Quote from: af_newbie on April 29, 2018, 03:43:52 PM

Quote from: CoinCube on April 29, 2018, 03:29:12 PM

Quote from: af_newbie on April 29, 2018, 01:29:52 PM

We already have a scientific method that allows us to discover objective truths.

Indeed the scientific method is a wonderful thing. What you fail to appreciate, however, is that the scientific method also rests upon unprovable assumptions.

Its discoveries are not absolute but conditional truths and dependent the fundamental a priori assumptions of science.

What are these assumptions? I highlighted several of them in a recent post.

Quote from: CoinCube on February 26, 2018, 06:53:21 PM

Metaphysical Foundation of Science:

✧ The external world is real and knowable.
✧ Nature itself is not divine. It is an object worthy of study, not worship.
✧ The universe is orderly. There is uniformity in nature that allows us to observe past phenomena and to understand and predict future occurrences.
✧ Our minds and senses are capable of accurately observing and understanding the world.

These assumed truths are so deeply ingrained in us now we have difficulty even recognizing them as assumptions but they are necessary for science to exist.

If you don't believe the assumptions science becomes impossible for you. The progress and maintenance of scientific achievement requires that these assumptions be accepted and propagated at least by an educated elite.

The same situation applies to the apriori Truth of God which rests at the foundation of western culture. Undermine the assumption and the whole society starts to wobble.

This is what Nietzsche foresaw when he announced "God is dead" in 1882. Nietzsche predicted drastic consequences as a result. He predicted millions would die in the 20th century in wars of extremist ideologies. Peterson describes these ideologies as parasites that act on a damaged religious substructure.

Nietzsche also predicted that it would not be until the 21st century that we would be forced to acknowledge the crisis of nihilism. These predictions given in 1882 are an intellectual tour de force.

Believing blindly without contemplation still works for some but that blanket of protection is gradually being pulled away. Going forward it will increasingly be necessary to fully define oneself down to your core metaphysical truths. Unless you can look into the abyss of nihilism and reject it with certainty the abyss will sooner or later pull you in.

The rest of your comments indicate to me that you simply do not follow my arguments so I see little point in proceeding much further.

I challenge your position as ultimately illogical and untrue. You have leveled the same charge at me. I have laid out my logic and reasoning for you in some detail and you have forcefully stated your beliefs.

At this point we will have to let the readers of this thread decide for themselves.

You are right. I do not share the same "metaphysical, assumed truths" you listed above. Didn't the universe start with an explosion? - We don't know that the universe started with an explosion. No proof for it. No scientific proof for it. All the evidence can be applied to other things better, just like evolution evidence can be applied to other things better than it can be applied to evolution.

No offence, but I think you are losing your mind injecting these metaphysical "truths" into your logic. - Metaphysics is simply way beyond us, scientifically, at present. There is science that is examining it and getting some answers.

Philosophy is not science and as such it is not a good field for exploring and learning about the universe. - Philosophy often is the examination of the sciences that are way beyond what we scientifically know at present. We "feel" some of the greater and deeper science. Philosophy tries to examine it without our science, because our science is so far behind, but we want answers anyway, so we philosophize.

Take care.