| The Role of Logic is Vital in Argument |
Everyone has an opinion. I am about to express mine on this page. However,
the problem with some opinions is that they are flawed; and, this is because some
opinions are not based in sound reason, logic and critical thinking skills. There
are a myriad of examples that show how this lack of reason often arises; but,
these are best viewed on a site that is designed just for that purpose.
the problem with some opinions is that they are flawed; and, this is because some
opinions are not based in sound reason, logic and critical thinking skills. There
are a myriad of examples that show how this lack of reason often arises; but,
these are best viewed on a site that is designed just for that purpose.
A good site that I found is on About.com, in the category of Religion
& Spirituality, under the heading of Atheism. Who better than an
atheist to do the Lord's work and explain precisely just how much
logic plays the most key role in confirming that Nostradamus has
been illogically argued for so long?
& Spirituality, under the heading of Atheism. Who better than an
atheist to do the Lord's work and explain precisely just how much
logic plays the most key role in confirming that Nostradamus has
been illogically argued for so long?
To go to: Critical Thinking: Using Logic and Reason
The argument over Nostradamus appears to be centered on the disagreement that
exists over believability. Either you believe that a human being has the capability
to see the future, from some unexplained and amazing powers, or you don't. The
people that believe that Nostradamus had this ability point to several quatrains
that they believe are examples of this power. They base their opinion due to a
high level of accuracy that they see, between the written words of Nostradamus
and known historical facts pertaining to one event. They see Nostradamus'
words as clearly descriptive of those facts. Three specific example that have
been argued by believers, on a television show about Nostradamus' believability,
were three quatrains that: foretold of Henry II being killed in a jousting accident;
foretold of Napoleon coming to power; and, foretold of Adolph Hitler coming to
power. The result of this debate, held at a major university campus, by a show
of hands at the end was: there is not reason to believe in Nostradamus.
exists over believability. Either you believe that a human being has the capability
to see the future, from some unexplained and amazing powers, or you don't. The
people that believe that Nostradamus had this ability point to several quatrains
that they believe are examples of this power. They base their opinion due to a
high level of accuracy that they see, between the written words of Nostradamus
and known historical facts pertaining to one event. They see Nostradamus'
words as clearly descriptive of those facts. Three specific example that have
been argued by believers, on a television show about Nostradamus' believability,
were three quatrains that: foretold of Henry II being killed in a jousting accident;
foretold of Napoleon coming to power; and, foretold of Adolph Hitler coming to
power. The result of this debate, held at a major university campus, by a show
of hands at the end was: there is not reason to believe in Nostradamus.
That result was just as illogical as the argument for belief in Nostradamus; and, it
shows the sensationalism of commercial television programming. If televison
ever produced a program that would disprove Nostradamus once and for all, it
would kill the golden goose that would lay the next program about Nostradamus.
Television is all about raising interest, peaking you towards belief, then letting out
enough air to bring you back to ground, and ending with more doubt cast, so you
will tune in the next time to see if anything new has been discovered. Seeing
Nostradamus be defeated on a television program is about like watching Penn &
Teller lower a ball at Time's Square, to show that they correctly predicted the
winner and score of the Super Bowl. Its only entertainment.
shows the sensationalism of commercial television programming. If televison
ever produced a program that would disprove Nostradamus once and for all, it
would kill the golden goose that would lay the next program about Nostradamus.
Television is all about raising interest, peaking you towards belief, then letting out
enough air to bring you back to ground, and ending with more doubt cast, so you
will tune in the next time to see if anything new has been discovered. Seeing
Nostradamus be defeated on a television program is about like watching Penn &
Teller lower a ball at Time's Square, to show that they correctly predicted the
winner and score of the Super Bowl. Its only entertainment.
If there was any logic used in a debate over Nostradamus, there would be
disagreement over the translations that the believers have used. These are not
Nostradamus' actual words written. They are paraphrases of what is believed to
have been meant by Nostradamus, when he wrote in a language that is clearly not
a standard form of language used to clearly communicate ideas. With a
disagreement over something this basic, no argument can ensue over believability
in Nostradamus. That televised debate was between the people that did not
believe the people that believed in Nostradamus; and, the people that believed
believed because they turned the words of Nostradamus into words they wanted
to believe. The defeat goes to the people that said what they believed
Nostradamus said. The defeat does not go to Nostradamus. In fact,
Nostradamus did not predict the death of Henry II in a jousting accident. He
also, in fact, did not predict the rise to power of Napoleon. Okay, they got the
one on Hitler right, partially; but this isn't even a 1 out of 3 ratio. It is a 1 out of
948 ratio; and, the laws of probability throws that one out. How do I know these
are facts, you might ask? I went directly to the source. I got Nostradamus to tell
me what he meant; and, I did this by understanding the two letters that he wrote,
for the purpose of explaining his meaning. It all boils down to the only true
argument that can be had, which is: one between belief in God and non-belief in
God. This is because when logic is applied to what Nostradamus actually wrote,
he clearly says that Jesus Christ is the source of everything that he wrote on the
subject. He said that every quatrain will be found infallibly correct.
Understanding that as the point of agreement, from whence to begin an argument,
means that The Prophecies is the proof of God or the proof of no God. I'm on
the belief in God side. Logic says so.
disagreement over the translations that the believers have used. These are not
Nostradamus' actual words written. They are paraphrases of what is believed to
have been meant by Nostradamus, when he wrote in a language that is clearly not
a standard form of language used to clearly communicate ideas. With a
disagreement over something this basic, no argument can ensue over believability
in Nostradamus. That televised debate was between the people that did not
believe the people that believed in Nostradamus; and, the people that believed
believed because they turned the words of Nostradamus into words they wanted
to believe. The defeat goes to the people that said what they believed
Nostradamus said. The defeat does not go to Nostradamus. In fact,
Nostradamus did not predict the death of Henry II in a jousting accident. He
also, in fact, did not predict the rise to power of Napoleon. Okay, they got the
one on Hitler right, partially; but this isn't even a 1 out of 3 ratio. It is a 1 out of
948 ratio; and, the laws of probability throws that one out. How do I know these
are facts, you might ask? I went directly to the source. I got Nostradamus to tell
me what he meant; and, I did this by understanding the two letters that he wrote,
for the purpose of explaining his meaning. It all boils down to the only true
argument that can be had, which is: one between belief in God and non-belief in
God. This is because when logic is applied to what Nostradamus actually wrote,
he clearly says that Jesus Christ is the source of everything that he wrote on the
subject. He said that every quatrain will be found infallibly correct.
Understanding that as the point of agreement, from whence to begin an argument,
means that The Prophecies is the proof of God or the proof of no God. I'm on
the belief in God side. Logic says so.
