Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - babyeatsdingo

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 17
51
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 02:50:20 PM »
Quote
There's an invisible teacup out beyond the orbit of Mars.  No instrument will ever detect it, but it's there, damn you!

Unlike the statement "classical logic is absolutely valid", this statement above may be denied.

52
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 02:43:21 PM »
If I say either A or B must be true and you say "false dichotomy!", you are saying it is not the case that either A or B must true (perhaps you think C is an option), which is to say your objection relies upon the validity of classical logic.

53
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 02:38:07 PM »
Quote
False dichotomy.

False dichotomy depends upon the laws of non-contradiction, excluded middle and identity. Your first clue that this is so is that a false dichotomy is a logical fallacy.

54
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 02:37:13 PM »
Alright.

I say classical logic is absolutely valid. Do you agree or disagree?

There's no need to tell me why you agree or disagree. Just tell me whether you agree or disagree.

55
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 02:31:45 PM »
If you cannot say something is false then, yes, it is axiomatic and necessarily true. You cannot use classical logic to deny classical logic but in order to deny anything you must use classical logic which means classical logic may not be denied.

56
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 02:28:06 PM »
GD:

Focus on this:

"we must affirm the laws of non-contradiction, excluded middle and identity in order to deny or argue against them which means they are axiomatic and necessarily true"

for it is the heart of what I'm saying.

57
Quote
I'm saying that the evidence you offer cannot reasonably be ...

I've offered no evidence. I've put forth a rule for detecting design. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding at work here.

58
Are you saying F cannot be both an object that came about by design and also serve as a model to help us design other objects?

59
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 02:01:52 PM »
For the sake of Clarity

Truth is a relationship of correspondence between a sign (e.g., the word "dog") and the thing signified (i.e., the object to which the sign points; in this case, a dog). A fact is an objective truth, a truth that is true always and without exception (i.e., absolute) since the "truth-maker" is an object outside our minds which therefore exists independently of what we believe about it (compare this to subjective truth to learn more). So, a fact is necessarily universal since it applies to everyone, everywhere and always.

60
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 01:53:40 PM »
In short, and to sum up, we must affirm the laws of non-contradiction, excluded middle and identity in order to deny or argue against them which means they are axiomatic and necessarily true. This means there are absolute truths from which we can begin to build a coherent and reliable worldview. I believe and would argue that the historic, orthodox Christian worldview is the most reliable worldview presently available to us and so worthy of our accord and trust.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 17