| [ Christian ] in KIDS 글 쓴 이(By): parsec ( 먼 소 류 ) 날 짜 (Date): 2001년 12월 3일 월요일 오후 06시 16분 02초 제 목(Title): [c] guest(!@#$%^&*()) [ Christian ] in KIDS 글 쓴 이(By): guest (!@#$%^&*()) <posb.postech.ac.> 날 짜 (Date): 2001년 12월 3일 월요일 오후 03시 45분 23초 제 목(Title): Re: Extension of logic toward belief I think what Dr. RNB(^^) want to say is he can believe something with and without logical bases.(I still don't know whether he belives miracle with logical base or not.) But what I cannot understand still less is Mr. parsec's opinion. In his same paragraph, he mentioned totally different two sentences. As RNB already pointed out, he said "belif is nothing to do with logic". Next, he said "belief is conflict with logic in itself". 'Be nothing to with sth' and 'be conflict with sth' is utterly different, rather conflicting. What is his real opinion? Besides, he insisted that he had already explained how logic and belief conflict each other, his proof does not seem to correct. He said, >-> My thought: logical process (and its conclusion if any)is not an act > of believing. > and beliving is no logical process. thus they conflict. Is there anyone who thinks this proof is proper? He just presented two different things and argued that because of their difference, they confliced. If so, the following deduction can be derived also. My thought: Playing the piano is not an act of singing. And Singing is no playing the piano. Thus they conflict. Next, I suppose that many people does not understand the meaning of RNB's mention, >I cannot say that I know the truth. >But I can say for sure, the truth is beyond my understanding. He does not mean he does know where is truth and it is the place beyond his understanding.(If so, it would be contradictory in itself) He just mentioned that he DOES NOT know truth and he BELIEVES somewhere the truth is. Of course we can do many things with which we cannot determine its truth, but whether we believe or not, the truth EXIST or DO NOT EXIST in the universe.(Don't ask me what the truth is.) Imagine that now we have a box that we cannot see inside. There IS or IS NOT certain object inside the box. There is not third possibility.(Let's ignore Schroedinger's cat!) It is same case when we mention the truth in the universe. RNB said he belived the truth is in the universe. It may be disputable but not so absurd. On the contrary, I think the more people agree with his opinion. At last, I don't understand whether illogical is opposite or contradictory to logical. In the former(opposite) case, believing without logical base would be not illogical because it is nothing to do with logic. In the latter case, It would be illogical because of the same reason. Of course, I agree with parsec in the topic of the difference between "cannot be done" and "not to be logical". Perhaps everyone agree with him in this part. I do not belive miracle. ^^ -------------------------------------------------------------- 일 좀 하고 시간이 나면 답글을 올리겠습니다 ^^ |