s$ .d""b. impulse reality press no. 220 - at war with anada. [-- $$ $$ $$ -- ------------------------------------------------------ --] $$ $$ "The Sine Qua Non of Logic" $$ $$ written by outreach $$ $$ released 10/10/02 [-- $$ $$ ------ ------------------------------------------------------ --] A philosophy is a belief of or relating to a truth about the underlying and natural conduct of the known universe. Since the beginning of man, there have been philosophers that have claimed through various analogies, personal accounts, logical proofs, myths, etc. to have reached enlightenment through whatever belief system another or they themselves had founded. While it is common knowlege in philosophy that the works of the present are greatly influenced by the works of the past, and therefore progress should be moving in a logically forthright direction, there exists one critical philosophical err that continues to be the ruin of new beliefs, of which man seemingly cannot escape from the clutches thereof. This is the practice of proofing through illogical means. The primary example of this that comes to mind is religion, and any other faith-based belief system. In these systems, reason and logic are replaced by faith (or in other words, blind belief). The problem is shown very plainly when common sense is applied to what man knows of the way things work. Our principle methods of discovery in the technological and observational sense are mathematics and science. Religion, with logic not being a necessary (actually, it is somewhat devastating to faith) component, has no need nor ability to produce hard evidence towards the nature of the universe, and therefore does not, has not, and most likely never will act as an inspiration, motivation, or proof towards a logical development that can explain anything whatsoever using real life facts. Because of this inability to cope with reality, the only rational alternative is to prove philosophical beliefs through something that in fact does have an ability to relate directly to the physical world through proven rules: mathematics and science. Now do not misinterpret, I understand quite fully the possibility of a conclusion of theism through logic, however whether the logic is flawed or not is another story. On a personal level, I am an atheist. I do not believe that I am wicked for this belief, as well as that I am not an infidel for this belief ("Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe." -- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, Chapter 1); I merely have come to a rational conclusion of atheism through the fact that throughout my studies I have never come across even a slight bit of confirmable evidence suggesting in the reality of an omniscient being such as a theist might suggest. In fact, the main resource for many theists is a book, written by man, claiming to be the passed down or translated word of god. Even if over the centuries the said book has not been rewritten to the point of being drastically different from the original, one still must realize that man originally wrote this. I cannot see the logic in using something that is completely rooted in faith as a valid resource when it was written by the most pharisaic, illogical, and unintelligent (as compared in ratio to the intellectual capability in entirety) species of animalia on this planet: humanity. Without the use of what we know applies to the natural laws of the Universe, we cannot expect to come to any, even remotely tangible conclusions. And in case this is proven wrong, and through purely accidental means this described "faith" comes to a correct conclusion, the method that reached the conclusion has no physical law or ruling to it and therefore, in all possibility, will not be able to be of use to reach any parallel conclusions on other topics. Mathematics and science however, can. Although throughout history mathematicians and scientists have proved previous thoughts to be incorrect, this is not grounds to say that all of natural law as deemed by past advocates of logic must be incorrect, and to any educated person this is merely the natural evolution of technology that can be seen all throughout the civilized and pre-civilized history of man. In past debates I have seen many theists attempt to argue this point, only to be driven back to the argument that all theists usually end up turning to: since god is omniscient, his reality is beyond human comprehension. This may be so, but it appears to be of a suspicious level of convenience to the protection of the said faith's integrity, does it not? So now, from a theist perspective, let's take a look at reality. Two things are apparent in this example; there is a god and this god is omniscient. Through common theist arguments, god can do anything, know anything, and make a reality of anything. With that said, it seems obvious that this god exists outside of the laws and boundaries we humans have found for the universe we exist in. Therefore, even with a belief in god, through rational means one can determine that the best way to analyze our physical universe is through logic and math. It is a very saddening fact that many people do not understand that religion and science can mix in this way. Can The Bible and/or biblical faith, for instance, prove on the lowest level why a rock falls when it is dropped? No, it can not. Physics however, can. How does any theist belief show that logic is completely wrong? It doesn't, even if it goes to the extreme of specifically stating that anything but the word and law of god is incorrect. If god is in fact omniscient, then there is no reason whatsoever why math, science, and logic cannot exist as the laws of the universe at the same time. This brings me to my conclusion. Altogether, whatever we use as the basis for proving a philosophical theory, I do not believe it to be possible for a human being to have a complete and objective interpretation of the facts, as we are very subjective creatures; everything we know is based upon sensory perception, and therefore is subject to the subjective inference of facts. Therefore, we can never be truly sure whether a conclusion is informationally necessary, or is just an informational possibility (as defined by Pierce in the 1890's as "which in a given [state of] information is not perfectly known to be true," and "that which is perfectly known to be true." ). What we can conclude on though is that the only way to prove a real idea, is through real means. In this I say that if we hope to come to a conclusion on the nature of the physical universe, we must use means that are based around the physical universe; mathematics, science, and rational logic. Any other means, such as the aforementioned faith, is easily comparable as to using an orange in the place of an automobile. [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] the clever thing to do here would be to put some sort of copyright. no. http://www.phonelosers.net/ir [-------------------------------------------------------------------------]