bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2023 2:04 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2023 1:50 am
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2023 11:00 am
No, mathematics is an abstract tool that allows us to formulate science.
Logic on the other hand allows us to obtain the truth based on premises in an argument, given the fact that the premises are true.
My point was, what human-based FSK can provide the most realistic truths other than the scientific FSK.
You agree mathematics is an abstract tool, thus cannot give truths that are realistic.
Yes.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2023 4:04 am
Logic is also a tool that provide a systematic approach to arrive at a conclusion.
If all the premises within logic are true, the conclusion is true but not necessary realistic.
That depends on what the premises are about. If the premises are about reality and they are shown to be true then the conclusion is true and necessary and it tells us something about reality.
If the premises are about reality, they have to be proven to be realistic in the first place.
The most credible, reliable and objectivity of reality is from the human-based scientific FSK.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2023 4:04 am
To assess the real_ness, we still need to rely on a human-based FSK of which the scientific-FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective.
So, what FSK is more credible, reliable and objective than science in terms of realistic truths?
Surely, it cannot be mathematics and logic as explained above?
Thus, at PRESENT, the scientific-FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective
Science is dealing with physical things.
Physical things do not exhaust everything.
If your 'physical' is related to Physicalism, note this;
Physicalism is closely related to materialism, and has evolved from materialism with advancements in the physical sciences in explaining observed phenomena. The terms "physicalism" and "materialism" are often used interchangeably, but can be distinguished based on their philosophical implications.
Physicalism encompasses: matter, but also energy, physical laws, space, time, structure, physical processes, information, state, and forces, among other things, as described by physics and other sciences, as part of the physical in a monistic sense.
From a physicalist perspective, even abstract concepts such as mathematics, morality, consciousness, intentionality, and meaning are considered physical entities, although they may consist of a large ontological object and a causally complex structure. Nevertheless, they are still considered physical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism
The above exhaust everything that is physical [as defined above] that is possible in reality [as-there-is].
If your "
Physical things do not exhaust everything" is not accounted for in the above, then, you are talking about impossible-to-be-real things, e.g. God, soul and the like.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2023 4:04 am
Here for example you trying to deduce from a definition (P1) and a premise (P2) which in your opinion is based on science-FSK a truth about the existence of God.
However, you are not careful about the fact that science is not dealing with the absolute so you cannot say something about the absolute from it.
Therefore, you need a separate argument to show that P2 is true.
- P1. For all theists, God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real.
P2. But, Absolute perfection is impossible to exists as real.
C1. Therefore it is impossible for God to exists real.
1. I have shown above that the scientific FSK is the
most credible, reliable and objective in enabling realistic truths, i.e. to confirm what is really-real.
2. It is impossible for science to deal with the absolute [e.g. God].
3. Therefore, it is impossible for the absolute perfect God to be real [scientifically].
Again, given the fact that science cannot deal with absolute entities then your second premise does not follow. You need a separate argument for P2 to show that it is true.
Note my point above;
If your "
Physical things do not exhaust everything" is not accounted for in the above, then, you are talking about impossible-to-be-real things, e.g. God, soul and the like.
Because the scientific FSK covering all of reality, is the most credible, reliable and objective to confirm reality, any thing claimed to be beyond the ambit of the scientific FSK is impossible to be real.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 3:02 am
Considering the fact that there is no correct argument for the existence of God, whether in favor or against, one can only strive on scriptures to gain some knowledge about the existence of God. One however should be critical about what is written in scriptures since apparently there are conflicts between them.
Theists claim God exists solely based on faith [no proofs] which cannot be scientific [empirical].
Since the scientific FSK is the only basis to assess the truths that are real,
it is impossible for God [faith-based] to exists as real [empirically].
Again, what you are going to do when you do not have an argument in favor or against something?
My
principle;
Whatever is claimed to exists as real, is a fact, true, knowledge and objective is conditioned upon a
human based FSR-FSK.
note 'human-based].
All arguments can be framed within a FSR-FSK. The scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective.
IF a claim cannot be framed within a FSR-FSK, then we should remain silent on it till eternity.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 3:02 am
Whatever knowledge that can be obtained from communicating with spiritual beings.
How credible are such knowledge?
To assess how credible, reliable and objective in terms of reality, any truth claims will need to be compared with the Standard, which is the scientific FSK.
I have argued elsewhere, if the science FSK [empirical] is rated as a standard at 100/100 reality and objectivity, theism which is based on faith, would be rated at 0.01/100.
For the typical spirituality based on "spirits", at most it will be rated at 1/100.
These percentages are mostly claims. I would like to mention that science at the current level, the standard model, is not complete yet since it suffers from anomalies.
Yes, the scientific-FSK when deliberated rationally has loads of weaknesses, limitations, can be abused.
As Popper had stated, scientific truths at best are mere
polished conjectures [hypothesis].
Who would deny the above?
But as I had said, despite its weaknesses and limitations, the scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable, and objective among all other FSKs.
You have not answers what other FSKs is better than the scientific-FSK, other than stating mathematics and logic which are not relevant to the point.
In this case, we have to accept the scientific-FSK enable the best sense of what-is-real since there is no other better.
To insist there is something beyond what the scientific-FSK is supposed to cover [nb: Physicalism above] is jumping into the no-man's-land of illusion and thus delusional.
Nevertheless, even if what is beyond science is impossible, it can still be thought in mind as an illusion, albeit a useful illusion.
The above percentages are meant to be rough relative comparisons not of exact precisions.
When the scientific-FSK based on the
empirical is the standard 100/100, then theism based on
faith [unprovable] must be at the other end of the spectrum.
Would you insist theism has the same or near credibility, reliability and objectivity to that of science?
The economic FSK with its economic facts can be rated at around 80/100, the legal facts, say 60/100, and so on.
