if every claim that you make has to have a reason backing it up, then that reason in and of itself is also a claim which needs another warrant, etc. so on into infinity. Its like a child just keeps asking why, eventually you will reach a basic assumption that has no warrant. Another way to phrase it is this: the only way to know if a statement is true is to examine the definition of each word in it - if what every word refers to is defined objectively enough then it seems that although it may take a bit of work, the statement is easily resolvable by logic to be true or false. The problem is that the definitions use words that must be defined, and onto infinity leading to no ultimate origin grounding thought
I agree, because if you keep breaking down the rationale by a fraction, of a fraction, of a fraction, the end sum will eventually reach zero. As you said with a child who keeps asking why, eventually will come to either the ultimate profundity or total speculation. The question, if broken down far enough, will always end in metaphysics where science breaks down, or is incapable of answering the question further with empiricism.
the world view of science rests upon a framework of linear time, cause and effect, physical laws being consistently applied, etc. something that empirical evidence cannot "prove".
True. Which is why Origin of Life questions end with only speculation. Questions about the First Cause will eventually come in to play. At the end of the day, the theist is driven to understand that physical matter, time, and space must have a beginning, because nothing within the physical realm can explain its existence without causation. And if there was nothing tangible to explain the existence, eventually you will have to rationalize something beyond the physical.
The secularist will say that its unnecessary to invoke a metaphysical Being. They can say in retort that the beginning of this universe, along with all of its immutable physical laws, could have derived as the result of another universes' death throes. The beginning of this universe could have been the end of another universe, or even the byproduct of another universe, with totally different laws governing it.
And so you end up back where you came from, which is, the only certainty that seems to exist, is total uncertainty. But even that is circular, because if total uncertainty exists, then you can be certain of nothing, even the very premise of uncertainty itself. It should be well with us to remember that a paradox does not mean insolubility. It may only appear insoluble, in which case, there is an answer, though we may be bereft of it at this present time.
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typos
“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake
™ Version 4.2
