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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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? Following is a modern dictionary's definition of logic: log·ic 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. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
