Conversion

[Ryft]

No, not or logical tautology ... Evidence and logical tautology.

Hrmm. I think you perhaps misunderstand the difference. Can you demonstrate a proposition that is true BOTH evidentially AND tautologically? Personally, I cannot conceive of one. As far as I am aware, the negation of a necessary truth (tautological proposition) results in a contradiction, whereas one can negate a contingent truth (empirical proposition) without producing a contradiction; ergo, a proposition is either empirically true or tautologically true, but never both.

Others on this forum have already done so.

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof," yes? Thus I have done with your unsupported assertion.

[theVOID]

No, not or logical tautology ... Evidence and logical tautology.

Hrmm. I think you perhaps misunderstand the difference. Can you demonstrate a proposition that is true BOTH evidentially AND tautologically? Personally, I cannot conceive of one. As far as I am aware, the negation of a necessary truth (tautological proposition) results in a contradiction, whereas one can negate a contingent truth (empirical proposition) without producing a contradiction; ergo, a proposition is either empirically true or tautologically true, but never both.

Ok, probably got that one wrong, what i mean to say is that the most logically flawless explanation is not always the only explanation, in fact there may be many, and the only way to differentiate between such propositions is through evidence. You need the hypothesis first, a logical proposition, but you need evidence to verify that proposition.

Taking origins of the cosmos for example again, many of the propositions are valid propositions but that does not mean a single one can be known for certain (or with any level of certainty) as truth because there is no standard by which we can differentiate between claims.

I for one see human logic alone to be an inadequate way to make statements about the unknown, but once you have the logically consistent propositions you can see which of the propositions is supported by evidence and which ones are not.

For example, with the germ theory of disease, before it was discovered the idea that demons or spirits were responsible for ailments was a reasonable and logical proposition that was only negated when the evidence supported a different idea (and sadly to some extent is still substituted for spiritual nonsense, resulting in a great loss of life)

Others on this forum have already done so.

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof," yes? Thus I have done with your unsupported assertion.

You are free to dismiss it, but you are well aware of the opposition to your claims.

Likewise, your TAG is nothing more than an assumption and as such it will be treated like one until verified by evidence.

[Ryft]

So then, "No proposition can be held as true unless it can be verifed either by empirical observations or logical tautology." Is that it?

Likewise, your TAG is nothing more than an assumption ...

Hardly. You can cast aspersions, if you like, on the extensive hours I have invested in presenting arguments back and forth with Adrian (which I know he, at least, recognizes and appreciates), but I think that probably says more about you than anything else.

[theVOID]

So then, "No proposition can be held as true unless it can be verifed either by empirical observations or logical tautology." Is that it?

Likewise, your TAG is nothing more than an assumption ...

Hardly. You can cast aspersions, if you like, on the extensive hours I have invested in presenting arguments back and forth with Adrian (which I know he, at least, recognizes and appreciates), but I think that probably says more about you than anything else.

The TAG only works if you presuppose the existence of God as the source of logical absolutes and morals and you have not once (correct me if i'm wrong) provided any evidence for the existence of God or any reason at all to believe that God is the only answer to these questions, so ultimately you have nothing more than a self-contained argument designed deliberately not to need external validation.

And the fact that you spend "extensive hours" chasing your tail just makes it more amusing.

[Ryft]

The TAG only works if you presuppose the existence of God as ...

So you haven't understood my argument. Ah well. (And I noticed you ignored my question. I'll take the hint and allow you to continue avoiding it.)

[Rhizomorph13]

I hate it when people avoid direct questions; granted, they are usually a stepping stone on the way to exposing the ignorance of the one being questioned but that is the point innit.

Rhizo

[theVOID]

The TAG only works if you presuppose the existence of God as ...

So you haven't understood my argument. Ah well. (And I noticed you ignored my question. I'll take the hint and allow you to continue avoiding it.)

I missed your question FYI, i'm on a very small screen.

And i find your question far too generalized, for i do not see any reason to believe that our human use of logic should apply in every situation, the singularity and Quantum Mechanics being prime examples in our own universe, i imagine our logic would be even more useless in the hypothetical multiverse or even a different iteration of our own universe, should they exist (potential previous iterations of a collapsed universe, ala the Big bounce).

And yes i did understand your argument, and i am saying that it relies on the presupposition of God.

[Ryft]

I hate it when people avoid direct questions. Granted, they are usually a stepping stone on the way to exposing the ignorance of the one being questioned. But that is the point, isn't it?

*nods* ... as we're about to expose.

I missed your question, for your information. I'm on a very small screen. And I find your question far too generalized, for I do not see any reason to believe that our human use of logic should apply in every situation ...

So then, "No proposition can be held as true unless it can be verifed by empirical observations." Is that it?

[theVOID]

I hate it when people avoid direct questions. Granted, they are usually a stepping stone on the way to exposing the ignorance of the one being questioned. But that is the point, isn't it?

*nods* ... as we're about to expose.

I missed your question, for your information. I'm on a very small screen. And I find your question far too generalized, for I do not see any reason to believe that our human use of logic should apply in every situation ...

So then, "No proposition can be held as true unless it can be verifed by empirical observations." Is that it?

No, and i can sum this up in one quote:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

You need not read any further as the preceding gem from Sagan speaks for it's self, but since you are going to yet again ignore my answer i will say this: If i was going to tell you i ate eggs for breakfast you would not require evidence to hold the claim as truth, you would use logic to determine that the claim is feasible and experience to determine it is likely, if i told you however that i ate them with the queen of england on a yacht in the Bahamas then you would need evidence to hold it as truth because even though it is logically possible, it is not the type of claim that you should accept based on logic alone.

[littlegrimlin1]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

You need not read any further as the preceding gem from Sagan speaks for it's self, but since you are going to yet again ignore my answer i will say this: If i was going to tell you i ate eggs for breakfast you would not require evidence to hold the claim as truth, you would use logic to determine that the claim is feasible and experience to determine it is likely, if i told you however that i ate them with the queen of england on a yacht in the Bahamas then you would need evidence to hold it as truth because even though it is logically possible, it is not the type of claim that you should accept based on logic alone.

haha, that is my favorite quote!! haha, it was the first signature Ive had, and I cannot agree with you more. Sadly, few others do also.