1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay“...Really you logic deduces facts about event you have not witnessed ...”
“...So suggesting nothing supernatural is required is your opinion ...”
[b]No, it is a logically deduced fact. Nothing supernatural is logically required to explain the origins of life. Why should something supernatural be logically required?
Really you logic deduces facts about event you have not witnessed and can only
guess about? You d again assuming you know how it could have happened, which is
not knowing how it did.
Kelly[/b]
yes, that is just the way logic works. We can deduce things about things we have not directly personally observed.
“...You do not know if the what we would call the supernatual is trully
required because you don't know what really is required! ...”
I know there is no logical requirement for the supernatural to exist to explain anything. Not surprisingly, as yet, nobody has through logical deduction demonstrated any logical requirement for there to exist a supernatural to explain anything. This is unsurprising because there is no logical contradiction in there being no supernatural in any context we can observe in nature.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"yes, that is just the way logic works. We can deduce things about things we have not directly personally observed."
“...Really you logic deduces facts about event you have not witnessed ...”
yes, that is just the way logic works. We can deduce things about things we have not directly personally observed.
“...You do not know if the what we would call the supernatual is trully
required because you don't know what really is required! ...”
I know there is n ...[text shortened]... o logical contradiction in there being no supernatural in any context we can observe in nature.
So if your logic points to something you believe to be true that is a fact for you?
I take it if additional points or evidence shows up that disproves your facts,
because they are facts you have to reject that new and additional evidence
because facts are different than opinions?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay“...Your changing the subject. ...”
Your changing the subject.
My opinion is no better than yours as far as I'm concern, but when you mix in your
opinions with what you want to call facts you are in danger of gross errors.
Life cannot exists without water does not address how or where it started.
Kelly
when did I mention “universe” in this thread?
“...life cannot exists without water does not address how or where it started. ...”
I didn't say/imply in any way it did although, obviously, having said that, it narrows it down to where and when there was water!!!
But at least you have now admitted that life cannot exists without water!
If life cannot exists without water then surely, logically, life couldn't get started without water!!!
so your claim that I cannot “know” that life started with water and that I am just “guessing” and this is just “opinion” is clearly false -no guesses, no mere opinion, just a conclusion from the above logical deduction. This is a clear example of something we CAN say about abiogenesis with certainty (as opposed to probabilistically).
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"I know there is no logical requirement for the supernatural to exist to explain anything. Not surprisingly, as yet, nobody has through logical deduction demonstrated any logical requirement for there to exist a supernatural to explain anything. This is unsurprising because there is no logical contradiction in there being no supernatural in any context we can observe in nature."
“...Really you logic deduces facts about event you have not witnessed ...”
yes, that is just the way logic works. We can deduce things about things we have not directly personally observed.
“...You do not know if the what we would call the supernatual is trully
required because you don't know what really is required! ...”
I know there is n ...[text shortened]... o logical contradiction in there being no supernatural in any context we can observe in nature.
Pointing out to you that since you do not know what is or is not required, that you
don't really know how it all happened, that you cannot dismiss a creator out of
hand based upon anything other than that you want to, not because there is really
a reason to. My pointing out to you why I think a creator is required is only being
rejected by you, because you don't want to accept it, not because you can say that
anything I said was untrue.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWhatever.
“...Your changing the subject. ...”
when did I mention “universe” in this thread?
“...life cannot exists without water does not address how or where it started. ...”
I didn't say/imply in any way it did although, obviously, having said that, it narrows it down to where and when there was water!!!
But at least you have now admitted that lif ...[text shortened]... le of something we CAN say about abiogenesis with certainty (as opposed to probabilistically).
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay“...So if your logic points to something you believe to be true that is a fact for you? ...”
"yes, that is just the way logic works. We can deduce things about things we have not directly personally observed."
So if your logic points to something you believe to be true that is a fact for you?
I take it if additional points or evidence shows up that disproves your facts,
because they are facts you have to reject that new and additional evidence
because facts are different than opinions?
Kelly
when you say “ logic points”, are you referring to logical Deduction or logical Induction?
I was obviously referring to the former. If I say X therefore Y and it is indeed the case that Y follows from X then, yes, that is the truth of the argument because “if X then Y” is true. For example, “IF water is essential for life THEN water is required for life to start”; in this case, X = “ water is essential for life” and Y = “water is required for life to start” so this is clearly a logical deduction that must be true (regardless of the physical evidence! )
“...I take it if additional points or evidence shows up that disproves your facts, ...”
if it is a “fact” then it is not credible that it can be disprove. In any case, you are talking here about induction but I was talking about deduction.
Originally posted by KellyJay“...Pointing out to you that since you do not know what is or is not required, ...”
"I know there is no logical requirement for the supernatural to exist to explain anything. Not surprisingly, as yet, nobody has through logical deduction demonstrated any logical requirement for there to exist a supernatural to explain anything. This is unsurprising because there is no logical contradiction in there being no supernatural in any context we c ...[text shortened]... ou don't want to accept it, not because you can say that
anything I said was untrue.
Kelly
but, obviously we do know. We CAN know what is logically required in a logical explanation -just use logic!
“..My pointing out to you why I think a creator is required is only being
rejected by you, because you don't WANT to accept it...” (my emphasis)
No, I do not let what I “WANT”” determine what I believe. And I do not “WANT” to "NOT accept" there being a god.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI think you need to rethink what is and is not obvious, because I believe you are
“...So if your logic points to something you believe to be true that is a fact for you? ...”
when you say “ logic points”, are you referring to logical Deduction or logical Induction?
I was obviously referring to the former. If I say X therefore Y and it is indeed the case that Y follows from X then, yes, that is the truth of the argument because ...[text shortened]... e disprove. In any case, you are talking here about induction but I was talking about deduction.
confusing what you think is obvious with what you know you meant, because it
does not always come across the way you think it does.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI'm quite sure you believe you know what was required, that is not the samething
“...Pointing out to you that since you do not know what is or is not required, ...”
but, obviously we do know. We CAN know what is logically required in a logical explanation -just use logic!
“..My pointing out to you why I think a creator is required is only being
rejected by you, because you don't WANT to accept it...” (my emphasis)
No, ...[text shortened]... at I “WANT”” determine what I believe. And I do not “WANT” to "NOT accept" there being a god.
as knowing what was required.
kelly
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat an absurd post.
Atheist have created there own religion because they
don't wish to believe in the true God. These guys use
circular reasoning, so they will never reach a true
conclusion. I think we should leave them to a
reprobate mind and stop any more posts to them.
With Christian Love,
RJHinds
Atheist have created there own religion because they don't wish to believe in the true God.
I'm not an atheist because i don't wish to believe in the 'true God®', i don't believe in God because i see no credible evidence for one. Incidentally, how do you know there is only a true God®?
These guys use circular reasoning, so they will never reach a true conclusion.
Ahem..............only guys? There are no female atheists? Last time i checked my girlfriends physiology she was female and she's an atheist. It is curious how many Christians only use the masculine.
I think we should leave them to a reprobate mind and stop any more posts to them.
Explain to me how not believing in a God leaves me with a 'reprobate mind'?
[b]With Christian Love.[/b[
Genius. You've just insulted an estimated 1.1 billion people worldwide and then sign off with 'Christian Love'. Does htta love not extend to people who don't believe in your God?
Originally posted by Proper KnobThank you for your reply. Some people just don't get it, even though they claim to be Christian.
What an absurd post.
[b]Atheist have created there own religion because they don't wish to believe in the true God.
I'm not an atheist because i don't wish to believe in the 'true God®', i don't believe in God because i see no credible evidence for one. Incidentally, how do you know there is only a true God®?
These guys use circular reaso ...[text shortened]... Christian Love'. Does htta love not extend to people who don't believe in your God?
I have read once an atheist wrote, she really wanted to be believe in God, but accepted now she did not receive the talent to believe. Her honesty humble me. How can I judge for what I have received, and other's not, the talent to believe.
Believers, just received a different talent from atheists. Besides it is not believes or religions that really make the changes in this world, but LOVE, with no conditions.
Originally posted by katpRubbish
Thank you for your reply. Some people just don't get it, even though they claim to be Christian.
I have read once an atheist wrote, she really wanted to be believe in God, but accepted now she did not receive the talent to believe. Her honesty humble me. How can I judge for what I have received, and other's not, the talent to believe.
Believers, just rece ...[text shortened]... elieves or religions that really make the changes in this world, but LOVE, with no conditions.
Kelly