RE: Is Belief in God Logical?

RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> God

Message

wayward1 -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/21/2008 4:36:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: I wouldn't propose a cause of an eternal thing in any situation because I don't see how an eternal thing can have a cause. In the case of your allegory, I would just say that "the best we can say is that they (the ball-bearing and the indentation) appear to have a mutual and eternal co-existence." Except if the ball didn't exist in contact with the pillow, the indentation wouldn't exist. I mean if I said the ball and pillow were three billion years old, no one would doubt that the ball was the cause of the indentation, so we see that time really isn't a factor to causation - it doesn't matter if it happened three seconds ago, ten millions years ago, or always was - a cause is a cause. At first I was annoyed by this back and forth by you two I have to admit, but now I think you're on to something. I think your conversation really gets to the heart of how counterintuitive it is for humans to "suppose" eternal things. We don't even have the language for it. I was siding with SamSpick and then was put in my place by Jack's points. I don't even know how to weigh in on it. If two things are eternal they have to also be stationary to be expected to not ever act on each other. Unless of course they are "eternal" and touching, in which case they will "act on each other" eternally. Eternal things that are not static though can then go on to have an eternity of interactions, causes and subsequent effects on each other that fit our standard human ability to conceptualize. What Jack is conceptualizing seems to lie outside of our normal inclination to conceptualize but it is valid reasoning. It honestly poses a problem for me in other parts of this discussion that I'll have to go away and wrestle with. An eternal thing with literally no beginning would have had time for any and all eventualities to occur, at least by "human" logic. No thing can be imagined for which there "hasn't been sufficient time" because time proceeds into the past infinitely. But one can also reason that no matter how much time has gone by, things still must have "happened" in the past, and there's no reason to think that we haven't simply sprung forth at this particular moment in eternity. I'm confusing myself. How do we even begin to think this way? Eternity?

Jhud -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/21/2008 4:44:36 PM)
quote: But, as would be expected, this information has been seized upon by theists as proof of God's existence and "obvious" creation of the universe. The balances aren't ever anywhere near as delicate as they make them out to be either. It's bad science but worse theology. The apologists are doing a very poor job of planning for the future and they create for themselves the "God of the Gaps" argument, which makes God smaller and more inconsequential with every subsequent discovery. They effectively allow for God to only fit in where science "can't" explain. But as science grows its explanatory power, what is left for God to explain is steadily reduced. Actually, I don’t think this is true at all – the notion of an orderly law-making Designer is apparent throughout science and the universe – in fact, it is doubtful science wouldn’t exist apart from the notion. So to say that somehow science is ‘shrinking’ God’s role in the origin and ongoing existence of the universe is fallacious. Interestingly, you make apparent that it is materialism that actually relies on the gaps – as you say, “Modern science is admitted by physicists and biologists to be very incomplete.” – and yet materialists cling to their idea of the universe, expecting that future science will justify their beliefs. It is, in essence, a science of the gaps.

wayward1 -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/21/2008 4:51:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book According to what you have stated, the "big bang" theory has nothing to do with where the universe came from, but rather how it began to expand from its smaller state? Precisely. Nowhere does it make any mention of even an actual "bang". It's misnamed. quote: So there is still no "scientific" theory as to the origin of energy and matter; space and time. When Christians and Jews attempt to explain the creation of the universe, why then do scientists get all bent out of shape over alleged "contradictions, if they are not even speaking of the same things? You're absolutely right. Scientists should not say such things. I'm rather fond of Stephen Jay Gould's concept of nonoverlapping magisteria to an extent. Science applies to every human, but science has no interest in any traditional God concept because it is by definition untestable. Science simply can't work on it. It can probably eventually learn enough to raise some difficult questions for modern religions, but it can't speak to the God idea. That's why I should have asked for, or really intellectually required, a universal definition of god at the outset of this "is belief in God logical" thread. quote: We speak of origins, science addresses only beginnings long after origins; while scripture expresses time as having no beginning, space, matter, and energy as being created by God's utterance. How is it then understood to be contradicting science's "big bang" theory? Help me to understand this. Scientists really shouldn't be interested in how the Big Bang theory holds up to religion. Einstein himself showed a touch of his weakness in this way when his work led to a model like the Big Bang but he felt that didn't fit his presuppositions about a purely natural explanation for the universe. Einstein loved a static universe and even went to such lengths as "creating" his cosmological constant to counteract the gravity theory he had discovered and keep everything in place in the universe. His work really had to be examined by more intellectually honest scientists for it to be released exactly as it implied, which at the time was rather in line with scripture. My point? Scientists are humans too. They are just as capable of "hiding" the less convincing bits of their work in favor of releasing and expanding on the more tantalizing purely naturalistic bits. They are very capable of entering into a hypothesis with an idea of how it's going to go, and then refusing to believe what they find when it contradicts what they expected. The difference is that they are aware of the phenomenon and take steps to counter it. One such step is that they publish their work, and other scientists provide a system of checks and balances so that nothing is "widely accepted" until it undergoes the scrutiny of peer review and disciplined testing. If you've had arguments where people levied the findings of science against you then you've probably not argued with real or very respectable "scientists". I am not a scientist. I must be suspected of "having an agenda". plain and simple.

drmark -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/21/2008 4:54:48 PM)
quote: How do we even begin to think this way? Eternity? Ecclesiastes 3:11

wayward1 -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/21/2008 4:55:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Actually, I don’t think this is true at all – the notion of an orderly law-making Designer is apparent throughout science and the universe – in fact, it is doubtful science wouldn’t exist apart from the notion. So to say that somehow science is ‘shrinking’ God’s role in the origin and ongoing existence of the universe is fallacious. I didn't say that science is doing that. I said that if you engage in the practice of asserting that God has done what science can't explain, you run the risk of future scientific discovery minimizing the role of your God. I meant it as an argument for "good debate". quote: Interestingly, you make apparent that it is materialism that actually relies on the gaps – as you say, “Modern science is admitted by physicists and biologists to be very incomplete.” – and yet materialists cling to their idea of the universe, expecting that future science will justify their beliefs. It is, in essence, a science of the gaps. All I mean to make apparent is that science will tell you when it doesn't know. This should inspire confidence in science but somehow you've made it so that it shows a weakness. I'm not sure I can be quite as kind about this opinion of yours as I was the other one recently.

drmark -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/21/2008 4:59:07 PM)
quote: All I mean to make apparent is that science will tell you when it doesn't know Ridiculous- how would science "know" when it doesn't know? You just need to do more observations, collect more data, analyze more findings...

Jhud -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/21/2008 5:06:37 PM)
quote: I didn't say that science is doing that. I said that if you engage in the practice of asserting that God has done what science can't explain, you run the risk of future scientific discovery minimizing the role of your God. I meant it as an argument for "good debate". Ah - yes, if it is indeed the case that an argument for the existence of God is based wholly on what is not known, it may very well not have a bright future. quote: All I mean to make apparent is that science will tell you when it doesn't know. This should inspire confidence in science but somehow you've made it so that it shows a weakness. I'm not sure I can be quite as kind about this opinion of yours as I was the other one recently. And I appreciate your previous kindness. I think there is often a lot of huffing and puffing around the unknowns on both sides of the debate. I do find in my many coversations with atheists (not saying you are one - I honestly don't know) that there is much reliance on the future discoveries of science. One possibility I have often considered is that science may reach it's limits, due to a combination of limited instrumentality, and the inability to apply scientific methods to phenomena which may very well lie outside our universe.

wayward1 -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/21/2008 5:18:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: All I mean to make apparent is that science will tell you when it doesn't know Ridiculous- how would science "know" when it doesn't know? You just need to do more observations, collect more data, analyze more findings... In a way there's truth to what you're saying. Pretty much all of science is very technically "inconclusive". For example, it's true that quantum theory can't make exact calculations. It's even true that all of its calculations are purely experimental. But Richard Feynman compared the accuracy of Quantum Theory's experimental predictions to specifying the width of North America to within one hair's breath. This means that Quantum Theory has to be, in some sense, true. Science considers the inability to remove the qualifier, "within one hair's breath", to be sufficient grounds to consider the data, incomplete. Elementary probability theory dictates the odds are that before you die you will take in, through either food or drink, at least one molecule that passed through the bladder of Abraham Lincoln. This very nearly is statistical fact, but it remains probability theory. All knowledge is tentative to be sure. But some things are so unlikely to be false, or "some laws are so unlikely to ever be broken, that we simply don't give them any more thought. When science says "it doesn't know", it means it hasn't found enough information to stop giving a certain subject any more thought.

wayward1 -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/21/2008 5:27:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud And I appreciate your previous kindness. I think there is often a lot of huffing and puffing around the unknowns on both sides of the debate. I do find in my many coversations with atheists (not saying you are one - I honestly don't know) that there is much reliance on the future discoveries of science. One possibility I have often considered is that science may reach it's limits, due to a combination of limited instrumentality, and the inability to apply scientific methods to phenomena which may very well lie outside our universe. I imagine atheists are subject to all of the same human traits as theists. I reject such labels but I will openly admit that I have little to offer the traditional theist in the way of "fulfilling their inner longing for purpose and understanding". I'll even admit that I long for them too. In a way your point simply highlights that we all need to "lean on" something in our desperate hope for there to be more to it all than just this. If that is found to be a universal human emotion though, then it calls into question every endeavor we humans undertake. I guess that's not all bad though. Skepticism, even of science, is generally healthy. Whichever "side" you look into you'll never know if you're "faith" will be bolstered or broken by the investigation, but you'll know you gave it the old college try to figure it all out.

Jhud -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/21/2008 5:46:30 PM)
quote: I imagine atheists are subject to all of the same human traits as theists. I reject such labels but I will openly admit that I have little to offer the traditional theist in the way of "fulfilling their inner longing for purpose and understanding". I'll even admit that I long for them too. In a way your point simply highlights that we all need to "lean on" something in our desperate hope for there to be more to it all than just this. If that is found to be a universal human emotion though, then it calls into question every endeavor we humans undertake. I guess that's not all bad though. Skepticism, even of science, is generally healthy. Whichever "side" you look into you'll never know if you're "faith" will be bolstered or broken by the investigation, but you'll know you gave it the old college try to figure it all out. I apreciate your honesty on the subject. I tend to think spirituality (or the notion that there is "more to it all than just this.") is fairly universal - perhaps as much as any trait that makes us human - and that fact in and of itself would seem to indicate that a longing generally is accompanied by some sort of means of being fulfilled. Even from an evolutionary perspective I think it make little sense that nature would inculcate us with inherent desires that would be inevitably frustrated.

SamSpick -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/21/2008 7:37:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: I wouldn't propose a cause of an eternal thing in any situation because I don't see how an eternal thing can have a cause. In the case of your allegory, I would just say that "the best we can say is that they (the ball-bearing and the indentation) appear to have a mutual and eternal co-existence." Except if the ball didn't exist in contact with the pillow, the indentation wouldn't exist. But again, how can you know this? There has never been a time when either the ball or the indentation did not exist so it is impossible to assign cause and effect to either. I could equally and just as arbitrarily declare that the indentation is the cause of the ball-bearing. Can you show that my claim is less valid than yours?

Jhud -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/21/2008 9:38:54 PM)
quote: But again, how can you know this? There has never been a time when either the ball or the indentation did not exist so it is impossible to assign cause and effect to either. I could equally and just as arbitrarily declare that the indentation is the cause of the ball-bearing. Can you show that my claim is less valid than yours? You haven't made a claim - simply ignored the hypothetical. The ball is the cause of the indentation - that is part of the hypothetical. We know steel balls can cause indentations, so this isn't impossible (not only 'not impossible', but ordinary)

theo_book -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/22/2008 10:15:51 AM)
quote: (wayward1) Richard Feynman compared the accuracy of Quantum Theory's experimental predictions to specifying the width of North America to within one hair's breath. This means that Quantum Theory has to be, in some sense, true. Science considers the inability to remove the qualifier, "within one hair's breath", to be sufficient grounds to consider the data, incomplete. Did you mean "breath?" Or perhaps "breadth?"

wayward1 -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/22/2008 1:18:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book quote: (wayward1) Richard Feynman compared the accuracy of Quantum Theory's experimental predictions to specifying the width of North America to within one hair's breath. This means that Quantum Theory has to be, in some sense, true. Science considers the inability to remove the qualifier, "within one hair's breath", to be sufficient grounds to consider the data, incomplete. Did you mean "breath?" Or perhaps "breadth?" I, or rather Feynman, meant "breath" just as it is written. A hair's "breadth" would be a strange use of the word "breadth". Breadth does mean width but it is usually used to describe abstract things, and large things, as in the "depth and breadth of one's knowledge". I can't imagine he was referring to the width of a human hair as the actual inaccuracy anyway, because a human hair is quite thick relative to precise calculations. It's quite common to refer to close calls as having "missed by a hair's breath" and I am certain this was the common phrase Feynman was referencing. The imagery he was shooting for to represent the inaccuracies of Quantum calculations was the very minuscule "breath" a hair would take if it could breathe. I can't help but ask if this is the most important thing you gathered from my post though?

drmark -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/22/2008 2:04:59 PM)
quote: It's quite common to refer to close calls as having "missed by a hair's breath" and I am certain this was the common phrase Feynman was referencing. It's quite common to misspell the expression "hair's breadth" as "breath". theo_book is correct in pointing out this misuse of the term.

wayward1 -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/22/2008 2:27:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: It's quite common to refer to close calls as having "missed by a hair's breath" and I am certain this was the common phrase Feynman was referencing. It's quite common to misspell the expression "hair's breadth" as "breath". theo_book is correct in pointing out this misuse of the term. That may very well be true actually. I bet it's not a misspelling so much as an actual malapropism. I despise malapropisms so I mean it when i say thanks for pointing it out. I'll have to check it out in more detail. Digressions from the op are no problem for me when they help me get a touch smarter, lol. What will be even more interesting to me at least will be to track down the original quote and see if Feynman himself actually got it wrong. Considering the scholarly achievement of both him and the individual who quoted that line where I read it, I'm not exactly "bummed" about being mistaken on the point so I honestly do appreciate you pointing it out. It'll add to my collection of zingers for unruly debate partners in the future. My question has to stand though for theo_book, don't you have other comments, also? By my recollection we have several outstanding points to address.

SamSpick -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/22/2008 2:54:13 PM)
Jack, I wasn't sure whether to reply as I think you maybe just joking around here? But I'll play along a little longer... It's clear to me that you are using everyday "ordinary" causality and applying it where you ought not, ie, to the hypothetical eternal. I agree that an "ordinary" ball-bearing can be shown to cause an "ordinary" indentation in an "ordinary" cushion. However, that is also to say, in "ordinary" parlance, that the indentation did not exist prior to the ball-bearing being introduced to the cushion. In other words, in "ordinary" parlance a cause by definition preceedes it's effect. This obviously is not the case with your hypothetical, eternally extant ball-bearing and associated indentation and so the the application of the "ordinary" is very clearly meaningless and no better than my counter hypothesis that "the indentation caused the ball-bearing." And yes, if anybody is wondering, I am aware of how funny this conversation is. It must be a wind up. Surely? Jacky Jack? Joky joke?

Jhud -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/22/2008 3:11:37 PM)
quote: It's clear to me that you are using everyday "ordinary" causality and applying it where you ought not, ie, to the hypothetical eternal. I agree that an "ordinary" ball-bearing can be shown to cause an "ordinary" indentation in an "ordinary" cushion. However, that is also to say, in "ordinary" parlance, that the indentation did not exist prior to the ball-bearing being introduced to the cushion. In other words, in "ordinary" parlance a cause by definition preceedes it's effect. This obviously is not the case with your hypothetical, eternally extant ball-bearing and associated indentation and so the the application of the "ordinary" is very clearly meaningless and no better than my counter hypothesis that "the indentation caused the ball-bearing." And yes, if anybody is wondering, I am aware of how funny this conversation is. It must be a wind up. Surely? Jacky Jack? Joky joke? Well, I am not sure how long two people can have a serious conversation about an eternal ball and pillow, but I do have a point, which you seem to be missing. Though all analogies are imperfect, when one considers a hypothetical for the sake of discussion, it doesn't do to question the inherent presumptions of the hypothetical for the very reason they are presumed to begin with. And unless the hypothetical requires one to accept that which is known to be impossible, pretty much anything is hypothetically game. For example, if I said, "Presume a man jumps off a building..." it would do no good for you to say, "...but what if he didn't jump? What if the building shifted from underneath him and he simply fell?" The reason it wouldn't do is because I am asking you to accept as a given that the man jumped, and absent a logical reason to the contrary, for the sake of the hypothetical one accepts the premise. The premise of my hypothetical is that two objects exist eternally. Existing eternally, one object affects another. Unless you can show how it is that an eternal object can't be eternally having an effect on another eternal object, it must be agreed that the cause of an effect need not be 'previous' to be considered a cause. I used a ball ad pillow because that is a readily comprehensible set of objects whereby the effect is proximate to the cause. That being the case, did you ever hear the one about the ball and pillow that walked into the bar?

JAMWAO -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/22/2008 3:15:50 PM)
Cool how God has given you that assurance you needed. However it is a faith walk and I believe that we all ask questions concerning faith over time. So remember this faith in which you stand today. Because just the fact can fail you but faith is the real thing.

theo_book -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/22/2008 4:37:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wayward1 quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: All I mean to make apparent is that science will tell you when it doesn't know Ridiculous- how would science "know" when it doesn't know? You just need to do more observations, collect more data, analyze more findings... In a way there's truth to what you're saying. Pretty much all of science is very technically "inconclusive". For example, it's true that quantum theory can't make exact calculations. It's even true that all of its calculations are purely experimental. But Richard Feynman compared the accuracy of Quantum Theory's experimental predictions to specifying the width of North America to within one hair's breath. This means that Quantum Theory has to be, in some sense, true. Science considers the inability to remove the qualifier, "within one hair's breath", to be sufficient grounds to consider the data, incomplete. (theo) "Within" describes a parameter that remains flexible, and when discussing Quantum Mechanics, such flexibility among parameters tends to leave wide gaps in credibility. THAT is why I need to know if the quote is "hair's breath;" "Hair's breadth;" "hare's breath; or "hare's breadth." I think I know which three I can rule out, but then I would have to be an expert in Quantum Mechanics. I am not. quote: Elementary probability theory dictates the odds are that before you die you will take in, through either food or drink, at least one molecule that passed through the bladder of Abraham Lincoln. This very nearly is statistical fact, but it remains probability theory. (theo) This is and will always be part of the reason I detest scientific designation. "Statistical fact" is still theory. And it is based upon possibility, not probability, not determination. There are too many variables to consider with the data as described. Still it is called "probability theory." quote: All knowledge is tentative to be sure. But some things are so unlikely to be false, or "some laws are so unlikely to ever be broken, that we simply don't give them any more thought. When science says "it doesn't know", it means it hasn't found enough information to stop giving a certain subject any more thought. (theo) So you are telling us that scientists continue to give thought to "certain subjects" until it obtains sufficient information to justify not thinking about it anymore? Do I understand what you said correctly?

wayward1 -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/22/2008 5:19:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book (theo) So you are telling us that scientists continue to give thought to "certain subjects" until it obtains sufficient information to justify not thinking about it anymore? Do I understand what you said correctly? Yes. One such subject would be the science that determined that the gravitational acceleration of the earth is 9.8 meters per second squared.

theo_book -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/22/2008 5:40:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wayward1 quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book (theo) So you are telling us that scientists continue to give thought to "certain subjects" until it obtains sufficient information to justify not thinking about it anymore? Do I understand what you said correctly? Yes. One such subject would be the science that determined that the gravitational acceleration of the earth is 9.8 meters per second squared. The importance of how parameters are stated is at least as important as having parameters in the first place. Thanks for your response.

wayward1 -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/23/2008 12:08:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book quote: ORIGINAL: wayward1 quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book (theo) So you are telling us that scientists continue to give thought to "certain subjects" until it obtains sufficient information to justify not thinking about it anymore? Do I understand what you said correctly? Yes. One such subject would be the science that determined that the gravitational acceleration of the earth is 9.8 meters per second squared. The importance of how parameters are stated is at least as important as having parameters in the first place. Thanks for your response. I have to be honest here. I don't know what you mean by that.

theo_book -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/23/2008 8:19:26 AM)
quote: (wayward1) One such subject would be the science that determined that the gravitational acceleration of the earth is 9.8 meters per second squared. (theo) The importance of how parameters are stated is at least as important as having parameters in the first place. Thanks for your response. (wayward1) I have to be honest here. I don't know what you mean by that. I have a strong belief that much that is labeled "science" depends an inordinate ammount, upon the basis developed within the field of mathematics. For one example, Geometry has developed much that is untrue, and it has for a basis for understanding, such things as - "Axioms: A general statement admitted without proof to be true." "Axioms" are general mathematical assumptions." "Postulates: In Geometry, a geometric statement admitted without proof to be true." "Postulates are assumptions peculiar to geometry." "Corollary: A truth that follows from another with little or no proof is called a corollary." POSTULATES AND AXIOMS ARE THE ASSUMPTIONS UPON WHICH THE WHOLE SCIENCE OF MATHEMATICS RESTS." Then there is the instruction - "Nature of a proof;" Certain things are given; 1) a definite thing to be proved; 2) a "proof," consisting of definite statements, each supported by the authority of a definition, an axiom, a postulate, or some proposition previously proved. The result being, some things may be "proved" by the simple expedient of assuming truths based on "everyone knows," and proceeding to "therefore" followed by the new proof." How the parameters are stated, seems to me, to be at least as important as what the parameters consist of, BECAUSE POSTULATES AND AXIOMS ARE THE ASSUMPTIONS UPON WHICH THE WHOLE SCIENCE OF MATHEMATICS RESTS."

wayward1 -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/24/2008 11:30:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book quote: (wayward1) One such subject would be the science that determined that the gravitational acceleration of the earth is 9.8 meters per second squared. (theo) The importance of how parameters are stated is at least as important as having parameters in the first place. Thanks for your response. (wayward1) I have to be honest here. I don't know what you mean by that. I have a strong belief that much that is labeled "science" depends an inordinate ammount, upon the basis developed within the field of mathematics. For one example, Geometry has developed much that is untrue, and it has for a basis for understanding, such things as - "Axioms: A general statement admitted without proof to be true." "Axioms" are general mathematical assumptions." "Postulates: In Geometry, a geometric statement admitted without proof to be true." "Postulates are assumptions peculiar to geometry." "Corollary: A truth that follows from another with little or no proof is called a corollary." POSTULATES AND AXIOMS ARE THE ASSUMPTIONS UPON WHICH THE WHOLE SCIENCE OF MATHEMATICS RESTS." Then there is the instruction - "Nature of a proof;" Certain things are given; 1) a definite thing to be proved; 2) a "proof," consisting of definite statements, each supported by the authority of a definition, an axiom, a postulate, or some proposition previously proved. The result being, some things may be "proved" by the simple expedient of assuming truths based on "everyone knows," and proceeding to "therefore" followed by the new proof." How the parameters are stated, seems to me, to be at least as important as what the parameters consist of, BECAUSE POSTULATES AND AXIOMS ARE THE ASSUMPTIONS UPON WHICH THE WHOLE SCIENCE OF MATHEMATICS RESTS." I think you grossly overestimate the significance of axioms, postulates and assumptions. For example if "a+b = b+a" is a non-logical axiom of mathematics then what must "logical" axioms be? Well, even simpler. Like the first axiom of geometry for example which is called the reflexive axiom or the reflexive property. It states that any quantity is equal to itself. These aren't big assumptions that require huge leaps of faith. They are merely starting points because they cannot be derived by principles of deduction. Without a place to start, there would be no math. You're calling these very simple and obvious assumptions a reason to doubt math? A thing being "unprovable" in this sense is like saying there's no way to prove 1 equals 1, so maybe it doesn't. What are you claiming Geometry developed that is "untrue".

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI