DozyBen

There is logic and there is other stuff. There is no such thing as earthly logic or spiritual logic, there is justlogic. The logic page on wikipedia lists 5 types of logic Syllogistic - The parts of syllogistic, also known by the name term logic, were the analysis of the judgements into propositions consisting of two terms that are related by one of a fixed number of relations, and the expression of inferences by means of syllogisms that consisted of two propositions sharing a common term as premise, and a conclusion which was a proposition involving the two unrelated terms from the premises Predicate - Logic as it is studied today is a very different subject to that studied before, and the principal difference is the innovation of predicate logic. Whereas Aristotelian syllogistic logic specified the forms that the relevant part of the involved judgements took, predicate logic allows sentences to be analysed into subject and argument in several different ways, thus allowing predicate logic to solve the problem of multiple generality that had perplexed medieval logicians. With predicate logic, for the first time, logicians were able to give an account of quantifiers general enough to express all arguments occurring in natural language. Modal - In languages, modality deals with the phenomenon that sub-parts of a sentence may have their semantics modified by special verbs or modal particles. For example, "We go to the games" can be modified to give "We should go to the games", and "We can go to the games"" and perhaps "We will go to the games". More abstractly, we might say that modality affects the circumstances in which we take an assertion to be satisfied. Mathematical - Mathematical logic really refers to two distinct areas of research: the first is the application of the techniques of formal logic to mathematics and mathematical reasoning, and the second, in the other direction, the application of mathematical techniques to the representation and analysis of formal logic. Philsophical - Philosophical logic deals with formal descriptions of natural language. Most philosophers assume that the bulk of "normal" proper reasoning can be captured by logic, if one can find the right method for translating ordinary language into that logic. Philosophical logic is essentially a continuation of the traditional discipline that was called "Logic" before the invention of mathematical logic. Philosophical logic has a much greater concern with the connection between natural language and logic. As a result, philosophical logicians have contributed a great deal to the development of non-standard logics (e.g., free logics, tense logics) as well as various extensions of classical logic (e.g., modal logics), and non-standard semantics for such logics (e.g., Kripke's technique of supervaluations in the semantics of logic). It has this interesting point regarding logic and the philsophy of language Logic and the philosophy of language are closely related. Philosophy of language has to do with the study of how our language engages and interacts with our thinking. Logic has an immediate impact on other areas of study. Studying logic and the relationship between logic and ordinary speech can help a person better structure their own arguments and critique the arguments of others. Many popular arguments are filled with errors because so many people are untrained in logic and unaware of how to correctly formulate an argument. It is in philosphical logic that religions gain all of their 'arguments'. Words are invented or twisted so that their meaning is distorted far enough for a particular point to appear coherent. An easy example is your creation of spiritual logic. Were this a real form of logic used to provide logical and unassailable arguments in favour of your proposition, we'd have all heard of it before but search for spiritual logic in wikipedia and the first match is spiritual abuse. Not what you'd intended for sure. The fact that you have accepted your religion and the language you use with those beliefs mean that your logical capacity is impaired. I have taken great care to try to not mix words or use them out of context and have quoted several definitions to help me understand your points. However, you are satisfied that with the point that my search for truth and understanding will fail because I employ logic rather than whatever it is you use and call spiritual logic. What I'm getting to is this: We cannot create meaning for our own experiences. The way we understand our experiences is through other people. They provide us with the information to allow us to interpret our experiences. Once we accept a particular explanation it changes not only our memory of the original experience but also our interpretation of future experiences when they occur. This is because our expectations shape our experiences, something that has been evidenced many times. Thus, you've accepted the God did it information and shape future information or experiences to suit. You won't see that you've been illogical because you've used language which appears consistent with your beliefs. I see it because I'm not using my beliefs, I'm using definitions which are nothing to do with me. You have faith that you cannot be wrong so therefore refuse to see that you're wrong although it may be that you have faith that what your preacher told you is right therefore you cannot be wrong. Either way your overwhelming faith and inability to view things objectively hinder your ability to apply logic in discussions/arguments. I tell you what sucks the most though. It's damn hard to tell someone they're being illogical or irrational or unreasonable without worrying that you're going to offend them. Most people see those accusations as insults and I'm really not trying to be insulting. However, if you're not following logic then you're being illogical, there's no real way around it. And that sucks, sorry.

This is the tricky bit which I've been trying to get past: How does someone identify the Truth? I think it's done by comparing experiences with other people and using reasoning and logic. I don't know why you're not an Islamist or a Buddist. I called this little discussion fun because I didn't really expect you to change my views. I periodically indulge in forums of most religions and athiests to see if either side has anything more convincing than "I'm right, the others are wrong." However, I was willing to listen and respond to you seriously on the off-chance that I am wrong and that I should change my views. I figured this would be a lot better than getting sacrastic or nasty like some people do. It got fairly long winded because I didn't want to just dismiss anything you or nebula said. Anyway. That cup of tea is calling. :-) nebula If you think that my mind is made up then you are mistaken. Finding that there is a natural explanation for things claimed to be supernatural simply puts doubt on the supernatural explanation. Then, given that no predictions can be made on supernatural knowledge but that they can on natural knowledge, it is reasonable and rational to behave as if there were no supernatural. This is what I do. As we've discussed, I can't say there is no supernatural because that would be inconsistent with my beliefs and logic.

HISgirl We're not going to get much further I don't think. You've just stated I'm wrong and repeated earlier statements about Christianity being right and other religions being wrong. You haven't answered the vital question of how a neutral observer discerns between any one of the other religions and Christianity in terms of being right. After all, all religions claim to be the truth. Equal experiences, equal claims to truth and yet somehow a person should choose Christianity, I don't see how that fits. Still, the discussion has been fun nonetheless, so thanks for that. nebula I don't discount religious experiences. My point was that they can be replicated in other ways and that casts doubt on the supernatural explanation. In your first paragraph: "A true seeker will explore all possibilities" and then later "If you discount the unexplorable, in your mind, right off the bat". I consider myself a true seeker and therefore (in your words) I explore. However as a true seeker, I must discount the unexplorable because an explorer cannot explore the unexplorable by definition. Which means you've got something muddled in what you were trying to say. Basically, I will consider all logical argument and all evidence. However, I won't settle on a particular point where there are multiple explanations until I have something to sway one way or the other. Your point about setting up alternative hypotheses is a very good point. People claimed lots of experiences which they interpreted in religious ways. Some scientist comes along and says 'I reckon these experiences have a natural explanation so I'm going to ply some people with drugs, some I'm going to hypnotize and I'll sample religious and non-religious types.' Sure enough, once the experiments were complete, the religious reported religious experiences on the drugs and under hypnosis and the non-religious reported experiences without a religious explanation. Your underlying religious certainty sways you to give your experiences a religious interpretation. I, on the other hand, am simply not making any interpretation but rather looking around for some way to explain them from other people. No one set of explanations have cast enough doubt on the others except the 'there's nothing supernatural' answer. This is because it fits as an explanation of these experiences and as an explanation of how planes, cars, thermodynamics and everything else works.

Hi HIS girl I found your post interesting but quite hard to follow. I would agree spiritual rebirth is an individual thing. As a very basic starting point it requires the person to belive they have a spirit that can die and be reborn. What evidence to you have of possessing a spirit that can die and reborn? This is a simple starting point that needs addressing before looking at any further claims you've made. You can't see it, touch it, or feel it. If it exists in another dimension, well we've already covered that. The key to whether drugs and hypnosis can produce an experience of the spiritual realm for an individual is in the interpretation. You would interpret the experiences as a journey to the spiritual realm because that's what you believe they are. I am not calling you a liar. What I am saying is that there is no evidence that your experience is actually of the spirital realm because those experiences can be replicated by hypnosis or drugs. In other words, when we experience the same thing but have different interpretations, we need to find a consistent explanation. Drugs or hypnosis is a consistent explanation but a journey to the spiritual realm is not. It is not a matter of delusion, rather an eyes wide open matter of evidence and reasoning. There is no physical difference between the experience you claim is communicating with Christ and the occultic trances of other religions. To a neutral observer how to tell the difference? I agree with you that the hundreds of other religions have most likely made an error of interpretation but I also claim you have most likely made an error of interpretation. This is just simple consistency of thought. Catch you later. I've got to go back to work. :-(

I think it's a good idea to set aside some of our discussion for a little while. As we've expanded on earlier thoughts in order to gain better understanding of each other our posts have become huge! I'd need to understand what you mean by experience with the spiritual realm in order to rightly discount it. I don't mind using the experiences of others as evidence for believing something however the common religious experiences can be induced by hypnosis or drugs. This means that for your personal experiences there are two plausible explanations. One being actual contact with the spiritual realm and the other being an altered mind state caused by something natural. We would need some evidence external to your personal experience in order to conclude which is the correct explanation. We have the drugs or hypnosis as external evidence for the natural explanation but nowt for the spiritual explanation. On this basis it is reasonable to conclude the spiritual explanation is most likely to be false. The same principle works across multiple experiences by multiple people. However, you're right in that I can't assert there is no spiritual realm. I have no evidence to say there is no spiritual realm. I can say there is no evidence for a spiritual realm. As an Amazonian I can't say a snow-hut can't be built but I can say there is no evidence for the building of a snow-hut and until such times as there is, I will continue to act as if there were no snow-hut building. I can't say there isn't a God. I am a non-believer rather than a dis-believer. You may have heard of a guy called Sam Harris who thinks that atheist is a pretty dumb term. As an Amazonian I don't think snow exists but I don't describe myself as asnowist do I? The same principle applies here, the atheist/asnowist believes there is no God/snow, I don't believe there is a God/snow. Therefore I act as if there were no God/snow. This fits the reality of my life perfectly because there is no evidence of God/snow to change my mind. I can be happy with my conclusion because it fits the available evidence. However I'm interested in what other people have to say about God/snow in case there is some evidence I'm unaware of. So I have no hands on experience of the spiritual realm but I can reasonably (rightly is a different matter) not believe what you say because there is a plausible natural explanation. Hope this makes sense, I think I may have repeated myself a few times.

This is proving to be really quite interesting, thanks. I'm afraid I don't know enough about the earliest lifeforms to know how they developed. I think you are correct in that we know what the ingredients are but I don't think we know with enough detail and I don't think we fully understand why previous attempts at re-creating life's start have failed. There may be some chance catalyst to the process that we haven't even thought of yet. I called it a mere detail because we have worked out a lot of other stuff not because it's is unimportant in some way. Well I won't dismiss outright any other 'if' until I've looked at it that's for sure. Here is an extract from Wikipedia about what Reason is: "The concept of reason is connected to the concept of language, as reflected in the meanings of the Greek word "logos", later to be translated by Latin "ratio" and then French "raison", from which the English word derived. As reason, rationality, and logic are all associated with the ability of the human mind to predict effects as based upon presumed causes, the word "reason" also denotes a ground or basis for a particular argument, and hence is used synonymously with the word "cause"." Read the rest of the article and you'll see some interesting stuff I omitted! All your examples are natural processes. I use the term to oppose supernatural. Limiting my search to natural processes is reasonable and using the above extract from wikipedia supports this. Were I to search for supernatural processes, I would never be in a position to make predictions based on that knowledge. You cannot say for example that through your prayer a man will grow back a severed arm. God might or He might not depending on His choice. He might instead influence someone to give the man a prosthetic arm but you would have no way of demonstrating that there was a supernatural process causing this. There would be no reasonable link between your prayer and the man receiving a new arm. On the other hand, there would a perfectly normal natural process. Granted discoveries are not made on routine ground but they're made on ground nonetheless. I can't answer your question about the choice between happiness and peace because the two are interdependent for me. Sorry. It's ok. I wasn't expecting you to evidence everlasting life after death. Like you point out it's not life in this dimension that you mean. When you talk about life after death you are not using words in the same way that I am. There are a great many differences between normal usage of words and their usage in a religious context. To use the word in your context, you have no evidence for life nor any evidence for death because they are happenings after life and death in the standard sense are complete. You mention that you have a core which belongs to another dimension. It sounds so different when we use words in the same was as each other doesn't it? Speaking of a part of you that exists in another dimension sounds pretty silly really but I think I understand what you're trying to say and that's not silly in the least. Investigations to date suggest there is no way to communicate with other dimensions, if they even exist. This is because their existence is shown through math and the math also shows that we can't communicate. Your core will never know that you've died in this dimension. Your core could be dead or alive, it makes absolutely zero difference and the terms dead or alive might not even apply in that dimension, we can never know. My point about the dimension talk is that we simply do not know. Therefore we have no knowledge to act on and no ability to predict. Yet you act on faith that what you've been told is true. Who is your faith in exactly? In you, that you make the right assessment of God's existence, or in your parents, that they wouldn't lie to you as a kid, or in you (again) that your religious experiences are actually experiences of the divine? Can you be sure you're not misleading yourself?

Nebula - you are far better than me at posting on this forum. My posts must look like a mess. I believe that the right ingredients (be they specific goo or time or whatever) are all that's required for life because I believe life has a natural explanation. The mere detail that we don't know what those ingredients are exactly does not mean that we need a supernatural explanation. That is a logical failing. The reason why I believe this is because natural explanations have proved so much more reliable than supernatural explanations and I have faith in that methodology. We don't know whether my 'if' statement is correct or not but that is a reason to keep researching, not a reason to stop looking. If at first you don't succeed, etc. I don't know why humans get so much pleasure from asking why and then figuring out the answer. Perhaps it is a hard-wired evolved feature of our brains but that's just a guess. You'd need a psychologist or a neuro-scientist to answer that. The pleasure we get from working things out is useful though. It motivates us to learn. I don't know what more there is to life than natural processes which is why I currently believe there isn't anything. I acknowledge I could be wrong which is why I say the may be more to life than natural processes. I'm looking though but I don't have reason to suggest what there might be at this point. I'll let you know if anything comes up. I can't really answer on God needing to create the universe small enough so that we could understand it. I comfort sorrow because it helps the sorrowful person! Happiness is a great emotion! It's a logical mistake to say that because life has no ultimate meaning, happiness and sadness are wasted emotions. I've added the word ultimate there to distinguish meaning in terms of why does the universe exist from meaning in terms of the effects of our actions on others. Evidence for me of everlasting life after death would be general definitions of everlasting, life and death and then evidence of someone exhibiting behaviors which fulfill those definitions. You could do that with evidence of someone who has died, come back to life and then cannot be killed again. This works exactly the same way as evidence of something emitting green light is evidence of something emitting photons with a wavelength of about 555nm. Green light is defined as a photon with a wavelength of 555nm. You have nothing to apologize for with regard to the odd pot-shot at someone. If you're on these boards frequently then it must be pretty frustrating to go round in circles.

Lots of replies. I hope I can give each justice. HIS girl - Any statement I make does not make me worthy of judging anyone. Once we have reached the point where we understand each other as best we can, we must simply accept the other's viewpoint, no matter how incorrect we think it is. I've read parts of the bible and most of Jesus' teachings. A pet project I haven't quite got stuck into yet is a summary of each of the comments in the bible which are direct quotes of his words. You could say I am a follower of Jesus to the extent of my natural actions, anything supernatural I haven't quite got a grip on. HIS girl - I do believe the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. The same methodology that determined how to make airplanes safe to fly in (for instance) also determined that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. I have faith in that methodology because it has proven itself many many times and it is independent of any individual. What is your faith in exactly? In you, that you make the right assessment of God's existence, or in your parents, that they wouldn't lie to you as a kid, or in you (again) that your religious experiences are actually experiences of the divine? Can you be sure you're not misleading yourself? nebula - I'm not sure that I fail to comprehend the complexity of life. No matter how complex it is, though, if it arising is a case of the right ingredients then millions of planets similar to ours increase the chance that those ingredients are present somewhere else and possibly also life. I have no starting premise merely the question "Why the universe?". With no evidence of a purpose for the universe, why would you want to assume there is and then act like there is and you know what it is? I don't think there is the fallacy you suggest in my line of thinking. I understand that there may be more to life than natural processes. With regards to the size of the universe, I only know that it's finite. When we build something to honor someone or something, we make it bigger than either the person or the thing. Anyway, I concede on this point. I clearly can't debate what size universe would honor someone who I don't think exists can I? I could attempt to argue that any size and no size honors God's existence because we can't know His mind to know what size would honor Him but I'd be on shaky ground there 'cos I don't know enough. nebula - Fair enough, thank you for sharing. I do ok in counseling because I listen and don't judge and I do provide hope in the ideas for a way forward. It's ok though, the brand of counseling you would volunteer me for anyways would most likely include certain ideas I wouldn't push on anyone. No, stories from people who have technically died and then come back to life would be fascinating evidence of life after death. However, as noted earlier, the methodology I have faith in would need to find an explanation for me to be completely accepting of the idea. I gather though, that as these people came back to life, you wouldn't be able to evidence everlasting life after death like I asked for? I critically analyze my own beliefs pretty frequently as it happens. It's part of the reason why I'm taking the time to respond. Boo - then you guys get into a pot-shot contest with each other. Such a waste of time. :-( Ah well. Perhaps I made myself a bit clearer here. Peace

Meh, I have no idea what you mean by distinguishing the indistinguishable! The thought that the universe has no purpose is only sad for you. You're going to fail everytime in an argument against me about how I feel. I know this because I'm feeling it when I describe it! I won't lie, promise. There's no evidence we have individual purposes either. Evidence everlasting life after death for me and maybe I'll consider your quote of Joh 3:16 to have some value. I don't even mind if the evidence is logical rather than physical (I mean I don't want you to die!). You see, I'm not posting on here to convert any of you. I'm not here to be converted. I'm here to read and learn and see if there is any truth in whatever claims people make. While I'm at it, I like to point out logical flaws in people's thinking so that they can make better decisions for themselves in future. Louie makes a couple of mistakes which the OP believes, hence my post. Do you think I was incorrect?

I assume this was posted in the Faith vs. Science part of Apologetics because other views on the same material are welcome?? Louie makes a logical error much the same as the person who thought up that dilemma for scientists. The chief argument for there being more life out there is not that the universe is too oversized if it's just us, it's that there are quite possibly millions of other planets which are similar enough to us to be able to support life. If life occured once then it might have occured again. The logical error is thinking that the answer to 'why the universe?' might possibly involve us in it. There's no evidence of an ultimate reason behind the universe let alone one that includes humans. The history of human discovery has always put a god behind natural processes (Thor for thunder as an example) until we knew enough to understand the natural process in more detail. Another thread detailed pieces in scripture which the poster thought showed divine inspiration because how could they know about the hydrological cycle 2,400 years ago? The answer is that they didn't, hence they said God did it and that's what the scripture says because that's what they thought at the time. Since then we've worked out God didn't do it (at least not directly) and we gave it the fancy name of hydrological cycle. The second error Louie makes is harder to spot. God (as a lot of you describe him some of you may not) is infinite. If the universe is to show off the splendour of an infinite God, then it is not the right size, it is too small! If you want the challenge of feeling small, I mean really really small, then imagine a universe with no purpose, which wasn't created for you to live on, that just is.

Sorry to disappoint but the writings in scripture don't give evidence of divine inspiration. They're recordings of the world as they saw it at the time. It's fairly logical that rainfall is water from the seas. Where else would they think it came from? What they didn't know then was that the hydrological cycle was completely natural and so they attributed the process to a supernatural being. It's similar to Thor causing thunder and lightening. Personally I see statements like those you quoted as evidence against the existence of God. All these processes that were once attributed to Him are now just part of the natural order of things. He once had this as part of what defined Him but He longer does. How much of there is left?

Ergh. At 215 replies so far, it's probably got enough replies to make it quite clear and hopefully from people smarter than me but hey, I'll give it a read and add to it if I think I can.

Hey I've just had a look through that list on origins. There are 4 peer-reviewed books, 2 peer-reviewed philosophical books and 7 articles in anthologies that were peer-reviewed. The 7 articles were not themselves peer-reviewed. The 2 philosophical books are just just that, philsophical. One is just a current state of affairs piece and the other is about the consequences of naturalism. Of the 4 peer-reviewed books, one is a collection of non-peer-reviewed essays (!), one is a critique of origin of life studies, the third is a critique of natural selection and the fourth is an attempt to number crunch ID. Where is the science? You support ID as an alternative scientific theory. What is the ID hypothesis? What data would support that hypothesis? How would you look for that evidence? Think it through. If evolution is false, how do we develop the next generation of anti-biotics? This is just one example of how screwed we would be if we ditched evolution in favour of ID. You must have heard the evolution theory many times, been told what data would support it and then probably seen for yourself the fossils that evidence the theory. How does one maths book compare to that behemoth of theory and evidence? To be honest, it doesn't. This is why we rubbish ID. Not because any religious issues but because ID does not pass scientific scrutiny. Like Cache says, we'd take ID seriously as a scientific theory if it could show some solid science behind it but it hasn't yet.

Hooray! Given that every single news item I've found on the web has completely slagged off this film, I just had to sign back on here to try and find another viewpoint. I hate just reading one side of an argument. A few things have come to mind though: 1. Darwinism isn't about the origin of life on Earth. It's about the change in species over time. Asking Dawkins about the origin of life is like asking me about Psalms. I know a bit but not enough to do anything more than guess the answers to questions on it. 2. Snow in Baghdad is not a sign that the global warming hypothesis is wrong. The global warming hypothesis is about the rise in average global temperatures over the past 50 years. In fact, predictions of weather events based on global warming suggest that freak events like snow in Baghdad will be more likely in the future. The stuff in the OP seems to totally inaccurate on a couple of points and if this is the stuff that's pushed in the film then perhaps the other side were right on this one. Just remember that evolution is a scientific fact. The same scientific principles that enable you to use the internet, fly or drive to work are used to continually challenge it and it continues to hold. Peace

No. I don't think it's a question of smart. It's possible to be very smart and irrational. Bit of an odd way to phrase it really. Anyway science doesn't prove anything, it makes theories and predictions and then sees if the evidence stacks up. Disagreeing evidence encourages re-writing of the theory. Rinse and repeat. Example: Theory - Bible is literally true. Prediction - Earth is 6,000 or so years old from following Genesis chronologies. Evidence - None. Lots saying Earth is older. Conclusion - Bible is not literally true (at least in this respect). Slightly disappointed by thread. I haven't been on these boards for ages and was excited by a survey!

Going offline now. I'll be back to continue (if you reply of course) at some point in the next few days. I might get an hour tomorrow. Good night.

hr.jr: All these improvements meant they evolved into something that was better able to surive the situation they found themselves in. It's a gradual and long process. Arash the archer: Sure. Imagine 2 micro organisms. One eats trees, the other eats grass. A meteor hits that kills all the trees instantly. Without adaption time, the tree eaters die. But eventually the trees grow back so there is a food source to be had and so the other organism has the chance to evolve into something that eats trees. It would bear more resemblance to the grass eater than the old tree eater. Say this only happened on one side of the planet and the old tree eaters survived on the other side of the planet. Then you've got 2 types of tree eaters. As trees colonise the available space, these will meet providing another change in environment as they compete for the food source. No doubt some micro organisms eat others. I did mean mutation but that is often given a negative presumption and I didn't want that. Well, if getting bigger stops one organism being eaten by another then I would have thought that a mutation that caused excess growth would hang around. If you work through the competition for resources, which includes eating one other, you can see that developing a better arsenal of weapons and defenses (including simply getting bigger) would be advantageous. Evolution has used billions of years to get where it is today. I don't really have a solid view about God so I guess I'm in the athiest camp for the time being. Different thread for my views on that though. Plenty of Christians support the theory of evolution. Do you not? It seems quite neat to me and I'm not sure there are any valid alternatives that give a good explanation for the evidence. Do you know of any?

The micro organisms that live within us do need us for their survival.

Because something in the environment changed so there was a need to adapt or Because they grew so numerous that they started to turn out of the required substances for survival so there was a need to adapt or Because a random change in their offspring produced something that was slightly different that was better able to live in the environment causing a need to adapt or Because of a combination of all three of the above.