Nah, I don’t think certainty is a necessary condition for knowledge. I think certitude is just the highest degree of confidence in a proposition we can have, and we do have such confidence. For example, in our own existence.
Absolute certainty for me requires faith that God exists, which is enough for me. But to add logic and reason to it, what is more likely, that God exists or God does not exist? If God did not exist, then everything in the universe is just happenstance and coincidence. I find that hard to believe; science continues to unwrap the mysteries of the universe that shows there is a definite pattern of laws that are too intricate and complicated for me to reasonably believe that were caused by accident.
It can exist. But humans are able to manage without it; which itself is an ability which points to a reality.
Think about this, then: If there were no absolute certainty, then how would you know there is no absolute certainty?
We can’t completely comprehend God, but I think that is a separate issue from certainty of belief.
The same way it knows and understands anything else.
Why should the belief that life is an accident be any less precarious - given that it undermines your claim to be rational?
It cannot - unless the Creator provides some assistance!
The belief that life is an accident is supported by scientific experiment and observation. It in no way undermines my claim to be rational, and I’m struggling to understand the sort of disingenuous mental acrobatics one must undergo to pretend otherwise.
Better at calculation, perhaps, but not mathematics.
This is going to depend greatly on one’s starting assumptions.
Only inasmuch as we are careful to exclude any notion of final causes.
Can scientists observe and create the laws of nature?
Your claim to be a rational product of irrational events is hardly convincing unless you can demonstrate scientifically how inanimate molecules can be so conveniently arranged that they become aware of themselves and capable of understanding that they are no more than an arrangement of inanimate molecules…
.
That is not surprising if you are indeed the product of irrational molecular acrobatics!
Certainly we are careful to exclude any unproven and unnecessary notions, in the interest of an efficient and objective result.
Observe their effects, yes. Create, no. What does this prove?
I know this is your favourite hobby horse, and I’m not surprise to see you trotting it out again, even though I’m convinced that you’re aware it doesn’t float.
Your predilection for valueless quips is sometimes quite entertaining. But not at this time of night..That is not surprising if you are indeed the product of irrational molecular acrobatics!
I expect we probably differ greatly on first principles, and on meaningful definitions of terms such as ‘proof’, ‘necessary’, ‘objective’, maybe even ‘we’, but then I tend to place a lot of weight on the importance of defining terms.