J
john_doran
Guest
depends what you mean by “platonic”; whatever else you might mean, abstract objects are still generally thought to exist.
- Status
J
john_doran
Guest
so the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time?
M
Marquette
Guest
Everybody responding to this guy–you are wasting your time. He/she is not on this website to seriously inquire into Catholicism/Christianity, he/she is here to try to show you what “idiots we are” for being believers.
H
Hitetlen
Guest
john doran:
The universe exists, undoubtedly. Is it possible that it would not exist? Maybe, but what is the relevance? If it did not exist, we would not have this conversation.
Is it possible that the universe would have different characteristics, so that life (whatever that is!) never emerges? Sure it is possible. But it did not happen, so we can have this conversation.
I am definitely not against thought experiments, I employ them myself. But such thought experiments either must have a basis in reality, if you wish to use them as a supporting evidence for a claim, or they can be totally outlandish if you wish to use them to refute a claim.
Example: in mathematics it is perfectly acceptable to propose the opposite of something we wish to prove and logically arrive at a contradiction, this is called indirect proof. Example: to prove that the square root of 2 cannot be expressed in the form of “a/b” where both “a” and “b” are integers, we assume its opposite, and arrive at a contradiction.
john doran:
There is nothing surprising about this. If you asserted that the Moon is made of cheese, I would do the same. If you asserted that the Moon has a solid gold core, I would do the same. Conversely, if I would make such propositions, YOU would do the same - I hope.
Certainly it is possible that the world changes, and has different characteristics at different times. As far as we know, there are certain invariants, which cannot change. That is not a mathematical certainty, however, just a well established empirical fact. (Example: the speed of light in vacuum, or the Planck’s constant.)
The universe exists, undoubtedly. Is it possible that it would not exist? Maybe, but what is the relevance? If it did not exist, we would not have this conversation.
Is it possible that the universe would have different characteristics, so that life (whatever that is!) never emerges? Sure it is possible. But it did not happen, so we can have this conversation.
I am definitely not against thought experiments, I employ them myself. But such thought experiments either must have a basis in reality, if you wish to use them as a supporting evidence for a claim, or they can be totally outlandish if you wish to use them to refute a claim.
Example: in mathematics it is perfectly acceptable to propose the opposite of something we wish to prove and logically arrive at a contradiction, this is called indirect proof. Example: to prove that the square root of 2 cannot be expressed in the form of “a/b” where both “a” and “b” are integers, we assume its opposite, and arrive at a contradiction.
john doran:
You are twisting my words: I am not stating a proposition, I am simply putting down MY requirements to be able to entertain such a proposal. We all employ a sliding scale to decide which propositions are we willing to contemplate and which ones are we going to discard. This sliding scale reflects our preferences, our knowledge, our predispositions, and it is thoroughly subjective.
There is nothing surprising about this. If you asserted that the Moon is made of cheese, I would do the same. If you asserted that the Moon has a solid gold core, I would do the same. Conversely, if I would make such propositions, YOU would do the same - I hope.
H
Hitetlen
Guest
john doran:
Exist as WHAT? Existence is existence AS something.
H
Hitetlen
Guest
john doran:
Since the concept of time is undefined outside the boundaries of the universe, your question cannot be answered. Time is not an independtly existing phenomenon as the Newtonian physics would suggest.
H
Hitetlen
Guest
Maybe they disargee with you, and they find it worthwile to engage in a conversation? It is not mandatory, you know.
P
patg
Guest
Are you kidding? This is one of the best discussions I’ve read here in a long time. It is wonderfully beyond the endless nitpicking usually seen (like “my priest raised his hands at a 31 degree angle during a prayer…I think the mass was illicit because I read somewhere that it’s supposed to be a 32 degree angle” or “I thought about something that might be related to something that i heard might be a sin…will the loving God the father torture me for all eternity for this?”).
This is the kind of discussion that makes life interesting - why commit one’s life to a basic belief if one can’t support it and explain it adequately to someone else? It’s great to have a mature discussion about the basics of religious belief.
J
john_doran
Guest
what do you mean? existence as abstract objects.
J
john_doran
Guest
this is what i’m talking about - the possibility that the world could have been different. if the world necessarily exists, then it could not have been different, and there is no such thing as a way the world might have been but isn’t.
this isn’t a thought experiment - it’s (philosophical) modal logic. it’s about the way the world actually must be given the truth of certain propositions (e.g. necessarily, the universe exists)
in philosophy it’s called dialectical proof.
sorry - i thought you had said that you were familiar with philosophy…propositions are what are true or false, which means that your disjunction, if it is to be true or false, must have propositions as its disjuncts. propositions are what are expressed by sentences.
i know you are stating your requirements, but your requirements must themselves be subject to those requirements or else you’re being arbitrary.
for example, logical positivism had their principle of verification: “a proposition is meaningful if and only if it is either analytical or in principle empirically verifiable”. but this is a proposition, so, to be meaningful it must be either analytical or empirically verifiable. it is neither. therefore it is meaningless.
the same thing holds true for “statements” or “proposals”: Either X must be proven in an empirical fashion, or it must be proven that the denial of X leads to logical contradiction.
for your initial claim, “god’s existence” is the proposal. but your claim is ***itself ***a proposal, so must itself satisfy the criteria it sets out. and, of course, it does not…
T
Thal59
Guest
(I must submit this in two parts due to length.)
Part 1.
This has been a very interesting thread, and I have to admit that Hitetlen has scored the most points.
First of all because he has kept a very even-keel on his position without resorting to personal attacks or insults; some of which have been hurled at him in frustration. (A very interesting enigma; the atheist has been more “Christian” in his behavior than the Christians.)
Secondly because he is smart enough to understand that if a person’s mind has fully accepted or rejected something, nothing on earth will change it outside of a personal and traumatic experience. Since Hitetlen has rejected belief in God for personal “intellectual” reasons, he has not received the kind of personal “spiritual” communion that produces a love and faith in God. This, of course, is unfortunate - perhaps even eternally tragic for him - but it is his prerogative to be this way.
All we can do is offer our “witness” and the reasons of our belief in favor of God. It is pointless to argue in the hope of making him accept a position contrary to the one he has taken. We have no more a chance of making him believe in God, than he does of making us reject God.
Hitetlen: you ask if disbelief is a sin? If there is no God, the answer is no. If there is a God, the answer is yes; for nothing can be a sin unless there is a divine authority to sin against.
But it is odd for me to hear someone, from what I perceive to be an intellectual stance, reject the notion of God. If there is no God, then there is no eternal life. One dies and is never heard from again. If there is a God, then there is an eternal life. There is, therefore, intellectually speaking, no reason to accept disbelief and full reason to accept belief. Disbelief offers nothing, belief at least offers the “possibility” of everything. It is not an intelligent decision to accept a stance that offers perpetual non-existence over a stance that offers at least a chance of the continuation of life.
Hitetlen, your position, “out of intelligence,” is to accept the stance that leads to the end of the intellect, since the intellect cannot continue without life, over the stance that leads to the continuance of the intellect through the continuance of life.
In other words, Hitetlen, your intellect is choosing a path that can only lead to its own end, not to its preservation. Would it not be a more intelligent decision to accept the rule of faith that offers to preserve the intellect, rather than to accept the rule of disbelief that would end it?
In my last book, I tried to show, as best that may be shown I suppose, “evidence” of the existence of God through what I called the divine peach! If there is no God, random mathematics and science may be able, out of the whole universe, to produce a planet like earth that is teeming with a multitude of life forms simply out of hit-and-miss luck and random chance. But science, mathematics, and chance do not have the higher attributes of love, consideration, caring, concern, generosity or understanding; they are simply numbers, facts and happenstance. In fact, without an intellectual mind, math, science, and random chance in effect do not exist at all because it requires an intellect to conceive of them.
Therefore, even if mathematics and science could somehow produce life “accidentally,” it wouldn’t care. Mathematics and science cannot care if this life continued or perished. It wouldn’t care if life was varied or simplistic. It wouldn’t care if life was a heavenly dream, or a hellish nightmare.
Part 1.
This has been a very interesting thread, and I have to admit that Hitetlen has scored the most points.
First of all because he has kept a very even-keel on his position without resorting to personal attacks or insults; some of which have been hurled at him in frustration. (A very interesting enigma; the atheist has been more “Christian” in his behavior than the Christians.)
Secondly because he is smart enough to understand that if a person’s mind has fully accepted or rejected something, nothing on earth will change it outside of a personal and traumatic experience. Since Hitetlen has rejected belief in God for personal “intellectual” reasons, he has not received the kind of personal “spiritual” communion that produces a love and faith in God. This, of course, is unfortunate - perhaps even eternally tragic for him - but it is his prerogative to be this way.
All we can do is offer our “witness” and the reasons of our belief in favor of God. It is pointless to argue in the hope of making him accept a position contrary to the one he has taken. We have no more a chance of making him believe in God, than he does of making us reject God.
Hitetlen: you ask if disbelief is a sin? If there is no God, the answer is no. If there is a God, the answer is yes; for nothing can be a sin unless there is a divine authority to sin against.
But it is odd for me to hear someone, from what I perceive to be an intellectual stance, reject the notion of God. If there is no God, then there is no eternal life. One dies and is never heard from again. If there is a God, then there is an eternal life. There is, therefore, intellectually speaking, no reason to accept disbelief and full reason to accept belief. Disbelief offers nothing, belief at least offers the “possibility” of everything. It is not an intelligent decision to accept a stance that offers perpetual non-existence over a stance that offers at least a chance of the continuation of life.
Hitetlen, your position, “out of intelligence,” is to accept the stance that leads to the end of the intellect, since the intellect cannot continue without life, over the stance that leads to the continuance of the intellect through the continuance of life.
In other words, Hitetlen, your intellect is choosing a path that can only lead to its own end, not to its preservation. Would it not be a more intelligent decision to accept the rule of faith that offers to preserve the intellect, rather than to accept the rule of disbelief that would end it?
In my last book, I tried to show, as best that may be shown I suppose, “evidence” of the existence of God through what I called the divine peach! If there is no God, random mathematics and science may be able, out of the whole universe, to produce a planet like earth that is teeming with a multitude of life forms simply out of hit-and-miss luck and random chance. But science, mathematics, and chance do not have the higher attributes of love, consideration, caring, concern, generosity or understanding; they are simply numbers, facts and happenstance. In fact, without an intellectual mind, math, science, and random chance in effect do not exist at all because it requires an intellect to conceive of them.
Therefore, even if mathematics and science could somehow produce life “accidentally,” it wouldn’t care. Mathematics and science cannot care if this life continued or perished. It wouldn’t care if life was varied or simplistic. It wouldn’t care if life was a heavenly dream, or a hellish nightmare.
T
Thal59
Guest
Part 2.
Now consider the “Divine Peach.” It is a fruit, that is more than just a source of sustenance. Its color is pleasing to the eye, its aroma is pleasing to the smell, its fuzzy skin is pleasing to the touch, its flavor is pleasing to the taste. If it could hum, it would be perfect!
Now in terms of random mathematics and science, which we have already discerned does not possess the ability of caring, does it not make intellectual sense that any source of sustenance on a mathematically, God absent, planet would consist of the most basic forms possible? Forms like bitter molds, fungus, bacteria, etc., that are structurally simple, prodigious in their growth, and completely devoid of any attribute that would require an intellect to appreciate? Random mathematics and science wouldn’t care even if there was food available to sustain life forms. It wouldn’t care if life occured, and then burned away into oblivion. It wouldn’t care if such life forms spent untold miserable years consuming loathsome sludge to sustain itself.
How incredibly considerate of mathematics and science to produce something like a peach! How caring they were to give such pleasent foodstuffs! How generous it was of science and mathematics to cause the peach tree to produce not one or two, but hundreds of peaches each year! What incredible concern mathematics and science had to cause fruit trees to produce so many more fruit bearing seeds than it needed to preserve it own species; almost as if it understood that it was indeed producing food for other life forms! What insightful understanding mathematics and science had to be able to provide an enjoyable food product for an intelligent life form called man who would have the capacity to enjoy food with flavor!
Consideration, caring, generosity, concern, understanding. In a nutshell; love.
Hitetlen, is random mathematics and science capable of such things? Or, would it suggest the presence of an entity, who possesses such attributes, and who would pattern life to reflect and to display (proclaim) those attributes?
I believe in God, even if any spiritual communion could be proved to be false, because my intellect tells me so.
If you are looking for an intellectual proof of the existence of God, Hitetlen… then intellectually contemplate the divine peach.
Thal59
Now consider the “Divine Peach.” It is a fruit, that is more than just a source of sustenance. Its color is pleasing to the eye, its aroma is pleasing to the smell, its fuzzy skin is pleasing to the touch, its flavor is pleasing to the taste. If it could hum, it would be perfect!
Now in terms of random mathematics and science, which we have already discerned does not possess the ability of caring, does it not make intellectual sense that any source of sustenance on a mathematically, God absent, planet would consist of the most basic forms possible? Forms like bitter molds, fungus, bacteria, etc., that are structurally simple, prodigious in their growth, and completely devoid of any attribute that would require an intellect to appreciate? Random mathematics and science wouldn’t care even if there was food available to sustain life forms. It wouldn’t care if life occured, and then burned away into oblivion. It wouldn’t care if such life forms spent untold miserable years consuming loathsome sludge to sustain itself.
How incredibly considerate of mathematics and science to produce something like a peach! How caring they were to give such pleasent foodstuffs! How generous it was of science and mathematics to cause the peach tree to produce not one or two, but hundreds of peaches each year! What incredible concern mathematics and science had to cause fruit trees to produce so many more fruit bearing seeds than it needed to preserve it own species; almost as if it understood that it was indeed producing food for other life forms! What insightful understanding mathematics and science had to be able to provide an enjoyable food product for an intelligent life form called man who would have the capacity to enjoy food with flavor!
Consideration, caring, generosity, concern, understanding. In a nutshell; love.
Hitetlen, is random mathematics and science capable of such things? Or, would it suggest the presence of an entity, who possesses such attributes, and who would pattern life to reflect and to display (proclaim) those attributes?
I believe in God, even if any spiritual communion could be proved to be false, because my intellect tells me so.
If you are looking for an intellectual proof of the existence of God, Hitetlen… then intellectually contemplate the divine peach.
Thal59
J
john_doran
Guest
why do you keep insisting on this “there is no time outside the universe”, and “it is meaningless to ask what was before time”, stuff? it has absolutely nothing to do with anything i have, or will, ever say (or what the theistic arguments say).
either an infinite amount has time has elapsed prior to this point, or a finite amount. which one is it?
at the very least, demonstrate to me why this disjunction entails anything about the putative “exterior” of the universe.
H
Hitetlen
Guest
john doran:
In other words: as concepts?
R
Redbandito
Guest
Ahhh, but again you make some mistakes in your logic. For starters, you don’t ask real questions. You ask questions and assume answers. This is called intellectual hubris (pride). The Greeks said hubris always comes before the fall. Socrates said wisdom was knowing how little one really knows. He said there are two kinds of people. One: The fool who knows he is a fool. Two: The fool who thinks he is wise. The latter doesn’t ask real questions. The former asks question and becomes wise through recognizing his foolishness. You might want to exercise a little bit of that here. You think you know my position, but your responses show that you assume a lot of things incorrectly. Try humbling yourself for a little bit and starting from the beginning. Maybe we can get somewhere.
Second, you ask the obviously rhetorical question, “God is real?” Then you go onto state “The universe is real”. Oh really? How do we know that? Please prove that the Universe is real. Are you going to appeal to DeCartes’ “I think, therefore I am”? The irony of all of your claims that we don’t prove anything that we say, is that you do the very same thing that you claim we are doing.
Third, remember where you are. I am not asking you to accept the Bible as infallible. Remember that we must start with a reasonable assumption at some point, OR NOTHING IS PROVEABLE. The very fact that you have faith in your ability to reason and assume that your “reason” is even capable of understanding scientific “truths” proves this point. My point in bringing up “I AM” was to show you where I am coming from. It wasn’t meant as an absolute proof.
Fourth, I don’t get your beef with eternity. Eternity means always. We refer to God as the Eternal Now, because He is outside of time. Thus, I agree with your point that eternity is outside of time. What are you arguing here?
Fifth, I don’t “discard” each one. I have discerned through study and prayer, that God revealed Himself fully in the Christian faith. All religions share in a part of God in so far as they agree with what is true. However, only one CLAIMS to have had that God become man and come to him. No other religion claims this. Thus, IF the claims of Christianity are true, it follows that I would discard all others. That is a different thread though. What you have introduced is a red herring. It is off subject, like most of your posts. We are not proving Christianity in our discussion. We are talking about the existence of God in general.
R
Redbandito
Guest
Wow! What a thoroughly biased and arrogant view of theism vs. atheism. No wonder you can’t get anywhere. For starters, the conversation could just as easily go the other way. For just as the theist is presented with the question, “What if there is no…?”, the atheist is presented with the question, “What if there is…?” You believe in THEORIES in science all the time. Are they all based on ABSOLUTE VISUAL PROOF? No! In fact, none of them are, or they wouldn’t be theories. Yet you believe in them based on the evidence. In the same way, we can see evidence of God in many things. Is there an absolute visual proof? No! In fact, faith requires a degree of believing in what is not seen. However, your presentation makes it sound like no reason or logic is involved in the process. That is a flagrant and vicious error. I know, because I once professed the same ignorance. I was an agnostic. I didn’t believe there was evidence enough either way. Merely following like a blind sheep was abhorrent to me. That would never have worked. I had to read and understand first. It sounds like you have a lot of learning to do as well. You might try reading some books written by competent theists. There are good books and bad books though. If you want to do so, I would recommend getting these from this website. And don’t tell me that you don’t feel like you have to take the time to do this, because that’s rubbish. How do I know? Because you are on here trying to prove it. Be honest and consistent and you will get your needed answers.
Furthermore, your so-called dialogue is ridiculous. I don’t believe the Scripture is inspired because the Scripture says so. That is circular and Protestant. I believe in God, because I believe complex forms of life, and this universe in general, can only be explained competently through a creator. I believe this, because eye witnesses of these historical events claimed these things and died horribly painful deaths because they wouldn’t deny the slightest thing about them. I believe these things, because I have seen the miraculous changes in people’s lives that come to faith. I have seen the consequences of not belief (i.e.secular humanism), and it leads to a life of ultimate despair. It leads to meaninglessness. For again, if we are created by nothing, that means our life was created from nothing, is for nothing, and proceeds nowhere. I believe based on evidence. You reject based on “lack of evidence”. My response to you is, “Open your eyes, it’s all around you”.
D
Doreen
Guest
I am skipping everyone else’s reply before writing, because I want my thoughts to remain clear in my head for you. So if I repeat what somebody else says, just consider that confirmation on that point!
You are correct that God calls us. He chooses us, and our faith comes from Him.
"How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent?..faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ."
BIBLE —Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth!
You do not understand or know what it is that you are missing, so how can you decide to believe in it?
Here’s the catch. You were compelled to ask this question. Somehow your heart is being stirred up to know about belief. That stirring up comes only from the Lord. (The devil would love you to just be happy in your unbelief and look to yourself for all things.)
You are being called to Him if you have these thoughts. They do not come from anywhere else.
So–to answer you question, why is disbelief sin?
ANYTHING THAT SEPARATES YOU FROM THE LOVE OF GOD is SIN! Plain and simple.
Our thoughts are either of God or of the Devil…and we choose whom we serve.
This poem will help you think about the spiritual battle that exists in all of us — because He stirs us all up to ask the questions at some point…the thing is, He has given us the free will to do with what we hear as we please. He doesn’t force Himself on us.
The battle is like this:
Two natures beat within my breast
One is evil, one is blessed
The one, I love
The one, I hate
The one I feed will dominate!
Feeding the good nature in you, which can only be from God, is to hear His word and look to Christ for your strength, forgiveness, and salvation.
Feeding the evil nature is to live your life on your own terms, depending, not on God, but on yourself and living according to your fleshly desires.
In the end, those who know Jesus as Lord, will be rescued, and those who reject this, will perish. All will have a chance to decide. He’s giving you your chance right now.
(BTW…He doesn’t judge those who are not at the age of maturation…that is, old enough to comprehend the difference between good and evil…)
I’ll pray for you as you continue your quest for truth. And I’ll tell you, I have few regrets in life greater than this: that it took me until I was in my 30’s to really choose to follow Him. It’s an awesome thing to be under the blessing of the King of Kings!
D.
You are correct that God calls us. He chooses us, and our faith comes from Him.
The Lord knows that some are not going to believe. Here’s what He says about this (through the Holy Spirit and Paul):
"How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent?..faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ."
BIBLE —Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth!
You do not understand or know what it is that you are missing, so how can you decide to believe in it?
Here’s the catch. You were compelled to ask this question. Somehow your heart is being stirred up to know about belief. That stirring up comes only from the Lord. (The devil would love you to just be happy in your unbelief and look to yourself for all things.)
You are being called to Him if you have these thoughts. They do not come from anywhere else.
So–to answer you question, why is disbelief sin?
ANYTHING THAT SEPARATES YOU FROM THE LOVE OF GOD is SIN! Plain and simple.
Our thoughts are either of God or of the Devil…and we choose whom we serve.
This poem will help you think about the spiritual battle that exists in all of us — because He stirs us all up to ask the questions at some point…the thing is, He has given us the free will to do with what we hear as we please. He doesn’t force Himself on us.
The battle is like this:
Two natures beat within my breast
One is evil, one is blessed
The one, I love
The one, I hate
The one I feed will dominate!
Feeding the good nature in you, which can only be from God, is to hear His word and look to Christ for your strength, forgiveness, and salvation.
Feeding the evil nature is to live your life on your own terms, depending, not on God, but on yourself and living according to your fleshly desires.
In the end, those who know Jesus as Lord, will be rescued, and those who reject this, will perish. All will have a chance to decide. He’s giving you your chance right now.
(BTW…He doesn’t judge those who are not at the age of maturation…that is, old enough to comprehend the difference between good and evil…)
I’ll pray for you as you continue your quest for truth. And I’ll tell you, I have few regrets in life greater than this: that it took me until I was in my 30’s to really choose to follow Him. It’s an awesome thing to be under the blessing of the King of Kings!
D.
M
Marquette
Guest
R
Redbandito
Guest
That depends on what you mean by eternity, doesn’t it? It is you who seems to put eternity into the context of time, not I. And as far as evidence for the independent spirit, while I have already given you a peak at the evidence, we are not there yet. We must start from the beginning. You must crawl before you walk. How can we possibly start with this, when even the scientific method demands that we have a theory first? What is the first question that must be asked here? I will leave that to you to figure out. But remember, intellectual pride will get you nowhere.
H
Hitetlen
Guest
john doran:
I follow Hemingway’s footsteps, and enjoy short, conscise sentences and arguments.
john doran:
john doran:
Not all propositions need to be substantiated on this level. In the criminal justice system we employ a much lower standard of “reasonable doubt”. In the civil justice system we employ an even lower standard: “preponderance of evidence”.
All our evaluating processes are subject to some level of certainty we demand in order to accept or reject a proposition. That level of certainty is only subject to our predispositions, already existing beliefs and level of skepticism.
john doran:
Though every formalized system has one enormous drawback: there are propositions which are true or false, but this fact cannot be decided within the system. These undecidable propositions cannot be escaped. And of course there are real pains in the back: sentences like “this statement is false”, and these kinds of sentences cannot be assigned a true or false value. Formal systems (like mathematics) are very useful, but we have to be aware of their built-in limitations.
The usefulness of the concept of “necessary” existence always eluded me. There is existence, plain and simple. The hairsplitting differentiation of “necessary” and “contingent” existence is just a ploy to muddle the waters. Philosophy is not an esoteric field, though some philosophers try to use long, convoluted sentences with all sorts of artificially created words to hide that fact that they have nothing to say.
I follow Hemingway’s footsteps, and enjoy short, conscise sentences and arguments.
john doran:
No need to be condescending. I certainly am familiar with philosophy, but I am not a “professional” philosopher and never held it in too high a regard.
john doran:
Not arbitrary at all. The requirements I demand are on the highest level of certainty. If something can be empirically demonstrated, its existence is beyond questioning. If such a direct demonstration is not possible, one can use the indirect method, and show that the denial of a proposition leads to a logical contradiction - therefore one must accept the proposition on pain of contradiction. This is simply self-evident.
Not all propositions need to be substantiated on this level. In the criminal justice system we employ a much lower standard of “reasonable doubt”. In the civil justice system we employ an even lower standard: “preponderance of evidence”.
All our evaluating processes are subject to some level of certainty we demand in order to accept or reject a proposition. That level of certainty is only subject to our predispositions, already existing beliefs and level of skepticism.
john doran:
And this is just word game all over again. The methods of “proving” something do not come from a formalized system, they evolved through ages of experimentation, and considered to be axioms.
Though every formalized system has one enormous drawback: there are propositions which are true or false, but this fact cannot be decided within the system. These undecidable propositions cannot be escaped. And of course there are real pains in the back: sentences like “this statement is false”, and these kinds of sentences cannot be assigned a true or false value. Formal systems (like mathematics) are very useful, but we have to be aware of their built-in limitations.
- Status