[QUOTE]Originally posted by chroot
[B]While I applaud your play on my words, I boo your message.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by magician
[B]

Out of curiosity, what would you accept as proof?

(I'm serious here; if you haven't thought what would be minimally sufficient, take a moment, then post a reply.

 

[QUOTE]Then I must believe you have your completed model. You are saying that scientific facts are infallible. That is your model of models.

Religion is static? My religion is revealed in history, and history isn't done yet.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jay Li
[B]Jon, your original statement that I quoted stated that we would have to be slaves in order to never sin.

My examples were just explaining how it is possible to have free will and never sin.

 

Garyj - yes, he has faith even if it takes asking it twenty times for him to admit it openly. That faith is in the basic axioms of science.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jay Li
[B]

If you don't agree with that, then take this example:

 

Why not?

Please don't pass this off as a silly question. I think it gets to the heart of some of the disagreements here. Is there a fundamental property of nature which makes this impossible? Or is it an axiom upon which we base the logic we develop to try to explain nature? (Recall earlier discussions about where the dividing line between nature and the mathematical models to explain nature lies.)

Saying that it's a contradiction isn't sufficient, for the question would simply be restated as "Why can't nature have contradictions?".

I believe that this is a very difficult question to answer, if you really try to dig deeply into nature to find what lies at its base.

It is also a very important question (especially in the context of this debate). If nature allows for contradiction, then Aristotle's logic isn't the way to explain nature. I won't suggest that if nature allows a contradiction then one can prove anything (which would follow in Aristotle's logic), but, as a simple example, our definition of "rational" may have to undergo a revision in interpretation.

I don't intend to pursue this, but it does seem to me to be a good question for philosophers (and physicists) to ponder. Maybe they already have and there's an answer. If so, I would sincerely be interested in hearing it. But I'm not going to stand on a soapbox and argue either side.

 

magician,

It's deeper than an axiom -- it's so fundamental that disproving it requires agreeing with it. Is an orange an orange? If not, all bets are off, and there can be no more rational thought.

- Warren

 

Please don't color me dense here, but I truly don't understand this statement, unless you're simply using the (Aristotelean) argument that a contradiction implies anything; I don't believe this is the case.

I completely agree that it is fundamental; that's why an accurate understanding is so important.

Are you aware of any philosopher who has addressed it? I'm not, but I will happily concede my limited exposure in this area.

 

If you don't believe an orange is an orange, then you don't believe an argument is an argument, so you can't argue that you don't believe an orange is an orange. It's circular.

Off the top of my head, I'm sorry - I don't know any philosophers who have investigated it. I'm sure I'm not the first to argue it, though.

- Warren