Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Abuse of logic part 1

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 10:40:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
As somebody outside America, it baffles me to see how got so far out of hand with reasoning.
How did it get to the point where people overlook the impossibility of logic mixing with supernatural in anyway? It's doesn't even matter what it is that is supernatural, it shouldn't even get off the ground.

Logical are natural relations of the universe. For many theologians teach it to the converted as abstract entities of mind. This doesn't change the fact that its they are laws in our human mind. But the very meaning of supernatural is beyond that which is natural. You can't prove that logic is supernatural, for logic is your very method of proof. Any suggestion of supernatural begs the question. You cannot have an uncertainty principle in a logic prove, for it would not be logically certain. And just being human entails uncertainty of supernatural knowledge. There never has, there never is, and there never will be anything slightly reasonable about such a claim. This is abuse, and people should be held morally responsible for intentional deception.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 10:43:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 10:40:59 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
As somebody outside America, it baffles me to see how got so far out of hand with reasoning.
How did it get to the point where people overlook the impossibility of logic mixing with supernatural in anyway? It's doesn't even matter what it is that is supernatural, it shouldn't even get off the ground.

LOL. Seriously?

Aristotle, a Greek, the inventor of logic, was a theist.


Logical are natural relations of the universe. For many theologians teach it to the converted as abstract entities of mind. This doesn't change the fact that its they are laws in our human mind. But the very meaning of supernatural is beyond that which is natural. You can't prove that logic is supernatural, for logic is your very method of proof. Any suggestion of supernatural begs the question. You cannot have an uncertainty principle in a logic prove, for it would not be logically certain. And just being human entails uncertainty of supernatural knowledge. There never has, there never is, and there never will be anything slightly reasonable about such a claim. This is abuse, and people should be held morally responsible for intentional deception.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 10:56:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 10:43:57 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/12/2012 10:40:59 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
As somebody outside America, it baffles me to see how got so far out of hand with reasoning.
How did it get to the point where people overlook the impossibility of logic mixing with supernatural in anyway? It's doesn't even matter what it is that is supernatural, it shouldn't even get off the ground.

LOL. Seriously?

Aristotle, a Greek, the inventor of logic, was a theist.

The Fool: I can't tell if you are joking, but I will assume you are not.

Firstly we don't invent logic, we use language to describle logic, or anything for that matther. We can't define something into existenct. e.g. My definition of a perfect unicorn is that it exist and its right beside me. Has zero effect on the reality of it.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 10:59:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 10:56:15 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/12/2012 10:43:57 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/12/2012 10:40:59 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
As somebody outside America, it baffles me to see how got so far out of hand with reasoning.
How did it get to the point where people overlook the impossibility of logic mixing with supernatural in anyway? It's doesn't even matter what it is that is supernatural, it shouldn't even get off the ground.

LOL. Seriously?

Aristotle, a Greek, the inventor of logic, was a theist.

The Fool: I can't tell if you are joking, but I will assume you are not.

Firstly we don't invent logic, we use language to describle logic, or anything for that matther. We can't define something into existenct. e.g. My definition of a perfect unicorn is that it exist and its right beside me. Has zero effect on the reality of it.

Semantics. The point is, your statement: "As somebody outside America ... How did it get to the point where people overlook the impossibility of logic mixing with supernatural in anyway?" implies that this oversight is A) something having to do with America and B) is something recent.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 11:04:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 10:56:15 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/12/2012 10:43:57 AM, drafterman wrote:

Also, how are you making a connectoin from what he beliefs to what logic is.
1. he is by far not the first philosopher to use logic.
2. his God is just an unmoved mover, is not supernatural in anysense of our current use of the term.
3. where are you getting supernatural with logic from that
4. he is famous for pointing out the syllogysm, the rest is not original.
5. Even if what you said makes sense, it still doesn't solve the problem
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 11:05:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 10:59:24 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/12/2012 10:56:15 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/12/2012 10:43:57 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/12/2012 10:40:59 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
As somebody outside America, it baffles me to see how got so far out of hand with reasoning.
How did it get to the point where people overlook the impossibility of logic mixing with supernatural in anyway? It's doesn't even matter what it is that is supernatural, it shouldn't even get off the ground.

LOL. Seriously?

Aristotle, a Greek, the inventor of logic, was a theist.

The Fool: I can't tell if you are joking, but I will assume you are not.

Firstly we don't invent logic, we use language to describle logic, or anything for that matther. We can't define something into existenct. e.g. My definition of a perfect unicorn is that it exist and its right beside me. Has zero effect on the reality of it.

Semantics. The point is, your statement: "As somebody outside America ... How did it get to the point where people overlook the impossibility of logic mixing with supernatural in anyway?" implies that this oversight is A) something having to do with America and B) is something recent.

The Fool: yeah these logical God argument are only taken with such serious there. Its very isolated.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 11:06:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It is relative to the rise in fundementalism and the drop of academic success.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 12:22:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here's where your problem is, because we've had this discussion before. Simply TALKING about the supernatural does not mean that I am presuming it to exist. That is what you accused me of.

I said you can make true and false statements about the supernatural and therefore logic applies. But you cried out saying that I begged the question that the supernatural exists. False! How can that be if I don't even believe in the supernatural?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 12:23:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 12:22:14 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Here's where your problem is, because we've had this discussion before. Simply TALKING about the supernatural does not mean that I am presuming it to exist. That is what you accused me of.

I said you can make true and false statements about the supernatural and therefore logic applies. But you cried out saying that I begged the question that the supernatural exists. False! How can that be if I don't even believe in the supernatural?

Not to mention that a common forum of rebuttal is reductio ad absurdum which requires you, at least temporarily, to accept the premises - which you ultimately wish to rebut - as true.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 12:25:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 10:43:57 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/12/2012 10:40:59 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
As somebody outside America, it baffles me to see how got so far out of hand with reasoning.
How did it get to the point where people overlook the impossibility of logic mixing with supernatural in anyway? It's doesn't even matter what it is that is supernatural, it shouldn't even get off the ground.

LOL. Seriously?

Aristotle, a Greek, the inventor of logic, was a theist.
Yes, and the original people who were called atheists were christian.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 12:35:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 12:22:14 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Here's where your problem is, because we've had this discussion before. Simply TALKING about the supernatural does not mean that I am presuming it to exist. That is what you accused me of.

The Fool: The use of any word presupposes and idea, the ideas may or may not match a reality external to that ideas, if its referrence is externally.

I said you can make true and false statements about the supernatural and therefore logic applies.

The Fool: I think I sayed something like you could state you grandma is on the moon, but the truth of the statment depend on the justification.

But you cried out saying that I begged the question that the supernatural exists. False! How can that be if I don't even believe in the supernatural?

The Fool: I am sure I didn't cry that much, I said to assert the truth of it is to assume its true, yeah that is begging the question. Your right so you shouldnt assert the truth. Are you able to link that to the argument in this thread. ?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 12:41:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 10:40:59 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
As somebody outside America, it baffles me to see how got so far out of hand with reasoning.
How did it get to the point where people overlook the impossibility of logic mixing with supernatural in anyway? It's doesn't even matter what it is that is supernatural, it shouldn't even get off the ground.

Logical are natural relations of the universe. For many theologians teach it to the converted as abstract entities of mind. This doesn't change the fact that its they are laws in our human mind. But the very meaning of supernatural is beyond that which is natural. You can't prove that logic is supernatural, for logic is your very method of proof. Any suggestion of supernatural begs the question. You cannot have an uncertainty principle in a logic prove, for it would not be logically certain. And just being human entails uncertainty of supernatural knowledge. There never has, there never is, and there never will be anything slightly reasonable about such a claim. This is abuse, and people should be held morally responsible for intentional deception.

Sorry, but Theists have been arguing for the existence of God for thousands of years. It's simply an abuse of logic to claim that you can't logically argue for the supernatural.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 12:49:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 12:41:26 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/12/2012 10:40:59 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
As somebody outside America, it baffles me to see how got so far out of hand with reasoning.
How did it get to the point where people overlook the impossibility of logic mixing with supernatural in anyway? It's doesn't even matter what it is that is supernatural, it shouldn't even get off the ground.

Logical are natural relations of the universe. For many theologians teach it to the converted as abstract entities of mind. This doesn't change the fact that its they are laws in our human mind. But the very meaning of supernatural is beyond that which is natural. You can't prove that logic is supernatural, for logic is your very method of proof. Any suggestion of supernatural begs the question. You cannot have an uncertainty principle in a logic prove, for it would not be logically certain. And just being human entails uncertainty of supernatural knowledge. There never has, there never is, and there never will be anything slightly reasonable about such a claim. This is abuse, and people should be held morally responsible for intentional deception.

Sorry, but Theists have been arguing for the existence of God for thousands of years. It's simply an abuse of logic to claim that you can't logically argue for the supernatural.
The Fool: exactly LOL Theist
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 12:50:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 12:49:40 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/12/2012 12:41:26 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/12/2012 10:40:59 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
As somebody outside America, it baffles me to see how got so far out of hand with reasoning.
How did it get to the point where people overlook the impossibility of logic mixing with supernatural in anyway? It's doesn't even matter what it is that is supernatural, it shouldn't even get off the ground.

Logical are natural relations of the universe. For many theologians teach it to the converted as abstract entities of mind. This doesn't change the fact that its they are laws in our human mind. But the very meaning of supernatural is beyond that which is natural. You can't prove that logic is supernatural, for logic is your very method of proof. Any suggestion of supernatural begs the question. You cannot have an uncertainty principle in a logic prove, for it would not be logically certain. And just being human entails uncertainty of supernatural knowledge. There never has, there never is, and there never will be anything slightly reasonable about such a claim. This is abuse, and people should be held morally responsible for intentional deception.

Sorry, but Theists have been arguing for the existence of God for thousands of years. It's simply an abuse of logic to claim that you can't logically argue for the supernatural.
The Fool: exactly LOL Theist

The Fool: Proof it, that its supernatural, we know for sure its natural. So prove that logic is supernatural Please show us.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 12:53:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sorry, but Theists have been arguing for the existence of God for thousands of years.

The Fool: Therefore its logical. Most of our logical system was developed at the beginning of this century. ALl by anti-supernaturalist.

It's simply an abuse of logic to claim that you can't logically argue for the supernatural.

The Fool: Prove for a prove . Fair. listening????
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 12:55:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 12:41:26 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/12/2012 10:40:59 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: How is that proof coming along. ????
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 12:56:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 12:41:26 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/12/2012 10:40:59 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
As somebody outside America, it baffles me to see how got so far out of hand with reasoning.
How did it get to the point where people overlook the impossibility of logic mixing with supernatural in anyway? It's doesn't even matter what it is that is supernatural, it shouldn't even get off the ground.

Logical are natural relations of the universe. For many theologians teach it to the converted as abstract entities of mind. This doesn't change the fact that its they are laws in our human mind. But the very meaning of supernatural is beyond that which is natural. You can't prove that logic is supernatural, for logic is your very method of proof. Any suggestion of supernatural begs the question. You cannot have an uncertainty principle in a logic prove, for it would not be logically certain. And just being human entails uncertainty of supernatural knowledge. There never has, there never is, and there never will be anything slightly reasonable about such a claim. This is abuse, and people should be held morally responsible for intentional deception.

Sorry, but Theists have been arguing for the existence of God for thousands of years. It's simply an abuse of logic to claim that you can't logically argue for the supernatural.

Yes, and how many hundreds of years have people been arguing the earth is flat? Just because its been going on for thousands of years, doesnt mean its correct, or that it should be the status quo.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 12:56:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 12:35:31 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/12/2012 12:22:14 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Here's where your problem is, because we've had this discussion before. Simply TALKING about the supernatural does not mean that I am presuming it to exist. That is what you accused me of.

The Fool: The use of any word presupposes and idea,

Hall of shame. So if I say the word "supernatural" I now believe that the supernatural exists?

the ideas may or may not match a reality external to that ideas, if its referrence is externally.

Wat

I said you can make true and false statements about the supernatural and therefore logic applies.

The Fool: I think I sayed something like you could state you grandma is on the moon, but the truth of the statment depend on the justification.

But you cried out saying that I begged the question that the supernatural exists. False! How can that be if I don't even believe in the supernatural?

The Fool: I am sure I didn't cry that much, I said to assert the truth of it is to assume its true, yeah that is begging the question. Your right so you shouldnt assert the truth. Are you able to link that to the argument in this thread. ?

But I didn't assert the truth of the supernatural. I said:

"Truth applies to everything natural and supernatural."

You replied:

"The Fool: The supernatural need to be proven to exist. You are begging the question on the existence to supernatural entities. yet logic is natural. Its not supernatural thus there is not way to justify its applications to supernatural."

Source: http://www.debate.org...

.
.
.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 12:57:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 12:55:20 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/12/2012 12:41:26 PM, KeytarHero wrote:

The Fool: remember argument doesn't mean logical argument. lol

The Fool: How is that proof coming along. ????
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 12:58:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 12:56:31 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/12/2012 12:35:31 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/12/2012 12:22:14 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Here's where your problem is, because we've had this discussion before. Simply TALKING about the supernatural does not mean that I am presuming it to exist. That is what you accused me of.

The Fool: The use of any word presupposes and idea,

Hall of shame. So if I say the word "supernatural" I now believe that the supernatural exists?

the ideas may or may not match a reality external to that ideas, if its referrence is externally.

Wat

I said you can make true and false statements about the supernatural and therefore logic applies.

The Fool: I think I sayed something like you could state you grandma is on the moon, but the truth of the statment depend on the justification.

But you cried out saying that I begged the question that the supernatural exists. False! How can that be if I don't even believe in the supernatural?

The Fool: I am sure I didn't cry that much, I said to assert the truth of it is to assume its true, yeah that is begging the question. Your right so you shouldnt assert the truth. Are you able to link that to the argument in this thread. ?

But I didn't assert the truth of the supernatural. I said:

"Truth applies to everything natural and supernatural."

You replied:

"The Fool: The supernatural need to be proven to exist. You are begging the question on the existence to supernatural entities. yet logic is natural. Its not supernatural thus there is not way to justify its applications to supernatural."

Source: http://www.debate.org...


The Fool: Who cares about that nonesense .. lol
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 12:59:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: How is that proof coming along. ????
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:00:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 11:06:51 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
It is relative to the rise in fundementalism and the drop of academic success.
Fundamentalism? What? The United States of America has NEVER been more secular than it is today!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:01:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 1:00:10 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 4/12/2012 11:06:51 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
It is relative to the rise in fundementalism and the drop of academic success.
Fundamentalism? What? The United States of America has NEVER been more secular than it is today!

I am not sure if you are joking,
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:02:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 12:50:58 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: Proof it, that its supernatural, we know for sure its natural. So prove that logic is supernatural Please show us.

That is not the argument. Logic is neither natural more supernatural. Logic is a method for determining truth. True and false statements can be made about supernatural entities and realms.

Logic can be used to come to conclusions concerning both natural and supernatural things. You don't seem to understand this point.

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:04:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 1:02:23 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/12/2012 12:50:58 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: Proof it, that its supernatural, we know for sure its natural. So prove that logic is supernatural Please show us.

That is not the argument. Logic is neither natural more supernatural. Logic is a method for determining truth. True and false statements can be made about supernatural entities and realms.

Logic can be used to come to conclusions concerning both natural and supernatural things. You don't seem to understand this point.

The Fool: Dude what you were saying is so nonesense I don't even care about talking about it. Like I don't even care to argue for or against, is really a non- issue. leave that in the other thread.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:06:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 1:02:23 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/12/2012 12:50:58 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: Proof it, that its supernatural, we know for sure its natural. So prove that logic is supernatural Please show us.

That is not the argument. Logic is neither natural more supernatural. Logic is a method for determining truth. True and false statements can be made about supernatural entities and realms.

Logic can be used to come to conclusions concerning both natural and supernatural things. You don't seem to understand this point.

The Fool: Go away with this garbage. This is based of absolutly nothing.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:06:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 12:25:45 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/12/2012 10:43:57 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/12/2012 10:40:59 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
As somebody outside America, it baffles me to see how got so far out of hand with reasoning.
How did it get to the point where people overlook the impossibility of logic mixing with supernatural in anyway? It's doesn't even matter what it is that is supernatural, it shouldn't even get off the ground.

LOL. Seriously?

Aristotle, a Greek, the inventor of logic, was a theist.
Yes, and the original people who were called atheists were christian.

Would it be fair to say that we are using the modern definition of the words "theist" and "atheist", though?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:17:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 1:06:39 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 4/12/2012 12:25:45 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/12/2012 10:43:57 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/12/2012 10:40:59 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
As somebody outside America, it baffles me to see how got so far out of hand with reasoning.
How did it get to the point where people overlook the impossibility of logic mixing with supernatural in anyway? It's doesn't even matter what it is that is supernatural, it shouldn't even get off the ground.

LOL. Seriously?

Aristotle, a Greek, the inventor of logic, was a theist.
Yes, and the original people who were called atheists were christian.

Would it be fair to say that we are using the modern definition of the words "theist" and "atheist", though?

Well, back in those days the greeks were ignorant of what constitutes as an atheist. Just like the christians were ignorant of the logical fallacies regarding their arguments to the existance of God.

Over time, things change, defneitions evolve, and what used to be, no longer becomes the status quo. Which is my point.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:21:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 12:41:26 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/12/2012 10:40:59 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
As somebody outside America, it baffles me to see how got so far out of hand with reasoning.
How did it get to the point where people overlook the impossibility of logic mixing with supernatural in anyway? It's doesn't even matter what it is that is supernatural, it shouldn't even get off the ground.

Logical are natural relations of the universe. For many theologians teach it to the converted as abstract entities of mind. This doesn't change the fact that its they are laws in our human mind. But the very meaning of supernatural is beyond that which is natural. You can't prove that logic is supernatural, for logic is your very method of proof. Any suggestion of supernatural begs the question. You cannot have an uncertainty principle in a logic prove, for it would not be logically certain. And just being human entails uncertainty of supernatural knowledge. There never has, there never is, and there never will be anything slightly reasonable about such a claim. This is abuse, and people should be held morally responsible for intentional deception.

Sorry, but Theists have been arguing for the existence of God for thousands of years. It's simply an abuse of logic to claim that you can't logically argue for the supernatural.

The Fool: so about this simplicity thing. Where is this simplistic arguement!!!??
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 1:31:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 1:04:28 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/12/2012 1:02:23 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/12/2012 12:50:58 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: Proof it, that its supernatural, we know for sure its natural. So prove that logic is supernatural Please show us.

That is not the argument. Logic is neither natural nor supernatural. Logic is a method for determining truth. True and false statements can be made about supernatural entities and realms.

Logic can be used to come to conclusions concerning both natural and supernatural things. You don't seem to understand this point.

The Fool: Dude what you were saying is so nonesense I don't even care about talking about it. Like I don't even care to argue for or against, is really a non- issue. leave that in the other thread.

I am directly addressing the topic of this thread. I also refuted you. Instead of saying "thats garbage," "i dont care," and "thats nonsense" how about you come up with a real response without the trash talk and red herrings.

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat