seven8s

Here Mr. Logic................just for you. <s>.........<---- Intuition! I like sparkly things.

Can an atheist and a theist every see eye to eye? Does one ‘need’ the other, would be a more important question, no perhaps better said, a more interesting question...................

Funny how we want to change one another, why? Are we really seeking to change the self? Iow’s ‘make’ a believer out of me...........

Life is touchingly poignant, because we all have needs..................something old, something new, something borrowed something blue. We all have regrets. Shedding. Snakes. Things to be rid of and things to be gained.

Facts have nothing to do with logic, facts stand alone, are stable. Logic is a means of organizing facts. Logic is not a fact, it is a tool. Logic cannot be a fact if logic is subject to fallacy, which it is.

“Just the ‘facts madame’, iow’s I can logic myself or I’ll logic them myself. Therein is the fallacy of logic, or potential for fallacy is better said.

Is out thinking subceptible to fallacy...............yes. The evidence? spelling lol.

Is out thinking susceptible to fallacy, and if scientist are human is their thinking susceptible to fallacy, error, and if so how? Intuitions or faulty logic?

I am thinking of HRT therapy, and anecdotal evidence. Can logic kill, if HRT causes breast cancer, heart disease, brittle bones?

Logic consists of taking a specific amount (list) of facts, and organizing them. Does that organization automatically, in and of itself, ‘form’ an answer? And if it does, does that answer help or harm?

If omnipotence can be reduced to two things..............help and harm would be a good place to start. I would think that this would be benevolent, because it is omniscience?

What is ‘truth’ if truth is subjective? Intuitive, a gut feeling, based on the facts, yet not necessarily. Example: Mares piss?! Really? That doesn’t make sense to me. It doesn’t make sense to a lot of women, maybe that is why some women are dead and some women are alive. Of course the women who are alive were called radical, and yet it was those radicals who instituted ‘change’. A ‘study’ was formulated, and the radicals ‘proven’ right. Are radicals always right? Well, they didn’t include natural micronized’ progestrone cream in the study and so they have no clue to it’s safety is established. And as Dr. Susan Love points out, what is ‘natural’ about it (natural progestrone) if it is micronized? Where is the logic in that?

Dr. Lee is a proponent of ‘natural micronized progesterone’, and bases his position on anecdotal evidence. Dr. Lee is not only a proponent of natural micronized progesterone, but is considered an authority, based on his ‘logic’, that logic being, I’ve prescribed it for years, it helps.

As there are no double blind studies regarding natural micronized progesterone, logic tells me, Dr. Lee has no clue what he is talking about. No credibility, no legs to stand on, no facts if facts stand alone.

Does God exist, and if God exists, how does God exist? Is God an authority? Dr. Lee is considered an authority, how does Dr. Lee exist? Unopposed? Were te proponents of HRT considered to be an athority, and how did those authroities exist? Unopposed? Hmm, missing a ‘u’, and got the o,r backwards.............’our’

Life is interesting.

Amaleq13

This is also not the appropriate forum for political diatribes. That sort of free speech/incoherent rhetoric belongs in P,E&ST.

I don't want to yank posts but just a little thought will prevent it.

Thanks for paying just a tiny bit of attention to the rules,


Doug aka Amaleq13 BC&H moderator