11 Mar '05 16:32>
If your brain evolved from random chance, then how can you trust your own logic?
Originally posted by dj2beckerQuite simply. Despite the fact the two positions are not linked I will take your statement as being coherrent for the moment. What we call logic has been discussed, demonstrated and rationalised for centuaries by philosophers, mathematicians etc. The results of this pyramid of agreed concepts is what we call logic. It follows rules which have been set out, tested and agreed. Logic is not at the mercy of perception, it stands alone regardless of it.
If your brain evolved from random chance, then how can you trust your own logic?
Originally posted by StarrmanAt one point there was a pyramid of agreement that the earth was flat.
Quite simply. Despite the fact the two positions are not linked I will take your statement as being coherrent for the moment. What we call logic has been discussed, demonstrated and rationalised for centuaries by philosophers, mathematicians etc. The results of this pyramid of agreed concepts is what we call logic. It follows rules which have been set o ...[text shortened]... t, tested and agreed. Logic is not at the mercy of perception, it stands alone regardless of it.
Originally posted by DarfiusYes, potentially. Logic is a grammar for manipulating a very formal language. There is nothing logically invalid about the simple notion that the earth is flat; it is merely empirically invalid.
At one point there was a pyramid of agreement that the earth was flat.
Were they being logical?
Originally posted by StarrmanCS Lewis said,
Quite simply. Despite the fact the two positions are not linked I will take your statement as being coherrent for the moment. What we call logic has been discussed, demonstrated and rationalised for centuaries by philosophers, mathematicians etc. The results of this pyramid of agreed concepts is what we call logic. It follows rules which have been set o ...[text shortened]... t, tested and agreed. Logic is not at the mercy of perception, it stands alone regardless of it.
Originally posted by royalchickenThen since God is not empirically invalid, why is it not logical to say He exists?
Yes, potentially. Logic is a grammar for manipulating a very formal language. There is nothing logically invalid about the simple notion that the earth is flat; it is merely empirically invalid.
Originally posted by dj2beckerThat which helps an organism survive and reproduce remains in the gene pool and proliferates. Those random events which are detrimental to this end disappear from the gene pool. Happiness and pleasure as well as pain and suffering are consequences of those activities and qualities which work towards the end (or against, in the case of pain and suffering) of survival and reproduction in general.
If your brain evolved from random chance, then how can you trust your own logic?
Originally posted by DarfiusIt isn't 'illogical' to say he exists. God isn't logically invalid, but he seems to be pretty empirically invalid, since he has yet to prove essential as an explanatory hypothesis for any scientific question.
Then since God is not empirically invalid, why is it not logical to say He exists?
Originally posted by royalchickenHow about "What caused the Big Bang?" Or is there a better theory?
It isn't 'illogical' to say he exists. God isn't logically invalid, but he seems to be pretty empirically invalid, since he has yet to prove essential as an explanatory hypothesis for any scientific question.
Originally posted by DarfiusThat question seems illogical: part of the definition of 'cause' requires that the cause occur prior (earlier in time) to the caused. If we're taking the Big Bang to be the beginning of time, then anything being earlier in time is inconceivable. If we do not take the Big Bang to be the beginning of time, then the question is sort of a non-starter--you're trying to use the so-called 'first-cause' argument, but you haven't picked the 'first caused'.
How about "What caused the Big Bang?" Or is there a better theory?
Originally posted by royalchickenYou're right, anything restricted to this dimension of time is onconceivable. However, God claims to be in at least two dimensions of time. Why could He not have created the universe? Indeed, it is up to you to provide a better theory or--emplying the scientific method--we must embrace the best theory we have at the moment. And God is a lot better than "we don't know."
That question seems illogical: part of the definition of 'cause' requires that the cause occur prior (earlier in time) to the caused. If we're taking the Big Bang to be the beginning of time, then anything being earlier in time is inconceivable. If we do not take the Big Bang to be the beginning of time, then the question is sort of a non-starter-- ...[text shortened]... ing to use the so-called 'first-cause' argument, but you haven't picked the 'first caused'.