[QUOTE]Originally posted by Garyj
[B]

The problem isn't just that people pick the evil deeds.

 

You are resorting to the one-contradiction-implies-all-contradictions reasoning. I'm disappointed. I was sincerely hoping for something deeper.

I believe that it may be possible to have one contradiction (a non-orange orange) without having to have another (a non-argument argument). Especially when the one is natural and the other is man-made.

I'm sure that you're not the first to argue this. As I wrote earlier, it would be interesting to see what the "great minds" (greater than mine, anyway) who have addressed this idea have come up with.

 

Sorry to dissapoint.

I don't believe I'm "resorting," either. If you believe that an orange is a grape, and a grape is an orange, that's okay -- you're still assigning identities. But if you don't believe that things have identities -- that an orange has no identity -- then you can't say much else about oranges.

- Warren

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jay Li
[B]

I agree, but my question is that couldn't he have not created these people?

 

Interesting that you put it that way.

When I teach mathematics my students hate the fact that I insist that they learn the definitions; they always have definitions on their exams. I, too, believe that if you don't understand the definition of a term you're not likely to be able to say anything intelligent about them.

However, we're skirting the issue here. Are contradictions possible in nature? You say that if they are then there can be no more rational thought. You may be right, but that doesn't answer the question; it only says that if the answer is "yes" then rational thought may be an illusion.

In short, it's a toughie. But my interest is in facing it head-on, not dodging it because it may get messy.

 

No, I believe Nature is self-consistent. Any contradictions or inconsistencies (for instance, the ultraviolet catastrophe) are indications that our models are lacking and need to be refined or replaced (for instance, the quantization of energy).

If Nature is not self-consistent, science really has absolutely no point.

- Warren

 

The obvious question, then, would be "How much faith does this belief require?"

I will muster all my self-control and not ask it.

 

It's not faith -- it's a belief. And if it's proved that Nature really is inconsistent, I'll stop believing it.

- Warren

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jay Li
[B]

I agree, but my question is that couldn't he have not created these people?

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by chroot
[B]

It's not faith -- it's a belief.