Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Atheism and nihilism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="zippy2006" data-source="post: 75153630" data-attributes="member: 342410"><p>Maybe I am just muddying the waters with mathematical logic, but in that field an unprovable proposition could never be considered a truth. You prove something to be true by reference to the closed logical system, and the system itself is not considered to be "true" (at least not in that same way). Of course some systems of philosophy attempt to bridge that gap.</p><p></p><p>Mathematical logic aside, my reading of Frumious' statement about axioms in #428 is that morality requires axiomatic "ought" statements that are agreed upon but unprovable--underivable from "is" statements. So I think Orel is largely in agreement with him.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="zippy2006, post: 75153630, member: 342410"] Maybe I am just muddying the waters with mathematical logic, but in that field an unprovable proposition could never be considered a truth. You prove something to be true by reference to the closed logical system, and the system itself is not considered to be "true" (at least not in that same way). Of course some systems of philosophy attempt to bridge that gap. Mathematical logic aside, my reading of Frumious' statement about axioms in #428 is that morality requires axiomatic "ought" statements that are agreed upon but unprovable--underivable from "is" statements. So I think Orel is largely in agreement with him. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Atheism and nihilism
Top
Bottom