Law School 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
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.

52
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?

53
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 12:01:52 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.

54
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 11:53:40 AM »
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.

55
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 11:46:35 AM »
That people dispute which answer is right doesn't mean there isn't a right answer. The mere fact of disagreement says precious little.

56
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 11:43:53 AM »
Since there are some who do abuse infants for their own enjoyment, this has been shown not to be universally true.

Let's line this up.

1. Some people do not believe it is wrong to abuse infants because they abuse infants.
2. The moral judgment "it is always wrong to abuse infants for one's own pleasure" is therefore false.

Anyone see a problem with this?

57
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 11:35:36 AM »
The flaw of classical logic is that it depends on absolutes, particularly non-contradiction.

What does it mean to say that the law of non-contradiction is flawed? How do you know that the law is flawed?

I predict that you will depend upon and assume the validity of the law of non-contradiction in order to give meaning to the term "flaw" and, further, to argue that the law really is flawed rather than not flawed.

58
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 11:30:17 AM »
New information does not create a problem with logic itself. Rather, it is by logic that new information is able to contradict old information.

So, to say it another way: "Belief is a basis that could or could not be true, that is forever beholden to empirical evidence, to be proved or disproved." OR "Science proves or disproves faith."

Logically speaking.

If I believe some proposition P then I ascribe the property of truth to P on the basis of some justification. This does not mean science proves or disproves faith.

59
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 11:14:45 AM »
Quote
This works fine in matters of the physical world.  Things we can see, check, verify, quantify.

It doesn't solve my ice cream problem.

You say mint chocolate chip ice cream is better than pistachio nut ice cream. Your friend dissents. One of you is right only if there is some aesthetic fact of the matter to which "better" refers. While I do accept the existence of moral facts and that the the moral judgment "it is wrong to abuse infants for one's own pleasure" expresses such a moral fact, I do not know whether there are any aesthetic facts to potentially settle the dispute between you and your friend. This doesn't mean there is no fact of the matter, only that I know of no such fact. One of you may well be objectively and absolutely right and the other objectively and absolutely wrong.

60
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 10:59:04 AM »
New information does not create a problem with logic itself. Rather, it is by logic that new information is able to contradict old information.

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