Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Thoughts on the Creator Conclusion
goldrush
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


(1)
Message 1 of 187 (603907)
02-08-2011 5:30 PM


I am curious about the thoughts behind the common atheist/agnostic statement "There is no evidence for a Creator". As I see it, evidence for a creator is abundant and clear, although not strictly "scientific" by definition. Two barometers of truth show solid evidence for the existence of a reasoning Creator. The 1st one is objectivity. Much of the objectivity contested upon in atheistic/theistic debates comes through the scientific method and matters of science. But, the scientific method is a human construct, and is bound by empirical observation and human limitations. It does not form the basis of all truth or all reality; it can't. Science cannot contain all reality. Science should not be expected to deal with any truths or concepts higher than it, or outside of it. True objectivity (or reality) predates both science and humanity and lies outside of them. Humanity is but a product of reality. Human methods do not define reality, for we are mere creations. Reality is the Creator.
Now let's deal with a 2nd barometer of truth: Reason. Whatever or whomever one envisions as existing before all other things is the "Creator" by default. The Creator is real in the sense of being uncreated, eternal, and everlasting. The Creator is the Source, the Existence, the highest of the high, and evidently has the ability to reason. How can it be deduced that the Creator has this ability?
Think about it. Whenever we apply ourselves to create a functioning system (or design) such as a computer, the system's functioning is only an INdirect result of the physical components or forces at work within it. The system's functioning (and existence) directly results from the fact that someone has applied their reasoning and manipulative powers to the organization of material and forces and control of their thought process, or whatever. Now consider the alternative to a reasoning Creator: the ability to reason evolving from the inability to reason. Is it logical to make the leap from unreasoning (inanimate and unconscious) to reasoning (animate and conscious) through evolution? No it is not. It is not logical to conclude that reasoning ability had to have evolved from ANY force lacking the ability to reason and think. Yet this is the conclusion that (I believe) inflated views of the (limited) scientific method have led many to revere. Many times people forget that science, by definition, is not intended or required to explain all things. Sure science may attempt to explain all natural (observable) phenomena in physical and empirical terms, but it cannot concern itself with what is not observable to people in the first place (but may still be wholly natural and real). As far as science is concerned, anything that can't be pin-pointed tangibly, (or at least inferred/implied through empiricism) does not exist. But the key words here are "as far as science is concerned".
To me, strict adherence to science and empiricism is like a group of blind mice scientists insisting that color and vision do not exist. No amount of studying the world through their existing senses and methods will ever enlighten these mice to the fact that sight and color vision do exist- they are born blind with no concept of sight. Important big-picture, guiding and unifying (non-physical) principles can be missed or ignored when focusing one's life too closely under the microscope of science. Don't get me wrong, I have respect for scientists and science in general. It's just that reason convinces me that something, rather Someone, much higher than science exists.
Anyway, the logical conclusion is that reasoning ability was granted from the Source- the Creator, who has always had the ability to reason. The power of reason and the ability to apply logic is something that was handed down. The power of reason was not handed up through a (mindless) chain of events and chemical interactions, and evolution. Such a claim is not even scientific, though many adherents to science believe that it is. We reason because our Source, our Creator, does. The Creator has given humanity its existence and all its capacities. All order and existence in the universe is ultimately irreducible to a fully functional Creator, not simply an unreasoning force, energy, or matter. There are no infinite creators, only one Creator who is eternal. If we are honest, the very least any of us could do is acknowledge that such a Creator exists.
The deduction of a personal, reasoning Creator, although not empirical, is rational. The conclusion that (all) those who acknowledge such a Creator are simply too blinded by religious dogma to know any better is incorrect. I have shared my thoughts on the topic, what are yours? Is science like a way of thinking for all areas in life for you atheists and agnostics? If so, why? Does what you believe about science determine your disbelief in God?
Edited by goldrush, : For clarity, I hope : )
Edited by goldrush, : For clarity, I hope.
Edited by goldrush, : Break up message into paragraphs
Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.
Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.
Edited by goldrush, : clarity and form
Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.
Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by goldrush, posted 02-08-2011 5:56 PM goldrush has not replied
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 02-08-2011 11:55 PM goldrush has not replied
 Message 5 by Taq, posted 02-09-2011 12:00 AM goldrush has replied
 Message 7 by Jon, posted 02-09-2011 12:32 AM goldrush has not replied
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-09-2011 12:41 AM goldrush has not replied
 Message 9 by GDR, posted 02-09-2011 12:58 AM goldrush has not replied
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-09-2011 1:59 AM goldrush has not replied
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 02-09-2011 2:04 AM goldrush has not replied
 Message 14 by Phage0070, posted 02-09-2011 5:51 AM goldrush has not replied

  
goldrush
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


Message 2 of 187 (603908)
02-08-2011 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by goldrush
02-08-2011 5:30 PM


I'm sorry about the cruddy format. I've tried to fix it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by goldrush, posted 02-08-2011 5:30 PM goldrush has not replied

  
goldrush
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


Message 36 of 187 (604049)
02-09-2011 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Taq
02-09-2011 12:00 AM


Taq writes:
Is it logical to make the leap from unreasoning (inanimate and unconscious) to reasoning (animate and conscious) through evolution? No it is not.
You never explain why this is not logical. Why can't an organism capable or reasoning come from a natural process with no intelligence behind it?
For the same reason symphonies are not composed and arranged without some intelligence behind it. For the same reason wrong does not equal right, and eternal lack has no means to become anything but lack, which is nothing.
To me, strict adherence to science and empiricism is like a group of blind mice scientists insisting that color and vision do not exist....
Important big-picture, guiding and unifying (non-physical) principles can be missed or ignored when focusing one's life too closely under the microscope of science.
Examples?
The power of reason was not handed up through a (mindless) chain of events and chemical interactions, and evolution. Such a claim is not even scientific, though many
adherents to science believe that it is.
Why isn't it scientific?
We reason because our Source, our Creator, does.
The only argument you have put forth for this is an argument based on incredulity. That is,
your inability to accept the idea that nature can produce a species capable of reasoning. From this inability you then proceed to assert the existence of an entity for which there is zero evidence. This is very poor logic.
I explained in the beginning that I wouldn't be giving
any strictly empirical evidence. My logic, or line of reasoning, though is not very well spelled out I admit, so I will attempt to elaborate. It is not logical to go from one extreme to the next without evidence. Without additional evidence to prove otherwise, we go on
what we can reasonably infer. The simplest solution to a "beginning" of the universe from something that always existed is the concept of an existence that is irreducible to a fully functioning Creator with the ability to do anything that is possible - like reason. IOW, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. The most rational solution is not to start wholly from scratch and open potential, especially without evidence. For certain features to develop, certain definite principles must presuppose it, certain features must simply be eternal and uncreated. The concept of a Creator fully satisfies the existence and development of the universe we study and see. We have no valid scientific evidence even to assume that mind or reasoning ability is a relatively new development in the universe. But we have plenty of scientific evidence to lead us to infer that mind is as old as the universe, and existence itself.
Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Attempt to fix unbelievable quoting screw-up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Taq, posted 02-09-2011 12:00 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Coragyps, posted 02-09-2011 9:09 PM goldrush has replied
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-09-2011 9:44 PM goldrush has replied
 Message 52 by Taq, posted 02-10-2011 12:56 AM goldrush has not replied

  
goldrush
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


Message 38 of 187 (604056)
02-09-2011 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Taq
02-09-2011 12:00 AM


Taq writes:
That is a strange analogy to use given the fact that science has allowed us to "see" wavelengths of light that our eyes can not directly detect. Science has allowed us to see
galaxies that can not be seen by the naked eye, bacteria that are too small to be seen, and deconstruct the very atoms that make up matter. On top of that, science has allowed us to cure blindness.
I had answered this question in my last response to you, but somehow it got erased :/. So here I go again. Would a blind mice scientist trust a seeing doctor (layman) to perform surgery on him? What evidence besides the doctor's testomines and assurance would the scientist have to go by? None. The scientist would just have to trust the doc. But of course, science requires evidence. It is true that scientific advances have allowed us to
peer into things beyond our wildest dreams. The thing is though, science is good for empirically discovering "how" things work together (as far as our sense allow us to tell and verify empirically) but not so good about the "why" (in a strictly empirical way). For example, a scientist could find a watch, study it and describe it's components and how it ticks and functions. But what he/ she could not explain with any true certainty is the purpose of the watch, why it exists, what was going through the mind of the designer when they designed it, why it was designed, etc. Even the fact that the watch was designed at all (which you know it was) is an only inference based on previous experience and knowledge of watchmakers if the scientist did not witness it being designed (and there are no fingerprints, lol). The questions of "why" are not really science questions, that's why it's necessary to use the basic faculties of reason and inference.
Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : Fixed Quote Box

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Taq, posted 02-09-2011 12:00 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Taq, posted 02-10-2011 12:25 AM goldrush has not replied

  
goldrush
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


Message 40 of 187 (604061)
02-09-2011 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dr Adequate
02-09-2011 9:44 PM


Dr Adequate writes:
For the same reason symphonies are not composed and arranged without some intelligence behind it.
Again, we admit the point so far as it applies to symphonies. But it is plain that a bacterium (for example) is produced without any intelligence at all.
Perhaps, but did the universe begin with the bacterium?
The simplest solution to a "beginning" of the universe from something that always existed is the concept of an existence that is irreducible to a fully functioning Creator with
the ability to do anything that is possible - like reason.
Well, no it isn't.
The simplest explanation for the existence of the Universe is that there is something which causes universes to exist. To add to it, as you do, such properties as reasoning power and omnipotence is as superfluous and unsupported by reason as if you added the properties of octagonality and pinkness.
For someone who claims to be guided by rationality rather than religious dogma you sure seem full of religious dogma. On what other grounds do you leap to the conclusion that a
Creator must be omnipotent? Even if we grant the existence of a Creator, that would be no reason to suppose that he could have created anything he liked. By analogy, the fact that my car was created by Toyota gives me no reason at all to suppose that if they pleased they could have created a car that gets a thousand miles to the gallon or which runs on water instead of petroleum.
Actually simply "causing universe to exist" is an oversimplified version of a Creator. It more or less just says things were able to be caused. This is not an explanation. It does nothing to unify the whole of what we observe, or explain the underlying principles behind these observations. And if you think about it, this causer would have to be omnipotent, or having all the power, to be responsible for bringing everything into existence. Not sure why you wanted to compartmentalize the term omnipotent as a wholly religious concept. It's universal.
Edited by AdminPD, : Fixed quote box

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-09-2011 9:44 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Jon, posted 02-09-2011 10:13 PM goldrush has not replied
 Message 43 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-09-2011 10:13 PM goldrush has not replied
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-09-2011 11:08 PM goldrush has not replied

  
goldrush
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


Message 41 of 187 (604062)
02-09-2011 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Coragyps
02-09-2011 9:09 PM


Coragyps writes:
Hi, Goldrush! Welcome!
But we have plenty of scientific evidence to lead us to infer that mind is as old as the universe, and existence itself.
And you plan to show us some of this plentiful scientific evidence?
I don't think you can.
I don't have to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Coragyps, posted 02-09-2011 9:09 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Coragyps, posted 02-09-2011 10:17 PM goldrush has replied

  
goldrush
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


Message 46 of 187 (604075)
02-09-2011 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Coragyps
02-09-2011 10:17 PM


Coragyps writes:
I don't have to.
No, of course you don't! But why would you come to a debate forum and bring it up unless you weren't at least faintly interested in defending your position?
Yeah you are right. I didn't respond appropriately to your question. I was being a smart butt, I apologize. To be fair, I'll give it go. Honestly I don't know of one specific scientific piece of evidence per se, it's just an inference drawn from the body of evidence in general. For example the whole concept of DNA and the cell strongly implies mind and design. Of course scientifically speaking, we can speak objectively (as best we can) about "how" a cell and DNA forms and works. But what we can not do with the same level of scientific scrutiny is tell the reason why either exist or the their purpose. Empirically speaking, we can only make inferences and draw conclusions based on the " how". Inference strictly from the "how" is a bit circular and rigid, and I think this is the part where people start assuming too much.I think a lot of times there is a tendency to confuse the "hows" with the "whys" and many people have a tendency to explain the "whys" with "how" information. Going back to the cell example, since we can explain to some degree the functioning of the cell and it's parts, it is easy to assume that the cell functions (and is a result of) the chemicals and interactions that we observe and describe. But this is actually assuming too much. We actually don't observe why (or how)the chemicals and components of the cell appeared and came together in the first place. We have not shown in steps how chemicals came together to form the cell. What we find is that if we remove certain features of the cell, it ceases the ability to function at all. Any assumption that science will someday discover how abiogenesis occurs is a matter of faith. In my original post, I mentioned the role that reasoning and control over the thought process has over manipulating materials and forces to create systems and design. Computers exist not directly from the inner workings of their parts, but directly because of the minds that fashioned them. The same is true for buildings, houses, monuments and blueprints. They are a product of mind and deliberation. Why must trees, seeds, cells, and DNA be any different? From what we can reasonably infer about the cell, it's genetic code, and it's apparent irreducibility, is that it was designed. If you apply this concept universally, it follows that the eternal source of all things is ultimately a Creator, one who can will and
reason. The structure and order of things we observe in the universe, great and small, reflect architecture and mind.At some point, the eternal "beginning" becomes an irreducible whole, a Being: a living, reasoning, conscious Creator.
Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.
Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.
Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.
Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.
Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Coragyps, posted 02-09-2011 10:17 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Blue Jay, posted 02-10-2011 12:12 AM goldrush has not replied
 Message 50 by Taq, posted 02-10-2011 12:37 AM goldrush has not replied
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-10-2011 1:41 AM goldrush has not replied

  
goldrush
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


Message 84 of 187 (604170)
02-10-2011 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by crashfrog
02-10-2011 12:09 PM


Here is an additional post for (hopefully) clarification of my position.
If we can't show how a cell and DNA form from purely chemical processes (with lack of purpose, design or deliberation) we have no reason, (scientific or otherwise) to conclude that "how" a cell and DNA functions is the same as "why" it functions. It's like claiming a computer functions as a direct result of its parts, when in reality, a computer functions as a direct result of it being designed to work and perform certain tasks. If you break down and separate all the computer's components, it will cease to function and exist as a computer. It will lack purpose. The only way it will become a computer again is if mind and will act to begin the re-building process. The most convincing proof of abiogenesis would be observation in nature, not anything "formulated" in the laboratory, b/c then you could never technically remove the mind and deliberation aspect from the process. Any assumption that science will someday discover with certainty that such abiogenesis occurred is a matter of faith.
The fact that we as humans have the will and ability to reason (and to a degree know) which has enabled us to basically shape and re-shape society (through the creation of systems, and designs) should behoove us to appreciate that the systems and mechanisms we observe in nature are also a result of knowledge, will, mind, and design. The primary existence is irreducible to a Being or whole. The universe can ultimately be explained simply by an original "knowing" existence, a Being, an eternal source, a self-existing, uncreated Creator. Being perfect in knowledge, the Creator can set the establishment and order of all other things (reasoning to superlative). The question of origin and order is satisfied in the most basic form. The universe doesn't begin with pure scratch, raw materials, potential, and lack of knowledge. It begins with a Creator. This is as simple (and as unfathomable) as it gets. Not everyone will agree or come to this conclusion, and I fully accept that.
Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 02-10-2011 12:09 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by crashfrog, posted 02-10-2011 12:39 PM goldrush has not replied
 Message 88 by Taq, posted 02-10-2011 12:40 PM goldrush has not replied
 Message 90 by Blue Jay, posted 02-10-2011 1:14 PM goldrush has not replied
 Message 91 by Jon, posted 02-10-2011 1:28 PM goldrush has not replied
 Message 105 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-10-2011 8:36 PM goldrush has not replied

  
goldrush
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


Message 118 of 187 (604335)
02-11-2011 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Dr Adequate
02-11-2011 4:03 AM


Another thing I want to add...
The scientific method is not intended to replace the need for logical inference, only to establish a basis of objectivity for logical inference. All it does is try to limit variables to uncover certain laws, principles, or "truths". Science though, is only a tool not an explanation. It does not explain away a need for a Creator, or explain anything by itself. Nor does it do all the work for you. A scientist, or layperson using science still has to put it all together, make inferences, draw conclusions, rationalize and think. Like other tools, science is rather useless if you do not know how to use it. Science, at its best, is a very useful tool to help us to peer into, or uncover (to an extent) the Creator's handiwork, and his established laws. Through science, little by little, we discern underlying principles and laws which we reason on for beneficial (sometimes not, lol) application in our own designs. This is the beauty of science. But the laws we discover do nothing to diminish the reality of the eternal whole, the Lawmaker, the eternal Creator (Who existed "before" the Big Bang or the "beginning"). Even though science may have difficulty empirically identifying the Creator, the reasoning minds we have been endowed with are able to penetrate it's barriers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-11-2011 4:03 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2011 12:06 PM goldrush has not replied
 Message 120 by crashfrog, posted 02-11-2011 1:06 PM goldrush has not replied
 Message 121 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-11-2011 6:35 PM goldrush has replied
 Message 131 by Taq, posted 02-14-2011 11:38 AM goldrush has not replied

  
goldrush
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


(1)
Message 122 of 187 (604407)
02-11-2011 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Dr Adequate
02-11-2011 6:35 PM


Just had another thought.Logic itself proves the existence of God. We all use logic and understand certain logical principles to be true because they make sense to us, yet we are not able to prove that logic itself is a valid basis for proof. We just instinctively know that it is, but we cannot explain why. We cannot prove the validity of logic, yet if we deny it, we deny basis for proving anything. If we accept logic as valid, we must accept that it is valid because of a higher source over it, governing it. How did we first develop ideas of what logic was? Where does logic come from? If it merely evolved, is it an accurate basis for proof of anything? Logic comes from God. By denying God, logic is also denied. If one denies God they must demonstrate how logic is valid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-11-2011 6:35 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by crashfrog, posted 02-11-2011 7:59 PM goldrush has not replied
 Message 124 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-11-2011 8:31 PM goldrush has replied
 Message 125 by Jon, posted 02-12-2011 12:03 AM goldrush has not replied
 Message 130 by Taq, posted 02-14-2011 11:35 AM goldrush has not replied

  
goldrush
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


Message 157 of 187 (605547)
02-20-2011 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Dr Adequate
02-11-2011 8:31 PM


I have left this "logic argument" for a while to see how things would develop with it, but it doesn't seem to be producing many posts, so I will stir the pot a little. I see where you all are going, but you seem to have missed the real point of my argument completely. That is: If it is true that our brains, (and our logic) are a product of evolution, how can we trust logic to prove anything? What prevents logic from changing as evolution continues? If (our current) logic can change, what then is the basis of truth or proving anything? Can an absolute (immutable) truths really be discovered with logic under such circumstances? How can we ever be sure we are right (or will ever be right) about anything? On what basis, then, is logic valid?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-11-2011 8:31 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by jar, posted 02-20-2011 7:47 PM goldrush has replied
 Message 159 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-20-2011 8:23 PM goldrush has replied
 Message 160 by Taq, posted 02-22-2011 11:59 AM goldrush has replied

  
goldrush
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


Message 161 of 187 (606695)
02-27-2011 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Taq
02-22-2011 11:59 AM


So logic exists outside of our brains and evolution? How would we know this if it weren't for our brains or ability to reason?
Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Taq, posted 02-22-2011 11:59 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Taq, posted 02-28-2011 5:00 PM goldrush has replied

  
goldrush
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


Message 162 of 187 (606697)
02-27-2011 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Dr Adequate
02-20-2011 8:23 PM


I am well aware of the pitiful fallen condition of mankind. Human disease and death is a result of sin in the Garden of Eden, a rebellion against God's right as sovereign and authority over his human creation. We are suffering because we wanted independence from God, and thought we'd be better off on our own. Romans 8:22 says the whole creation
is groaning together. This is a result of sin and rebellion.
Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.
Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-20-2011 8:23 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-27-2011 11:28 PM goldrush has not replied

  
goldrush
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


Message 163 of 187 (606698)
02-27-2011 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by jar
02-20-2011 7:47 PM


Re: immutable truth is always worth a chuckle or three
You may laugh in the face of absolute truth, but if it really did not exist then why isn't everything correct? Why do you rely on science to discover knowledge? Furthermore, why does scientific "truth" change with new discoveries?
Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.
Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by jar, posted 02-20-2011 7:47 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by jar, posted 02-27-2011 10:30 PM goldrush has replied

  
goldrush
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


Message 166 of 187 (606720)
02-28-2011 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by jar
02-27-2011 10:30 PM


Re: immutable truth is always worth a chuckle or three
I am not arguing that science is a tool. The reason I had "truths" in quotes was because even though people are quick to say they don't exist, they herald discoveries made through science as fact, proof, and hard evidence, which are soft forms of absolute truth. The reason our knowledge changes with new discoveries is because absolute truth exists. As a matter of fact, logic is rather absolute. To say that absolute truth does not exist is a contradiction since such a statement would be an absolute truth. If we conclude that all truth is relative, it is relative to something: absolute truth.
Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.
Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.
Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.
Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by jar, posted 02-27-2011 10:30 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by jar, posted 02-28-2011 9:08 AM goldrush has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024