Why I am not a Freethinker

[irishrosem]

Quote:2. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.I'm pretty sure that the first definition does not apply to my belief but the second below certainly does. Really, so which "system of reasoning" did you apply to which "branch of knowledge or study" to make you, now logically, conclude that there is an afterlife?

[MaesterAuron151]

No not really.

[MaesterAuron151]

Back to the whole validity of logic thing. I looked up the wikipedia article on it. Logic itself is still being debated. The page lists dozens of different systems of logic. Its really making my head spin. How can we be sure of anything when the very systems that we use to verify are themselves flawed or incomplete?

[irishrosem]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Seriously, borrow a basic logic, intro to logics book from you library. You'll see what I am talking about.

[MaesterAuron151]

Its more reliable then most think. Sure any random person can change what it says. But for everyone who's immature enough to do that there will be a dozen others who really care about the subject and will immediatly return the page to normal and possibly lock it.I reallly wish we could just continue the debate. I find I learn better by debating then by reading a book. You can't ask a book to clarrify or counter whats on the page.Quote:There are three valuable properties that formal systems can have: * Consistency, which means that none of the theorems of the system contradict * Soundness, which means that the system's rules of derivation will never let you infer anything false, so long as you start with only true premises. So if a system is sound (and its axioms, if any, are true), then the theorems of a sound formal system are the truths. All of the theorems of a system that has no axioms are its truths and sometimes the truths of such a system are called 'logical truths.' (Note that if a system is not consistent, it cannot be sound. This is because a contradiction is always false, so if two theorems contradict at least one is false.) * Completeness, which means that there are no true sentences in the system that cannot, at least in principle, be proved using the derivation rules (and axioms, if any) of the system.Thats something from wikipedia. Seems useful.I think my question still stands. If there's debate over which systems of logic are applicable then aren't logical arguments flawed. Is there really anyway to verify anything or are we all just trying to make sense of a world that makes really no sense at all?