(lol, kuja, refreshing)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bnonn Jasper, you appear to think that I don't believe in the uniformity of nature. |
Actually, i got that impression, but when read things better, i posted the mistake. (see reply #91) It is very reasonable to have the uniformity axiom, because, as i pointed out, you actually use it all day.(#89) Why should i get a way stronger axiom for it, when this one explains what i need. (of course (some) axioms are to help explain what is going on, and are thus based on what is observed)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bnonn How can you say this if you haven't read it? Are you just believing it because you feel like it must be true? That is certainly not very rational. |
Frankly, i can tell from what people say based on it, and that the wording is so different from things i read that make sense, also no-one ever gives a good summary. Guess it is a hunch, really. Perhaps i should read it before saying it next time.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bnonn Justifiable and provable mean effectively the same thing. Something is rationally justified if it is rationally proven. How would you justify uniformity? |
Actually, not really, when people say an axiom/postulate is justifyable they do not mean provable. Making an axiom of the existence of a spaghetti monster is certainly less reasonable then the uniformity of physics axiom. I certainly would not try to prove uniformity by assuming the existence of a spaghetti monster that makes uniformity true. (this as been pointed out before by the way.)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bnonn In any case, my worldview is certainly not based on an assumption; it is based upon the work of God's Spirit in renewing my mind to know the truth of his word. |
Been over this.. You can rename it revelation, the 'work of God's Spirit in renewing my mind to know the truth' or whatever you want, but existence of god is still an assumption. And although circular reasoning is not inconsistent, it does not prove anything either.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bnonn As for the size of the universe, even if God had failed to mention why it is so big, what precisely is your argument? That because God has not revealed everything, he therefore cannot exist? I am confused. In any case, you spoke out of turn by presuming to know that the Bible does not comment on this, when in fact it says, saying, "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork" (Ps 19:1). The heavens are vast and beautiful to remind us of how infinite and magnificent God is. |
Presuming the existence of god, and assuming he wants me to believe in him, and that he will know we will learn about the size of the universe, he has to mention, because not mentioning so would be a counterargument against the bible.(and you said christians were supposedly rational in their belief) (because it would seem unlikely he would make the universe that large, just for humans.)
"the heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork" ... does not say anything about the actual size of the universe. Sounds like some dude totally unaware of the scales. The sentence after that, _you_ added.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bnonn We may have little in common in terms of our axioms, but we are nonetheless able to communicate, which fact presupposes at least logical laws in common between us. |
(#88)Even knowing it is based on math axioms, maybe none of us really know what logic is. That does not justify your claim on that this logic somehow belongs to god.