An Infinite Past?

[shunyadragon]

Science functions by building upon existing empirically verified facts and adding to them and thus building up a solid, testable body of knowledge. It does not provide proof regarding the nature of reality. Science never provides absolute “proofs", but it does provide testable knowledge which corresponds to what we all experience as “reality”.

Conversely, so-called religious truth, which you put forward as the best way to understand reality, depends upon unsubstantiated divine revelation and alleged personal subjective experience. In short, a leap of faith.



Oh but you ARE claiming something; you frequently make the same unsubstantiated claim. E.g. post #1054: “…apart from the Christian worldview we could not know anything…But since the Christian world is true we can actually know things”.This is quite a claim. Support this repetitive bald assertion of yours with some actual solid evidence - you never do despite repeated requests. Personal testimony is not substantive evidence. You demand detailed evidence for the scientific worldview but exempt yourself from supporting your own empty claims.



“HOW DO YOU KNOW?”

Excellent post!!!!

[seer]

False, I did not say that.

Then make an argument, how do you know that the laws of logic or the uniformity of nature will hold in the future, or are universal. I will be waiting.

I never claimed you could claim 'all swans are white.' I made that clear before, and there is no analogy nor parallel in science for this ridiculous use of logic. These two line of reasoning are not equivalent. Science will only claim that the present observation of the color of the swans is such, and future observations may change our knowledge within the laws of non-contradiction and uniformity and consistence of natural laws and theories.

Right, and what applies to the swans applies to the laws of logic and the laws of nature. You can not know if the laws of nature/logic hold universally or if they will hold in the future. And the problem of induction Shuny is not ridiculous use of logic, it is well known problem and important. But heck, you didn't even know the difference between an inductive argument and a deductive argument. Again, sad...

And BTW - show me exactly how I have begged the question in the above points. I will be waiting.

[seer]

The only one pretending here is you seer and that is because you have no evidence to back up your assertion of an objective standard of morality other than your equally nonsensical assertion that life without one is meaningless.

Well Jim, you have yet to show why your life actually has more meaning than a common house fly. Because you say so? LOL....

[shunyadragon]

Then make an argument, how do you know that the laws of logic or the uniformity of nature will hold in the future, or are universal. I will be waiting.

Well. Rip Van Winkle, you will be waiting a long time, after Tassman, JimL and, I gave you more then adequate explanations many, many times. Your presuppositional view would up front reject any other possible explanation as you asserted, begging the question in the following post.

post #1054: “. . . apart from the Christian worldview we could not know anything…But since the Christian world is true we can actually know things”.

. . . as brought to your attention by Tassman, and you have failed to respond to.

Right,

Wrong!!

. . . and what applies to the swans applies to the laws of logic and the laws of nature. You can not know if the laws of nature/logic hold universally or if they will hold in the future. And the problem of induction Shuny is not ridiculous use of logic, it is well known problem and important. But heck, you didn't even know the difference between an inductive argument and a deductive argument. Again, sad...

What is doubly sad is you made the simplistic false statement claiming LOL that the laws of logic and laws of nature must follow this foolishness, and the foolish statement that science uses inductive not deductive methods. In reality they use both most often in combination in developing hypothesis and theories to tested and falsified.

A false inductive argument absolutely does not represent inductive logic nor the laws of nature, nor how science works. In fact it has nothing to do with science. Science would approach the swan color problem with both deductive and inductive scientific approaches and not a false inductive simplistic argument you present, which when taken to its conclusions would conclude that all inductive arguments are false. Science would never make foolish absolute conclusive conclusions such as you propose. I gave an alternative, which you failed to recognize where science would test a hypothesis on the natural assumption on the possible colors of swans. A 'top down' (deductive) assumption would be made that swan color would fit the natural laws of the possible colors that may occur based possibly on genetics, and the results would be in conformity to the Law of non-contradiction. Scientists would never assume that 'All swans could possibly be white,' based on a limited sample size. Simple knowledge in genetics teaches there is always a potential of a variation in characteristics, such as color, when proposing such a hypothesis. Therefore making 'top down' assumptions would be a part of most research in science to test hypothesis and theories.

And BTW - show me exactly how I have begged the question in the above points. I will be waiting.

Your foundation presuppositional argument in the Van Til's tradition 'Begs the Question' big time, and which you later denied when pressed. As you previously reinforced saying the foundation presupposition is not a logical argument, which Van Til would agree. By that statement it Begs the Question by definition, because the statement of belief stands alone as the conclusion.

Oh but you ARE claiming something; you frequently make the same unsubstantiated claim. E.g. post #1054: “…apart from the Christian worldview we could not know anything…But since the Christian world is true we can actually know things”.This is quite a claim. Support this repetitive bald assertion of yours with some actual solid evidence - you never do despite repeated requests. Personal testimony is not substantive evidence. You demand detailed evidence for the scientific worldview but exempt yourself from supporting your own empty claims.

[seer]

What is doubly sad is you made the simplistic false statement claiming LOL that the laws of logic and laws of nature must follow this foolishness, and the foolish statement that science uses inductive not deductive methods. In reality they use both most often in combination in developing hypothesis and theories to tested and falsified.

This is simple Shuny, so please try to stay on the subject. My only point has been that you can not argue from particulars to the universal. You can not know if the laws of nature/logic hold universally or if they will hold in the future, just because they hold in our limited experience. So instead of regaling us with reams of useless verbiage tell me exactly where I am off or how you know that laws of nature/logic hold universally or if they will hold in the future.

[shunyadragon]

This is simple Shuny, so please try to stay on the subject. My only point has been that you can not argue from particulars to the universal. You can not know if the laws of nature/logic hold universally or if they will hold in the future, just because they hold in our limited experience. So instead of regaling us with reams of useless verbiage tell me exactly where I am off or how you know that laws of nature/logic hold universally or if they will hold in the future.

First your presuppositional assertion

“ . . . apart from the Christian worldview we could not know anything…But since the Christian world is true we can actually know things”.[/quote] is not a logical argument and rejects all other possible logical arguments, because as you believe 'apart from the Christian worldview we could not now anything"

It is not the only point of the argument, You have not given a logical reason why science cannot argue from the particulars to the universal, because as a fact they have a 100% accurate record of doing so.

Then make an argument, how do you know that the laws of logic or the uniformity of nature will hold in the future, or are universal. I will be waiting.
Well. Rip Van Winkle, you will be waiting a long time, after Tassman, JimL and, I gave you more then adequate explanations many, many times. Your presuppositional view would up front reject any other possible explanation as you asserted, begging the question in the following post.

post #1054: “. . . apart from the Christian worldview we could not know anything…But since the Christian world is true we can actually know things”

. . . as brought to your attention by Tassman, and you have failed to respond to.

. . . and what applies to the swans applies to the laws of logic and the laws of nature. You can not know if the laws of nature/logic hold universally or if they will hold in the future. And the problem of induction Shuny is not ridiculous use of logic, it is well known problem and important. But heck, you didn't even know the difference between an inductive argument and a deductive argument. Again, sad...

What is doubly sad is you made the simplistic false statement claiming LOL that the laws of logic and laws of nature must follow this foolishness, and the foolish statement that science uses inductive not deductive methods. In reality they use both most often in combination in developing hypothesis and theories to tested and falsified.

A false inductive argument absolutely does not represent inductive logic nor the laws of nature, nor how science works. In fact it has nothing to do with science. Science would approach the swan color problem with both deductive and inductive scientific approaches and not a false inductive simplistic argument you present, which when taken to its conclusions would conclude that all inductive arguments are false. Science would never make foolish absolute conclusive conclusions such as you propose. I gave an alternative, which you failed to recognize where science would test a hypothesis on the natural assumption on the possible colors of swans. A 'top down' (deductive) assumption would be made that swan color would fit the natural laws of the possible colors that may occur based possibly on genetics, and the results would be in conformity to the Law of non-contradiction. Scientists would never assume that 'All swans could possibly be white,' based on a limited sample size. Simple knowledge in genetics teaches there is always a potential of a variation in characteristics, such as color, when proposing such a hypothesis. Therefore making 'top down' assumptions would be a part of most research in science to test hypothesis and theories.

And BTW - show me exactly how I have begged the question in the above points. I will be waiting.

Your foundation presuppositional argument in the Van Til's tradition 'Begs the Question' big time, and which you later denied when pressed. As you previously reinforced saying the foundation presupposition is not a logical argument, which Van Til would agree. By that statement it Begs the Question by definition, because the statement of belief stands alone as the conclusion.

Oh but you ARE claiming something; you frequently make the same unsubstantiated claim. E.g. post #1054: “…apart from the Christian worldview we could not know anything…But since the Christian world is true we can actually know things”.This is quite a claim. Support this repetitive bald assertion of yours with some actual solid evidence - you never do despite repeated requests. Personal testimony is not substantive evidence. You demand detailed evidence for the scientific worldview but exempt yourself from supporting your own empty claims.

The only reason you are arguing this is simply the presuppositional assumption you made in post #1054, which is a stone wall that has no possible logical answer.

“ . . . apart from the Christian worldview we could not know anything…But since the Christian world is true we can actually know things”.

[JimL]

Well Jim, you have yet to show why your life actually has more meaning than a common house fly. Because you say so? LOL....

Then why would you still want to live if it turned out that you were naught but a biological accident of nature? Why seer?

[Tassman]

Well Jim, you have yet to show why your life actually has more meaning than a common house fly. Because you say so? LOL....

your man-made God all that gives your life meaning; cannot life have any meaning on its own terms?

[Tassman]

This is simple Shuny, so please try to stay on the subject. My only point has been that you can not argue from particulars to the universal.

Of course you can; science does it all the time.

You can not know if the laws of nature/logic hold universally or if they will hold in the future, just because they hold in our limited experience. So instead of regaling us with reams of useless verbiage tell me exactly where I am off or how you know that laws of nature/logic hold universally or if they will hold in the future.

Science doesn't claim to know that the laws and constants of nature hold true universally and always will. So, as usual, your argument is a strawman.

Scientific theories are always by definition falsifiable. E.g. the speed of light, which is believed to be constant and unchanging over time, could be readily falsified by any variations of speed being detected. But it has been verified to date and probably always will be.

The same is true of all constants and laws so far discovered in nature. They do not seem to change over time and they also appear to exist throughout the universe. Hence, the principle of uniformity in nature has been verified so far.

In short there is considerable verified evidence supporting the laws and constants of nature as opposed to your worldview that HOW do you know? Please explain.

[seer]

First your presuppositional assertion

It is not the only point of the argument, You have not given a logical reason why science cannot argue from the particulars to the universal, because as a fact they have a 100% accurate record of doing so.

Shuny, you are all over the map, let's focus on one point at a time, then we can move on. Are you saying that science knows that laws of nature/logic hold universally or that they will hold in the future?

Look, if not for you, for the readers.

1.100% of all the swans observed (particulars) are white, therefore all swans are white (universal).

2.100% of the time in our experience (particulars) the laws of logic/ nature hold, therefore the laws of logic/nature always hold, everywhere, at all times (universal).

The second claim is just as irrational as the first. Both universals are unknowable. Or why is the second claim valid while the first is not?

[seer]

Then why would you still want to live if it turned out that you were naught but a biological accident of nature? Why seer?

I didn't say I wouldn't want to live. Just like the house flies wants to live - but we know what we do to them.

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=seer;106267]Shuny, you are all over the map, let's focus on one point at a time, then we can move on. Are you saying that science knows that laws of nature/logic hold universally or that they will hold in the future?

Look, if not for you, for the readers.

1.100% of all the swans observed (particulars) are white, therefore all swans are white (universal). ;/quote]

False analogy, no relationship to how science works.

2.100% of the time in our experience (particulars) the laws of logic/ nature hold, therefore the laws of logic/nature always hold, everywhere, at all times (universal).

True

The second claim is just as irrational as the first. Both universals are unknowable. Or why is the second claim valid while the first is not?

The second is not related to the first. The first claim is foolishly false. and not remotely related to how science works.

I am not all over the map. There is one very specific problem with your world view that represents a stone wall against any other possible logical argument.

“ . . . apart from the Christian worldview we could not know anything…But since the Christian world is true we can actually know things”.

[seer]

Look, if not for you, for the readers.

1.100% of all the swans observed (particulars) are white, therefore all swans are white (universal). ;/quote]

False analogy, no relationship to how science works.

The second is not related to the first. The first claim is foolishly false. and not remotely related to how science works.

I am not all over the map. There is one very specific problem with your world view that represents a stone wall against any other possible logical argument.

No Shuny, this is not only about science, it is about how any of us can know universals. There is no difference between the two examples, it is just as irrational to argue from particulars to universals in example one as in example two. The problem of induction applies to all disciplines including science. This is obvious to any one without an agenda. This is also in the fact that you have not answered the most basis question - how do you/we know (with our limited experience) that the laws of nature/logic are universal and will remain so in the future.

http://www.ditext.com/russell/rus6.html

[shunyadragon]

No Shuny, this is not only about science, it is about how any of us can know universals. There is no difference between the two examples, it is just as irrational to argue from particulars to universals in example one as in example two. The problem of induction applies to all disciplines including science. This is obvious to any one without an agenda. This is also in the fact that you have not answered the most basis question - how do you/we know (with our limited experience) that the laws of nature/logic are universal and will remain so in the future.

http://www.ditext.com/russell/rus6.html

No, one foolish false swan thingie means nothing in your argument, because presuppositional view.

You consider all other world views as irrational, so what?

[JimL]

I didn't say I wouldn't want to live. Just like the house flies wants to live - but we know what we do to them.

I know that you didn't say that seer, that is why i didn't ask you that. What i asked is that if, as you contend, life is meaningless if you are naught but a biological accident of nature, then why, what would be your reasons, for wanting to live?