nkgupta80
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 31, 2005
- Messages
- 1,720
- Reaction score
- 59
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
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.