: : Ok Gideon as i see it science is based upon logical induction. e.g. -Newton's law of gravitation: 'All bodies attraxct each other in proportion to their masses and in inverse proportion to the square the distance between them'.: : What then is logical induction?
: : It is the infering from a good reason to a conclusion. Thus i might infer from the fact that the vegestables have been cooking for 1 hour that they have boiled dry. Although what we infer from here gives a good reason for what we infer to it is not conclusive. I may be cooking at altitude and as such water has a lower boiling point.
: (...which wouldn't alter the fact that they had boiled dry; it would merely mean that they had boiled dry faster than you had expected; the inferrance would still be correct.)
: : Similary Gotch's statement: "I did that earlier when I quoted from Romans that the invisible things of God are clearly seen from the visible things which are seen" is an inductive inference.
: But it is not a scientific statement because, although it is an inductive inference, it is never falsifiable.
Piper: YEP
: You can conceivably prove the pan to have not boiled dry; by looking at it.
: The theory that the world is flat is a scientific theory (a primitive one!); it is disproveable by examination of the physical evidence.
: Gotch's quotation of Romans can never be disproved by any reference to anything perceptible to humans; as such, it is faith in something that can never be deduced.
: It's induction, but not logical induction; logical induction is something that can be deduced from logical precepts, which are founded on observation of what appear to be the real world.
Piper: I think you are failing to recognise the importance of induction in the formation of logical precepts. But i think i had best ask you to explain yourself more fully, specifically what you consider to be a 'logical precept'.
: Faith is founded on the eternally unproveable; it is what Popper called 'non-sense'.
Piper: Ah yes, Popper i was wondering if he was going to be paying me a visit. Well science under Popper is negative knowledge and as such i could say that it too is eternally unproveable.
: : One might criticise this inference on the basis that it does not supply a good enough reason to draw such a conclusion. As such we could say that it is an inductively weak inference. Similary, with Newton's law, we could say that it is an inductively strong inference (we have good reasons for thinking it so).
: Quite true.
: : As regards deductive logic, well this could be used to prove some point of christianity.
: It can't. Logic cannot be used to define the alogical; and Christianity is alogical; it makes a point of saying so in the Nicene Creed.
Piper: But it can be used to deduce from first principles. Deduction does not create new knowledge, so such reasoning is internally consistant with the bible.
: : Say for instance if i have an 'unquestionable' text such as the bible, i could use this to deduce certain truths.
: No text is 'unquestionable'. Especially not one that has been translated through at least four languages.
Piper: That may be so, but most deduction has first premisses that are inherently dubious by the fact that they are inductive. e.g. 'All men are mortal'... is inductive even though it forms part of a valid deduction. But let me quote my source, Berty Russell:
"All important inferences outside logic and pure mathematics are inductive, not deductive; the only exceptions are law and theology each of which derives its first principles from an unquestionable text, viz the statute book or scriptures" (My 'argument from authority', heheheh).
: Any truths 'deduced' from the Bible are built on non-logical foundations; the act of refusing to question is the antithesis of logical proof.
: If you accept the Bible as infallible on its own authority, you are are effectively saying "The Bible is true because the Bible is true"; this is a logical conclusion, but not one that would stand up to a cursory logical exmaination, since it is basically predicated on an unproveable assertion (that the Bible is true).
Piper: Were not you the one Gideon who said that science was founded on unproveable assumptions (as is mathematics if memory serves- or was that geometry- clarification pls).
: You can build an entire logical framework on a religious belief, as Gotch and others appear to have done; but the foundation stone is ultimately not falsifiable and not logical; it is faith.
: : As regards science i fully accept that one cannot use this to prove the supernatural. It deals only with physical occurances.
: Logic is merely the mathematical abstraction of science; an attempt to build a self-consistent framework on the observed scientific world; the logical statement 1 + 1 = 2 is merely the abstraction of a physical perception.
Piper: I was under the impression Gideon that math was deductive whereas science is inductive. That the mathematical equation you have just stated is the absteraction of a physical perception seems to indicate to me that you eschew a priori knowledge. Yes?
: : As regards proof of the moon, well i regard this as different to scientific proof. What concerns us here is the proof of a heavenly body, not regularities. Now, if i could give it a good kick, i would offer that to you as proof of its existence, as i cannot i am afraid that my perceptual sensing of a moon will have to suffice.
: Kicking it still wouldn't provide 'proof' as such. All you could say would be that some things (let's call them neurons) had apparently engaged in an electrochemical reaction in something (let's call it your nervous system) and that this was the apparent result of you moving what appeared to be your foot on a collision course with what appeared to be the Moon.
Piper: Sorry Gideon, but i'm not a sceptic in such matters. As far as i am concerned the fact that i experienced the sensation of my foot colliding with the moon is enough to ground a belierf that i did in fact kick the moon. Indeed i would say i have more reason to doubt "some things (let's call them neurons) had apparently engaged in an electrochemical reaction in something (let's call it your nervous system) and that this was the apparent result of you moving what appeared to be your foot on a collision course with what appeared to be the Moon."
: Like I said, ultimately nothing is proveable; and we all take our own existence as implicitly 'real'.
Piper: I don't think this goes far enough, but let me ask you Gideon, do you think 'cogito ergo sum' *proves* your existence? (Or perhaps that should be mine...)
: Given that initial assumption (that our senses report accurately), the world of science proceeds solely on what can be demonstrated and falsified; and the world of faith proceeds ultimately on what cannot.
Piper: Not if you contend that mysticism reports accurately also.
: So you can't prove the Moon exists. You can't prove that *that* wall over there exists; all you have is the reportage of your senses. However, as I said, science and logic enable you to understand the apparent principles behind 'the wall' and enable you to use the wall to your benefit in everyday life.
Piper: I can use 'the wall' to my benefit in everyday science without the aid of science!
: Both Christians and non-Christians ultimately work on the basis that our senses report 'the real world' around us; but Christians make an additional assumption which can never be justified by using 'the real world' - or any physical object in the real world; including the Bible, the Earth and the Universe.
None.
