herospirit said:
Bull. They have different densities. We have evidense of this. Whose point are you trying to prove hero's or yours?
Ceridwens logic was immaculate
It`s conclusion was wrong because her premise was false but the logic she used was perfect.
Where is TVOR when you need him?
This is what I`ve been saying in this and a couple of other threads and she just presented it better than I have so far.
Yet, you still don`t understand.
This tells me that you do not understand what logic is, you have an incorrect idea of it`s definition.
Logic is not a pathway to "truth".
It is an system that may or may not lead to "truth" depending upon it`s premise.
This goes to the heart of my original statement that you cannot debate spirituality using logic as neither side can come to an agreement on premise.
In order to use logic to support spirituality you must always assume your premise therefore it never leads to "truth".
You must assume your premise because spirituality cannot be evidenced as a fact.
From Wiki...
Modern logicians usually wish to ensure that logic studies just those arguments that arise from appropriately general forms of inference; so for example the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says of logic that it does not, however, cover good reasoning as a whole. That is the job of the theory of rationality.
"theory of rationality."
This is what you can debate/discuss spirituality with.
Logic is nothing without a rational premise.