implies x. You’re affirming the consequent. Any freshman in Philosophy 101 could tell you that. The ID proponents on this board should be embarrassed that one of their more prolific commenters, and an author of the FAQ, is so inept when it comes to basic logic. And that you think logic can be validated by example is further indication of your ineptitude." Logic: A thing cannot be and not be at the same time. Validation: Pluto cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Get a life. Logic: A physical event cannot occur without a cause. Validation: The post you just wrote required an author. Get a life. Enter the real world. You have been in your room for too long. What do you think logic is for if not making judgments about what is true and false in the real world? ---"It does not follow from this that y implies x. You’re affirming the consequent. Any freshman in Philosophy 101 could tell you that." You need more practice. If an event [graduation] requires certain physically NECESSARY conditions to occur, [being alive in order to graduate] but if those conditions are not SUFFICIENT for its occurrence, [one must also be alive and attend classes] and, if the event does occur, [graduation], then obviously the person was alive and attended classes. [Translation for Darwinists: If an event happened, the sufficient conditions HAD to be present.] Get a life. Enter the real world of logic and common sense. Like Diffaxial, you neither understand nor can apply the logic you claim to hold so dear. If you want to take on some real logic, deal with this: Reason has rules, which among other things, allow us to eliminate possibilities so that we can move logically from point A to point B. We cannot say, for example, IF A is true, then B MUST be true, unless we can also say that C through Z are impossible. If we didn’t agree, in advance, that C through Z are impossible, such as [a thing cannot be and not be], [the whole cannot be less that any of its parts], [something cannot come from nothing], [physical events cannot occur without causes etc.], then we couldn’t reason our way from A to B or enter into rational discouse with others. But postmodernist cosmologists and atheist Darwinists, who reject these rules, cannot, in any context, say If A is true, then B must be true, because they refuse to rule out C through Z. That is another way of saying that they cannot reason in the abstract.StephenB_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

---Rob: "We can drop the charade now. We both know that you can’t follow the logic in 176. The only question was whether you would admit to not understanding it. As anyone familiar with your transparent phoniness would expect, you didn’t." I plugged in two concrete examples using the same language and both make perfect sense. You said it didn't matter. That is ridiculous. By the way, what is your position on the following four points, which is the substance of what I have been talking about all along. [a.] something can come from nothing, yes or no. [b.] physical events can occur without causes, yes or no. [c] a thing cannot be and not be, yes or no. [Your phrasing A or not A has limited value but it does not address the point whether you think it applies to the real world. Diffaxial says it does not]. [d.] the whole is always greater than any one of its parts. Yes or no. ---"Again, chock my bluntness up to the repeated false accusations of lying that I’ve received." A Continual attack on one's character and credibility does have a way of changing one's disposition doesn't it?StephenB_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

----Diffaxial: "No, dummy, I was referring my statement that you had offered “some talk about the weather in the countryside (a fog blanketed the bluff, as I recall).” How do I know whether you are referring to the "fog" or the "streets getting wet," or, whatever else you might be talking about. Those who make ambiguous references to the weather in the context of multiple weather metaphors and expect closure would better qualify as a dummy. Since you had nothing to say of substance, I used the opportunity to dramatize you irrationality about causeless physical events, which is, of course, your calling card. ----Diffaxial blathers on for hundreds of words .......... "You now maintain".........and gets twisted and tangled in his own logic, which is his own invention. Its really very simple. I used the exact language in my original formulation and plugged in two concrete examples without changing a word. It works. Case closed. Get a life. Let us review the the Darwinist irrationality syndrome: Reason has rules, which among other things, allow us to eliminate possibilities so that we can move logically from point A to point B. We cannot say, for example, IF A is true, then B MUST be true, unless we can also say that C through Z are impossible. If we didn’t agree, in advance, that C through Z are impossible, such as [a thing cannot be and not be], [the whole cannot be less that any of its parts], [something cannot come from nothing], [physical events cannot occur without causes etc.], then we couldn’t reason our way from A to B or enter into rational discouse with others. But postmodernist cosmologists and atheist Darwinists, who reject these rules, cannot, in any context, say If A is true, then B must be true, because they refuse to rule out C through Z. That is another way of saying that they cannot reason in the abstract.StephenB_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 177
Everything you have written turns on what you perceive to be a misplaced prepositional phrase.
If you're talking about the "under the circumstances" phrase, then you apparently missed the part where I granted you arguendo the replacement of that phrase with "as it turns out, sufficient conditions are also present." We can drop the charade now. We both know that you can't follow the logic in 176. The only question was whether you would admit to not understanding it. As anyone familiar with your transparent phoniness would expect, you didn't. If you care to understand why the sentence in question is nonsensical in light of your currently held position, I'll gladly translate the argument to plain English to see if that helps you.
If you believe that logic cannot be tested in the real world of examples, then you simply don’t understand the subject. indeed, one of the reasons we provide examples is to test the logic. That way we can distinguish those who know what they are talking about from those who don’t. If one cannot make his abstract ideas concrete in some way or illustrate them with real world examples, he doesn’t know what he is talking about.
Every one of those sentences is hilarious. Anyone with half a brain can apply logic to a concrete example, but those who understand logic know that examples don't validate logic. This is especially rich coming from someone who says that his opponents "cannot reason in the abstract." Your frequent logical blunders (affirming the consequent is a common one, especially in the form of unwarranted generalizations) rob you of any credibility as a judge of other people's reasoning. Again, chock my bluntness up to the repeated false accusations of lying that I've received.R0b_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

StephenB, your response at 175 is 100% non-responsive.
You are getting tripped up on your own words and symbols.
What symbols? How am I getting tripped up?
Here is a second example.
You really don't grok the fact that logic cannot be validated by example, do you. A conclusion that is correct, as verified by some other method than the logic in question, does not mean that the logic is valid. Your repeated definition of sufficient causes is: If x is a sufficient cause of y, then the presence of x necessarily implies the presence of y. It does not follow from this that y implies x. You're affirming the consequent. Any freshman in Philosophy 101 could tell you that. The ID proponents on this board should be embarrassed that one of their more prolific commenters, and an author of the FAQ, is so inept when it comes to basic logic. And that you think logic can be validated by example is further indication of your ineptitude. Pardon the frankness, but increased honesty is a natural reaction to repeated false accusations of lying.R0b_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply