tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post4627035574408388192..comments2017-01-18T09:12:28.035-08:00Comments on DVD Bach's Blog: Today's Liar for Jesus, Thoughts for Young MenDVD Bachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-37266525921776749682013-02-25T16:25:24.850-08:002013-02-25T16:25:24.850-08:00Off-hand, I don't see how sound logic proceedi...Off-hand, I don't see how sound logic proceeding from true premises would result in a false conclusion, but I don't want to rule out the possibility entirely; it could be there are situations that I'm just not seeing. I still believe that any logical conclusions that can't be verified in the real world are worthless in any case.DVD Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-39860352035117332082013-02-25T13:53:35.194-08:002013-02-25T13:53:35.194-08:00Okay, then what does your comment about "real...Okay, then what does your comment about "real-world observation and testing" mean?<br /><br />If all the premises are true, and no logical fallacies are committed, can the conclusion be false?<br /><br />Maybe you should start a new post about logic.Thoughts for Young Menhttp://thoughtsforyoungmen.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-89761375641380796592013-02-21T12:55:23.286-08:002013-02-21T12:55:23.286-08:00I meant the conclusions. There are any of a numbe...I meant the conclusions. There are any of a number of logical fallacies that would lead to a false conclusion from true premises, including the non sequitur, shifting the burden of proof, the argument from ignorance and the false dichotomy.DVD Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-15615408403900360012013-02-21T11:12:06.573-08:002013-02-21T11:12:06.573-08:00When you say "supported by real-world observa...When you say "supported by real-world observation and testing", do you mean relating to the premises? Can a logical conclusion be invalid even if the premises are true?<br />Thoughts for Young Menhttp://thoughtsforyoungmen.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-56182380666111345032013-02-21T09:55:37.660-08:002013-02-21T09:55:37.660-08:00Logical conclusions are valid if they can be suppo...Logical conclusions are valid if they can be supported by real-world observation and testing.DVD Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-68165387508965620402013-02-21T09:54:59.983-08:002013-02-21T09:54:59.983-08:00I'm afraid it does not. Where do you draw the...I'm afraid it does not. Where do you draw the line between one "kind" of animal and another? <br /><br />Is it a linguistic distinction? In other words, are things different "kinds" because we have two different English words for them? For example, are fruit flies and house flies the same kind because they share the English word "fly?" Are bears and dogs different kinds because they don't share an English word? Or am I on the wrong track entirely?DVD Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-72451918763410432642013-02-21T09:46:15.240-08:002013-02-21T09:46:15.240-08:00Sorry, maybe my original definition wasn't cle...Sorry, maybe my original definition wasn't clear. To clarify it, my qualification in parentheses is not talking about individuals, but populations. I believe my fly example gets the point across.Thoughts for Young Menhttp://thoughtsforyoungmen.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-29564856021838075142013-02-21T09:23:07.415-08:002013-02-21T09:23:07.415-08:00Okay, so that contradicts your original definition...Okay, so that contradicts your original definition, which stated that animals of a given "kind" can reproduce with one another.<br /><br />So again, how you are defining "kind?" Five different verses in Genesis 1 mention "kind," but none define it.DVD Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-30538871606875581072013-02-21T09:20:48.354-08:002013-02-21T09:20:48.354-08:00How you would "stop" evolution?How you would "stop" evolution?DVD Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-68012084025894529422013-02-21T09:11:41.775-08:002013-02-21T09:11:41.775-08:00No, "kind" is different than "speci...No, "kind" is different than "species," although similar.<br /><br />Let me give an example. Say there is a specific "kind" of fly. Over time, the descendants of that "kind" of fly undergo variations such that some of the descendants can no longer breed and produce offspring with certain other descendants of the original fly (as you mention). The descendants may be classified as two different "species", since they can no longer interbreed, but they are still one "kind."Thoughts for Young Menhttp://thoughtsforyoungmen.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-84037924330983274382013-02-21T09:04:50.356-08:002013-02-21T09:04:50.356-08:00Okay, thanks. Now, how do you know logic is valid...Okay, thanks. Now, how do you know logic is valid? How do you know that "truth" supported by logic is true, while "truth" which is illogical is not true?Thoughts for Young Menhttp://thoughtsforyoungmen.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-73584481925444358002013-02-21T08:56:30.361-08:002013-02-21T08:56:30.361-08:00If humans will continue to evolve, that raises the...If humans will continue to evolve, that raises the obvious moral question, "Should humans continue to evolve?" That is, is further evolution morally right, or should it be stopped?<br /><br />I don't see how such a question could even be answered in your worldview without abandoning either your view of evolution or your view of morality. Is that why you failed to see the problem? Because it exposes the contradictory nature of your worldview?Thoughts for Young Menhttp://thoughtsforyoungmen.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-13148430311487340432013-02-21T06:25:29.245-08:002013-02-21T06:25:29.245-08:00So by "kind," you mean "species,&qu...So by "kind," you mean "species," correct? Two animals are of the same species if they can produce offspring that are also able to reproduce.<br /><br />So what you're asking about is speciation, the evolution of new species through natural selection. Yes, we know that occurs because it has been observed both in laboratory settings and in controlled experimental conditions in the field.DVD Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-290374016736824062013-02-21T06:19:36.019-08:002013-02-21T06:19:36.019-08:00Yes, it's pretty much a certainty that humans ...Yes, it's pretty much a certainty that humans will continue to evolve through natural selection. However, I don't see why that would change my criteria for morality in the way that you're suggesting.DVD Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-33001325461851564022013-02-21T06:16:33.308-08:002013-02-21T06:16:33.308-08:00Inductive Reasoning
In the 19th cent. John Stuart...Inductive Reasoning<br /><br />In the 19th cent. John Stuart Mill noticed the same dichotomy between man's generalizations and nature's instances, but moved toward a different conclusion. Mill held that the scientist or experimenter is not interested in moving from the general to the specific case, which characterizes deductive logic, but is concerned with inductive reasoning, moving from the specific to the general (see induction). For example, the statement The sun will rise tomorrow is not the result of a particular deductive process, but is based on a psychological calculation of general probability based on many specific past experiences. Mill's chief contribution to logic rests on his efforts to formulate rules of inductive logic. Although since the criticisms of David Hume there has been disagreement about the validity of induction, modern logicians have argued that inductive logic does not need justification any more than deductive logic does. The real problem is to establish rules of induction, just as Aristotle established rules of deduction.<br /> <br />Mathematics and Logic<br /><br />With the development of symbolic logic by George Boole and Augustus De Morgan in the 19th cent., logic has been studied in more purely mathematical terms, and mathematical symbols have replaced ordinary language. Reference to external interpretations of the symbols (formulated in ordinary language) was also rejected by the formalist movement of the early 20th cent. Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead, in Principia Mathematica (3 vol., 1910–13), attempted to develop logical theory as the basis for mathematics. Pure formal logic attempts to prove that a logical system is dependent only on the perceptual recognition and valid manipulation of symbols and requires no interpretive reference to content.<br /><br />Intuitionism, rejecting such formalism, holds that words and formulas have significance only as a reflection of activity in the mind. Thus a theorem has meaning only if it represents a mental construction of a mathematical or logical entity. Kurt Gödel, in the 1930s, brought forth his "incompleteness theorem," which demonstrates that an infinitude of propositions that are underivable from the axioms of a system nevertheless have the value of true within the system. Neither these Gödel Propositions, as they are called, nor their negations are provable. One implication for the modern logician is that Aristotle's law of the excluded middle (either A or not A) is neither so simple nor so self-evident as it once seemed.<br /><br />[Source: logic. (2008). In The Columbia Encyclopedia.]<br />DVD Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-42383799782720254082013-02-21T06:16:28.599-08:002013-02-21T06:16:28.599-08:00Logic
The systematic study of valid inference. A ...Logic<br /><br />The systematic study of valid inference. A distinction is drawn between logical validity and truth. Validity merely refers to formal properties of the process of inference. Thus, a conclusion whose value is true may be drawn from an invalid argument, and one whose value is false, from a valid sequence. For example, the argument All professors are brilliant; Smith is a professor, therefore, Smith is brilliant is a valid inference, but the argument All professors are brilliant; Smith is brilliant; therefore, Smith is a professor is an invalid inference, even if Smith is a professor.<br /> <br />Aristotelian Logic<br /><br />In Western thought, systematic logic is considered to have begun with Aristotle's collection of treatises, the Organon [tool]. Aristotle introduced the use of variables: While his contemporaries illustrated principles by the use of examples, Aristotle generalized, as in: All x are y; all y are z; therefore, all x are z. Aristotle posited three laws as basic to all valid thought: the law of identity, A is A; the law of contradiction, A cannot be both A and not A; and the law of the excluded middle, A must be either A or not A.<br /><br />Aristotle believed that any logical argument could be reduced to a standard form, known as a syllogism. A syllogism is a sequence of three propositions: two premises and the conclusion. By varying the form of the proposition and the modifiers (such as all, no, and some), a few specific forms may be delimited. Although Aristotle was concerned with problems in modal logic and other minor branches, it is usually agreed that his major contribution in the field of logic was his elaboration of syllogistic logic; indeed, the Aristotelian statement of logic held sway in the Western world for 2,000 years. Nonetheless, various logicians did, during that time, take issue with parts of Aristotle's thought.<br /> <br />Post-Aristotelian Logic<br /><br />One of Aristotle's tacit assumptions was that there is a correspondence linking the structures of reality, the mind, and language (and hence logic). This position came to be known in the Middle Ages as realism. The opposing school of thought, nominalism, is exemplified by William of Occam, a medieval logician, who maintained that the structure of language and logic corresponds only to the structure of the mind, not to that of reality. Since knowledge is a study of generalizations, while nature occurs in myriad single instances, the distinction between the world and our conception of it is stressed by the nominalists.<br /> <br />Continued below.DVD Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-13043036206638514712013-02-21T05:51:26.908-08:002013-02-21T05:51:26.908-08:00DVD Bach,
What is the evidence that logic has dev...DVD Bach,<br /><br />What is the evidence that logic has developed over history? I know you're big on evidence, so I'm sure you'll easily be able to supply it. You would never believe something without evidence. Come on, let's see it!<br /><br />Regarding your statement "and even if it [logic] hadn't, that doesn't preclude someone from concluding that a god doesn't exist", yes it does. It may take you a while to figure that one out. Please let me know if you need further explanation. :)<br />Thoughts for Young Menhttp://thoughtsforyoungmen.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-52662550152524312902013-02-21T05:45:45.778-08:002013-02-21T05:45:45.778-08:00On the one hand you describe evolution as occurrin...On the one hand you describe evolution as occurring by means of natural selection acting on mutations that grant some sort of advantage in survival or reproduction.<br /><br />On the other hand, you have elsewhere stated that your view of morality is based on increasing happiness and minimizing suffering.<br /><br />So the contradiction I am seeing is this: Do you believe humans in their present form cannot evolve any further? If not, why not? If humans can evolve further, then should we allow that evolution to take place according to natural selection? If yes, that would contradict your view of morality, since the criteria for right and wrong would have changed from happiness and suffering to survival and reproduction. If no, then that means humans are responsible for directing further evolution. Is that what you believe?Thoughts for Young Menhttp://thoughtsforyoungmen.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-34146466619613928482013-02-21T05:30:05.077-08:002013-02-21T05:30:05.077-08:00I am using the Biblical definition of "kind&q...I am using the Biblical definition of "kind" which is found in Genesis 1. You can read it there for yourself, but the basic idea is animals that are capable of reproducing with one another (or were at one time capable of reproducing with one another). For example, cats are one "kind", dogs are another "kind", bears are another "kind", etc.Thoughts for Young Menhttp://thoughtsforyoungmen.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-43986115630354610102013-02-20T14:21:19.635-08:002013-02-20T14:21:19.635-08:00How so? I don't understand what you're se...How so? I don't understand what you're seeing as a contradiction.DVD Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-46813410344328564742013-02-20T14:13:08.429-08:002013-02-20T14:13:08.429-08:00Sure; I'm happy to answer that, but I'll n...Sure; I'm happy to answer that, but I'll need a bit of clarification.<br /><br />Are you referring to one individual animal transforming into another individual animal? That would be impossible according to everything we know about evolution.<br /><br />With that in mind, I'm going to assume your question is about animal populations, not individuals (please correct me if I'm wrong). In order to provide evidence for that, I'll need to know what you mean by "kind of animal." How are you defining that?DVD Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-85152566164227475252013-02-20T14:08:58.813-08:002013-02-20T14:08:58.813-08:00Sorry for the confusion; yes, humans are related t...Sorry for the confusion; yes, humans are related to rats. Go back far enough, and every animal shared a common ancestor with every other one.DVD Bachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02673451845410998118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-39681875827285639782013-02-20T14:03:59.225-08:002013-02-20T14:03:59.225-08:00The Christian worldview does not say that God crea...The Christian worldview does not say that God created "every life form into existence in their present forms." That was the false belief that led Darwin into evolution.<br /><br />The Christian worldview acknowledges that creatures vary. There are a lot of different kinds of dogs. Farmers breed plants and animals together to create "new" and "different" creatures. But they're still the same kind.<br /><br />Where is the evidence that one kind of animal has ever changed into another kind of animal?Thoughts for Young Menhttp://thoughtsforyoungmen.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-63702489018839932672013-02-20T13:58:59.163-08:002013-02-20T13:58:59.163-08:00I don't remember squirming, but yes, everyone ...I don't remember squirming, but yes, everyone please check it out. I especially like the part where DVD Bach cannot understand that words can have multiple meanings.<br /><br />I'm not sure what the "hazy" part is he's talking about. I was very clear. He, however, keep changing his view of morality when presented with examples he didn't like.<br /><br />Also check out http://americanvision.org/6988/atheists-want-you-to-have-a-personal-relationship-with-reality/ and http://americanvision.org/7063/did-you-know-youre-related-to-a-rat/.<br /><br />My favorite part there is where DVD Bach admits he is related to a rat. Well, technically he never admitted that. I think he had crawled back into his hole before then. But he was unable to refute the argument.Thoughts for Young Menhttp://thoughtsforyoungmen.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2461710675443379089.post-86686248471409363842013-02-20T13:50:55.620-08:002013-02-20T13:50:55.620-08:00Hi there DVD Bach! Wow, you have your own website...Hi there DVD Bach! Wow, you have your own website!<br /><br />Your comments here about natural selection are in contradiction to your view of morality. That is, unless you believe that humans in their present form are the pinnacle of evolution, and no further evolution is possible (but how could you possibly even know that?). Or maybe you believe that humans should only allow further evolution that fits with your subjective view of morality.<br /><br />Please clarify.Thoughts for Young Menhttp://thoughtsforyoungmen.comnoreply@blogger.com