An Infinite Past?

[seer]

This is a highly hypothetical argument with an unnecessarily high fog index about what is the degree of certainty of human knowledge. The scientific methods and knowledge that gives us the confidence and certainty to flew in jet aircraft is the same that gives use the knowledge of earth history and evolution. If what you say is true above we have no certainty of any human knowledge including the most subjective metaphysical knowledge.

No it doesn't. Science that is used to fly a jet plane is based on repeatable experimentation, conclusions on the age of the universe is not. I mean we both agree that "science" can be wrong - correct?

You actually need to define what sort of certainty is necessary for reliable knowledge from the human perspective. Since you acknowledged fallibility and limitations of human comprehension, can we know anything with any degree of certainty.

There is only one definition of certainty. There are not degrees of certainty. certainty: a fact about which there is no doubt.

If red was objectively red 13 billion years ago, today, and 13 billion years in the future, then uniformity is the reality regardless of whether the observer believes in God or not.

No, how would you have any confidence about what "red" was 13 billion years ago? That is the point, you can not know nor can you know if uniformity will hold in the future. You can assume both of course, but that is inductive reasoning, which can not produce certainty. And it is not a question about whether a man believes in God or not it is about what worldview engenders more confidence.

[shunyadragon]

No it doesn't. Science that is used to fly a jet plane is based on repeatable experimentation, conclusions on the age of the universe is not. I mean we both agree that "science" can be wrong - correct?

Actually we do not agree that science can be wrong to the degree you claim. Individual results of within individual research project may be faulty because of the fallibility and humanness of individuals, but science does not depend on this. It depends on the extreme redundant nature of peer reviewed research to confirm the non-contradiction of the objective nature of our physical existence. Unless you can be more specific on how and why you believe science can be wrong, your argument is faced with the Law of non-contradiction of the objective observations that are the basis of science.

There is only one definition of certainty. There are not degrees of certainty. certainty: a fact about which there is no doubt.

OK, based on your previous acknowledgement of the fallibility of humans, we cannot be certain of any knowledge, and we cannot be certain of the Law of non-contradiction of the objective uniform nature of anything.

We both have acknowledged the 'absolute and pure truth' of knowledge from the perspective of God, by the problem remains what is the nature of knowledge and certainty from the human perspective.You still need to address this degree of certainty, yes, by definition certainty may have degrees, that fallible human may have concerning knowledge.

No, how would you have any confidence about what "red" was 13 billion years ago? That is the point, you can not know nor can you know if uniformity will hold in the future. You can assume both of course, but that is inductive reasoning, which can not produce certainty. And it is not a question about whether a man believes in God or not it is about what worldview engenders more confidence.

Then we cannot be certain of the Law of non-contradiction.

[seer]

Actually we do not agree that science can be wrong to the degree you claim. Individual results of within individual research project may be faulty because of the fallibility and humanness of individuals, but science does not depend on this. It depends on the extreme redundant nature of peer reviewed research to confirm the non-contradiction of the objective nature of our physical existence. Unless you can be more specific on how and why you believe science can be wrong, your argument is faced with the Law of non-contradiction of the objective observations that are the basis of science.

What do you mean science can not be wrong to that degree. On Apologetics board I gave one more recent example of the Steady State Universe. That was completely wrong if the science of today is correct. Then there were theories like Miasmatic theory of disease, Immovable continents theory, Newton's corpuscular theory of light, etc... Never mind medical study after medical study being over turned. There are paradigm shifts in science Shuny. Not that these are bad things, but as far creating certainty - they don't.

OK, based on your previous acknowledgement of the fallibility of humans, we cannot be certain of any knowledge, and we cannot be certain of the Law of non-contradiction of the objective uniform nature of anything.

I can, I believe in God. I start with God.

We both have acknowledged the 'absolute and pure truth' of knowledge from the perspective of God, by the problem remains what is the nature of knowledge and certainty from the human perspective.You still need to address this degree of certainty, yes, by definition certainty may have degrees, that fallible human may have concerning knowledge.

The question then is, on what do you base the reliability of human rationality? I start with God, what do you start with?

Then we cannot be certain of the Law of non-contradiction.

Well since I start with God and God is the locus or rationality and logic there is no problem.

[shunyadragon]

What do you mean science can not be wrong to that degree.

To what degree? Can science rely on the Law of non-contradiction to support Methodological Naturalism.

On Apologetics board I gave one more recent example of the Steady State Universe. That was completely wrong if the science of today is correct. Then there were theories like Miasmatic theory of disease, Immovable continents theory, Newton's corpuscular theory of light, etc... Never mind medical study after medical study being over turned. There are paradigm shifts in science Shuny. Not that these are bad things, but as far creating certainty - they don't.

We have discussed this before, whether steady state, expansion theorems, cyclic models like Steinhardt's, they have always been predictive theorems and models based on the observation at the time, and have never been considered anything more. As our observation and knowledge increases science changes. Actually on the greatest scale beyond all theorems and models of multiverses and such it is still possible that our physical existence is steady state. What you describe is the evolving knowledge of science, no problem. I already acknowledged that science can be wrong as the knowledge of science evolves, but yes science today is reasonably accurate and reliable about the nature of our existence, and is justified by the Law of non-contradiction. Yes, added knowledge changes scientific theories. In the history of science our observation have always been consistent and uniform, Newton's science remains accurate based on the limits of his observation, and it is new observation that change knowledge so it remains non-contradictory, consistent and uniform.

I can, I believe in God. I start with God.

This tells me nothing and does not answer the questions on the que. Can we be certain of the Law of non-contradiction to base our objective observations of our physical existence, yes or no? You have not resolved the fog index you put concerning the nature of human knowledge. Based on your argument we cannot with any reliability be certain of anything. Just saying 'I can, I believe in God. I start with God.' does not address the problem. Red is red regardless of the blind observer, and it is a given that all are blind to future and the distant reaches of our physical existence not observed yet.

The question then is, on what do you base the reliability of human rationality? I start with God, what do you start with?

I, of course, start with God, but I do not end there. I believe God's Creation is consistent and uniform based on the Law of non-contradiction, therefore Methodological Naturalism is the best humans can use to achieve based on human reliability and rationality the knowledge of our physical existence. Yes our knowledge evolves and changes, but that is the name of the science game to conform to the Law of non-contradiction.

Well since I start with God and God is the locus or rationality and logic there is no problem.

Then you agree that our physical existence is uniform and consistent based on the Law of non-contradiction of objective observations of our physical existence.

It would be informative if either Mr. Black or you could come up with a better way to understand the nature of our physical existence that complies with the Law of non-contradiction then Methodological Naturalism.

[seer]

I already acknowledged that science can be wrong as the knowledge of science evolves, but yes science today is reasonably accurate and reliable about the nature of our existence, and is justified by the Law of non-contradiction. Yes, added knowledge changes scientific theories.

Well good, we agree that science can be wrong. And I'm not sure what reasonably accurate and reliable means. How does one quantify that? I mean who knows what theory will be falsified tomorrow as different facts come to light.

This tells me nothing and does not answer the questions on the que. Can we be certain of the Law of non-contradiction in our objective observations of our physical existence. You have not resolved the fog index you put concerning the nature of human knowledge. Based on your argument we cannot with any reliability be certain of anything. Just saying 'I can, I believe in God. I start with God.' does not address the problem. Red is red regardless of the blind observer, and it is a given that all are blind to future and the distant reaches of our physical existence not observed yet.

Yes, we can rely on the law of non-contradiction since it grounded in the way that God thinks and acts, but for no other reason.

I, of course, start with God, but I do not end there. I believe God's Creation is consistent and uniform based on the Law of non-contradiction, therefore Methodological Naturalism is the best humans can use to achieve based on human reliability and rationality the knowledge of our physical existence. Yes our knowledge evolves and changes, but that is the name of the science game to conform to the Law of non-contradiction.

Then you agree that nothing is written in stone, there is no theory that could not be overturned as more fact come to light.

It would be informative if either Mr. Black or you could come up with a better way to understand the nature of our physical existence that complies with the Law of non-contradiction as Methodological Naturalism.

I think Mr. Black would say that we could only be certain of Law of non-contradiction because it proceeds from God.

[shunyadragon]

Well good, we agree that science can be wrong. And I'm not sure what reasonably accurate and reliable means. How does one quantify that? I mean who knows what theory will be falsified tomorrow as different facts come to light.

No seer, we do not agree on the degree science is wrong and could change. Based on the Law of non-contradiction the valid observations have been consistent and uniform confirming the uniformity of our physical existence. The foundation theories of science are even remotely likely to be overthrown. The history of physics demonstrates that the theories of physics have not been overthrown since Newton. In fact the theories of Newton were not over thrown and still valid based on the non-contradictory observations of his time and later up until the 20th century. No foundation theories have been over thrown in the 20th and 21st century.

Please note: The theorems and models proposed for the origins of universes and the cosmos are not foundation theories of science, they are based on the theories and knowledge of physics and math.

Yes, we can rely on the law of non-contradiction since it grounded in the way that God thinks and acts, but for no other reason.

The problem is not the reason nor the problem. We then agree we can rely on the Law of non-contradiction to support the uniformity and consistency of science based on objective observation concerning the nature of our physical existence.

Red is red regardless of the blind observer, and it is a given that all are blind to future and the distant reaches of our physical existence not observed yet.

Then you agree that nothing is written in stone,

We agree that everything with God is 'absolute and pure truth.

there is no theory that could not be overturned as more fact come to light.

No we do not agree. If this were true it would a violation of the Law of non-contradiction. See above.

I think Mr. Black would say that we could only be certain of Law of non-contradiction because it proceeds from God.

Again the reason, because . . , is not the issue. I am overwhelmed that Mr. black and you agree that the Law of non-contradiction universally and uniformly applies to God's Creation.

[JimL]

No Jim, all law would be absurd because there never is, or could be, a right answer. Again is female genital mutilation good or bad? Well it is considered good by some and wrong by others - it is both A and not A.

The problem you are having seer is that you are incapable of even envisioning a world in which it isn't ruled by an outside force. Only when you are capable of that will you be able comprehend what people are trying to convey to you about the subjective nature of morals. But I will continue to try at any rate. You might consider such a world, a world without authoritative rules, to be absurd, but so what, the world doesn't care what you think about it. So you argue, "there has to be a creator, there just has to be a God that rules the world in order for the world not to be absurd. But who are you to decide how the world has to be? We live in the world as it is, and we adapt to it as best we can by creating our own rules or laws. They may be wise laws, good for human society, or they may be unwise and harmful, but there need be nothing objective about them in the "ultimate sense" of right or wrong, good or bad, and that because a world without a lawgiver does not judge or punish. You can not envision that world, i know, even though, since you have no knowledge of either God or an objective moral standard, it is the world you live in, like it or not. Genital mutilation btw is neither good or bad as far as the world is concerned, because the world itself is not a mind. Such things are left to us to decide. They are neither A or not A, they are what ever we decide they are.

It is not apple and oranges to me, it is how the universe works. No where in any other discipline or human endeavor do we find that both A and not A to be equally correct. But you say, in this one special case, that it is all different - there is no right answer. Like I said, I have no reason to assume that is the case.

Thats because you are confusing physics with ethics and seem incapable of comprehending a world without objective laws and a law giver. Try to imagine it, it is the world you live in.

[Leonhard]

I leave for a few weeks and come to find a presuppositional apologetics battle ground.

[seer]

I leave for a few weeks and come to find a presuppositional apologetics battle ground.

See what happens when you leave, but hey I didn't bring it up, Shuny went after Mr. Black, I just tried to answer as he would.

[seer]

The problem you are having seer is that you are incapable of even envisioning a world in which it isn't ruled by an outside force. Only when you are capable of that will you be able comprehend what people are trying to convey to you about the subjective nature of morals. But I will continue to try at any rate. You might consider such a world, a world without authoritative rules, to be absurd, but so what, the world doesn't care what you think about it. So you argue, "there has to be a creator, there just has to be a God that rules the world in order for the world not to be absurd. But who are you to decide how the world has to be? We live in the world as it is, and we adapt to it as best we can by creating our own rules or laws. They may be wise laws, good for human society, or they may be unwise and harmful, but there need be nothing objective about them in the "ultimate sense" of right or wrong, good or bad, and that because a world without a lawgiver does not judge or punish. You can not envision that world, i know, even though, since you have no knowledge of either God or an objective moral standard, it is the world you live in, like it or not. Genital mutilation btw is neither good or bad as far as the world is concerned, because the world itself is not a mind. Such things are left to us to decide. They are neither A or not A, they are what ever we decide they are.

A couple of quick point Jim. I'm not have a hard time envisioning anything. Remember I was an agnostic until my late 30s, and even managed to pull a B average in Anthropology 101, and 102 during my brief college career. And you are incorrect, Genital mutilation is both good and bad to human beings. It is both A and not A to human beings. Which makes moral reasoning absurd. Despite your protests.

Thats because you are confusing physics with ethics and seem incapable of comprehending a world without objective laws and a law giver. Try to imagine it, it is the world you live in.

No Jim, it is not just physics, try showing, with any other human discipline or human endeavor, where something is both A and not A, beside ethics.

[shunyadragon]

. . . try showing, with any other human discipline or human endeavor, where something is both A and not A, beside ethics.

Your misusing the Law of contradiction when describing differences between cultures and societies. These differences are not contradictions, they represent the natural diversity in morals, ethics, and other cultural practices that evolve over time. Many practices that may be equated with morals and ethics are adaptations to different environments. Some cultures eat swine, come consider eating swine immoral and absolutely forbidden. Is this a violation of the Law of non-contradiction. No. Is it absurd. No. Actually the cultures that do not eat swine live in regions with lower rainfall and are better adapted to pastoral sheep and goat agriculture.

All human cultures have a moral code against committing wrongful death, but all cultures differ as to what wrongful death means. Is that a violation of the Law of contradiction? No.

[seer]

All human cultures have a moral code against committing wrongful death, but all cultures differ as to what wrongful death means. Is that a violation of the Law of contradiction? No.

If you are correct then ethical questions are not subject to the laws of logic, making my point that all moral reasoning is absurd in the end. There never is, or could there be, a correct answer to any moral question. But you don't believe that do you Shuny - there are correct ethical answers, whether you call it God's command or law or I call it God's moral law we bother agree, at least in principle, that there are right answers. Objectively right.

[shunyadragon]

If you are correct then ethical questions are not subject to the laws of logic, making my point that all moral reasoning is absurd in the end. There never is, or could there be, a correct answer to any moral question. But you don't believe that do you Shuny - there are correct ethical answers, whether you call it God's command or law or I call it God's moral law we bother agree, at least in principle, that there are right answers. Objectively right.

Simply these cultural differences are cultural differences and not remotely associated with the Law of non-contradiction. The diversity in the cultures of the world do not represent absurd contradictions. Something like I eat brown rice and another may eat white bread. simply things that are different are simply different.

[JimL]

A couple of quick point Jim. I'm not have a hard time envisioning anything. Remember I was an agnostic until my late 30s, and even managed to pull a B average in Anthropology 101, and 102 during my brief college career.

Then what exactly are you arguing about? If you understand that the world has no need of an ultimate objective standard regarding morality, that there need not be an ultimate right or wrong, good or evil, or an objective lawgiver who doles out reward and punishment for obeying or disobeying his standard, then you have no argument to make other than that it is the way you want the world to be. Thats why you need to produce your objective standard seer, because the world doesn't care what you want it to be like, and the evidence supports a subjective nature to morality not an objective one. You can complain about it until the cows come home but the material world doesn't care whether you agree with its amoral nature or not.

And you are incorrect, Genital mutilation is both good and bad to human beings. It is both A and not A to human beings. Which makes moral reasoning absurd. Despite your protests.

Yes, to human beings genital mutilation can be considered to be either good or bad which is why morals are subjective, but nature itself is silent on the matter because nature itself is amoral, minds exist within the world, the world is not a mind. I understand those who don't appreciate that aspect of the world, and want nature to be ultimately moral in its own right, but that is not what nature shows itself to be, nor is moral objectivity necessary of existence so your argument boils down to nothing more than desire or wishful thinking on your part.

No Jim, it is not just physics, try showing, with any other human discipline or human endeavor, where something is both A and not A, beside ethics.

Again, thats why morals are subjective, morals can be both A and not A as far as human beings are concerned, but nature itself is silent on the matter. If you argue to the contrary, that nature itself is moral, then it is your burden to prove, and you are obviously incapable of doing that. The only evidence is on the subjectivists side.

[seer]

Simply these cultural differences are cultural differences and not remotely associated with the Law of non-contradiction. The diversity in the cultures of the world do not represent absurd contradictions. Something like I eat brown rice and another may eat white bread. simply things that are different are simply different.

You are making my point, you are now comparing ethics to personal tastes. Which reduces moral reasoning to meaninglessness. It is meaningful that you prefer brown rice to white bread? Again, there is not, nor can there be, any correct answer to moral questions. Which answer is correct - to prefer white bread or to prefer brown rice.

And again: But you don't believe that do you Shuny - there are correct ethical answers, whether you call it God's command or law or I call it God's moral law we both agree, at least in principle, that there are right answers. Objectively right.