tisdag 6 oktober 2009

Logic vs Intuition

No, this is nonsense, Mehran, and you know it! Logic can only be based on facts and where there are no facts there is no logic but just wild guessing. Don't mistake wild guesses for being logical, OK?
Zarathushtra CLEARLY states that we should only make statements about that which we KNOW about and not sit and guess wildly and come up with silly ideas that do not hold up to scrutiny. We do NOT need to have an idea of how everything works, Mehran, Zarathushta said that he did not, and you know it. Only about that which we KNOW about.
You can have your BELIEFS, Mehran, and I may have mine. But those beliefs that can not proved should be regarded as merely beliefs and not as facts. And please understand once and for all that LOGIC is one thing and INTUITION is another. You seem too be keen to think that YOUR specific intuition is logical but I'm afraid it is not (no intuition is). Many things in nature are not intuitive but rather conter-intuitive even if we KNOW that they are true. Quantum mechanics is one perfect example. It makes little sense to our intuition but it WORKS and it is therefore TRUE even if it goes against our intuition.
I wouls recommend that instead of constantly retreating to the same issue on Ushta, Mehran, you would take a sincere interest in modern science and READ and STUDY it more. I believe this is far more productive than to just endlessly repeating the same issues on a mailing list where people have long ago lost interest in following the tirade.
Your reports from Iran, however, are among the most appreciated contributions of all on Ushta. So are your educational words on Zoroastrian ethics. So keep up the good spirit and stay with that which interests us all. Repetition is not the same as clarification. OK?

2009/10/6 MoobedyAr Mehran Gheibi

Dear Alexander
1- You can accept that material universe is made aimlessly and without any reason, but can not believe in God creator without any creator? Please be fair.
2- You say that your philosophy is good enough to accept, well such philosophy should be able of answering and explaining all parts of material universe, necessarily, unless you expect others to accept it blindly. Are you expecting others to accept it blindly?
Therefore your philosophy should explain about the writer of gene book scientifically, if not you should accept that your philosophy is wrong or incomplete inefficient.

Inga kommentarer: