3
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 47:
Line 47: + +
→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?
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?
I am not sure that it is logical to assume anything, but that there is a progression of events to which we have become accustomed, it seems that we must make a series of assumptions about the world, i.e. that the penny will react similarly, because otherwise we would not be able to function effectively. In that sense, God might only be the mind's assumption to cope with the seemingly illogical or ineffable reality in which we believe ourselves to be. Similarly, the radically subjective position from which we likely (assumption) perceive reality would leave us with the understanding that any form of logic which we use to more easily cope with reality would be flawed at best and inconsequential to any objective perception of reality, if there could be such a thing. I would also say that if there is an Object Truth, it does not necessarily follow that it could be logically understood, but simply Objectively understood, or perhaps only perceived, just as when a camera "perceives" a tree, it simply perceives it and doesn't even observe it, let alone understand it or logically arrive at the tree. And although this argument relies on logic, it could easily have nothing to do with Objective Truth, if the Objective Truth is itself neither logical nor illogical (something that might be more...logical... given that Objective Truth would more likely exist independent of our reality, unless one thinks of God as pure logic, i.e. Objective Logic, of course.) [[User:Mentisendium|Mentisendium]] 22:56, 20 July 2010 (EDT)