I don't see this as a shortcoming of "logic"
Logic doesnt do anything to prevent discovery.
On the other hand, false premises do.
Perhaps it is a valid argument to say cause and effect (as perceived by the sequence of time) demands that this universe must have been created out of nothing.
But, as you know, valid arguments can be false if one of the premises is false.
Take for example, if our perception of time was skewed and our understanding of the laws of the universe are misunderstood.
Or, what if the argument isn't valid? Suppose there is no correlation between what we observe as "time." I am wondering if it logically follows that there must have been a "nothingness" before there was "something?" What if there was always "something" and the universe was "always" in existence?
Also I wanted to bring up the thing called "faith.". This word is often a buzz word and has certain connotations associated with it. But in its raw meaning, it means merely to "try."
In other words, faith is not forever. We should have enough faith to try something, and if it doesn't work, then try something else. Faith requires you to have faith in yourself to use faith on something else if it didn't work the first time. Faith is not meant to be permanent or to be stuck on one thesis. Faith means "bravery." Not to be used to blindly hold on to a certain belief without reason.
In that sense logic does require faith at least initially.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: