Quote:
Originally Posted by downquark1
I was not attempting to attain a final truth, note the words "likely". Being a staunch empiricist I would demand observational verification at which point the logical argument becomes rather moot.
|
As an empiricist I applaud you. In fact we are arguing the same point from different angles in regard to life (not the ray gun wielding ones though), intuistic logic would allow your statement to be true if the example given were better. Logic is simply a tool not the only tool we have, but a good one to derive truth from certain statements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by downquark1
Ah the old hard atheist trick.
|
Sorry you'll need to clarify that statement, How or why would an atheist use that argument to support atheism??? It only supports agnosticism...
Quote:
Originally Posted by downquark1
Well this is mainly an issue of semantics, but theism and atheism tend be statements of belief while gnosticism and agnosticism are statements of knowledge. So they are not mutually exclusive.
|
Again, how is agnosticism a statement of knowledge? From where I am is a lack of knowledge not the other way around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by downquark1
Given any number of premises it is perfectly logical. Your premises seems to be that the 2 lives are higher than that of the child, who decided that each life is equally valued?
Logic does not give you an ultimate goal it only gives you a means. This is why spock is not "logical"
|
I think you misunderstand, his point did not involve logic in the statement. He has no premise, it was an observation to highlight the lack of logic in such a situation.
I don't believe the intention was to engage in a logical debate.
For the record this is fabulous, from the start it was assumed that it would degenerate into a mob fest, however this is probably the most "grown up" discussion I have had the privilige to be involved in.
