Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
597 bytes added ,  03:19, June 2, 2008
==The Reliability of Logic Cannot Be Debated==
Line 3: Line 3:  
What is Logic and Philosophy that we should depend on it? [[Science]] cannot really prove anything; what about mathematics, or Reason? What is the good of it if it's only as strong as the mortal minds who concieve it? These very sentences have been reasoned by a human mind.
 
What is Logic and Philosophy that we should depend on it? [[Science]] cannot really prove anything; what about mathematics, or Reason? What is the good of it if it's only as strong as the mortal minds who concieve it? These very sentences have been reasoned by a human mind.
 
How can anyone trust their life to anything but an absolute truth. For instance, without the Bible, you rely on reason. You reason a moral system where every person as rights and no one can infringe anyone else's rights. But how can you know whats right and wrong if you don't have a standard? What's so special about Logic that makes it infalliable? Would even the best logic work every time? If you throw a penny in the air 100 times and it falls to the ground 100 times whos to say it will fall to the ground on the 101 first throw?  
 
How can anyone trust their life to anything but an absolute truth. For instance, without the Bible, you rely on reason. You reason a moral system where every person as rights and no one can infringe anyone else's rights. But how can you know whats right and wrong if you don't have a standard? What's so special about Logic that makes it infalliable? Would even the best logic work every time? If you throw a penny in the air 100 times and it falls to the ground 100 times whos to say it will fall to the ground on the 101 first throw?  
 +
 +
What ''liberals'' call gravity? What do you call it? --[[User:Lordofthemarsh|Lordofthemarsh]] 23:14, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
    
== Only the Bible is Infallible ==
 
== Only the Bible is Infallible ==
Line 14: Line 16:  
Any decent scientist would not say God does not exist.  God cannot be measured and tested.  He is like everything else that is outside the field of science. <br /> Scientists simply do not have a professional opinion about it.  [[User:CMacloud|CMacloud]] 19:17, 21 February 2008 (EST)
 
Any decent scientist would not say God does not exist.  God cannot be measured and tested.  He is like everything else that is outside the field of science. <br /> Scientists simply do not have a professional opinion about it.  [[User:CMacloud|CMacloud]] 19:17, 21 February 2008 (EST)
   −
What ''liberals'' call gravity? What do you call it? --[[User:Lordofthemarsh|Lordofthemarsh]] 23:14, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
      
== The Mind is trustworthy ==
 
== The Mind is trustworthy ==
Line 35: Line 36:  
:I should probably mention though that your "one contradictory result" would have to be repeatable and well-documented, but in essence, yes. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:10, 15 November 2007 (EST)
 
:I should probably mention though that your "one contradictory result" would have to be repeatable and well-documented, but in essence, yes. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:10, 15 November 2007 (EST)
 
::Or else the Law of the Conservation of Mass and Energy would have been disproven by high school chemistry students long ago. --[[User:Capercorn]] <small> [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] </small> 13:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
 
::Or else the Law of the Conservation of Mass and Energy would have been disproven by high school chemistry students long ago. --[[User:Capercorn]] <small> [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] </small> 13:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
==The Reliability of Logic Cannot Be Debated==
 +
 +
As has been said, logic cannot be used to disprove its own reliability. Logic is reliable because it is supported by the facts and the truth. IE if I throw the penny in the air, and it hits every time, then it is logical to assume it will do so again. There must be an objective truth, because if there was not, the statement "there is no objective truth" would be an objective truth. If there is an objective truth, it follows that it can be logically understood. Of course, this argument relies on logic. Do you see the futility of this debate?

Navigation menu