Legion, hush already- I’m not rehashing that argument.
But, on the idea of logic. No, you can’t argue logically with someone who plays by different rules. They could argue logically with someone playing by the same rules, and I could argue logically with someone playing by my rules. However, two people working with systems arising from contrary assumptions can’t rationally argue about it without one of them changing their underlying assumptions.
That’s why I can’t have a logical argument unless it’s based on something, to use your word, “provable.” You can’t prove something that isn’t provable. Therefore arguing about whether there is proof for something not provable is irrational. qed, etc. etc.
“…and you can’t argue logically with a faith-based belief system.”
Sure you can argue logically,
just don’t expect the answers to fit into a pure and provable mathematical construct.
You can end up limiting yourself too much if you outline your world by exactly provable outlines.
Once you are able to detach yourself from the strict definitions which you yourself impose, you might find that there is another realm to existence and life itself.
…strangely, these ideas seem to work well when arguing with significant others.
Biff, can we expect a nice blow out by the rangers – ie 4-1 victory?
Legion, hush already- I’m not rehashing that argument.
But, on the idea of logic. No, you can’t argue logically with someone who plays by different rules. They could argue logically with someone playing by the same rules, and I could argue logically with someone playing by my rules. However, two people working with systems arising from contrary assumptions can’t rationally argue about it without one of them changing their underlying assumptions.
That’s why I can’t have a logical argument unless it’s based on something, to use your word, “provable.” You can’t prove something that isn’t provable. Therefore arguing about whether there is proof for something not provable is irrational. qed, etc. etc.
Zip(loc) it, Biff.
Soren Kierkegaard’s last words:
“Sweep me up”
Boughetto!!!! love it!!
*rob*
“Cobble, aren’t you tired of always playing the foil?”
What’s that, Ollie?
I can’t wrap my head around the foil discussion.
Que saran, saran…
Any particular piece of his writing you would recommend Arkady?
“…and you can’t argue logically with a faith-based belief system.”
Sure you can argue logically,
just don’t expect the answers to fit into a pure and provable mathematical construct.
You can end up limiting yourself too much if you outline your world by exactly provable outlines.
Once you are able to detach yourself from the strict definitions which you yourself impose, you might find that there is another realm to existence and life itself.
…strangely, these ideas seem to work well when arguing with significant others.