John Smithson wrote:
>>>One time occurrences are called anomalies,
>>>David, and are not part of a logical process ,
>>>by definition.
David Miller wrote:
>>Due to the nature and goals of inductive inference,
>>we want repeatable events, but that does not mean
>>that we are forced to ignore one time events.
John Smithson wrote:
>No one took this position
When I say "we," I am talking about us scientists.
That is not exactly true, David. Here is your comment "I don't know why you think that that logical processes are forced to ignore one time occurrences." Looks like you are talking about me, not "we scientists." It is clear to me that that we do not have the same definitions in mind, when speaking of "logic." In college, I was on the debate team and studied logic with a view to debate. It is that which I have in mind. Much of what you say, I agree with, but it is not "logic" to me -- it is just good plain sense and a faith that all things will be fully revealed.
You said that one time
occurrences are not part of a logical process. Such, then, would be ignored
by scientists because anything that is not part of a logical process is
ignored by science. A rationalist does not care about anything but the
logical process.
Scientist do not concern themselves with events that are truly unique. The parting of the Red Sea is unique. A meteor striking the plains of Eastern Colorado is not. What is the single most important issue in the "scientific process."
John Smithson wrote:
>I am talking about one events [sic]. You are
>talking one time or first time observations.
>Not the same.
This snake drinking water during this storm is a one time event or
occurrence. My observing of this event is an observation. I cannot begin
to imagine why you would say here that they are not the same. How about
giving an example of some event or occurrence that is truth but is not ever
able to be subject to logical reasoning. Maybe then I can understand how
you and I are talking about two different things.
Are you saying that you observed the only time this type of snake has ever drank water in this fashion? Or, are you saying that you are only one who has made such an observation -- an event that may be the way these sankes drink in a rain storm? One is an unique (read "one time event) event, the other is an unique observation
John Smithson wrote:
>>>You confuse reason with logic.
>>>The two may be very different.
David Miller wrote:
>>How so? Reason is defined as thinking logically
>>or to use rational facilities.
John Smithson wrote:
>Are you saying that there are no defintions of "reason"
>and "logic" that would present them as very different things?
I have never heard of any. I'm asking you to teach me here. How can logic
and reason be very different?
a : a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were quite satisfactory> b : a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act soon> c : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact <the reasons behind her client's action> d : the thing that makes some fact intelligible : CAUSE <the reason for earthquakes> <the real reason why he wanted me to stay âGraham Greene>
2 a (1) : the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : INTELLIGENCE (2) : proper exercise of the mind (3) : SANITY b : the sum of the intellectual powers
3 : archaic : treatment that affords satisfaction
- in reason : RIGHTLY, JUSTIFIABLY
- within reason : within reasonable limits
- with reason : with good cause
David Miller wrote:
>>I do not want to reject the logic of the world.
>>What gave you that idea?
John Smithson wrote:
>"It only means that the logical premises needed for them to be convinced
>are hidden." Your words. Your are contrasting the logic of the world
>with
>the "logic" of the Spirit. In your thinking, certain "premises" are not
>available to the world (they are "hidden") rederding their rule of logic
>to
>be unworkable. This same logic can understand the world they (the
>pagans) live, but does not work for the Spirit realm.
Even though certain premises are hidden to those who lack the revelation of
the Spirit, that does not mean that the process of logic is any different.
There is nothing wrong with the logic, only the premises. Add the proper
premises and the same logical processes will result in the same conclusion.
David, construct a major and minor premise that forces the conclusion "There is a God," or, "God has no beginning" or "our sins are forgiven in Christ".
Logic is a system of reasoning, not the conclusion itself that is reached.
When a wrong conclusion is reached through a logical system, you don't
abandon logic in order to get the proper result. You change the premises
and use the same logical system to construct a new conclusion.
You cannot reach a false conclusion in logic. You can only mis-state a major or minor premise. A conclusion, in logic, does not have wording that is not found in the major and minor premise. A conclusion in logic is a forced observation based on that has been stated before. But, of course, you know that.
For example, if I were to say that all mammals bear living young, and then
tell you that a platypus was a mammal, you might use logic to conclude that
the platypus bears living young too. That conclusion, however, would be
incorrect. It is not incorrect because the logic is faulty. Is is
incorrect because one of the premises was faulty. Not all mammals bear
living young.
What you used for an example one of 13 (I believe) errors in the construction of a major and minor premise. But this is getting us no where. After it is all said and done, we have been given not the wisdom of the world but the wisdom of God. You can make wahtever application. I will stand on what I have said. You have presented me with no reason to change.
Suppose I were to say that most mammals bear living young, and then tell you
that a platypus was a mammal? If you then tried to argue that a platypus
also bears living young, then I could say that your logic was faulty. Just
because MOST mammals bear living young does not mean that all mammals bear
living young.
The people of the world who miss the truths revealed by the Spirit do not
miss it because their logic is faulty, nor do they miss it because the truth
revealed by the Spirit is illogical. The problem lies in the hidden
premises, and if these premises are not revealed to them by the Spirit, they
are like blind men trying to imagine what the color blue looks like.
David Miller wrote:
>>Whether a Christian uses logic or the world uses
>>it, it is all the same process. I see no distinction
>>between "logic of the world" versus "logic of the
>>Spirit."
John Smithson wrote:
>Of course you do. Certain "premises" are hidden
>from the world. The logic of the world, therefore,
>cannot be the same as the Spirit world. That was
>your argument in another post.
The logic is the same. The system of reasoning is the same. The difference
lies in the premises from which conclusions are derived.
Logic is of God. Irrationalism is not. Logic leads men to be wise and
sober. Irrationalism leads men to kill themselves, to fly planes into
buildings in the name of Allah, to rebel against authority, etc.
John Smithson wrote:
>>>Logic does not work in giving me an
>>>answer for this particular healing.
David Miller wrote:
>>What about rational thinking in
>>terms of the following:
>>
>>1. God is the Creator.
>>2. Therefore, God has the ability to heal.
>>3. Others who I trust have testified to God
>>healing today and in times past.
>>4. I myself experienced healings like this.
>>5. Therefore, God does at times heal.
>>6. This person seems to be sincere and honest.
>>7. There really is no motive for this person to lie to me.
>>
>>Etc, etc. The point is logical and rational thinking
>>similar to the above considerations can determine
>>what you do with this person's testimony.
John Smithson wrote:
>... what you have presented above is not "logic."
>It is a reasonable way of arriving at a decision.
A reasonable way of arriving at a decision is exactly what logic is. Do you
have some other definition for it up your sleeve?
Actually, logic is a specific and predicable way of confirming or arriving at truth. It is not the only way. Your were using "logic" in all of the definitions listed below?
Following is a modern dictionary's definition of logic:
logÂic
noun
1. philosophy theory of reasoning: the branch of philosophy that deals with
the theory of deductive and inductive arguments and aims to distinguish good
from bad reasoning
2. system of reasoning: any system of or an instance of reasoning and
inference
3. sensible argument and thought: sensible rational thought and argument
rather than ideas that are influenced by emotion or whim
4. reasoning of particular field: the principles of reasoning relevant to a
particular field
5. inescapable relationship and pattern of events: the relationship between
certain events, situations, or objects, and the inevitable consequences of
their interaction
6. computing circuit design: the circuit design and principles used by a
computer in its operation
[14th century. Via French logique from, ultimately, Greek logike (tekhne)
"(art) of reason," from logos (see logos).]
Microsoft Encarta Reference Library 2005.  1993-2004 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
Again, keep in mind that logic does not always lead to a proof, but it might
help you consider some conclusions as being more likely to be true than
other conclusions. Saying something is logical and saying that something is
reasonable is saying the same thing.
David Miller.
We have pretty much worn out this thread. Lets discuss something might be of real benefit.
