(January 7, 2013 at 8:32 pm)Rhythm Wrote:
I assure you that I can't find such a person, I wouldn't even know what to look for. I'm certainly no such person myself. "Robotic intelligence" may be behind ours, sure, especially if we're the ones setting the criteria, but that doesn't mean that they aren't more capable at logic than ourselves. Play a little minecraft with me, I'll show you machine logic that cannot make a mistake - I'm the only one (between the machine and I) that can insert error into the system...lol.
Logic cannot prove logic? You know, I get the impression that you regard logic as some alien or manufactured thing, which in a sense is true. We did manufacture the terms, the system. But it is a descriptive system (remeber our discussion about the number 2 in a different thread?)- it conforms to how our universe seems to behave. So if you were so inclined, you could actually observe the "laws" of logic at work in the physical world. It didn't come to us in a flash either, we gradually discovered it (making mistakes along the way - most of them what we now call fallacies). You don't have to put all of your trust into logic, true, but what compelled you to use the word "reason" while arguing against trusting logic?
Without wanting to start another debate so soon ; of course i accept logic; I accept science ; I accept many things ; I just consider that different tools are required for different jobs and sometimes multiple tools needed for some. Remember the position most theists have when it comes to this level of discussion is that of course logic and science could work but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist as how could we ever function and develop if there were no rules, if nothing was predictable. There are some who would try and argue that this could be used as a proof ( but my instinct says they are expecting too much as proof ) but could be used as a part of evidence when presenting a case for the Theist Model (lets call it)
