BS: Logic and the laws of science

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 05:52 AM

I don't. It you who insists on that. Natural selection is a phenomenon that needs explaining too. Of course, we know that it isn't the only mechanism involved in evolution. That's part of the theory.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Stu
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 05:59 AM

I think 'natural law' is a philosophical term rather than a scientific term. In scientific terms you might be able to describe a situation where an event occurs without exception given certain conditions, but I'm not sure whether this would be called a 'law' or not.

I wouldn't include the term in any paper or talk I have written or would write.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: TheSnail
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 06:34 AM

You don't what, Steve?

Previously from you -
Evolution as a phenomenon is a fact, not a theory or a piece of guesswork, and only flat-earther types such as Pete attempt to deny it. The theory of evolution by natural selection, on the other hand, isn't true and can never be.

I'm just asking, why do you see a difference?

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Lighter
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 08:37 AM

> or because we are culturally conditioned to accept them as making sense?

Cultural conditioning is tricky concept. The Greeks were conditioned to believe in an array of unpredictable gods, for which there was no except Greek intuition.

But the bedrock of logic - deduction on the basis of syllogistic reasoning, and induction based on careful observation - work for everyone who applies them, irrespective of culture.

Some who prays to Hera has only subjective feelings and, perhaps, community support to "determine" whether and how the prayer has been "answered." There are no objective, systematic standards that might overcome skepticism.

If, on the other hand, an ancient Greek were to learn modern calculus and physics - or any other "hard" science - he or she would get the same predictable, objective results as anyone else, regardless of cultural background.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 08:58 AM

I agree cultural conditioning a tricky concept. Take "Harmony of the universe" for example. Steve finds that dangerously close to some sort of imposed law. For me, however, the dominant meaning of harmony raises the idea of two frequencies in a simple mathematical relationship to each other: no concept of a law of any kind required. Why the term makes us respond in different ways is about -possibly self-created - conditioning. And about the only I agree with Jacques D about is that this suffuses everything we say and do, so it is as well to be aware of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Lighter
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 10:10 AM

> For me, however, ...

But surely *both* connotations occur to you *and* Steve.

You each, however, have a different preference as to how you locate the concept in your outlook on science.

More personal than cultural, I'd say.

What seems to be more important, however, is that you both sufficiently understand what the phrase means to make contextual sense of it regardless of connotations.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Jeri
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 11:50 AM

I'm considering the difference between "evolution" and "evolution by natural selection". OK, I'm done now.

And now for something completely different...
"Laws" of nature, or the way things work. We often know there's something going on. We know the what but not the why. For example, fibonacci. Did this simply happen once, and work, so it kept working in other cases? Was it built into the universe at the time of the big bang? Where did it start, unless it always just was?

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: TheSnail
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 12:07 PM

I'm considering the difference between "evolution" and "evolution by natural selection". OK, I'm done now.

It's simple. One is true and always has been. The other isn't true and never will be. (Allegedly.)

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Jeri
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 12:20 PM

OK Snail, how does this other sort of evolution occur. (Yeah, I should know better than to open that can of planaria.)

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 12:44 PM

Okay, so I get confused here. I hear rumblings that the term "survival of the fittest" is no longer considered to be true, and I wonder why. It seems to me that for the most part, what works, prevails. This is what I would consider to be evolution by natural selection. Is there no truth in the idea of natural selection?

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Jeri
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 12:53 PM

As explained to me back when I was in high school, it's not always about fitness but about adaptability. Human beings are pretty unfit, and likely wouldn't have survived, but we learned how to live in cave, make huts, and weapons to hunt with. We adapted, because we have no fur, or claws, or quills, or other things that animals have. We're a wimpy species, other than our big brains.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 01:01 PM

Snail is being provocative (OK by me). I'm saying that a function of scientific endeavour is to explain natural phenomena, which are not of themselves "science," as they were here long before there were any scientists to contemplate them. Human minds didn't invent evolution, though they did invent its explanation, using evidence to make deductions. Generally, our attempts at explanations are what we call theories. Theories are constantly being tweaked, added to, debunked and rejigged. The theory of evolution by natural selection is not evolution itself. It is our explanation of evolution. We can't ever conclude that a theory is "true," because the whole essence of the scientific process is that theories must be left open-ended, vulnerable to further modification (falsifiable if you like, which Snail does). On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with saying that the phenomena which science tries to explain are true (as long as they are). You'd be a fool to argue that Mount Everest isn't true, though you may argue with the explanations as to why such a huge mountain is where it is, how it got to be so high, where the marine fossils in its rocks came from and so on. You'd be a fool to argue that evolution isn't true, though you may argue about the relative roles of natural selection, gene flow, mutations and genetic drift as its mechanisms, and you may argue about the interpretation of what is a very incomplete fossil record. You'd also be a fool to argue that natural selection isn't true, though you may validly argue about its modes of action. Darwin's theory is the theory of evolution by natural selection. Had he been around today, he would have given it a longer title, as we now know that other mechanisms may be involved. But that's science for you. We could interpret the title of his theory thus: "This is the best attempt at an explanation, using deductions from many areas of evidence, of the natural phenomenon we call evolution. I regard the process of natural selection, another natural phenomenon that my book also tries to explain, as playing a crucial role in the evolutionary process, and here are my reasons." I think I prefer the original title. I'm a simple chap really. I rather like using the word "true" and I regard "false" as its opposite.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 01:05 PM

Survival of the fittest is something of a rogue term, not much favoured by Darwin, that has been inappropriately applied to various levels of the hierarchy in living things, from populations, races, species, individual organisms and even to business proposals. Best avoided.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: TheSnail
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 01:21 PM

Jeri, that post wasn't intended to be entirely serious, just a little dig at Steve Shaw.

Are you sure you really want to know? The short answer is that evolution simply means change and covers the idea that species that closely resemble each other (such as humans and chimpanzees or horses and donkeys) have a relatively recent common ancestor from which they have both diverged. As the resemblance decreases (such as humans and chimpanzees AND horses and donkeys), the further back the common ancestor must be.
Evolution by natural selection refers to Darwins theory on the driving force behind the change. Those organisms better adapted to their environment breed more successfully than those less well adapted. "Survival of the fittest".

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 02:22 PM

I am fairly sure there is a good deal of truth in that Darwinian model, Joe, but it may not be a complete picture of evolutionary vectors. I am no expert.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 04:28 PM

"Evolution simply means change." For Christ's sake, Snail, no it does not. Evolution, the non-random survival of heritable entities which occasionally miscopy (with thanks to Richard Dawkins for that quote) has led to all the diversity, complexity and beauty of life on Earth. Natural selection has nothing to do with survival of races, species or individual organisms, or extinctions. It is about differential survival within species. I would also contend that natural selection as a "driving force" is a concept you may wish to reconsider. It wasn't Darwin's term, was it? I hope your genetics course will clear one or two things up for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: frogprince
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 06:59 PM

Okay, I'll rattle a chain here. Does it not seem reasonable that, of all the diversity of living things, at least some fraction would be due to mutations that really did just plain survive at random? Things that weren't the best adapted of anything, but were viable enough to hang in there?

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 07:09 PM

I anticipate howls of anguish, but the theory demands it, frog. Unless you assume the process has come to an end, at this very moment some species exist that are failing (quite apart from all the ones we are killing off in various ways)

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Lighter
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 07:32 PM

But even species that are failing must have been "successful" for many thousands of years. Maybe not in the top twenty, but still....

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jun 16 - 08:36 PM

Mutations that are "not best adapted but which hang in there" are adapted. This is not black and white. Theories don't "demand" things. A theory is an attempt to explain. If the thing you are investigating doesn't fit the theory, then it's the theory that needs modifying. And generally speaking, a species that has succeeded for thousands or millions of years, then starts to "fail," will do so because the environment has changed, or it has come under new competition, or it is succumbing to disease, or it is being predated on with new vigour.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Jun 16 - 03:07 AM

That's not the specific howl of anguish I expected, but I still anticipate it soon.

Of course theories demand things. And some paintings demand your attention. There are other other meanings to the word 'demand' than 'hammer your fist on the table and shout loudly'.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Jun 16 - 03:28 AM

In case anyone misunderstands me, I do agree with Steve both that it is the theory that needs amending when things don't fit and that the reason a long lasting species starts to fail is in some way environmental - a new predator, a scarcity of their food, disease, etc.

But frog prince raised a point that I think is often glossed over at school level: all that is needed for an adaptation to continue into a future generation is that it is 'better' than the other variations around at the time (and I know this is a simplification in itself). There is no requirement that it is any sense advantageous in itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Stu
Date: 19 Jun 16 - 06:47 AM

"Does it not seem reasonable that, of all the diversity of living things, at least some fraction would be due to mutations that really did just plain survive at random? Things that weren't the best adapted of anything, but were viable enough to hang in there?"

It seems reasonable, but it is not how evolution works. If a species has survived it's because it's well adapted to the environment it lives in. Every single living organism, without exception, is subjected to the pressures of natural selection, which is itself not a random process. Every organism is part of an ecosystem, part of the transfer of energy via tropic cascades and other processes that sustain life on the planet.

How certain species persist for a long time is interesting though. These species tend to be generalists and adapt easily when environmental circumstances change; the more specialised an organism is the more vulnerable it is to environmental change. Even the most long-lived species will eventually become extinct though, they might become extinct or speciation might occur as natural selection selects the best adapted individuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: TheSnail
Date: 19 Jun 16 - 07:16 AM

Oh dear, I really haven't got time today but there is so much that Steve Shaw has said over the last eighteen hours or so that is so easy to pick apart.

Back tomorrow.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jun 16 - 07:58 AM

Can't wait. Do to try to read what I've actually typed first, as we don't want you busting a blood vessel.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Jun 16 - 09:55 AM

Physicist Michio Kaku is being quoted on various websites as claiming that superstring theory has now proved that God exists.

You don't need to know too much about physics or math to decide for yourself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jremlZvNDuk

Questions:

What does Kaku mean by "the mind of God"? "cosmic music, the music of strings resonating through eleven dimensional hyperspace"? "God is a mathematician"?

Assuming just for a moment that superstrings and supersymmetry do prove the existence of a Creating Intelligence, do they tell us anything about that Intelligence except that it made its universe follow mathematical principles?

Extra credit: What do other physicists think of Kaku's argument?

More here, including hints to answering the above questions:


http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/42042/20160613/world-renowned-scientist-michio-kaku-proves-existence-god.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Jun 16 - 10:55 AM

It seems a great shame, Lighter, that an interesting perspective on God is likely to fall foul on the 'no religion on this thread" decision. Please make sure you keep a record of it so we can discuss in on another occasion.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jun 16 - 11:32 AM

"Assuming just for a moment that superstrings and supersymmetry do prove the existence of a Creating Intelligence, do they tell us anything about that Intelligence except that it made its universe follow mathematical principles?"

No, they tell us that someone has come up with a new angle on intelligent design. Ho hum!

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Jun 16 - 02:00 PM

Assuming for just a moment that on a clear day the steadfast dogmatic
could see out of their ass, would they see the intelligent resign?

I think not many. I know of 2 scientists who claim an unshakable
indulgence in intelligent design. Of course they could be deflecting.

Proselytizing here is an unstable and unwise thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Jun 16 - 02:55 PM

It's an interesting combination of science and religion.

Kaku, a prominent physicist and an originator of the string theory, claims - not entirely seriously, I believe - that he has "proved" God's existence through the application of scientific methods.

I say not entirely seriously because even if he's right, "God" seems to be no more than synonym for wherever the universe came from, mathematical features and all.

And his God hypothesis is based on superstring theory and supersymmetry, which are in turn based on string theory. None of these concepts have been fully accepted by physics.

Since Kaku frequently appears on TV, it's also likely that he's exaggerating (or simplifying) the implications of superstuff for the sake of generating interest.

I'll leave to others the other questions I posed, whose evaluative answers require the application not of religious dogma but of inductive reasoning.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Jun 16 - 04:50 PM

The honor of originator of String Theory would go to half a dozen others before you get to Kaku.

I picture Woody Allen introducing you to Kaku.

Keep reading Kaku especially between the lines. Reading to prove a pre conceived notion is less substantial than reading for general knowledge

Hyperspace could be the space that is undiscovered.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 Jun 16 - 05:47 AM

OK, the simple stuff first.

Steve Shaw
"Evolution simply means change." For Christ's sake, Snail, no it does not.
Yes it does. I suggest you consult a quality dictionary rather than invoking Christ.

Evolution, the non-random survival of heritable entities which occasionally miscopy (with thanks to Richard Dawkins for that quote) has led to all the diversity, complexity and beauty of life on Earth.
That quote comes from this article Why Darwin matters where Dawkins is clearly talking about natural selection not evolution. Diversity and complexity are consequences of the mechanisms of evolution and natural selection, not it's purpose. It doesn't have a purpose. Beauty is a human judgement. Everything is beautiful to someone.

Natural selection has nothing to do with survival of races, species or individual organisms, or extinctions.
I didn't mention races (although Darwin did). I didn't say it was to do with the survival of species. I didn't mention extinctions. It most certainly is to do with the survival of individual organisms. That's what selection is about.

It is about differential survival within species.
... of individual organisms. Not sure where taking species out of the argument leaves the Galapagos finches (OK, on Galapagos) but it is a slightly more contentious point. Darwin's great work does conspicuously fail to do what it says on the tin. It does not explain the origin of species.

I would also contend that natural selection as a "driving force" is a concept you may wish to reconsider. It wasn't Darwin's term, was it? I hope your genetics course will clear one or two things up for you.
In the article mentioned above, Dawkins mentions Patrick Matthew who had come up with the basic idea of natural selection about thirty years berfore Darwin published.
He says -
Matthew seems to have seen selection as a purely negative, weeding-out force, not the driving force of all life.

I hope your genetics course will clear one or two things up for you.
Going nicely, thank you. I would be finding it a bit of a struggle were it not for the degree level study of genetics I've done already.

You say, Do to try to read what I've actually typed first. Could I ask the same of you? You mis-represent what I say even more than pete does.

Back later.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Jun 16 - 07:30 AM

Since you are both better qualified than I am to discuss this, I won't say much. But it is important to realise that using concepts like 'differential rates of survival' is only meaningful when the populations are moderately large. But *every* mutation starts off as the only instance of that mutation in the entire population, so whether and how long that individual survives is absolutely crucial to the potential spread of that mutation more widely. This is a completely different situation to that in which the population size is sufficiently large that the proportion of individuals with the mutation can be approximated by continuous variable, rather than a discrete one.

Now, working with continuous mathematics is a damn sight easier, so it is no surprise that the relatively few papers I've read on the subject assume it. But be aware that it not valid for small populations and in particular for the early spread of a mutation.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jun 16 - 10:32 AM

Dawkins was talking about natural selection in the context of the products of evolution, hence the complexity, diversity and beauty. That's why he said that. I have my own concept of beauty, thanks, and I'm not scared of using the word. I'm a human being, not Mr Spock. Nothing is as simple as you think.

Natural selection is not about "survival." Me grabbing a cheese sandwich is about survival. It's about differential survival. Everything that's born/hatches/germinates "survives," at least for a bit. Not the same thing. And I didn't mention "Darwin's finches." I've got more sense, believe it or not.

So I see you agree that calling natural selection a driving force isn't a good idea after all. Driving force implies directionality. Not only is that wrong, natural selection can also be pretty good at maintaining the status quo.

Darwin did not have the tools available to him than we have now. There is a better interpretation of geology and we have genetics and biochemistry way beyond what he had. He may not have explained the origin of species but he discussed it in the context of evolution by natural selection. I'm sure he would have been delighted by the work done that he so brilliantly initiated. Who knows, perhaps one day we'll agree about what a species actually is. Or maybe that's an impossible dream. I'm just off outside into my garden to weed out a hybrid swarm of willow-herbs that probably originated from around three different species, yet they all quite merrily set seed. Dirty buggers!

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 Jun 16 - 03:11 PM

Dawkins was talking about natural selection in the context of the products of evolution,
Perhaps he was but you used it (with an appeal for divine intervention) to refute something I had said about evolution not about natural selection.

hence the complexity, diversity and beauty. That's why he said that. I have my own concept of beauty, thanks, and I'm not scared of using the word. I'm a human being, not Mr Spock. Nothing is as simple as you think.
Your concept of beauty is entirely irrelevant to the nature and mechanisms of evolution and/or natural selection.

Natural selection is not about "survival." Me grabbing a cheese sandwich is about survival. It's about differential survival.
OK so maybe "survival" was being a bit sloppy with the language but if we're getting into a game of "I can be more pedantic than you", it isn't about differential survival either; it's about differential reproductive success.

And I didn't mention "Darwin's finches." I've got more sense, believe it or not.
Well, no, you wouldn't want to mention anything that undermined your argument. If we're going to get really pedantic, I didn't mention "Darwin's finches" either. I mentioned the Galapagos finches. So did Darwin. They played a significant role in setting him off on his life's work.

So I see you agree that calling natural selection a driving force isn't a good idea after all.
That doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to anything I said. You made it up. You must be pretty desperate to resort to that sort of crap. What I did do was quote, without comment, something said by Dawkins. If you don't like it, take it up with him. I'm sure he will be delighted to discuss it with you.

He may not have explained the origin of species but he discussed it in the context of evolution by natural selection.
But you said "It is about differential survival within species." not about species. Was Darwin wasting his time?

Didn't really expect to get this bogged down in this stuff. I was hoping to move on to all that nonsense about Mount Everest.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Lighter
Date: 20 Jun 16 - 04:29 PM

> Driving force implies directionality.

Dubious at best.

If, for example, production is a driving force behind the economy, it remains so whether the economy goes up, down, or stagnates. No direction is implied. The direction depends on the level of production.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Jun 16 - 05:46 PM

I begin to wonder if it would have been better to agree to exclude evolution as well as religion from this thread. We have stopped talking about logic at all, and every other aspect and sector of science is being neglected, as usually happens when when we get onto evolution, even without assistance from Pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 16 - 06:26 PM

A word like God has an array of meanings ranging from everything to nothing at all. So claiming to have proved it is a nul proposition.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Jun 16 - 06:30 PM

When I arrived a the airport on the Galápagos Islands, by the way, my daughter was really excited to see some of the finches. One of the locals responded by saying "What, you are excited by those finches? They are all over the island." There's a moral in that for those who care to look.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: olddude
Date: 20 Jun 16 - 10:43 PM

Joe god liked somethings a lot I recon, and other things, well not so much.. For example, aww little animal, I will call you a deer and you can eat grass, grass is everywhere, you will not go hungry. And you, I will call you a squirrel and you can eat all the nuts in the trees.

However, you bird, I will call you a woodpecker, if you want to eat you have to drill a hole in a tree.. With your face!!

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Jun 16 - 02:21 AM

Since the posts about whether Kaku has proven God's existence or not are still around, I will add my entirely speculative guess at what is happening.

Thomas Aquinas wrote the 'Quinque viae', which were five proofs of God's existence. Outside religion, I don't think anyone accepts any of them as proof these days, and it is quite a common thing to give identifying the flaws in the argument to philosophy undergraduates. Now my guess is that Kaku has taken, for example, the proof that says 'Since every effect has a cause, there must be a first cause, which is God' and changed it from a *proof* to a *definition*: If there is a first cause I will label that 'God'. This is totally valid, and merely suffers from the problem that God-as-so-defined bears little or no relationship to what people commonly mean by God. [But, as Amos says, there is very little commonality in the first place].

Now, has a first cause been proven? Possibly: more skilled physicists that me will have to check that. Would that prove God-as-so-defined exists? Yes, it is a mere label. Does that say anything about God as generally used? Not a jot.


And is self publicity behind this? Quite possibly.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Lighter
Date: 21 Jun 16 - 08:39 AM

Mostly agree, but I'm not sure that he's "changed" a proof into a definition. The "proof" itself is already largely a definition: we call the "first cause" or "prime mover" "God."

Everything has or had a cause.
The universe is a thing like everything else.
Therefore, the universe has or had a cause.

As you, the conclusion tells us nothing about the presumably necessary cause of the universe, except that it caused the universe.

Any additional characteristics we might add are baseless, at least on the basis of this syllogism.

And the syllogism, while deductively valid, may not be sound. Do we know that everything (the universe included) has or had a cause? Quantum physics, developed centuries after the syllogism, strongly suggests that certain existing "effects" have no cause.

What if the creation of the universe (from a "singularity") was more like a quantum effect than like, say, a person making a watch?

And what if the "universe" (which now presumably includes an infinite number of parallel universes) has existed eternally?

People often as, "Why should there by something rather than nothing?"
Good question. But, alternatively, "Why should there be nothing instead of something?"

After all, everything we see or know is about *something." Since "nothing" has to be defined as the absence of all possible things, doesn't that suggest that "something" is the norm and "nothing" the exception?

Suggesting it, of course, hardly makes it so. But it's an interesting point.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Jun 16 - 09:29 AM

Probably better get Joe to answer that one:I haven't read Summa for years and when I did I read it rather than studied it. But if the "proofs" Were thought of as definitions there is no reason they shouldn't each define different things as God and Aquinas would certainly not.have liked that idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Jun 16 - 07:38 PM

While I'm sure it is not a brand new fad but one can google proof of God with logic-science-quantum physics, and get thousands of sites and you tube videos with titles like; 5 minutes to a scientific proof of God, 6 CD's that will teach you proof that God created all, 7 facts that prove God's existence, 10 things that undeniably prove God made the universe...

Joe be sure to show us your logical proof video if and when you are done.

I know this is mostly a devout Prairie Home Companion audience here and certain ideas are not very compatible with the 'faithful crowd'.

Still as long as we remain respectful and honest there will be an advancement of knowledge and mutual understanding.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Jun 16 - 08:35 AM

I wasn't suggesting Joe attempts to prove the existence of God. I was inviting him to say more about Aquinas, with especial regard to how he and subsequent people regarded the "proofs". An academic answer, then, not a theological one.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Jun 16 - 12:39 PM

"This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for." 
 Douglas Adams

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Jun 16 - 02:38 PM

I must remember Ed and Greg as allies as I remember DMcG as professionally astute.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Jun 16 - 08:11 PM

Your lifeform, "Donuel" memory is clearly faulty, making your logic in suspect.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jun 16 - 01:50 PM

Rational is different than logical Ed.
Advanced economics makes it very clear that there are irrational elements in spending behavior.

I suppose I am not completely rational otherwise I would have never bought a time share in Fallujah. Hey Ed good buddy would you like a slice of a time share??

How about some Trump bonds or gold mine shares?

Beanie babies?

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Jun 16 - 02:05 PM

When I was in a Catholic seminary, we were taught that the "proofs of the existence of God" didn't work very well as proof, although they did tend to prove the possibility of the existence of God. Our professors generally had a high opinion of Thomas, but claimed that he had been "dumbed down" by lesser minds through many centuries of "Thomism." Thomas had one virtue that was missing in all of the centuries of Thomistic scholars that followed him - Thomas had doubts.

-Joe-