[quote]njrusmc wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I usually do the opposite. Because I see the misuse of science in this respect all the time. Some people don’t understand how they are not the same thing.
There is nothing magical or mystical about absolute truth. It’s simply a correct deductive argument where the premises are correct and so is the conclusion that follows. Being a scientist and all, you deal with a form of it everyday, math. Math is a form of deductive argument and it’s truths are absolute. 1+2=3 is always truth, will always be true and there is nothing that can make it untrue. So when it comes to absolutes, they do exist, but they are metaphysical entities. Nothing physical can every be abosultely, just more or less probable.
BUT science does function on these absolutes. Like causation. Without causation, science is utterly meaningless. [/quote]
Pat, I find your arguments very interesting. I see you constantly refer to mathematics as an absolute truth. I agree that arithmetic addition is an absolute truth and under no conditions can 1+2 not equal 3. I agree that absolute truths exist. You claim that nothing physical can be absolute? If you had 1 apple and I give you 2, you now have 3. How is this a matter of probability? It is a mathematical certainty that you have 3 apples.
Humans created mathematics. We know things to be true based on the science we have created to define the phenomena we observe. Your last sentence about causation is also true.
What I am failing to see is how you are justifying the injection of an absolute truth from a deity to mankind. I feel like your argument can be summarized by “Because the sky is blue and the grass is green, God exists”. Humans are completely incapable of logical deduction without an absolute truth, yes. But how can you prove that the basis of this absolute truth was super-human? Everything in the world evaluates to yes or no, and I don’t see how mankind, if it were indeed godless, would fail to make these decisions on a basis of survival.
Please prove me wrong. I’m curious but I’m struggling to make sense of it.[/quote]
Math is purely a construct of the mind. It meshes up nicely with reality most of the time but its not the same thing. Your two physical apples aren’t the same thing as the number 2.
Mathematical truths are apriori from logic alone they don’t require any observation.
Most of science on the other hand consists of observations and using these observations to draw conclusions. Since we can draw observations solely about things within the universe by its very nature science won’t say anything about things outside the universe.(A possible god being one of these things.)
So at the base level if we believe are senses to be accurate we believe the scientific method to reflect reality accurately. If one denies ones senses then of course one could deny science. Still this would say nothing about God.
So broadly speaking I’d say there are 3 ways to acquire knowledge. From pure logic…math say. From empirical evidence…science. And from a supernatural means…divine inspiration.
Some would argue pure logic can prove existence of some type of god. I don’t think this is the case myself but there are certainly arguments that assert this.
I also don’t find the supernatural means of gaining knowledge to be believable, however I could be wrong on this and if it happens to pass that the events of the bible unfold and there is a rapture and I am left behind I would be forced to see that there was certainly a supernatural means of gaining knowledge and that I missed the boat.
Certainly I’d say some of the logical arguments for the existence of some sort of god are somewhat compelling at least…but I’d say its important to note that only supernatural means of gaining knowledge(at least at this time) would allow us to know anything about what is outside the universe.
