https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Sabetts 2026-09-24T22:31:34Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.35.14 https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Why_Reason%3F&diff=340229 2007-11-20T21:24:37Z

<p>Sabetts: /* Only the Bible is Infallible */</p> <hr /> <div>{{debate}}<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> 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? <br /> <br /> == Only the Bible is Infallible ==<br /> <br /> Which one?<br /> <br /> == The Mind is trustworthy ==<br /> <br /> I don't know if I agree with the parameters of this debate. Logic certainly isn't infallible, or else we wouldn't have paradoxes (for example, &quot;this is a lie&quot;). It does however provide the most effective tools for navigating the world around us and making sense of our experiences.<br /> <br /> The very foundation of a debate is logic, anyway. The negators will employ logic in constructing an opposing argument, and the affirmers will use logic to counter it. The very act of reading a Bible requires feats of logic (one doesn't simply gain literacy by divine inspiration, unless you're Mohammed).<br /> <br /> I'm all for interpretations of the Bible and contextual readings, but assuming the infallibility of anything - the Bible, the Constitution, the local phone directory - is fundamentally irrational behaviour. It precludes critical thinking and evaluation, and as such, cannot be debated in any meaningful way. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:52, 7 November 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Science ==<br /> <br /> One thing that seems to keep cropping up on this site is a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method. No scientist ''ever'' says something is &quot;proven&quot;. Science is based upon the idea of falsifiability; that is, something is assumed to be the case ''until it is proven '''not''' to be.'' For example, gravity is one theory which is the best interpretation of all the evidence available. Every time a scientific study investigates gravity and it supports the theory, our confidence in the theory is increased. But the theory could be '''disproved''' with ''one'' contradictory result. You can never prove, merely disprove.<br /> <br /> As such, something is never scientifically &quot;proven&quot;. It is simply yet to be disproved. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 07:31, 15 November 2007 (EST)<br /> :I should probably mention though that your &quot;one contradictory result&quot; would have to be repeatable and well-documented, but in essence, yes. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:10, 15 November 2007 (EST)</div>

Sabetts