Infinity Lover

There's a golden rule in religious debate (which, mind you is never an actual debat, debat)...

...bulshit applies, as long as it's divine bullshit.

The God they believe in want's those believers to be honest, but the defense of beliefs is where the line of truthfullness is drawn.
God pretty much told them; be honest, but lie to yourself when it comes to me.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
Not quite correct.

IF it can be represented by well-formed sentence with an assignable truth value
THEN it lies 'inside' the scope of logic.


We seem to be arguing about something but I'm not sure what it is. Up until now we have basically agreed on (mostly) everything. That is one can't use logic to prove logic, logic is a tautology, etc.


More to the point however, you seem to want to relate 'absolute truth' to the universe in some way, but haven't explicitly outlined this.


SOMMS

wade-w

Xeren:

I think that the principle that applies here is Occam's Razor. Briefly, it says to choose the simplest explantion that fits the known facts. Or, do not over assume. While it may be true that you can't PROVE that there is no god, it is also true that you can't prove that there MUST be a god. Since the universe can be explained without requiring there to be a god, assuming his(her) existence is introducing an unnecessary assumption, and hence violates Occam's Razor.

"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has..."
-- Martin Luther

K

SOMMS:

I never agreed that logic was a tautology.

The axioms of a given logic can be chosen such that the logic is internally consistent. That IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER means that that logic says anything meaningful about the real world. By choosing Boolean logic (100% True or 100% False), you have ASSUMED axiomatically that there are absolute truths. Therefore, the statement that there are no absolute truths is forced to be a paradox only because of your axiom. Not because of any kind of deductive logic.

I'm just using the implications of Godel's Theorem to show that it's senseless to try to use a system that assumes axiomatically that absolute truths exist to prove that absolute truths exist.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,

Some stuff for you to think about...
Then it is not a tautology? Ok. Then prove logic.

Morever, IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER does it mean that is doesn't say anything meaningful about the world. Case in point: Boolean logic.

Are you suggesting that Boolean logic IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER says anything meaningful about the world? You must realize that the computer your using to post these messages relies on NOTHING BUT Boolean logic.


Your claim is that some *arbitrary* logic is not necessarily meaningful when describing the universe. However, this is not the case with Boolean logic as it is useful for describing the world around us. I think for your point to have weight you must show that Boolean logic has *NO* relevance in describing the world around us. If this were the case...we could then claim that anything derived by Boolean logic would be meaningless...thus 'absolute truth exists' would be meaningless.



Good luck.


SOMMS

Jobar

Xeren, and all- this one is certainly related to EoG, but I am going to call it Philosophy. So please continue there. J.