is that true?
Came across this today on this blog - a list of statements that people sometimes make, but which are actually "self-refuting" or logically inconsistent. I think they're worth sharing.
- Truth does not exist (Is that a true statement?)
- Nothing is absolute (Is that absolutely true?)
- I do not exist (You must exist to deny that you exist)
- Science is the only way to know (Can you scientifically prove that?)
- Only what can be perceived by the five senses exists (Can you prove that by the five senses?)
- Nobody can know anything for sure (Do you know that for sure?)
- Nobody can know anything about God (How do you know that?)
- Talk about God is meaningless (Since it is a statement about God, this statement is meaningless too)
- Reality is just your interpretation, objective reality does not exist (That’s just your interpretation)
- “‘Everything we think and do is the function of our genes/nervous system’” (Is this belief itself just the result of genetic/neutral activity? If so, why trust it — or any belief we have? If your belief happens to be right, it’s just by accident)
- There are no beliefs (You expect me to believe that?)
- Everything is meaningless (So is that statement)
Labels:
logic
Two thoughts from Hume and Kierkegaard.
ReplyDeleteKierkegaard first - all philosophical systems are just systems of thinking. They aren't ways of being. Christianity, according to Kierkegaard, is about a relation to the truth - a way of being - not a system of thinking.
As such, Kierkegaard throws "logic" out the window to make the "leap of faith" - God (the Infinite) becoming Man (finite) is absurd - but this doesn't deter Soren from passionately leaping into faith....
Hume.... fundamentally when you boil it down to the most basic axioms such as inductive reasoning (cause and effect) - we have no rational basis for it.
We have no logical reason to think the sun should rise tomorrow, and our experiential reason is circular.
The sun will rise tomorrow morning BECAUSE the sun has always risen in the morning (principle of uniformity, future will represent the past). But if you notice, the reasoning is circular, and this is the point Hume raises.
There isn't a rational basis for cause and effect.... BUT
I suppose we'll continue to hold onto cause-and-effect as a pragmatic matter, after all it has done wonders for scientific advancement.... but the question Hume raises - as far as I know hasn't been answered yet.
I guess what I'm driving at is that our most basic logical axioms are well - just suppositions or systems of thinking.
If the Law of Non-contradiction is true, then the God-Man cannot be true.
1. God is category P
2. Man is category ~P
3. Jesus is p ^ ~p.
Contradiction!
Solution: Fideism?
Zen doesn't make things any easier....
0=Infinity.
Kind of makes me wonder about Platinga's argument against evolution and naturalism being compatible. I don't buy the argument lock stock and barrel - BUT he does raise a good point that I would accept.
Evolution doesn't create brains and senses geared towards truth but rather survival.
Can a being that lives inside space and time grasp infinity by viewing infinity through the lenses of spatio-temporality?