• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Science and Religion are Not Compatible

not that I'm aware of. Give me a question that a religious methodology provides a better answer than one that the scientific method does. I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying you can't support your answer but I can support mine which means you are probably wrong and I am probably right.

Well I assert that believing in some mysterious force called god, a belief that may give a purpose to our otherwise meaningless life, cannot be proven one way or another. This is because of the lack of falsifiability. You can argue the degree of certainty, but that does not really matter. Now a system of rules based on this premise is not necessarily false.

In the case of christianity of course, if the same book that gives you a purpose and a way to live, also tells u that the world was created 5000 years ago.. well there is a falsifiable statement. Then you can question the validity of the book as a whole.

But something like buddhism that preaches a way to live (not really falsifiable) cannot be proven wrong or right one way or another.

BTW.. I ascribe to neither way of life.
not necessarily.

what do u mean... its like trying to think of something beyond thinking. Unless we augment our brains or something, we are stuck with what we have.


There are possibly some deficiencies with logic as demonstrated by logical paradoxes that are yet to be resolved. Logic may be insufficient or require further refining but so far there isn't sufficient evidence or reason to think so with any certainty.

It may very well be logic is flawed but until there is some way to demonstrate or reveal its deficiencies then the discussion is nothing but conjecture.


I don't think we need to call them flaws, instead we can call them truths about a system that we have to use.

What I described about sequences of numbers (and sequences of propositions in general) is a definite limit to logic, provable through the system of logic itself. It definitely is not a paradox.
 
My concerns were about the limits of logic and the extent of certainty.
I never responded, this post got ressurected so here is the reponse.

Logic is a necessary axiom, as such, it is limited. That is, logic is one of a few things that allows us to even use the term "limit".
Certainty is a spectrum. For mathematical proofs, we arrive at 100% certainty. For reality/reason/science, we also arrive at 100% certainty but qualify it by saying if it is wrong, reality will determine it. In other words, if we show certain physical things behave according to certain mathematical relationshps (Say, first Law of thermodynamics.), we are certain it's true. If it started behaving differently, we must then accept that it's now, false (of which we can also be certain). So certainty remains, it's just that reality is the final abribter of what is true.

Example: give me the next number in the sequence: 1,2,4,8,16....
There is no certainty in the answer. No matter how many subsequent numbers you ask for, I can always construct a set of rules that produce varying answers.

Without evidence, we have no way to differentiate true from false. That's a fundamental fact of reasoning.

So the system of rules used by man are those which serve our purposes the best. Only falsification allows us to disprove certain rules with certainty, but again, multiple rules would always exist. Luckily falsifiability is a pretty good way to gain knowledge about our world and trim down that set of possible rules.

There is no other way. It's not "the best way", or a pretty good way, it's the only reliable way to differentiate true from false. Our limitations are set in place by reality itself.
 
Back
Top Bottom