What is logical and what is illogical?

Goodbye Mitt.

 

And another one abandons the battlefield.

 

Vayas con Dios Vanka!

 

Some of these atheists are just not equipped with the proper armor to keep fighting on the battlefield and so they get discourage and retreat...lol

 

No, not in the least bit.
So, this entity was/is always before nothing ever was/is?

 

Not at alll. That is nothing, but an assumption.

 

You are correct. Your logic is true, to you.
Not necessarily true or logical to someone else. Actually, to some, it is highly illogical. Spock says so.
And yes, that dirt will create life. Not a physical human but some life will form. Ever put dead food in the fridge or leave dead food out on the counter? Life forms.

 

No you are wrong dirt does not create life. Rotten food does not create life. The life that appears on dirt or on rotten old food are microorganisms such as bacteria and mold. They have been around for ages...didn't you know that?

Aren't you glad you are learning something today?

Once again lifeless forms cannot create living beings such as plants, animals, and human beings. Oh and we might as well add microorganisms such as bacteria and fungi (mold).

 

Hey Mitt Ryan...be aware... some of the folks on this forum don't want to recognize the notion or concept of 'cause and effect'.

 

Let's suppose for a moment that this is true. It probably isn't, but for the sake of argument, we'll say that it is. There's still no logical path that gets you from there to God. At best, you can say that there has always been life. Maybe the universe has been around for an infinitely long period of time, and there have always been microbes flying around on comets, seeding the various planets of the cosmos. I'll grant you it's not likely, but there's just as much evidence for that as there is for a God.

Of course again, that's assuming your initial statement is true, so you might first focus on trying to prove that. (Hint: you can't.)

 

Who is to say that his speculation (as you might call it) regarding God is less authoritative than yours regarding "Maybe the universe has been around for an infinitely long period of time, and there have always been microbes flying around on comets, seeding the various planets of the cosmos."? Likewise, you cannot prove your speculation. Tit for Tat.

 

[video=youtube;U6QYDdgP9eg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg[/video]

Abiogenesis has evidence to support, unlike god.


"God is less authoritative" is pure speculation on your part backed by absolutely nothing but opinion, not facts.

 

so which one you chose to believe is just that. What you believe.

 

A fair question.

Even if you say that both explanations are equally likely, then he's still arriving at the "God conclusion" with far too much certainty. He seems to be saying that God can be arrived at logically from "Lifeless things cannot create life", and that's simply not true. At best, it's just one of several options. That was the main point of that particular post, and beyond that I wasn't really trying to say anything about relative likelihood.

But if we would like to talk about which bit of speculation is more likely, I offer the following simple reasoning: We know that comets exist, and we have some reasonable scientific basis to believe that they can carry organic material around, potentially seeding planets with life. On the other hand, we don't know that God exists, or even whether the existence of anything like a God is metaphysically possible. Given two explanations for life, one that uses things that we know can and do exist, and one that doesn't, it makes more sense to go with the former.

In any case, he still hasn't given any good evidence for his initial premise.

 

And your point is what? That suggested rule of thumb would apply to everyone.

 

In the first highlighted text above, you are basing your conclusion on a presumption.... a presumption that you know what he might be saying.... when in FACT he stated what he stated and nothing more. In the second highlighted text, you base your conclusion on an ambiguous clause... "at best"... perhaps best from your point of view, but your point of view cannot be mandated to be accepted by everyone else.

Affirming the consequent. Are you stating conclusively that God does not exist?

Who says that evidence is mandatory?

 

As far as I'm aware, it would be impossible to have a conversation with another human being if you didn't assume that you were at least someone correct in understanding what the other person was trying to say. He seemed to be stating very clearly that you arrive at the existence of God via logical reasoning, starting with his stated premise. I used the word "seemed" as a courtesy on the off chance I did misinterpret his point, but I'm fairly certain I didn't. If you think he was trying to say something else, please tell me where I went wrong.

As for my use of the phrase "at best", that has nothing to do with point of view. We talking about logic, and logic provides a strict system of rules for drawing conclusions from a set of premises. You cannot arrive at God logically from the premise "Lifeless things cannot create life". I'm not saying there aren't other logical arguments that would be valid, and I'm not saying that there aren't any non-logical arguments. What I am saying is that the argument he was trying to make doesn't work. Period. That isn't up for dispute. If he want's to modify his premise, or specify some additional premises that might get him what he wants, then I'll be more than willing to re-evaluate his position.

Sorry, my wording wasn't completely clear. I'm say that we don't know that God exists, or even can exist, while we do know that comets exist. If you can explain something with things that you know exist, it seems odd (to me, at least - this isn't an argument based on formal logic) to instead postulate the existence of forces that, for all you know, may not even be metaphysically possible.

It is true that at the start of any logical argument, you have to take some things as axioms. If you actually want your argument to carry any weight, though, you need to chose axioms that most reasonable people can agree on, and will accept as self-evident, or at least as close to self-evident as we can get. Saying without evidence that it's impossible for life to develop from non-life doesn't really fit that criteria.

 

"seem (sm)
intr.v. seemed, seem·ing, seems
1. To give the impression of being; appear: The child seems healthy, but the doctor is concerned.
2. To appear to one's own opinion or mind: I can't seem to get the story straight.
3. To appear to be true, probable, or evident: It seems you object to the plan. It seems like rain. He seems to have worked in sales for several years.
4. To appear to exist: There seems no reason to postpone it."

Nothing in that definition can lead someone to believe that you were extending a courtesy.

Your preferred logic led you to use the phrase "at best"... therefore your preferred logic led you into the position of you presuming to know what is "best" or 'at best'. So please do explain how you come to the conclusion that something you say is 'best'.

Have you ever analyzed a comet, up close and personal? Ya know, like being on one and taking samples for the lab? If not, then all you have is a perception of what has been dubbed "comet".

Are you suggesting that some people (excluding those that are physiologically incapable of reason) are not 'reasonable'?
"rea·son·a·ble (rz-n-bl)
adj.
1. Capable of reasoning; rational: a reasonable person.
2. Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking: a reasonable solution to the problem.
3. Being within the bounds of common sense: arrive home at a reasonable hour.
4. Not excessive or extreme; fair: reasonable prices."

Please provide an example of what is a 'reasonable' person, then provide the documentation that will justify that person as being reasonable and another person not to be reasonable.

 

"seem (sm)
intr.v. seemed, seem·ing, seems
1. To give the impression of being; appear: The child seems healthy, but the doctor is concerned.
2. To appear to one's own opinion or mind: I can't seem to get the story straight.
3. To appear to be true, probable, or evident: It seems you object to the plan. It seems like rain. He seems to have worked in sales for several years.
4. To appear to exist: There seems no reason to postpone it."

Nothing in that definition can lead someone to believe that you were extending a courtesy.

Your preferred logic led you to use the phrase "at best"... therefore your preferred logic led you into the position of you presuming to know what is "best" or 'at best'. So please do explain how you come to the conclusion that something you say is 'best'.

Have you ever analyzed a comet, up close and personal? Ya know, like being on one and taking samples for the lab? If not, then all you have is a perception of what has been dubbed "comet".

Are you suggesting that some people (excluding those that are physiologically incapable of reason) are not 'reasonable'?
"rea·son·a·ble (rz-n-bl)
adj.
1. Capable of reasoning; rational: a reasonable person.
2. Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking: a reasonable solution to the problem.
3. Being within the bounds of common sense: arrive home at a reasonable hour.
4. Not excessive or extreme; fair: reasonable prices."

Please provide an example of what is a 'reasonable' person, then provide the documentation that will justify that person as being reasonable and another person not to be reasonable.

 

Seriously? You're going to turn this into an argument over semantics? I explained what I meant. If you think that I should have chosen different words to express my meaning, that's fine, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Mitt Ryan's goal was - as best as I could determine - to prove logically that God exists, starting from the premise that life can not arise from lifelessness. The closest he can get to that goal, logically and using the stated premise, is what I stated. From his perspective, or at least what I've taken to be his perspective, the 'best' he can do in the direction of his goal is to say that there has always been something living.

Are you genuinely suggesting that there is good reason to doubt the existence of comets? And this isn't even related to the point I was trying to make. My only goal in the initial post of mine that you quoted was to show that Mitt Ryan's logic was flawed. Concluding the existence of God based simply on the existence of life is bad logic. Period. Again, not saying that there aren't logical arguments which could be made. Just saying that his particular one doesn't work because I can easily come up with other explanations consistent with his premise.

Ah, more semantics. I find it very difficult to believe that you genuinely can't figure out what I meant. If it's just the case that you disagree, please say so and explain why you think it's reasonable to accept Mitt Ryan's axiom.

 

blah, duplicate post

 

In short. You based your conclusion on a presumption that you know what he meant to say when he did not say what you think he meant to say. He said what he said.... for you to suggest anything else... well, let me just say that you are not a mind reader.... As for my use of semantics... semantics is a recognized field of science ... the science of linguistics... Learn to use that science to your own advantage.

 

Ok, what did he mean to say?

 

Also, did I suggest that he said something other than what he said? I suggested what I suggested. To suggest that I suggested other than I suggested... well, let me just say that you're not a mind reader.

 

You inferred that he meant to say something else: "He seemed to be stating very clearly that you arrive at the existence of God via logical reasoning, starting with his stated premise." So, according to your perception, he stated something that was not printed. Check your own perception.