RE: Argument against atheism
December 23, 2011 at 5:55 pm
(This post was last modified: December 23, 2011 at 6:04 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Mathematics is a form of logic with it's own rules, it need not conform to the rules of outside systems (or other systems in the same overall family) except in cases where it is to be applied to those systems.
No, I'm not. False positives would be evidence. Reason and evidence have their own words and definitions for a reason..hehehe, zing.
We trashed many of those lines of reasoning by applying them to situations in which evidence could be leveraged. Whittling down a system on the basis of certain parts of the system not conforming to its own rules is fine. To say, "this is illogical because it does not conform to the rules of logic" is one thing. To say that "this is illogical because evidence we have found in the material world annihilates this or that assertion" is an entirely different thing. It's a difference that should be appreciated.
A fun example of this is the
"All swans are white"
"Dave is a swan"
"Therefore Dave is white"
That works, there's no tearing that down with logic alone. What you'd need to do is provide evidence that dave is not a swan, that all swans are not white. Even so, all swans may not be white, and Dave might still be a white. Or perhaps All swans are white, but dave is not a swan, and still dave is white. Evidence, evidence, evidence. All systems have limitations.
No, I'm not. False positives would be evidence. Reason and evidence have their own words and definitions for a reason..hehehe, zing.
We trashed many of those lines of reasoning by applying them to situations in which evidence could be leveraged. Whittling down a system on the basis of certain parts of the system not conforming to its own rules is fine. To say, "this is illogical because it does not conform to the rules of logic" is one thing. To say that "this is illogical because evidence we have found in the material world annihilates this or that assertion" is an entirely different thing. It's a difference that should be appreciated.
A fun example of this is the
"All swans are white"
"Dave is a swan"
"Therefore Dave is white"
That works, there's no tearing that down with logic alone. What you'd need to do is provide evidence that dave is not a swan, that all swans are not white. Even so, all swans may not be white, and Dave might still be a white. Or perhaps All swans are white, but dave is not a swan, and still dave is white. Evidence, evidence, evidence. All systems have limitations.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
