[QUOTE]Originally posted by magician
[B]

Evidently you missed--or misunderstood--my reference to Godel.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Garyj
[B]
Without faith it is impossible to venture into any unknown.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by magician
[B]

Think about it: mathematics has proven (not, in the manner of legal proceedings, beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond all doubt) that reason is insufficient and that faith is necessary.

 

"Childlike" suggests innocence, trust, and ingenuousness; "childish" suggests immaturity and lack of poise. When one resorts to refering to another's conceptions as "childishly simple-minded" I question which of the participants is innocent and trustful and which is immature and awkward.

One tailors one's prose (or ought to) to one's audience. That he saw fit to characterize the book he cited as "a lot of work to read", and suggested that those whom mathematics scares steer clear indicate that he has some grasp of this point. He needs to realize that I have as well.

(Thanks for the complement, by the way, albeit ever-so-slightly left-handed. )

 

Plus all that statement implies. ("A water molecule comprises two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom, and I'm lying, and I mean it.")

 

That's one way to interpret the theorem. The other (logically equivalent) way is: My consistency makes me incomplete. Which is correct depends on which hypothesis in its corresponding implication is correct. Is it correct that we're complete? Or is it correct that we're consistent?

(It's one thing to articulate the ability to say "I'm lying" and mean it, it's quite another to actually possess the ability.)

 

Not necessarily. This discussion is not about identifying the God of faith, but allowing room for faith. The pledge does not specify a specific deity, but instead, recognizes our countries history as a nation of religious belief.

 

In our own world experience, there is only self confidence. Even confidence in others is based upon our confidence in our ability to evaluate others. I have confidence in my own choices, logic, and gathering of facts. When my choices, logic and facts are known, then confidence can take me forward. When the choices, logic and facts are unknown, then I have no basis for confidence. I, then, only have a basis for faith.

 

Again, this is the only argument I keep hearing about why religion in government is a good thing.

"It's always been this way.", is not good enough IMO.

Things change. We're talking about our future here, not our past. Can anyone provide some real life examples of where religion in government has been a good thing (past and present)? Or even some fictitious examples of where good can come from it in the future?

 

Mention of God is a part of our history. I favor keeping the flag and the pledge as it is!