| [ Christian ] in KIDS 글 쓴 이(By): parsec ( 먼 소 류 ) 날 짜 (Date): 2001년 12월 3일 월요일 오후 08시 09분 10초 제 목(Title): Re: [c] guest(!@#$%^&*()) > 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. let X be a set of logical reasoning and Y a set of beliefs then my thought can be expressed in this way: 1) if a is an element of X, it is not an element of Y 2) and if a is an element of Y, then not of X. --> 3) thus X and Y has nothing in common. which also means p:"a is an element of X" and q:"a is an element of Y" conflicts. Do you disagree with any one of 1) and 2), or the conclusion 3)? (I know RNB disagrees with 1), 2), and 3)) > > 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. let me put this in the same way let A be a set of actions that play piano, and B a set of singings, then, 1) if x is an element of A, then it is not an element of B 2) and if x is an element of B, then not of A 3) thus if you put r:"x is an element of A" and s:"x is an element of B" then r and s conflicts But do you really think that 1) or 2) stands? The validity of 3) depends on the truth value of 1) and 2) in both cases. If you think that the 1) and 2) of previous case do not stand, I have one more man with opposing idea. :) > 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. If I said "'X has nothing to do with Y' means with 'p and q conflicts'" whould it've been more clear? Maybe the way I uttered this matter was not quite clear. ◇ ~~~_ _ ∴ ~|~| | _/__, SEP. 11. 2001 _ ∴∴ _ ~ | | ＼ ` Armorica under a tat ,-| `,-,_| |__ | | | A ______|_|__|_|___|__|| | |__|_|_____________________________________ |