Creation vs Evolution

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Then study Philosophy 101, because the term logical applies to inferences, not premises. Premises are either true or false.

Umm..by what logic are you basing the above assumption on? oh yes..the logic(or reasoning) behind your premise is philosophical in origin.

A premise is an assumption. So yes, definitionally, a premise can be described as logical or illogical, in addition to being labeled as true or false, regardless if one doesn't use such labels within a philosophical forum.

Example of an illogical(but true) premise - Jesus died on the cross so people who deny him by talking about how he doesn't exist, curse him everday, and deny him being God would have a way to be with him again. Despite this, he still loves them all and wishes for them all to be with him someday.(note: the premise is based on the bible)

On topic -

Would anyone else like to answer these questions?

Originally posted by Thundar
Originally posted by Thundar
..how can something come from nothing? This in turn then begs answers to the questions, why was this something started and who started it?(All of these questions of course, you have already avoided answering.)

Originally posted by Thundar

[QUOTE=8302737]Originally posted by Thundar
[B]
Originally posted by Thundar
..how can something come from nothing? This in turn then begs answers to the questions, why was this something started and who started it?(All of these questions of course, you have already avoided answering.)

only if you answer mine first

Example of an illogical premise - Jesus died on the cross so people who deny him by talking about how he doesn't exist, curse him everday, and deny him being God would have a way to be with him again. Despite this, he still loves them all and wishes for them all to be with him someday.(note: the premise is based on the bible)

I already did. I stated "God did it." Why don't you all just flat out say "nothing did it" and we can call it a night?

I already did. I stated "God did it."

Originally posted by Thundar
A premise is an assumption. So yes, definitionally, a premise can be described as logical or illogical, in addition to being labeled as true or false, regardless if one doesn't use such labels within a philosophical forum.

A Premise is not logical or illogical... and a premise is always true by definiton.

A premise is something that is true because you said so, there is no reason justifying why its true. They are the starting point of a theory, so they can´t be illogical or false. Logic itself is a consequence of premises that someone choose to assume as true.

They are the starting point of a theory, so they can´t be illogical or false.

Originally posted by finti
and this god came from ?

He was always there, always present, the beginning and end..all that jazz. Now will you please tell me when nothing was able to produce something?

Thus far you all haven't really given me any answers, and I've had to logically presume infer these answers based on what was presented.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
A Premise is not logical or illogical... and a premise is always true by definiton.

def: premise
a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"

A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn.

A premise can be illogical, logical, true, or false. Can we get back on topic now?

He was always there, always present, the beginning and end..all that jazz. Now will you please tell me when nothing was able to produce something?

Thus far you all haven't really given me any answers, and I've had to logically presume infer these answers based on what was presented

Originally posted by Thundar
Umm..by what logic are you basing the above assumption on? oh yes..the logic(or reasoning) behind your premise is philosophical in origin.

A premise is an assumption. So yes, definitionally, a premise can be described as logical or illogical, in addition to being labeled as true or false, regardless if one doesn't use such labels within a philosophical forum.

Example of an illogical(but true) premise - Jesus died on the cross so people who deny him by talking about how he doesn't exist, curse him everday, and deny him being God would have a way to be with him again. Despite this, he still loves them all and wishes for them all to be with him someday.(note: the premise is based on the bible)

On topic -

Would anyone else like to answer these questions?

This post is incorrect on a multitude of levels:

[list=1][*]With regard to logical argumentation, the term logic refers to "the branch of philosophy that analyzes the principles governing correct or reliable inference," not simply "a particular method of reasoning."

[*]With regard to logical argumentation, there are no assumptions, only infererences.

[*]With regard to logical argumentation, a premise is a statement of support, not an assumption.

[*]Your example is not an argument as it contains no premises, no conclusion, and makes no inferences.

[*]Even if we presume that your example is an argument, Jesus is not using rational decision making, but emotional decision making. It follows from this that even if we presume the "premise" to be true, it does not support the truth of the "conclusion." Hence, the "argument" is not valid.[/list]

Originally posted by Thundar
def: premise
a statement that is [b]assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"

A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn.

A premise can be illogical, logical, true, or false. Can we get back on topic now? [/B]

No. Only inferences are logical or illogical. Premises are either true or false.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
A Premise is not logical or illogical... and a premise is always true by definiton.

A premise is something that is true because you said so, there is no reason justifying why its true. They are the starting point of a theory, so they can´t be illogical or false. Logic itself is a consequence of premises that someone choose to assume as true.

A premise is a statement of support that is assumed to be true for the purposes of drawing conclusions, but can be proved to be false.

originally posted by Adam_PoE
This post is incorrect on a multitude of levels:

With regard to logical argumentation, the term logic refers to "the branch of philosophy that analyzes the principles governing correct or reliable inference," not simply "a particular method of reasoning."

With regard to logical argumentation, there are no assumptions, only infererences.

With regard to logical argumentation, a premise is a statement of support, not an assumption.

Your example is not an argument as it contains no premises, no conclusion, and makes no inferences.

Even if we presume that your example is an argument, Jesus is not using rational decision making, but emotional decision making. It follows from this that even if we presume the "premise" to be true, it does not support the truth of the "conclusion." Hence, the "argument" is not valid.

A premise by definition is a proposition or an assumption and being such, it can be labeled as logical or illogical, as well as being labeled true or false.

The term logic definitionally can refer to any line of reasoning. You are mistaken when you insinuate the concept exclusively pertains to, is strictly derived from, or always relates to various branches or schools of philosophy when being used in discussion.

The definitions of the words in question are solely based on where you derive your reasoning from, which unfortunately limits your understanding of how such terms could be used in other contexts and with other lines of reasoning.

If you really want to get into an argument which adresses the derivations of logic, then I suggest you open up another thread in the philosophy forum altogether, so as not to take us away from the original subject matter of this one.

On topic, anyone else want to answer these questions.

Originally posted by Thundar

..how can something come from nothing? This in turn then begs answers to the questions, why was this something started and who started it?(All of these questions of course, you have already avoided answering.)

Something came from nothing.............ummm by the laws of energy, that cannot happen, it is merely converted from one form to another.

ALL we know of it this form, we have no clue what existed before. We can only guess, or BELIEVE what we want to believe, which is believing someone else's GUESS.

AND how do we know that God had nothing to do with converting the universe from one form to another? And dont say that it doesn't say so in some scripture either............internet, planes, space travel, cloning, cure for malaria etc weren't mentioned in scripture and that does not mean that it is not here.

IF we do want to use scripture, what it says in hindu scripture that One day of Brahma will be the age of the current universe...... from big bang to the end of the universe. Using that logic, there must be more than one day in the life of Brahma, so destruction and rebirth of the universe happened before and will happen again. Here mythology, scripture and belief of the evolution of the universe goes hand in hand.

note........This is what i believe, I am not asking anyone else to believe it, dont you dare come here and tell me I am wrong because its not what you believe.

Originally posted by fini
Something came from nothing.............ummm by the laws of energy, that cannot happen, it is merely converted from one form to another.

Aside from our contradicting religious views, I have to say that at least your argument assumes a more logical starting point. Obviously, the premise, "something" created the universe is more logical than the premise "nothing" created the universe.

Getting back to the topic of TOE and biological evolution(as oppossed to cosmological evolution that we've been discussing) based on both of our rationales that "something" created the universe, would it then be logical for us to assume that all life was created by "something" as well, and that this "something" designed life in a similar fashion to the way in which it designed the universe?

Well from what i believe or have come to rationalize, evolution is merely god's way of getting it right. When making something, wouldn't you try several ways first until you think you have it right? I dont think that God is perfect, It must have tried different ways also to change and mold life.

going back to scripture, why would God put monkeys as the 'race' of beings to Help Lord Ram while he fought evil? I think back then they identified the similarities between humans and other primates. And it doesn't take a stretch of imagination to see that one came from the other.

Just like how a gardener will prune and shape a tree, God pruned and shaped the human evolutionary tree.

Originally posted by fini
Well from what i believe or have come to rationalize, evolution is merely god's way of getting it right. When making something, wouldn't you try several ways first until you think you have it right? I dont think that God is perfect, It must have tried different ways also to change and mold life.

And this is where we come to a disagreement on our views of God and creation.

I assume that God is divine and perfect in his ways, and being such, there would logically be no need for him to try multiple ways to get things right, because being perfect, whatever way he initially had chosen would already be the correct one.

You assume that God is imperfect in nature, and being such you worship an imperfect God, who will obviously lie to you sometimes and misuse the power he possesses. Does the conclusion brought on by such a belief make you feel the slightest bit uncomfortable, specifically in relation to your faith in such a God and his intentions for your life? You don't have to answer this question right now, just ponder about it for a bit.

Taking us away from personal religious doctrines and back to the debate, once again, we've both already assumed that the universe is "intelligently designed." This being stated, would it make sense for one to then assume that life itself was "intelligently designed" as opposed to being the result of random processes?

Originally posted by Thundar
And this is where we come to a disagreement on our views of God and creation.

I assume that God is divine and perfect in his ways, and being such, there would logically be no need for him to try multiple ways to get things right, because being perfect, whatever way he initially had chosen would already be the correct one.

You assume that God is imperfect in nature, and being such you worship an imperfect God, who will obviously lie to you sometimes and misuse the power he possesses. Does the conclusion brought on by such a belief make you feel the slightest bit uncomfortable about the fallible God that you worship? You don't have to answer this question right now, just ponder about it for a bit.

Taking us away from personal religious doctrines and back to the debate, once again, we've both already assumed that the universe is "intelligently designed." This being stated, would it make sense for one to then assume that life itself was "intelligently designed" as opposed to being the result of random processes?