Thanks for your post Darkhorse (and I dont't mean the Fonzie one ) Nice to see you again as it were and what an interesting and thought provoking analysis you make. I for one find it illuminating and fascinating and I find myself agreeing with a lot of it's content. In my rather clumsy way I have been trying to simply question the validity in stating any kind absolute, no matter where it came from. I simply proposed to show that belief is quite different from truth. One thing that I cannot reconcile however is the tone of your post to a degree, where it seems to denigrate science because in some way people who place faith in it ( and I do not mean in the context of religious faith) are faulty in their logic.I get the distinct feeling that you are using as an argument, that because science is flawed, in some way demonstrates the existence of a deity. Also is evident to me where you say the thread effectively demonstrates Aquinas' folly. ' It is easy to use flawed logic in defense of perceived truth (Aquinas did this very thing).' My only point is if that is goes for science philosophy and indeed thought process itself, then equally it goes for religion, faith beliefs, or one's own God. Anyway as the Fonze would say......... heeeeeeyyyyyyy
<a href="http://www.giveusahome.co.uk/australian/frilled_pics.htm"> <img src="http://www.giveusahome.co.uk/australian/frilled/photo2.JPG"></img></a>
Stu: I believe that the universe has a wholly rational and logical framework, and that God is the lynchpin of that framework. In that sense, I am like the physicist seeking the grand unification theory that lets it all hang together- except I no longer seek, I have found. So I don't question the validity of science, merely the boundaries of science. If we are going to set out on a quest to discover the true nature of reality, and we are going to use wisdom and inference to make connections along the way, why stop with the temporal and the physical? While many choose to content themselves with examining the here and now, I prefer to go that last mile p.s. i guess i can sum up by saying science is not so much flawed as insufficient. it goes a good way but does not get the job done. Partial understanding rather than full, the limits of a closed system prevent science from completing the circle.
This is perhaps where we part ways. i believe that philosophical inference has equal value to scientific inference. One is the mother of the other, and physical/temporal observation gets no special treatment in my book. trust is trust, observation is observation, consistency is consistency. if we are blind we are blind, if we can see we can see. In addition to this, I have the benefit of personal interaction with God, and have had the benefit of seeing my thesis tested and qualified internally thousands of times, in my own life and in others' lives, both of the faith and not of it. The depth and consistency of my real world experience has turned my faith from a strand of silk into an unbreakable steel cable (or perhaps a buckminsterfullerene cable, to make the analogy that much stronger).
that's fine, I respect your belief's. I only argue where you state them to be absolute truths. They are your truths and they are worthy for that alone, but they cannot be literally absolute.
unless my truths are too, and once defined.... everyone elses. For although I may not express my feeling as eloquently, I have been as far as you, I have experienced as you have. You don't hold the answer any more than I or others do. You are not meant to.
LOL I think we walked this road I am 100% certain that what I believe is true and true absolutely, I have no doubt of it. However, there is no need for you to be offended by my certainty if I am not beating you over the head with it, is there? I'm a messenger, not a thug or an assassin. Like the Kung Fu dude who only fights when necessary, I prefer peaceful and reasonable exchange, and try not to get down and dirty unless it's called for.