In the "GOD IS DEAD" thread myself and Bertot have started a conversation that I would like to continue.
In summary: Bertot is making an argument in favour of deductive logic as a valid method for drawing reliable conclusions regarding the physical world.
Based on this method he concludes that a creator is indeed the most reliable answer for cosmological origins.
I am less interested in the conclusion than the methodology. If the methodology is invalid then the conclusions are necessarily unreliable. As such I have set about demonstrating that evidence based investigation necessarily equates to:
(incomplete empirical evidence)+(potentially valid logic)=(unreliable conclusions)
I have then gone on to propose a hypothesis based approach as the solution to this problem of unreliable conclusions.
This can be seen at
Message 295
Bertot seems to broadly accept this argument. He has certainly not offered any refutation of this position. However he has claimed that this is irrelevant to his own position as rather than incomplete evidence his own conclusions are based on the "axioms of nature".
Thus Bertot's claim becomes (as I understand it, this would require confirmation from him)
(axiomatic truths of nature)+(valid logic)=(reliable conclusions)
His response to my message can be seen here:
Message 301
So what are these "axioms" of nature?. Do they exist? Are they valid?
In
Message 303 I write:
Straggler writes:
THE AXIOMATIC TRUTHS OF NATURE
Given that this is the only point of difference between a position that we both seem to agree has been refuted and your own position this would seem to be worthy of some further consideration. Additionally it would seem that if we are able to sufficiently define these axioms we would be potentially able to discover all other truths of nature using reason alone? With no more need for expensive experiments or any of that annoying hypothesis testing.
What are these axiomatic truths of nature?
On what basis do you claim that these particular axioms are legitimate, objective and genuinely axiomatic?
Simply stating "it is obvious" is not sufficient as "obviousness" is itself subjective.
I think these "axiomatic" truths of nature that you are relying upon will amount to little more than subjectively applied common-sense assertions derived from incomplete empirical evidence. In which case the equation:
(incomplete empirical evidence)+(potentially valid logic)=(unreliable conclusions)
Describes your position absolutely perfectly after all!!
However I await your own definition and supporting argument for these "axiomatic" truths of nature.
I would like the opportunity to continue this discussion with Bertot. If promoted I would like the validity of different methodologies rather than detailed discussions of specific conclusions to be the main focus.
In other words this is not about cosmological origins per se it is about methods of making reliable conclusions about the physical world.
Any conclusions made using methods that can be shown to be invalid will necessarily be deemed unreliable.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2