Posted 9 months, 0 days ago in 
Loading ...
Let’s apply the “logic and objectivity” of the Freedom from Religion Foundation in this way: If I told one of its members that his shiny, new sedan sitting in his driveway was nothing but a collection of various parts from mindless matter, he would think I was crazy, logically reminding me that his auto had a chassis, circulatory system, electrical system, fuel system, etc., and was obviously designed and produced by intelligent beings.
Yet, the atheist somehow seems unable to apply the same logic to the human body, which has all of the above “systems,” in addition to a reproductive system, and is a collection of trillions of cells forming a fully functioning organism that, by comparison, even the newest, fully equipped luxury automobile amounts to little more than a 4-year old’s red three-wheel tricycle.
Be careful when you apply “logic.” You may get what you do not wish for.
BILL FORBES
Whitewater
11 Responses to “Atheists application of logic is supect”
Posted February 23rd, 2009 at 7:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, applying “logic and objectivity” as Mr. Forbes attempts to do in his letter, we could also ask him how he has arrived at the conclusion that “there is a god.” When looking at letters’ such as Mr. Forbes, what some of us see is little more than “I can’t explain it, therefore…” or, if not alpha then omega, the argument falls on its face.
Now, if the gentleman were able to recognize and accept the fact that he is attempting to compare several dimensions that he can prove DO exist, his argument might make some sense. But, he is unable to do so, much as he would like to believe otherwise, his attempted argument really has no basis in reality.
Posted February 23rd, 2009 at 8:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
In local time-space equivalence, and in terms of relational and rational “logic sans objectivity”, applying “logic and objectivity”, we could also ask how to arrive at the conclusion that “there is no god.” When looking at letters such as sigma alpha epsilon, what some of us see is little more than “I can’t explain it, therefore… punt” or, if not alpha then obama, the argument falls on its face.
Now, if anyone is able to recognize and accept the fact that attempting to compare several dimensions that can’t be proven DON’T exist, this argument might make some sense. But, neither God nor god is nevertheless not unable to do so, much as some would like to believe otherwise, any attempted argument really has no basis in either reality or nonsense.
Word of the Day:
SESQUIPEDALIANISM:
“This is a recipe for sophisticated babbling. Ingredients include: philosophic sounding words and sentence structure, unintelligible Latin terms, banal folk wisdom, jargon, catch phrases, truisms, etc. Sprinkle lightly with a few words that appear to pertain to the subject. This will sound very impressive without really saying anything and will buy time to think of something meaty to say while your lips are flapping. In some circles such machinations can actually be passed off as an answer–or a point!”
http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html
Posted February 23rd, 2009 at 8:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The reply from some is always interesting and non-understanding quite frequently reflect not knowing. In other words: I have never bothered to learn, therefore it does not exist or it is of no consequence; i.e. it doesn’t matter. We have to wonder how many are “so afflicted.” There appear to be quite a few on this board. Could it perhaps be that they have never taken the time to learn, or could it perhaps be they already believe they know everything.
But we do thank JMH for another word to be “considered”, whether it applies or not.
Posted February 23rd, 2009 at 9:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Of course, the primary element that Mr. Forbes’ letter fails to consider is the fact that cars do not reproduce. He isn’t even comparing apples and oranges, he’s comparing apples and ping pong balls.
Posted February 23rd, 2009 at 9:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH,
Arriving at the conclusion “there is no god” depends on your definition of god. I agree that you cannot say that no “god” in the generic sense.
However, the bible gives us a definition of god that can be examined and tested, and it is that which leads us to the conclusion the no “god” exists, at least in the biblical sense.
Posted February 23rd, 2009 at 10:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It is amazing that creationists are always trying to compare organic life to inanimate objects.
Posted February 23rd, 2009 at 10:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well of course. Natural objects wouldn’t support their point. They fact that they think artificial objects make their point simply demonstrates their lack of understanding of how things work.
Posted February 24th, 2009 at 12:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
kakuni1977: “It is amazing that creationists are always trying to compare organic life to inanimate objects.”
The critical point that they do not realize, or cannot admit to, is that we are all limited in our “thinking” by what we can know. The “failure” in most of their arguments is that they are “projecting”, not only things but “how things work” into an existence (or dimension) they only “believe” exists and, if that is how it works here, it must also exist there (what ever the “there” is) and work in the same “there.”
Given the limits of human knowledge, even about our physical existence and world, that does not appear to make much sense. At least, it does not make sense enough allowing us to construct anything of credible value, upon such an intellectually shallow and unstable foundation.
Posted February 24th, 2009 at 9:06 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sorry RL, jus fun’n wich ya.
As to: “Given the limits of human knowledge, even about our physical existence and world, that does not appear to make much sense. At least, it does not make sense enough allowing us to construct anything of credible value, upon such an intellectually shallow and unstable foundation.”
Absolutely, we agree. We mere mortals are stuck explaining the unexplainable in our distinctly limited human-invented vocabulary. No amount of “reason” adequately proves “reason” itself. We take it on faith that “love” exists. As much as science has discovered biochemical changes in our brains when accessing “thought” - what is it in physical terms? Does a thought have mass? Energy? Where does a thought go when we’re not thinking about it? Can an “emotion” be fully explained or universally defined? How does a single thought trigger a physical response.
Ah… but I wax metaphysical. Whatever science already knows about evolutionary genetic expression doesn’t even scratch the surface of what lies within thought and beyond perception, let alone prove or disprove the existence of “God” (or whatever other vocabulary word one might wish to apply to the concept).
Posted February 24th, 2009 at 9:51 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “Sorry RL, jus fun’n wich ya.”
Fear not, kind sir. T’is perfectly acceptable.
Also, do not hesitate to “wax metaphysical” as it is quite a fascinating are of thought, just as long as we follow the advice of Immanuel Kant that while we may construct absolutely anything in that realm, whatever we do construct is most frequently inapplicable to the real world.
Posted February 24th, 2009 at 10:09 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I think we understand the world far better than you think we do. Thoughts are a physical process that cause physical reactions. As far as proving or disproving God, science doesn’t even try to do this. Science only tries to evaluate claims that can be measured and since if there is a God he does nothing contrary to the nature we understand, she can’t be measure.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.