|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | {{debate}} | | {{debate}} |
| − | | + | god is fake. |
| − | 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?
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | == Only the Bible is Infallible ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Which one?
| |
| − | O.K. heres the thing. I can throw a penny in the air 101, 1001, or 100,000 times. It will fall to the ground. This can be measured, and proven. Give me one piece of evidence that the bible was written by anyone other than men. And don't tell me I have to take it on faith--that is the difference between fact and fantasy--I can prove facts.
| |
| − | :Actually, if you throw the penny ''really'' far, what you liberals call "gravity" will cease to pull it back down to our flat Earth. As your metaphor has been proven false by me, it follows that your whole point of view is wrong. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 06:51, 3 January 2008
| |
| − | ::What you wrote suggests that "liberals" don't realize "their gravity" weakens further away from Earth. It turns out they do. --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 17:26, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
| |
| − | you are being very foolish cranky Joe he is talking about using human strength to throw the penny it is physically impossible for a human to through a penny into space and the earth is not flat if it were then there would be a spot that if you sailed to you would just fall off the map which has never happened and if you go into space you go into space and view the earth its a sphere not a flat piece of matter just siting there
| |
| − | | |
| − | What ''liberals'' call gravity? What do you call it? --[[User:Lordofthemarsh|Lordofthemarsh]] 23:14, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | 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)
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | == The Mind is trustworthy ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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, "this is a lie"). It does however provide the most effective tools for navigating the world around us and making sense of our experiences.
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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).
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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)
| |
| − | | |
| − | I would argue in response that logic is a process rather than a source of knowledge. As far as paradoxes go, most are purely linguistic in nature or are based on faulty premises (take Zeno's dichotomy paradox which is based on mathematical fallacy) which are just not readily apparent.
| |
| − | | |
| − | I happily accept your final paragraph though, however, i think the parameters attempted to include what you define as critical thinking and evaluation under the heading of logic. However, this is a fault of the page not defining clearly enough rather than your interpreatation.
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Science ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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 "proven". 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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | As such, something is never scientifically "proven". It is simply yet to be disproved. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 07:31, 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)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==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?
| |
