Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sedecrem
FilthertonIt has quite a larger basis than what you think. Everything that science attempts to explain and indeed does explain is based on evidence. As for the realms of science, science deals with all of reality which is essentially everything.
|
It has a much more refined, specific basis than you think. Science only deals with the things it is capable of dealing with. A simple thought experiment: is there anything that science can't deal with?
Case 1: Yes.
How can you tell?
Case 2: No
How can you tell?
Either way, there is no evidence that science is capable of providing a useful and/or relevant understanding of all, or even most, of reality.
Quote:
|
True. IF you make the very large and completely unfounded assumption that the universe is too complex to come around by its own. Show me how this could possibly be so.
|
It doesn't matter if it is so. I was just pointing out that it is logical. Whether it is so shall forever remain a mystery.
Quote:
|
What do you truly know of string theory? Quantum theory is all maths however for string theory to work one often has to introduce extra spacial dimensions. Furthermore string theory’s claims are un-testable and therefore have no accompanying proof.
|
From my understanding, string theory is all math- very little physics is involved. Logic is the fundamental building block of math. It is easy (if you know calculus) to show, using mathematical logic (is there any other kind of logic?) that it is possible to have an infinite area, which when revolved around a certain axis gives a finite volume. This has no physical meaning, but it can be shown mathematically to be true. I make no claims on the validity of string theory, just that it has a logical base and is completely unprovable. That doesn't mean anything more than it means.
Quote:
|
Let’s see... Consistency is when claims or indeed evidence agree with each other. If you have read scripture you will find that the amount of contradictions is extremely numerous. Theism is inconsistent. I take theism to include, for the sake of this argument, both theism and deism as both are opposed to atheism.
|
Well, if you have read science, you will find that it says nothing that necessarily contradicts scripture or the notion of an all powerful god. The consistency of belief in an essentially all powerful god is inherent- any perceived inconsistencies can be written off as evidence of god's power. It's really that simple. I'm not saying its compelling, just that its consistent.
In any case, theism and scripture aren't the same thing. There's more than one way to believe in god.
Quote:
|
Logic really only has one meaning and according to Oxford it is reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. I do not use my own definitions. I do not know where you are getting yours from.
|
Don't settle for the dictionary definition- dictionary definitions don't really do a lot of things justice. If you're in school, or have access, take or read up on the first required math class after calculus, those usually focus on logic and proof.
Logic just defines the relationship between statements. If A, then B. If B, then C. If A is true, then C must also be true. What A, B, and C are isn't necessarily important. A is often an axiom, something which is often taken to be self evident, and which cannot be proven.
Furthermore, "strict principals of validity" doesn't necessarily refer to science or whether a statement meets some certain external criteria, it more likely refers to agreed upon meanings for different statements, i.e. what does A implies B mean formally, as opposed to A and B or A but not B. Like any sort of mathematics, you can't get very far if you don't agree on the ground rules.
I'm still waiting for some sort of working definition of critical thought.