This will be my lost post on your page, I appreciate you sharing your views with me and the reasonable tone the conversation has taken. I won't take up any more space on your page, except to say farewell and thanks for the spirited exchange.
@AuxentiusZ "This will be my lost post on your page, I appreciate you sharing your views with me and the reasonable tone the conversation has taken"
Thanks for stopping by. I am, however, a little disappointed that you neglected to answer my question: how can you be certain that knowledge requires certainty. I'm not saying a good answer doesn't exist, but I've yet to hear one.
The problem with denying that the bible is an axiom, or any other religious text as axiom, is that it assumes omniscience. That is, unless you're omniscient, you cannot possibly know what exists or not. In order to be logical then, to deny omniscience is to be omniscient, because only an omniscient Being would know that for certain. Thus, from that reasoning, it becomes self evident that denying omniscience is to claim it, and this is the axiomatic claim that omniscience exists.
@AuxentiusZ "That is, unless you're omniscient, you cannot possibly know what exists or not."
Know with certainty? Of course not. However, I don't believe that absolute certainty is a requirement of knowledge. We know all kinds of things for which we cannot be certain (e.g. water freezes at 32 degrees F). Knowledge then becomes equivalent to justified true belief. We can know things beyond reasonable doubt with no omniscience required.
@crazypills2 "Reasonable doubt" could still quite reasonably exist. Solipsism is based on that reasonable doubt, in fact. My point was, you don't have knowledge (any certainty) you have only a list of subjective experiences, which may or may not match anything real. If indeed there is anything real. e.g. Esse est Percipi. That's the heart of the axiom. Only an axiom that begins with the premise that there is an omniscient being can maintain any logical consistency.
@AuxentiusZ " 'Reasonable doubt' could still quite reasonably exist."
Yes it could, but perhaps you and I define it differently. To have knowledge of something, all doubt must not be extinguished, as such a thing is impossible---only reasonable doubt. To do this, we employ critical thinking which is basically the scientific method for everyone. I 'know' that fairies don't exist. And I don't know this because of absolute certainty.
@crazypills2 I think we do define knowledge differently. Knowledge, as I define it, is knowing an objective fact. The only being that could know an objective fact, is an omniscient being. By starting with the assumption of omniscience, we can then state we have knowledge in the absolute sense. Anything less is not knowledge, but subjective opinion. Because subjectivity is incapable of objectivity by defition, it wouldn't make sense to pass judgment on any experience. Slippery slope.
@AuxentiusZ "Knowledge, as I define it, is knowing an objective fact "
But how can you be sure that the "objective fact" is true? I'm not sure dogma ultimately helps you here, as it may give you only a false sense of objectivity.
If the fact/premise about which you are dogmatic is wrong, then you have no guarantee of a true conclusion. Validity of an argument doesn't offer much if the premises are false. Check out my video entitled "Truth and unsound arguments" - watch?v=QSByNgCtIhg
@crazypills2 That's the thing, you cannot know whether objectivity exists without first postulating an objective being exists. That's why it's an axiom, to deny the axiom is to create a self-refuting cycle. "I know the axiom is false because that's not knowable." If knowledge is subjective, it would be illogical to turn and say subjectivity is objective, another contradiction in terms. That is why omniscience is the only means to avoid these arguments that inherently contradicts themselves.
@AuxentiusZ "That's the thing, you cannot know whether objectivity exists without first postulating an objective being exists"
You can postulate that fairies exist because you read Peter Pan, but that doesn't mean they do. If you don't have confirming evidence for what you believe, then I assert you cannot be certain of it anyway. Faith in something doesn't make it so.
@crazypills2 That is quite true, but also quite aside from the point. An axiom is an unprovable but logically consistant premise. My point is, by rejecting omniscience, you are left with axioms that are absolutely self refuting. Evidence assumes an axiom can provide some, it can't. Axioms are the starting point, logic and evidence only occur after the axiom is stated. That is why atheism and agnosticism are self refuting starting points.
@AuxentiusZ "My point is, by rejecting omniscience, you are left with axioms that are absolutely self refuting."
Really? I assert there are only a few number of true axioms, such as existence exists. This doesn't require omniscience and is in no way self refuting. Conversely, it's denial is self-refuting -- that's what makes it an axiom.
@AuxentiusZ "Axioms are the starting point, logic and evidence only occur after the axiom is stated."
Ok, but if the 'axiom' is false, then a true conclusion isn't guaranteed. Additionally, I believe I can show that "scripture is the inspired, inerrant word of god" is a false 'axiom'. How can I do this? Through its internal contradictions. The law of non contradiction would indicate it can't be an axiom. And, one would be unwise to dogmatically accept it when evidence shows otherwise.
@AuxentiusZ "That is why atheism and agnosticism are self refuting starting points."
Well, I look at it this way --- atheists and agnostics are willing to openly admit that they deduce from uncertainty. However, when I ask a christian how he/she can be certain that the bible is the word of god and not the qur'an, he/she really can't answer the question. So, I assert that they to deduce from uncertainty, but are just unwilling to admit it.
@crazypills2 Very true. One cannot present any evidence to suggest one above the other, because both are axiomatic in nature. We cannot know what God has revealed or not based on our subjective knowledge, or know that God exists. Only an objective Being can know such a thing, and by nature it requires we take his/her/it's word as presumed true. Deductions made from observation are invalid to the true nature of reality because we are making the deductions that are factually incomplete.
@AuxentiusZ " Deductions made from observation are invalid to the true nature of reality because we are making the deductions that are factually incomplete."
I agree that our understanding of nature is incomplete. But even based on our incomplete understanding of gravity, would I be incorrect deducting that should I jump up that I will come down? I think you underestimate the amount of evidence we have that make things almost certain.
@crazypills2 "Almost certain" though is not thoroughly certain. I think we're both pretty confident that gravity applies to us. The question is why? The theist can say it's true because God revealed the constant nature of the laws of the universe. Atheists have the same belief in the absolute nature of the universe, but cannot account for why they do.
@AuxentiusZ ""Almost certain" though is not thoroughly certain. "
Ok, but simply stating something is certain in spite of disconfirming evidence doesn't make it certain either. Just because someone is dogmatic regarding something doesn't help him/her deduce true conclusions. Perhaps upon reading Peter Pan my son says that fairies exist. Even if he believes this with all of his heart and takes it as his 'axiom', does it make his deduction more sound?
@AuxentiusZ " I think we're both pretty confident that gravity applies to us"
Why? I mean we can't be 100% certain of it, right? Next time we jump, perhaps we should keep in mind that we might actually never come down. Isn't that the more reasonable position?
"Atheists have the same belief in the absolute nature of the universe, but cannot account for why they do."
We can't account for for everything, but having an answer that may be wrong doesn't help us understand the truth.
@crazypills2 If the atheist worldview is accepted, then not only is it impossible to understand the truth, it's impossible to know if truth even exists. All of us think in terms of objective truths and the question is which worldview, atheism or theism, can account for why this is the case? Atheism presupposes a total lack of objective knowledge, and so cannot by nature make any objective truth claims. A position that starts with ignorance cannot magically transform itself into knowledge.
@AuxentiusZ "A position that starts with ignorance cannot magically transform itself into knowledge."
You assume that knowledge requires certainty. But we seem to know many things about which we cannot be certain (e.g. water freezes at 32 degrees F). So how can you be certain that knowledge requires certainty?
@crazypills2 The temperature at which water freezes though is a classical case of subjectivity. Seawater freezes at 28 degrees F. Pressure can also change the freezing point. That's not to say that there aren't well defined rules governing it, only that there are a huge number of variables involved in anything related to knowledge, perhaps far more than our mental horse power can keep pace with. That's why objective truth claims are pretty hard, unless you're axiomatically claiming omniscience.
@AuxentiusZ "The temperature at which water freezes though is a classical case of subjectivity."
Come on, this is anything but subjective. 'Variables' don't imply subjectivity. As you state, we have well-defined 'rules' for determining when water freezes. So, how is that subjective?
Is the speed that light travels in a vacuum subjective? If so, then why is it that everyone who has measured it comes to the exact same conclusion? Omniscience isn't required for this and I think you know it.
@crazypills2 How come everyone who has ever measured has come to the same conclusion? Not terribly surprising, since the tools we design to measure it were based on the same hardware, the human brain. The brain is ultimately responsible for our picture of the universe, and in the atheistic/agnostic worldview, it's the product of a long chain of mostly accidental events. If everything is uncertain, as you suggest, then you should not make any certain statements like "the bible is not an axiom!"
@crazypills2 You're reasonable, I'm sure I don't have to share with you the definition of "knowledge" but it is not, assuredly, "our best guess." It is something concretely knowable, and your worldview fundamentally undermines anything of the sort. That was my reason for calling you out on it, you seemed to be unaware that making absolute statements as though they were fact (i.e. the title of this video) are innately contradictory since you eschew certainty & knowledge in the absolute sense.
@AuxentiusZ "That's why objective truth claims are pretty hard, unless you're axiomatically claiming omniscience"
I'll say this one more time. If the axiom is false, then a true conclusion isn't guaranteed. And worse yet when the 'axiom' itself is self-refuting, as is the case for the inspiration of the bible. How can you claim objective truth when deduction is based on a false premise?
Now back to my question: how can you be certain that knowledge requires certainty?
@crazypills2 If the axiom is false? Attempt to prove it false. You cannot. Deduction and the like are only states of mind, they may or may not represent anything real. That's why assuming the universe is without an intelligent law maker is self-defeating, you remove the only thing that can possibly claim the universe is bound by laws. It's not merely that we say we require certainty, our whole thought process depends on it. Theism accounts for that, atheism starts with ignorance and ends there.
Which axiom? The bible is the inspired word of God? Well, I can disprove this quite easily. Simply watch one of my videos on the contradictions in scripture. If something is internally inconsistent, it is false. I'm sure you know that.
@crazypills2 I'm sure you know that these "contradictions" have been aptly explained, since you appear to be interested in the subject. I think it's odd that you'd use reason against the bible when you cannot be certain it (reason) will yield truthful results.
@AuxentiusZ " I think it's odd that you'd use reason against the bible when you cannot be certain it (reason) will yield truthful results."
I 'know' that self-contradiction is a death blow to an axiom. And, these 'contradictions' in scripture have not been 'aptly' addressed. They are not the most reasonable explanation. If you're interested in arguing the subject, view my video "Scripture Interprets Scripture?" I'd be happy to hear your harmonization and why it's the most reasonable to accept.
While I agree with you; it's important to remember that youtube is to intellectual debate as Hungry Hungry Hippos is to fine dining. If you can get someone to admit they were wrong and you have a good point between alleged grown adults calling you a fag or wishing you luck in hell then be my guest.
Lol.. i love it, if something doesn't make sense, don't pretend that it does... things like evolution, but lots of people believe it makes sense... hey i would like to see some videos about Buda, or another religions...
OK OK GREAT TO KNOW. YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE BIBLE IS AN AXIOM, GREAT NO ONE CARES HAVE FUN IN HELL DUE TO YOUR LACK OF FAITH YOU FREAKIN ATHEIST. IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE YOU DONT HAVE TO BELIEVE SO GO BITCH ABOUT RELIGION SOMEWHERE ELSE.
Okay then. I admit defeat. Gravity is not an axiom. I agree with you. I should have just shut up about that a long time ago lol. Who said the bible is an axiom anyways? I'm a Christian and still don't believe that it is...
@jordankriese "True. However, the same can be said for gravity."
You obviously don't understand. In order for me to deny my existence, I must first accept it. In other words, how could I deny existence unless I existed. This isn't the same for gravity. I am under no obligation to accept it in order to deny it. Therefore, gravity is not an axiom.
Sidenote : I would most definitely like to state that ( even though we do not believe the same theories ) you are a very intelligent man. I admire your intelligence and hope to obtain such knowledge in the future.
@jordankriese "The fact of the matter is that if one person is to believe in the string theory, axioms cannot exist, as there is no "universally recognized" truth"
I still don't see the connection between axioms and string theory. I personally believe that there are only three axioms: existence, consciousness, and identity. The reason these are axioms is that you are unable to deny them without first accepting them.
The contact speed and rotation resulting from the given elements and their colliding with other elements ( remember : distance from sun is in direct relation with velocity, not mass ) had caused them to rotate in any given direction, not gravity.
Furthermore, I would like to continue by saying that gravity is a constant no matter what element one chooses. So no elements would need to rotate any faster than another. All orbits are in a specific place depending on ones velocity, not ones mass. In conclusion, when these elements had made contact with one another in the solar system,
He should have referred to the sun in our solar system. Because due to the belief that "heavier elements" found on planets in our solar system had indeed come from our sun, and not other stars ( because if it had not, then gravity itself would have taken these elements into the sun ) one would say that the way in which these elements had been rotating around the sun, and in it's axes would have been relative to the sun and not the universe.
Yes, I would most definitely take the above statements as true, however, the fact given by this creationist scientist is faulty (the creationist in the video). He should not have referred to the universe prior to the "big bang" even though one could say that having such a singularity would cause time to be nonexistant, --->
I watched this creation astrology propaganda debunked. Still very skeptical. "other heavier elements were created after the first generation of stars were formed". So these elements had been brought about by the fission and fusion of atoms that come from hydrogen and helium. Fair. Not going to disagree with that. More comments to come:
That has everything to do with what we are talking about. Particles have mass, gravity inflicts force on mass, light has properties of particles. What's not to understand?
I don't understand what this has to do with your statement that gravity is an axiom or that string theory was created to address an improbable universe.
If at all possible to have two planets rotating on their axes in opposite directions, prove it to be so. Until then, it is seen not as "improbable", but impossible.
@jordankriese "If at all possible to have two planets rotating on their axes in opposite directions, prove it to be so."
Good request, although I wouldn't use the word prove. AndromedasWake did a series entitled "Creation Astronomy Propaganda Debunked," where he addressed this issue in one of them. I suggest you watch them.
Science had also proven that light has the properties of not just waves, but particles as well. Mass reacts to the force of gravity. If light does indeed have the properties of both waves and particles, is it at all possible that light may have a mass?
@jordankriese "If light does indeed have the properties of both waves and particles, is it at all possible that light may have a mass?"
Light is affected by gravity (it bends), but what does this have to do with what we are talking about. I'm waiting for your argument, but I seem to be getting only disjointed statements.
And I would rather point to things such as the conservation of angular momentum and the impossibility of having two planets in our solar system rotating on their axes in opposite directions than that of the rest of the solar system.
@jordankriese "And I would rather point to things such as the conservation of angular momentum and the impossibility of having two planets in our solar system rotating on their axes in opposite directions than that of the rest of the solar system"
Ok, this is the "fine tuned universe" argument. But just because something has a low probability doesn't mean it is false. This is the cognative bias of underestimating the improbable.
Okay. What historical evidence would you point to that states the foundations of the string theory? I can say that I "believe" that this concept was created because of the infinitely insignificant probability of the universe being exactly as is (examples would be Gravitational constant, or polarity of water). Does your "belief" make your statement true?
By the dictionarys definition of an axiom, the ONLY axioms that exist in our dimensions are constants (such as gravity). Do you believe that there are just 4 dimensions? 10? If one is to believe that there are just 4 dimensions, then one must believe that the odds of the bible prophecy being incorrect, apes evolving into humans, so on so forth...are quite astounding. It is safe to assume that you DO believe there are more than 4 dimensions...believing that this is true, NOTHING is an axiom.
An axiom is a self-evident truth. Gravity is not self evident. It is not intuitively obvious that gravity causes light to bend.
Some have loosely used the word axiom to describe things such as Euclid's postulates. However, his "axioms" aren't even applicable in a 4 dimensional universe, as it is not possible to draw a straight line from every two points.
A conservative definition is that it is a self-evident truth whose denial is self-refuting.
@crazypills2 : Supposing scientists are indeed correct, there are not 4 dimensions, there are 10. 3 dimensions of space, 3 dimensions of time, 3 dimensions of infinite (single universe) and one dimension of infinite infinities (multiverse). This THEORY was brought up based upon the idea that the probability of this universe existing as it exists presently (based upon natural properties) is...well...very very small.
M-theory actually predicts 11 dimensions, but I digress. And, I don't believe string theory was created as a result of the low probability of our universe existing as it does. I believe it was accidentally discovered when a student was examining an equation of the weak nuclear force.
I'm still not sure I understand your question or point. If you are suggesting that a low probability disproves something, then you are wrong.
Yes, I can see that problem. I have been struggling with the definitions myself. In mathematics, any statement can be seen as an axiom, although there is a consensus which is basically ZFC.
In my theoretical physics lectures I find the definition:
"An axiom is a statement, which is not provable within the theory; however it must not contradict experimental results." (Which, clearly excludes the bible =) )
I guess the "self-evident" part would be a philosophical approach.
Sorry, my mistake. I remembered you talked about Euclid and relativity and I thought about the parallel axiom (I believe Gauß was motivated by the parallel axiom to come up with differential geometry, a core aspect of GRT).
Now, I agree that Euclids axioms do not apply in non-Euclidean-spaces (hence the same). However, they still apply in real vectorspaces with a standard inner product. Then again, Euclid didn't use the word axiom like we now do (Hilbert).
"So, axioms require no justification by your definition? If not, then how can they be self-evident? "
I didn't say they would require to be self-evident. On a philosophical level one might want such things to apply, but this does not hold up on a practical level. For example Maxwell's equations are not 'self-evident', however true any reasoning deducted from them can be shown to be, or did you look at "ε_0*divE=ρ" and say "Well, obviously!"? Because I sure didn't. Same thing with ZFC.
Finally, "existence exists" is not an axiom, it's simply circular reasoning. You exist, thus you are able to ponder the existence of existence. However, "existence" includes you, so the answer is already given; in logical terms it is basically trying to deny this: "A=B ⇒ A=B". In other words, you would have to argue that "A=B ⇒ A≠B".
What I'm trying to say is: those statements can't qualify as axioms because they don't contain anything.
Neither of them require any self-refuting reasoning to deny them. Indeed, the axiom of choice is not accepted by quite a few mathematicians because of some of the "nasty" consequences it actually has. Is Newton's F=d/dt p axiom wrong? No, it can't be wrong. However, we did find out that they don't adequately explain reality on a larger scale. Which of course brings me to your example: The parallel axiom is not proven wrong either! In differential geometry ("relativity") it simply does not apply.
"The parallel axiom is not proven wrong either! In differential geometry ("relativity") it simply does not apply" - ragestarfish
I didn't that the "parallel axiom" is "proven wrong." Instead, I cited the first axiom. Additionally, I said it was "not applicable in a four-dimensional universe." Did you even watch the video?
Uhm, I'm not sure that you actually understand what an axiom is. Obviously, one can give many different types of axioms (mathematics or empirical science for example), however none of these require the axioms to be either "obvious" or the denial of them to be self-refuting.
Since Hilbert, many people seem to agree that an axiom is basically the first thing you accept to be true and can deduct your reasoning from it. Two direct emaples would be F=d/dt p (Newton) or the axiom of choice.
"Since Hilbert, many people seem to agree that an axiom is basically the first thing you accept to be true and can deduct your reasoning from it." - ragestarfish
So, axioms require no justification by your definition? If not, then how can they be self-evident?
"The bible is a dogmatic presupposition" Yup. Ever notice the Bible never even argues that God exists? It just starts out "In the beginning, God......" just begging to be asked: just wait a minute - where did God come from?
In this entire video, you didn't point out any evidence in the Bible that proved incorrect. Then, you blamed the fact that you didn't on what the Christian's response would be.
The intent of this particular video was not to disprove the infallibility of the bible. Instead, it was to demonstrate that the bible cannot be considered an axiom.
I have other videos on bible problems. Check out my video "Problems with the Genealogy of Jesus - Joseph, who's your daddy?" and reconcile the differences in the two account of Jesus' genealogy.
Interestingly enough though, the Bible being axiomatic is not found in the Bible. So to say "The Bible is Axiomatic" is a more fundamental axiom than the Bible itself and it is extra-biblical.
However, there is a problem in this video. It claims that axioms are "self evident" -- intuitively obvious & "the deinal of an axiom is self refuting". Neither of these statements is universally true.
Well, for example, in propositional logic, axioms are fundamental underlying expressions, strings or propositions which, combined with operational rules, form other expressions and formula in a formal system. They are "true" by definition but unproven. They are not "self evident" or obvious - indeed they are often hard to grasp.
Interestingly all consistent axiomatic systems that include infinite sets contain undecidable propositions.
You are contradicting yourself DURound. First you said "They are 'true' by definition but unproven." Now you're saying "Some axioms are proven." So, which is it?
First you said "They are 'true' by definition but unproven." Now you're saying "Some axioms are proven." So, which is it?
===
Both.
You are attempting to interpret my words in the context of a single consistent system. I was referring to axioms in general.
A set of axioms in one system can produce theorums. These theorums can then be axioms in other systems. In the second system they are already "proven".
When someone says that the bible is an axiom, should we just accept that? The reason they say that is so they won't have to justify it.
The point of my video is that saying the bible is an axiom doesn't alleviate your responsibility to defend that position. I guess that wasn't obvious to you :-)
Well thanks for the compliment :-) It's obvious I've struck a nerve.
My video was not intended for the dogmatic, as demonstrated by your comments. Instead, it was for those debating dogmatics. No one is obligated to accept anther's "axioms." If an individual does not defend his "axioms," then his/her argument is weak.
Well thanks for the compliment :-) It's obvious I've struck a nerve
==
You invited me to make comments. I am making comments and responding to your replies. If that is striking a nerve, then so be it!
If an individual does not defend his "axioms," then his/her argument is weak.
==
That makes no sense. Axioms are the basis for a system, upon which other things are derived. Those other things are proven by an appeal to axioms. Axioms are not defended. The idea is ridiculous.
I define an axiom as a self-evident truth whose denial is self-refuting. If something follows these rules, then it needs no proof. However, anything else is either induced or dogma. In either case, justification is needed. If you can provide none, then the argument is weak.
An argument is only as strong as its premises. False or unjustified premises make for a weak argument. What's there not to understand here?
I define an axiom as a self-evident truth whose denial is self-refuting.
==
Ok that is your definition. The people you are talking to may hold a different definition. Your arbitrary application of your belief structure upon them, does not make your process valid. What's there not to understand here?
==
Apparently a great deal. The premises of an argument are not necessarily axiomatic BUT... if they are, they are IRREDUCIBLY strong.
If a premise is false or cannot be justified, then the argument is weak. Premises need not be axioms, and most are not. However, they must be justifiable.
With your logic, I can presuppose that pink unicorns are real and, as long as my argument is valid, it is strong.
If a premise is axiomatic, its proof is itself. That is what an axiom is.
With my logic, you can presuppose that pink unicorns are real and that argument be valid, if and only if "Pink unicorns exist" is an axiomatic statement.
That is the only way that argument could be applied with my logic.
So, is the statement "Pink unicorns are real" axiomatic or not?
I didn't talk about truthfulness. I only asked if "Pink Unicorns exist" is axiomatic. If it is axiomatic, then it is irreducibly valid under that system.
This is not a problem with my definition of axioms. It is the nature of axioms. Axioms are the basis of a system. They are "given".
You are working very hard to avoid the fundamental problem with your video and its logic. I can help you with it.
My view of reality and their view of reality does not match. You could also have added I can even prove my views within the context of consistency and objective evidence. You could have named the video I disagree with people who think the Bible is all truth
This would have been a more direct, more precisely correct, less confused and ultimately more honest way to get to your point.
And therein lies the problem. You have taken a long (and I will be generous) intellectual route to arrive at a very emotional, subjective conclusion. You could have been far more direct and effective by saying Some people live in a world and reality where for them, the Bible is the fundamental definition of truth. I live in a world and reality where I find errors in the Bible and where I cannot accept the Bible as anything but a myth.
What you don't understand is that everything is subjective. Even syllogisms cannot deduce absolute truth, as they contain premises which are the result of induction.
However, I believe that critical thinking allow more accurate conclusions.
According to your logic, all anyone has to do is claim something is an axiom and they are off the hook to defend it.
Your arguments are very emotional here, as I obviously hurt your feelings or something.
What you don't understand is that everything is subjective.
==
You are right. I do not understand that. For example, I do not understand how binary math is subjective.
On the other hand, had you been payiing attention you would have noted that I have been consistently posting that your objections are subjective but wrapped in a pseudo-intellectual logic.
According to your logic, all anyone has to do is claim something is an axiom and they are off the hook to defend it.
===
That is correct.
And it is true according to your logic.
Your arguments are very emotional here, as I obviously hurt your feelings or something.
===
I have no idea what you are talking about. You invited me here and asked for my responses even though I told you in advance I did not agree with you. I'm just commenting.
You then argue about the person who claims you do not have the mind of Christ and cannot understand. You would agree you do not have the mind of Christ. So they may be right maybe you dont understand. It is possible that the system in which they operate requires this feature which you do not have. You cannot simply declare it invalid only because you are defective in that attribute.
The mind of christ...well, I used to believe I had it. Having been on both sides, I do not believe it exists. And, if it does exist, it is not what they claim. These individuals have never read it in the context it was spoken. Paul said that those who are divided on belief do not have the mind of christ. Both arminians and calvinists are guilty of this.
You then declare that A person must defend a presupposition, but where is this ever declared as necessary except by your arbitrary standards? If the Bible is an axiom, that does not need to be defended it simply is.
You even recognize this by declaring A dogmatic presupposition is not open to evidential claims. Of course it isnt it is axiomatic.
You also say it is not possible to draw a straight line between two points in the relativistic fourth dimensional universe. As I recall this is false: It is *possible*.
With regard to the Bible being axiomatic you say You can call it a postulate, a first principle or a presupposition as though these are all terms DIFFERENT from axiom. But they are all the same thing as axiom, with only presupposition possibly having a value laden difference.
Three dashes look pretty straight. However, keep adding dashes. As in, enough to span to a distant galaxy.
The inability to see curvature over the span of just three tiny dashes is like the inability to distinguish a single of sand on a beach from the opposite shore using only your natural eyesight.
It's there, you're just not measuring well enough.
Incidentally, the description of a specific PARADOX (Deny existence exists) is a logical non-sequitur. Moreover, there is a technique for such a denial without self reference. That technique is MU, which comes out of ZEN and means to unask the question. A refutation of that statement would be simply to say MU.
You make the statement that Euclids axioms are not true axiom because they do not meet your false second criteria. This is the No True Scottsman fallacy.
For example the axiom that I gave previously there is no natural number whose successor is 1 can be refuted by the alternative axiom there is no natural number whose successor is zero. This refutation however, does not refute itself. Your test of what is or is not an axiom does not hold up. (this is not to say, that when you see a self refutation, you have not observed an error but it is to say that this is not a sufficient nor necessary test of axioms)
The concept of self evident is subject to the critique of petitio principii circular reasoning. And with good cause. Axioms are ONLY things that are self evident when speaking very informally when speaking with precision, an axiom is something that is DECIDED as being a basis for future determinations.
In addition, your concept that if something is an axiom, denial of that axiom must be self refuting is clearly false
If we are talking about your secoond "logial" method for determining what is and what is not an axiom, it is clearly false if I can find one instance of an axiom where such a test fails. I found and showed one. I could find and show others. Are you being truthful?
===
Certainly. I have "shown all my work" -- you can see it for yourself.
You claim that you can demonstrate that my definition is 'clearly' wrong by providing your own definition.
You seem to think that MY definition is unique, and that axioms are not self-evident. However, if you look at most definitions on the internet, you will find that self-evidence is one definition. And, I know why you don't like Rand, as my definition follows hers :-)
You have demonstrated nothing other than a lack of understanding of logic.
You claim that you can demonstrate that my definition is 'clearly' wrong by providing your own definition
===
No. That is NOT what I claimed. You have not been paying good attention. I said that one aspect of your definition can be falsified. It happens that this is the aspect you rely upon the most.
You have demonstrated nothing other than a lack of understanding of logic.
You assert that The Bible is an axiom is a proposition, which you seem to feel is subject to proof or evidence (you say successfully defend it as an axiom). However, if the statement The Bible is an axiom, is itself axiomatic, it is not subject to proof or evidence. It simply is.
You then provide what you consider to be two criteria for axioms: Self evidence and denial being self refuting. Neither of these standards is sufficient nor necessary for something to be an axiom.
The title is a descriptive assertion with an unlimited domain. But as a universal assertion it is false, since for some people the Bible is axiomatic. Instead, the Title should at most.. be Normative :The Bible should not be considered axiomatic. This is your opinion. It is not a universal fact.
Biologists can prove to you that "all flesh" is mortal. They study the processes which, upon their ultimate breakdown, cause death in all living things.
I agree that the mortality of individuals is highly likely. However, I chose not to use words like "prove," as that is not what the scientific method offers. Although layman like me can consider these as proven, in their truest sense, they are not. It is not possible to test every scenario to ensure it is true.
Empiricism results in skepticism, which I'm ok with. Although I cannot know with absolute certainty what truth is, I can have good reasons for believing what I do.
You're quite right. I should have said that biologists can show that we're mortal with the same degree of certainty that they can show that the earth is round.
Religion, on the other hand, merely asserts absolute certainty; and, instead of offering proof, demand abject submission to asserted authority.
Agree. People just have to be aware of the axioms usually only work in a limited realm, especially in mathematics. And they can happily contradict each other when they apply to different realms (curved and flat space, ...). I also agree, that we discover new realms, and that we come up with new axioms in order to navigate them. Thinking of it it would be interesting to flesh out which axioms about reality apply to the maximum number of realms.
I only believe that there are three true axioms, none of which deal with mathematics. These are 1) existence exists, 2) identity, and 3 consciousness. But, identify and consciousness are tied to existence. I believe that these are the only three which are both self-evident and whose contradiction is self-refuting.
Could not come with any more myself. Always had my issues with identity too, since "things" truly can be identical on the microscopic scale (like in a Bose-Einstein condensate) it is only an approximation on the macroscopic scale.
Nice one. In passing you educated me about Euclid's "axioms". Well done. However, I do not agree on them not being right. There are geometries in which they are not, but in an Euclidean space they are. So what you can state without any problem is that Euclidean propositions do not hold in the Universe as we see it today. You said this implicitly, but I think this needs to be stated more clearly.
I don't mean to imply that Euclid's work is unimportant or even wrong, just as I wouldn't say that about Newton. However, as our understanding improves, our perception changes.
The axiom thesis is good, but I usually am not confronted with these things. Usually because they think I am insane or some such and don't respond to my comments. I can't blame them. I usually don't take them seriously at all and ask utterly retarded qestions for my own amusement. ;*)
You contradict yourself, surprise surprise, when you suggesst an axiom for you would be empiricism (more or less.) Yet Empiricism is NOT self evident to many people. Better luck next time.
Is evolution intuitively obvious? Many people assume it and use it as an axiom.
When did I state or even imply empiricism is an axiom? It definitely is not an axiom.
And, I never stated or suggested that evolution is intuitively obvious. Therefore, an individual who makes claims about evolution must provide evidence when questioned. And so must those who claim creationism.
Evolution may not be intuitively obvious, but it is such a core concept today that it's something that's completely reasonable to assume educated people are familiar with and accept. A bit like mathematics or Newtonian physics is something that can be assumed.
Not as an axiom though, if those mechanisms themselves are in dispute, they'll need to be backed up, but that only happens in discussions with members of bronze age cults.
It's worth mentioning that there are many facts of evolution though, such as life evolving, that natural selection is a real mechanism and that the mechanisms of life changing are known. I suppose it's possible that you're confused by people pointing to those and saying that they are facts of evolution that have been observed and need to be explained in any theory of life.
Or something like that, but again, that's not an axiom. Just a side effect of science actually having evidence for ToE.
@crazypills2
I am so happy to have stumbled on to your channel. Excellent analysis of the "the bible is an axiom" argument.
Peace.
0gods 1 month ago
i have no idea why im watching this lolz this shit is way over my head O.o lol :P! one day i will understand it!!
Alejandro1Mojica 4 months ago
This will be my lost post on your page, I appreciate you sharing your views with me and the reasonable tone the conversation has taken. I won't take up any more space on your page, except to say farewell and thanks for the spirited exchange.
AuxentiusZ 11 months ago
@AuxentiusZ "This will be my lost post on your page, I appreciate you sharing your views with me and the reasonable tone the conversation has taken"
Thanks for stopping by. I am, however, a little disappointed that you neglected to answer my question: how can you be certain that knowledge requires certainty. I'm not saying a good answer doesn't exist, but I've yet to hear one.
Take care,
Steve
crazypills2 11 months ago
The problem with denying that the bible is an axiom, or any other religious text as axiom, is that it assumes omniscience. That is, unless you're omniscient, you cannot possibly know what exists or not. In order to be logical then, to deny omniscience is to be omniscient, because only an omniscient Being would know that for certain. Thus, from that reasoning, it becomes self evident that denying omniscience is to claim it, and this is the axiomatic claim that omniscience exists.
AuxentiusZ 11 months ago
@AuxentiusZ "That is, unless you're omniscient, you cannot possibly know what exists or not."
Know with certainty? Of course not. However, I don't believe that absolute certainty is a requirement of knowledge. We know all kinds of things for which we cannot be certain (e.g. water freezes at 32 degrees F). Knowledge then becomes equivalent to justified true belief. We can know things beyond reasonable doubt with no omniscience required.
crazypills2 11 months ago
@crazypills2 "Reasonable doubt" could still quite reasonably exist. Solipsism is based on that reasonable doubt, in fact. My point was, you don't have knowledge (any certainty) you have only a list of subjective experiences, which may or may not match anything real. If indeed there is anything real. e.g. Esse est Percipi. That's the heart of the axiom. Only an axiom that begins with the premise that there is an omniscient being can maintain any logical consistency.
AuxentiusZ 11 months ago
@AuxentiusZ " 'Reasonable doubt' could still quite reasonably exist."
Yes it could, but perhaps you and I define it differently. To have knowledge of something, all doubt must not be extinguished, as such a thing is impossible---only reasonable doubt. To do this, we employ critical thinking which is basically the scientific method for everyone. I 'know' that fairies don't exist. And I don't know this because of absolute certainty.
crazypills2 11 months ago
@crazypills2 I think we do define knowledge differently. Knowledge, as I define it, is knowing an objective fact. The only being that could know an objective fact, is an omniscient being. By starting with the assumption of omniscience, we can then state we have knowledge in the absolute sense. Anything less is not knowledge, but subjective opinion. Because subjectivity is incapable of objectivity by defition, it wouldn't make sense to pass judgment on any experience. Slippery slope.
AuxentiusZ 11 months ago
@AuxentiusZ "Knowledge, as I define it, is knowing an objective fact "
But how can you be sure that the "objective fact" is true? I'm not sure dogma ultimately helps you here, as it may give you only a false sense of objectivity.
If the fact/premise about which you are dogmatic is wrong, then you have no guarantee of a true conclusion. Validity of an argument doesn't offer much if the premises are false. Check out my video entitled "Truth and unsound arguments" - watch?v=QSByNgCtIhg
crazypills2 11 months ago
@crazypills2 That's the thing, you cannot know whether objectivity exists without first postulating an objective being exists. That's why it's an axiom, to deny the axiom is to create a self-refuting cycle. "I know the axiom is false because that's not knowable." If knowledge is subjective, it would be illogical to turn and say subjectivity is objective, another contradiction in terms. That is why omniscience is the only means to avoid these arguments that inherently contradicts themselves.
AuxentiusZ 11 months ago
@AuxentiusZ "That's the thing, you cannot know whether objectivity exists without first postulating an objective being exists"
You can postulate that fairies exist because you read Peter Pan, but that doesn't mean they do. If you don't have confirming evidence for what you believe, then I assert you cannot be certain of it anyway. Faith in something doesn't make it so.
crazypills2 11 months ago
@crazypills2 That is quite true, but also quite aside from the point. An axiom is an unprovable but logically consistant premise. My point is, by rejecting omniscience, you are left with axioms that are absolutely self refuting. Evidence assumes an axiom can provide some, it can't. Axioms are the starting point, logic and evidence only occur after the axiom is stated. That is why atheism and agnosticism are self refuting starting points.
AuxentiusZ 11 months ago
@AuxentiusZ "My point is, by rejecting omniscience, you are left with axioms that are absolutely self refuting."
Really? I assert there are only a few number of true axioms, such as existence exists. This doesn't require omniscience and is in no way self refuting. Conversely, it's denial is self-refuting -- that's what makes it an axiom.
crazypills2 11 months ago
@AuxentiusZ "Axioms are the starting point, logic and evidence only occur after the axiom is stated."
Ok, but if the 'axiom' is false, then a true conclusion isn't guaranteed. Additionally, I believe I can show that "scripture is the inspired, inerrant word of god" is a false 'axiom'. How can I do this? Through its internal contradictions. The law of non contradiction would indicate it can't be an axiom. And, one would be unwise to dogmatically accept it when evidence shows otherwise.
crazypills2 11 months ago
@AuxentiusZ "That is why atheism and agnosticism are self refuting starting points."
Well, I look at it this way --- atheists and agnostics are willing to openly admit that they deduce from uncertainty. However, when I ask a christian how he/she can be certain that the bible is the word of god and not the qur'an, he/she really can't answer the question. So, I assert that they to deduce from uncertainty, but are just unwilling to admit it.
crazypills2 11 months ago
@crazypills2 Very true. One cannot present any evidence to suggest one above the other, because both are axiomatic in nature. We cannot know what God has revealed or not based on our subjective knowledge, or know that God exists. Only an objective Being can know such a thing, and by nature it requires we take his/her/it's word as presumed true. Deductions made from observation are invalid to the true nature of reality because we are making the deductions that are factually incomplete.
AuxentiusZ 11 months ago
@AuxentiusZ " Deductions made from observation are invalid to the true nature of reality because we are making the deductions that are factually incomplete."
I agree that our understanding of nature is incomplete. But even based on our incomplete understanding of gravity, would I be incorrect deducting that should I jump up that I will come down? I think you underestimate the amount of evidence we have that make things almost certain.
crazypills2 11 months ago
@crazypills2 "Almost certain" though is not thoroughly certain. I think we're both pretty confident that gravity applies to us. The question is why? The theist can say it's true because God revealed the constant nature of the laws of the universe. Atheists have the same belief in the absolute nature of the universe, but cannot account for why they do.
AuxentiusZ 11 months ago
@AuxentiusZ ""Almost certain" though is not thoroughly certain. "
Ok, but simply stating something is certain in spite of disconfirming evidence doesn't make it certain either. Just because someone is dogmatic regarding something doesn't help him/her deduce true conclusions. Perhaps upon reading Peter Pan my son says that fairies exist. Even if he believes this with all of his heart and takes it as his 'axiom', does it make his deduction more sound?
crazypills2 11 months ago
@AuxentiusZ " I think we're both pretty confident that gravity applies to us"
Why? I mean we can't be 100% certain of it, right? Next time we jump, perhaps we should keep in mind that we might actually never come down. Isn't that the more reasonable position?
"Atheists have the same belief in the absolute nature of the universe, but cannot account for why they do."
We can't account for for everything, but having an answer that may be wrong doesn't help us understand the truth.
crazypills2 11 months ago
@crazypills2 If the atheist worldview is accepted, then not only is it impossible to understand the truth, it's impossible to know if truth even exists. All of us think in terms of objective truths and the question is which worldview, atheism or theism, can account for why this is the case? Atheism presupposes a total lack of objective knowledge, and so cannot by nature make any objective truth claims. A position that starts with ignorance cannot magically transform itself into knowledge.
AuxentiusZ 11 months ago
@AuxentiusZ "Atheism presupposes a total lack of objective knowledge, and so cannot by nature make any objective truth claims."
Let's be practical. Do you deny gravity? Our understanding may be subjective, but don't we treat this just like objective knowledge?
crazypills2 11 months ago
@AuxentiusZ "A position that starts with ignorance cannot magically transform itself into knowledge."
You assume that knowledge requires certainty. But we seem to know many things about which we cannot be certain (e.g. water freezes at 32 degrees F). So how can you be certain that knowledge requires certainty?
crazypills2 11 months ago
@crazypills2 The temperature at which water freezes though is a classical case of subjectivity. Seawater freezes at 28 degrees F. Pressure can also change the freezing point. That's not to say that there aren't well defined rules governing it, only that there are a huge number of variables involved in anything related to knowledge, perhaps far more than our mental horse power can keep pace with. That's why objective truth claims are pretty hard, unless you're axiomatically claiming omniscience.
AuxentiusZ 11 months ago
@AuxentiusZ "The temperature at which water freezes though is a classical case of subjectivity."
Come on, this is anything but subjective. 'Variables' don't imply subjectivity. As you state, we have well-defined 'rules' for determining when water freezes. So, how is that subjective?
Is the speed that light travels in a vacuum subjective? If so, then why is it that everyone who has measured it comes to the exact same conclusion? Omniscience isn't required for this and I think you know it.
crazypills2 11 months ago
@crazypills2 How come everyone who has ever measured has come to the same conclusion? Not terribly surprising, since the tools we design to measure it were based on the same hardware, the human brain. The brain is ultimately responsible for our picture of the universe, and in the atheistic/agnostic worldview, it's the product of a long chain of mostly accidental events. If everything is uncertain, as you suggest, then you should not make any certain statements like "the bible is not an axiom!"
AuxentiusZ 11 months ago
@AuxentiusZ "How come everyone who has ever measured has come to the same conclusion?"
So you agree that the speed of light in a vacuum is objective?
"If everything is uncertain, as you suggest, then you should not make any certain statements like 'the bible is not an axiom!' "
If something is self-contradictory, then it is not an axiom. Don't you agree?
Now back to the question you are unwilling to answer: how can you be certain that knowledge requires certainty?
crazypills2 11 months ago
@crazypills2 You're reasonable, I'm sure I don't have to share with you the definition of "knowledge" but it is not, assuredly, "our best guess." It is something concretely knowable, and your worldview fundamentally undermines anything of the sort. That was my reason for calling you out on it, you seemed to be unaware that making absolute statements as though they were fact (i.e. the title of this video) are innately contradictory since you eschew certainty & knowledge in the absolute sense.
AuxentiusZ 11 months ago
@AuxentiusZ "That's why objective truth claims are pretty hard, unless you're axiomatically claiming omniscience"
I'll say this one more time. If the axiom is false, then a true conclusion isn't guaranteed. And worse yet when the 'axiom' itself is self-refuting, as is the case for the inspiration of the bible. How can you claim objective truth when deduction is based on a false premise?
Now back to my question: how can you be certain that knowledge requires certainty?
crazypills2 11 months ago
@crazypills2 If the axiom is false? Attempt to prove it false. You cannot. Deduction and the like are only states of mind, they may or may not represent anything real. That's why assuming the universe is without an intelligent law maker is self-defeating, you remove the only thing that can possibly claim the universe is bound by laws. It's not merely that we say we require certainty, our whole thought process depends on it. Theism accounts for that, atheism starts with ignorance and ends there.
AuxentiusZ 11 months ago
@AuxentiusZ " If the axiom is false?"
Which axiom? The bible is the inspired word of God? Well, I can disprove this quite easily. Simply watch one of my videos on the contradictions in scripture. If something is internally inconsistent, it is false. I'm sure you know that.
crazypills2 11 months ago
@crazypills2 I'm sure you know that these "contradictions" have been aptly explained, since you appear to be interested in the subject. I think it's odd that you'd use reason against the bible when you cannot be certain it (reason) will yield truthful results.
AuxentiusZ 11 months ago
@AuxentiusZ " I think it's odd that you'd use reason against the bible when you cannot be certain it (reason) will yield truthful results."
I 'know' that self-contradiction is a death blow to an axiom. And, these 'contradictions' in scripture have not been 'aptly' addressed. They are not the most reasonable explanation. If you're interested in arguing the subject, view my video "Scripture Interprets Scripture?" I'd be happy to hear your harmonization and why it's the most reasonable to accept.
crazypills2 11 months ago
so logic doesn't need faith?
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 year ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "so logic doesn't need faith?"
If you define faith as believing in unjustified claims, then no.
crazypills2 1 year ago
AMEN...
m1tchish 1 year ago
While I agree with you; it's important to remember that youtube is to intellectual debate as Hungry Hungry Hippos is to fine dining. If you can get someone to admit they were wrong and you have a good point between alleged grown adults calling you a fag or wishing you luck in hell then be my guest.
B10N3KW34S3L 1 year ago
Lol.. i love it, if something doesn't make sense, don't pretend that it does... things like evolution, but lots of people believe it makes sense... hey i would like to see some videos about Buda, or another religions...
StormW16 1 year ago
OK OK GREAT TO KNOW. YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE BIBLE IS AN AXIOM, GREAT NO ONE CARES HAVE FUN IN HELL DUE TO YOUR LACK OF FAITH YOU FREAKIN ATHEIST. IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE YOU DONT HAVE TO BELIEVE SO GO BITCH ABOUT RELIGION SOMEWHERE ELSE.
alex21rw 1 year ago
@alex21rw "GREAT NO ONE CARES HAVE FUN IN HELL DUE TO YOUR LACK OF FAITH YOU FREAKIN ATHEIST"
Excellent argument :-)
crazypills2 1 year ago
Okay then. I admit defeat. Gravity is not an axiom. I agree with you. I should have just shut up about that a long time ago lol. Who said the bible is an axiom anyways? I'm a Christian and still don't believe that it is...
jordankriese 1 year ago
"you are unable to deny them without first accepting them". True. However, the same can be said for gravity. This does not help your argument.
jordankriese 1 year ago
@jordankriese "True. However, the same can be said for gravity."
You obviously don't understand. In order for me to deny my existence, I must first accept it. In other words, how could I deny existence unless I existed. This isn't the same for gravity. I am under no obligation to accept it in order to deny it. Therefore, gravity is not an axiom.
crazypills2 1 year ago
Sidenote : I would most definitely like to state that ( even though we do not believe the same theories ) you are a very intelligent man. I admire your intelligence and hope to obtain such knowledge in the future.
jordankriese 1 year ago
The fact of the matter is that if one person is to believe in the string theory, axioms cannot exist, as there is no "universally recognized" truth.
jordankriese 1 year ago
@jordankriese "The fact of the matter is that if one person is to believe in the string theory, axioms cannot exist, as there is no "universally recognized" truth"
I still don't see the connection between axioms and string theory. I personally believe that there are only three axioms: existence, consciousness, and identity. The reason these are axioms is that you are unable to deny them without first accepting them.
crazypills2 1 year ago
Btw: the man that this video is referring to is most definitely a moron. Worst creationist scientist I've ever seen.
jordankriese 1 year ago
The contact speed and rotation resulting from the given elements and their colliding with other elements ( remember : distance from sun is in direct relation with velocity, not mass ) had caused them to rotate in any given direction, not gravity.
jordankriese 1 year ago
Furthermore, I would like to continue by saying that gravity is a constant no matter what element one chooses. So no elements would need to rotate any faster than another. All orbits are in a specific place depending on ones velocity, not ones mass. In conclusion, when these elements had made contact with one another in the solar system,
jordankriese 1 year ago
He should have referred to the sun in our solar system. Because due to the belief that "heavier elements" found on planets in our solar system had indeed come from our sun, and not other stars ( because if it had not, then gravity itself would have taken these elements into the sun ) one would say that the way in which these elements had been rotating around the sun, and in it's axes would have been relative to the sun and not the universe.
jordankriese 1 year ago
Yes, I would most definitely take the above statements as true, however, the fact given by this creationist scientist is faulty (the creationist in the video). He should not have referred to the universe prior to the "big bang" even though one could say that having such a singularity would cause time to be nonexistant, --->
jordankriese 1 year ago
I watched this creation astrology propaganda debunked. Still very skeptical. "other heavier elements were created after the first generation of stars were formed". So these elements had been brought about by the fission and fusion of atoms that come from hydrogen and helium. Fair. Not going to disagree with that. More comments to come:
jordankriese 1 year ago
That has everything to do with what we are talking about. Particles have mass, gravity inflicts force on mass, light has properties of particles. What's not to understand?
jordankriese 1 year ago
@jordankriese "What's not to understand?"
I don't understand what this has to do with your statement that gravity is an axiom or that string theory was created to address an improbable universe.
crazypills2 1 year ago
If at all possible to have two planets rotating on their axes in opposite directions, prove it to be so. Until then, it is seen not as "improbable", but impossible.
jordankriese 1 year ago
@jordankriese "If at all possible to have two planets rotating on their axes in opposite directions, prove it to be so."
Good request, although I wouldn't use the word prove. AndromedasWake did a series entitled "Creation Astronomy Propaganda Debunked," where he addressed this issue in one of them. I suggest you watch them.
Creation Astronomy Propaganda Debunked
crazypills2 1 year ago
So it is safe to say you believe in the theory that is evolution? And that evolution is "truth"? What are your beliefs?
jordankriese 1 year ago
@jordankriese "So it is safe to say you believe in the theory that is evolution?"
Yes. Although I rejected it for most of my life, the evidence is to overwhelming to continue to reject it.
crazypills2 1 year ago
Science had also proven that light has the properties of not just waves, but particles as well. Mass reacts to the force of gravity. If light does indeed have the properties of both waves and particles, is it at all possible that light may have a mass?
jordankriese 1 year ago
@jordankriese "If light does indeed have the properties of both waves and particles, is it at all possible that light may have a mass?"
Light is affected by gravity (it bends), but what does this have to do with what we are talking about. I'm waiting for your argument, but I seem to be getting only disjointed statements.
crazypills2 1 year ago
And I would rather point to things such as the conservation of angular momentum and the impossibility of having two planets in our solar system rotating on their axes in opposite directions than that of the rest of the solar system.
jordankriese 1 year ago
@jordankriese "And I would rather point to things such as the conservation of angular momentum and the impossibility of having two planets in our solar system rotating on their axes in opposite directions than that of the rest of the solar system"
Ok, this is the "fine tuned universe" argument. But just because something has a low probability doesn't mean it is false. This is the cognative bias of underestimating the improbable.
crazypills2 1 year ago
Okay. What historical evidence would you point to that states the foundations of the string theory? I can say that I "believe" that this concept was created because of the infinitely insignificant probability of the universe being exactly as is (examples would be Gravitational constant, or polarity of water). Does your "belief" make your statement true?
jordankriese 1 year ago
@jordankriese "What historical evidence would you point to that states the foundations of the string theory?"
I think I read it in Brian Greene's book, "The Elegant Universe."
"Does your "belief" make your statement true? "
No, belief does not make anything true. Instead, belief should result from truth.
crazypills2 1 year ago
By the dictionarys definition of an axiom, the ONLY axioms that exist in our dimensions are constants (such as gravity). Do you believe that there are just 4 dimensions? 10? If one is to believe that there are just 4 dimensions, then one must believe that the odds of the bible prophecy being incorrect, apes evolving into humans, so on so forth...are quite astounding. It is safe to assume that you DO believe there are more than 4 dimensions...believing that this is true, NOTHING is an axiom.
jordankriese 1 year ago
@jordankriese "By the dictionarys definition of an axiom, the ONLY axioms that exist in our dimensions are constants (such as gravity)"
I suggest you do a little more study, as gravity is not an axiom :-)
I wish I could comment on the remainder of your statement, but I don't even understand it.
crazypills2 1 year ago
@crazypills2 : 1. A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim
2. An established rule, principle, or law.
3. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate
Now. How is gravity NOT an axiom? Please explain...
jordankriese 1 year ago
@jordankriese
An axiom is a self-evident truth. Gravity is not self evident. It is not intuitively obvious that gravity causes light to bend.
Some have loosely used the word axiom to describe things such as Euclid's postulates. However, his "axioms" aren't even applicable in a 4 dimensional universe, as it is not possible to draw a straight line from every two points.
A conservative definition is that it is a self-evident truth whose denial is self-refuting.
crazypills2 1 year ago
@crazypills2 : Supposing scientists are indeed correct, there are not 4 dimensions, there are 10. 3 dimensions of space, 3 dimensions of time, 3 dimensions of infinite (single universe) and one dimension of infinite infinities (multiverse). This THEORY was brought up based upon the idea that the probability of this universe existing as it exists presently (based upon natural properties) is...well...very very small.
jordankriese 1 year ago
@jordankriese
M-theory actually predicts 11 dimensions, but I digress. And, I don't believe string theory was created as a result of the low probability of our universe existing as it does. I believe it was accidentally discovered when a student was examining an equation of the weak nuclear force.
I'm still not sure I understand your question or point. If you are suggesting that a low probability disproves something, then you are wrong.
crazypills2 1 year ago
Yes, I can see that problem. I have been struggling with the definitions myself. In mathematics, any statement can be seen as an axiom, although there is a consensus which is basically ZFC.
In my theoretical physics lectures I find the definition:
"An axiom is a statement, which is not provable within the theory; however it must not contradict experimental results." (Which, clearly excludes the bible =) )
I guess the "self-evident" part would be a philosophical approach.
ragestarfish 2 years ago
"Instead, I cited the first axiom. "
Sorry, my mistake. I remembered you talked about Euclid and relativity and I thought about the parallel axiom (I believe Gauß was motivated by the parallel axiom to come up with differential geometry, a core aspect of GRT).
Now, I agree that Euclids axioms do not apply in non-Euclidean-spaces (hence the same). However, they still apply in real vectorspaces with a standard inner product. Then again, Euclid didn't use the word axiom like we now do (Hilbert).
ragestarfish 2 years ago
"So, axioms require no justification by your definition? If not, then how can they be self-evident? "
I didn't say they would require to be self-evident. On a philosophical level one might want such things to apply, but this does not hold up on a practical level. For example Maxwell's equations are not 'self-evident', however true any reasoning deducted from them can be shown to be, or did you look at "ε_0*divE=ρ" and say "Well, obviously!"? Because I sure didn't. Same thing with ZFC.
ragestarfish 2 years ago
"I didn't say they would require to be self-evident." - ragestarfish
Then this may be our problem. We have different definitions. I am working from widely accepted definitions such as the following:
"A self-evident or universally recognized truth" - threfreedictionary
"an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth" - merriam-webster
"a statement or proposition that needs no proof because its truth is obvious, or one that is accepted as true without proof " - yourdictionary
crazypills2 2 years ago
Finally, "existence exists" is not an axiom, it's simply circular reasoning. You exist, thus you are able to ponder the existence of existence. However, "existence" includes you, so the answer is already given; in logical terms it is basically trying to deny this: "A=B ⇒ A=B". In other words, you would have to argue that "A=B ⇒ A≠B".
What I'm trying to say is: those statements can't qualify as axioms because they don't contain anything.
ragestarfish 2 years ago
"What I'm trying to say is: those statements can't qualify as axioms because they don't contain anything." - ragestarfish
I suggest you read Ayn Rand.
crazypills2 2 years ago
Neither of them require any self-refuting reasoning to deny them. Indeed, the axiom of choice is not accepted by quite a few mathematicians because of some of the "nasty" consequences it actually has. Is Newton's F=d/dt p axiom wrong? No, it can't be wrong. However, we did find out that they don't adequately explain reality on a larger scale. Which of course brings me to your example: The parallel axiom is not proven wrong either! In differential geometry ("relativity") it simply does not apply.
ragestarfish 2 years ago
"The parallel axiom is not proven wrong either! In differential geometry ("relativity") it simply does not apply" - ragestarfish
I didn't that the "parallel axiom" is "proven wrong." Instead, I cited the first axiom. Additionally, I said it was "not applicable in a four-dimensional universe." Did you even watch the video?
crazypills2 2 years ago
Uhm, I'm not sure that you actually understand what an axiom is. Obviously, one can give many different types of axioms (mathematics or empirical science for example), however none of these require the axioms to be either "obvious" or the denial of them to be self-refuting.
Since Hilbert, many people seem to agree that an axiom is basically the first thing you accept to be true and can deduct your reasoning from it. Two direct emaples would be F=d/dt p (Newton) or the axiom of choice.
ragestarfish 2 years ago
"Since Hilbert, many people seem to agree that an axiom is basically the first thing you accept to be true and can deduct your reasoning from it." - ragestarfish
So, axioms require no justification by your definition? If not, then how can they be self-evident?
crazypills2 2 years ago
"The bible is a dogmatic presupposition" Yup. Ever notice the Bible never even argues that God exists? It just starts out "In the beginning, God......" just begging to be asked: just wait a minute - where did God come from?
averagebear1 2 years ago
In this entire video, you didn't point out any evidence in the Bible that proved incorrect. Then, you blamed the fact that you didn't on what the Christian's response would be.
Show proof. The Bible does.
ChristianAmerican 2 years ago
ChristianAmerican,
Thanks for stopping by.
The intent of this particular video was not to disprove the infallibility of the bible. Instead, it was to demonstrate that the bible cannot be considered an axiom.
I have other videos on bible problems. Check out my video "Problems with the Genealogy of Jesus - Joseph, who's your daddy?" and reconcile the differences in the two account of Jesus' genealogy.
I'll await your reply.
crazypills2 2 years ago
Oh thank you for making this. Really good.
Roannepur 2 years ago
I'm glad you liked it Roannepur.
crazypills2 2 years ago
Thank you for your politeness. Also, I read your metamorphisis on your channel. Nice and heart warming.
Roannepur 2 years ago
For some people, the Bible is axiomatic.
Interestingly enough though, the Bible being axiomatic is not found in the Bible. So to say "The Bible is Axiomatic" is a more fundamental axiom than the Bible itself and it is extra-biblical.
However, there is a problem in this video. It claims that axioms are "self evident" -- intuitively obvious & "the deinal of an axiom is self refuting". Neither of these statements is universally true.
DURound 2 years ago
DURound,
What is your definition of an axiom? I have given my definition, but if you disagree, you must provide yours.
crazypills2 2 years ago
Well, for example, in propositional logic, axioms are fundamental underlying expressions, strings or propositions which, combined with operational rules, form other expressions and formula in a formal system. They are "true" by definition but unproven. They are not "self evident" or obvious - indeed they are often hard to grasp.
Interestingly all consistent axiomatic systems that include infinite sets contain undecidable propositions.
DURound 2 years ago
DURound,
Why are axioms true but unproven?
crazypills2 2 years ago
Some axioms are proven.
But axioms can be unproven (but true within a system) because they are defined to be the basis of a system.
DURound 2 years ago
You are contradicting yourself DURound. First you said "They are 'true' by definition but unproven." Now you're saying "Some axioms are proven." So, which is it?
crazypills2 2 years ago
First you said "They are 'true' by definition but unproven." Now you're saying "Some axioms are proven." So, which is it?
===
Both.
You are attempting to interpret my words in the context of a single consistent system. I was referring to axioms in general.
A set of axioms in one system can produce theorums. These theorums can then be axioms in other systems. In the second system they are already "proven".
DURound 2 years ago
I would note however, that you did not give "your definition" but rather gave "your definition" as though it were a universal truth.
And that was what I objected to.
Take for example this mathematical axiom for Natural Numbers:
"There is no natural number whose successor is 1"
This is hardly self evident and indeed there are definitions of natural numbers that revise this axiom to be
"There is no natural number whose successor is 0"
My point: Your definition is not universal.
DURound 2 years ago
DURound,
Do you think the bible is an axiom?
crazypills2 2 years ago
For some people the bible is an axiom.
However to declare it as such, requires another axiom which automatically converts the bible into a subsequent proposition.
To say it is an axiom is interentally inconsistent.
DURound 2 years ago
Axioms don't require other axioms. You really should do more study before you comment.
crazypills2 2 years ago
You really should do more study before you comment.
===
And you should read what I said before you respond, rudely.
I said "To say it is an axiom is internally inconsistent"
What did you think that meant? Did you even understand it?
DURound 2 years ago
Typo.. "internally inconsistent"
Sorry!
DURound 2 years ago
When someone says that the bible is an axiom, should we just accept that? The reason they say that is so they won't have to justify it.
The point of my video is that saying the bible is an axiom doesn't alleviate your responsibility to defend that position. I guess that wasn't obvious to you :-)
crazypills2 2 years ago
When someone says that the bible is an axiom, should we just accept that?
==
I consider it an individual choice.
The reason they say that is so they won't have to justify it.
==
I do not pretend to know their reasons for saying such a thing. I notice that you believe you know what other people are thinking. Magical.
DURound 2 years ago
I know because I have debated with them. The majority are calvinists influence by the philosophy of Gordon Clark.
crazypills2 2 years ago
You know --- what is in their minds because you have debated them? I would suggest you at best know what they said.
And do most of the better apologists really say "There is no need to justify it?" Or is that just a few?
Bibliotaters do make many errors but former bibliolaters are sometimes no better.
DURound 2 years ago
The point of my video is that saying the bible is an axiom doesn't alleviate your responsibility to defend that position.
==
But in their minds it probably does. You have not presented a case to change that view.
I guess that wasn't obvious to you
==
Well it was not very well done. That was the point of my comment.
DURound 2 years ago
Well thanks for the compliment :-) It's obvious I've struck a nerve.
My video was not intended for the dogmatic, as demonstrated by your comments. Instead, it was for those debating dogmatics. No one is obligated to accept anther's "axioms." If an individual does not defend his "axioms," then his/her argument is weak.
crazypills2 2 years ago
Well thanks for the compliment :-) It's obvious I've struck a nerve
==
You invited me to make comments. I am making comments and responding to your replies. If that is striking a nerve, then so be it!
If an individual does not defend his "axioms," then his/her argument is weak.
==
That makes no sense. Axioms are the basis for a system, upon which other things are derived. Those other things are proven by an appeal to axioms. Axioms are not defended. The idea is ridiculous.
DURound 2 years ago
I define an axiom as a self-evident truth whose denial is self-refuting. If something follows these rules, then it needs no proof. However, anything else is either induced or dogma. In either case, justification is needed. If you can provide none, then the argument is weak.
An argument is only as strong as its premises. False or unjustified premises make for a weak argument. What's there not to understand here?
crazypills2 2 years ago
I define an axiom as a self-evident truth whose denial is self-refuting.
==
Ok that is your definition. The people you are talking to may hold a different definition. Your arbitrary application of your belief structure upon them, does not make your process valid. What's there not to understand here?
==
Apparently a great deal. The premises of an argument are not necessarily axiomatic BUT... if they are, they are IRREDUCIBLY strong.
DURound 2 years ago
If a premise is false or cannot be justified, then the argument is weak. Premises need not be axioms, and most are not. However, they must be justifiable.
With your logic, I can presuppose that pink unicorns are real and, as long as my argument is valid, it is strong.
crazypills2 2 years ago
If a premise is axiomatic, its proof is itself. That is what an axiom is.
With my logic, you can presuppose that pink unicorns are real and that argument be valid, if and only if "Pink unicorns exist" is an axiomatic statement.
That is the only way that argument could be applied with my logic.
So, is the statement "Pink unicorns are real" axiomatic or not?
DURound 2 years ago
Validity has nothing to do with the truthfulness of the premises. For instance, here is a valid syllogism.
p1 if there are stories about pink unicorns, they must exist
p2 there are stories about pink unicorns
c pink unicorns must exist
But how can you know with certainty that pink unicorns exist or not? This is the problem with your definition of axioms.
Axioms are absolutely true. All other presuppositions come through induction or dogma which can be wrong.
crazypills2 2 years ago
I didn't talk about truthfulness. I only asked if "Pink Unicorns exist" is axiomatic. If it is axiomatic, then it is irreducibly valid under that system.
This is not a problem with my definition of axioms. It is the nature of axioms. Axioms are the basis of a system. They are "given".
You are working very hard to avoid the fundamental problem with your video and its logic. I can help you with it.
DURound 2 years ago
Help me please. Show me the flaws of my video.
crazypills2 2 years ago
My view of reality and their view of reality does not match. You could also have added I can even prove my views within the context of consistency and objective evidence. You could have named the video I disagree with people who think the Bible is all truth
This would have been a more direct, more precisely correct, less confused and ultimately more honest way to get to your point.
DURound 2 years ago
And therein lies the problem. You have taken a long (and I will be generous) intellectual route to arrive at a very emotional, subjective conclusion. You could have been far more direct and effective by saying Some people live in a world and reality where for them, the Bible is the fundamental definition of truth. I live in a world and reality where I find errors in the Bible and where I cannot accept the Bible as anything but a myth.
DURound 2 years ago
So, in the end, you claim this is irrational and absurd, but note.. this is your subjective evaluation. It is not an objective conclusion.
DURound 2 years ago
What you don't understand is that everything is subjective. Even syllogisms cannot deduce absolute truth, as they contain premises which are the result of induction.
However, I believe that critical thinking allow more accurate conclusions.
According to your logic, all anyone has to do is claim something is an axiom and they are off the hook to defend it.
Your arguments are very emotional here, as I obviously hurt your feelings or something.
crazypills2 2 years ago
What you don't understand is that everything is subjective.
==
You are right. I do not understand that. For example, I do not understand how binary math is subjective.
On the other hand, had you been payiing attention you would have noted that I have been consistently posting that your objections are subjective but wrapped in a pseudo-intellectual logic.
DURound 2 years ago
According to your logic, all anyone has to do is claim something is an axiom and they are off the hook to defend it.
===
That is correct.
And it is true according to your logic.
Your arguments are very emotional here, as I obviously hurt your feelings or something.
===
I have no idea what you are talking about. You invited me here and asked for my responses even though I told you in advance I did not agree with you. I'm just commenting.
DURound 2 years ago
You then argue about the person who claims you do not have the mind of Christ and cannot understand. You would agree you do not have the mind of Christ. So they may be right maybe you dont understand. It is possible that the system in which they operate requires this feature which you do not have. You cannot simply declare it invalid only because you are defective in that attribute.
DURound 2 years ago
The mind of christ...well, I used to believe I had it. Having been on both sides, I do not believe it exists. And, if it does exist, it is not what they claim. These individuals have never read it in the context it was spoken. Paul said that those who are divided on belief do not have the mind of christ. Both arminians and calvinists are guilty of this.
crazypills2 2 years ago
The mind of christ... I do not believe it exists.
===
I suspect that at least some folk would say you never had any experience with it.
it does exist, it is not what they claim.
===
How would you know?
Paul said that those who are divided on belief do not have the mind of christ.
===
And yet Paul was divided on belief with others. So was Christ himself.
DURound 2 years ago
You then declare that A person must defend a presupposition, but where is this ever declared as necessary except by your arbitrary standards? If the Bible is an axiom, that does not need to be defended it simply is.
You even recognize this by declaring A dogmatic presupposition is not open to evidential claims. Of course it isnt it is axiomatic.
DURound 2 years ago
Pink unicorns are an axiom. Now, you must accept this...I don't have to provide any evidence. Do you not see the absurdity in your logic?
Unfortunately, you see nothing wrong with this, just as you think belief in astrology is rational.
crazypills2 2 years ago
Pink unicorns are an axiom.
=== I suppose you mean to say that "within some system the statement 'Pink unicorns exist' is an axiom."
Now, you must accept this.
=== I do not have to accept your axioms unless I want to operate within that system.
I don't have to provide any evidence.
=== That is correct. You do not have to provide any evidence.
Do you not see the absurdity in your logic?
== No.
you think belief in astrology is rational.
== I never said that.
DURound 2 years ago
You also say it is not possible to draw a straight line between two points in the relativistic fourth dimensional universe. As I recall this is false: It is *possible*.
With regard to the Bible being axiomatic you say You can call it a postulate, a first principle or a presupposition as though these are all terms DIFFERENT from axiom. But they are all the same thing as axiom, with only presupposition possibly having a value laden difference.
DURound 2 years ago
Demonstrate it is possible to draw a straight line in a universe where space-time is curved. Don't make unsubstantiated claims.
crazypills2 2 years ago
Demonstrate it is possible to draw a straight line in a universe where space-time is curved.
How about this?:
---
Don't make unsubstantiated claims.
===
Like you?
DURound 2 years ago
Three dashes look pretty straight. However, keep adding dashes. As in, enough to span to a distant galaxy.
The inability to see curvature over the span of just three tiny dashes is like the inability to distinguish a single of sand on a beach from the opposite shore using only your natural eyesight.
It's there, you're just not measuring well enough.
ShallowThoughts 2 years ago
Incidentally, the description of a specific PARADOX (Deny existence exists) is a logical non-sequitur. Moreover, there is a technique for such a denial without self reference. That technique is MU, which comes out of ZEN and means to unask the question. A refutation of that statement would be simply to say MU.
You make the statement that Euclids axioms are not true axiom because they do not meet your false second criteria. This is the No True Scottsman fallacy.
DURound 2 years ago
For example the axiom that I gave previously there is no natural number whose successor is 1 can be refuted by the alternative axiom there is no natural number whose successor is zero. This refutation however, does not refute itself. Your test of what is or is not an axiom does not hold up. (this is not to say, that when you see a self refutation, you have not observed an error but it is to say that this is not a sufficient nor necessary test of axioms)
DURound 2 years ago
Let's see...my definition of an axiom is wrong and yours is right. But, you have yet to demonstrate that mine is wrong. You should read Ayn Rand.
crazypills2 2 years ago
my definition of an axiom is wrong and yours is right.
===
I would say it differently. I would say yours is more limited and mine is general.
But, you have yet to demonstrate that mine is wrong.
===
That is false. You should read Ayn Rand.
===
I do not like her.
DURound 2 years ago
The concept of self evident is subject to the critique of petitio principii circular reasoning. And with good cause. Axioms are ONLY things that are self evident when speaking very informally when speaking with precision, an axiom is something that is DECIDED as being a basis for future determinations.
In addition, your concept that if something is an axiom, denial of that axiom must be self refuting is clearly false
DURound 2 years ago
How is it 'clearly' false? Are you being truthful?
crazypills2 2 years ago
How is it 'clearly' false?
===
If we are talking about your secoond "logial" method for determining what is and what is not an axiom, it is clearly false if I can find one instance of an axiom where such a test fails. I found and showed one. I could find and show others. Are you being truthful?
===
Certainly. I have "shown all my work" -- you can see it for yourself.
DURound 2 years ago
This will be my final post in this thread.
You claim that you can demonstrate that my definition is 'clearly' wrong by providing your own definition.
You seem to think that MY definition is unique, and that axioms are not self-evident. However, if you look at most definitions on the internet, you will find that self-evidence is one definition. And, I know why you don't like Rand, as my definition follows hers :-)
You have demonstrated nothing other than a lack of understanding of logic.
crazypills2 2 years ago
You claim that you can demonstrate that my definition is 'clearly' wrong by providing your own definition
===
No. That is NOT what I claimed. You have not been paying good attention. I said that one aspect of your definition can be falsified. It happens that this is the aspect you rely upon the most.
You have demonstrated nothing other than a lack of understanding of logic.
===
Uhhh... that would be utterly false.
DURound 2 years ago
You assert that The Bible is an axiom is a proposition, which you seem to feel is subject to proof or evidence (you say successfully defend it as an axiom). However, if the statement The Bible is an axiom, is itself axiomatic, it is not subject to proof or evidence. It simply is.
You then provide what you consider to be two criteria for axioms: Self evidence and denial being self refuting. Neither of these standards is sufficient nor necessary for something to be an axiom.
DURound 2 years ago
The title is a descriptive assertion with an unlimited domain. But as a universal assertion it is false, since for some people the Bible is axiomatic. Instead, the Title should at most.. be Normative :The Bible should not be considered axiomatic. This is your opinion. It is not a universal fact.
DURound 2 years ago
Flaws in the Video
This video is an effort to explain a subjective emotional reaction in objective, intellectual, logical terms. It fails.
DURound 2 years ago
By the way, how do you know what the nature of an axiom is. Do you have the universal definition :-)
crazypills2 2 years ago
By the way, how do you know what the nature of an axiom is. Do you have the universal definition
===
Did you not pay attention to how I started this conversation?
Besides, it is not necessary for there to be a universal definition for YOUR definition to be invalid.
DURound 2 years ago
Lol, cute song.
Roan7995 2 years ago
In the beginning Man created God and the Bible.
FlowerClown 2 years ago
Comment removed
Blogrich55 2 years ago
Interesting....NOT!
Blogrich55 2 years ago
Blogrich55,
Even though you have blocked me from your channels and removed my comments, you are still free to post here.
crazypills2 2 years ago
Biologists can prove to you that "all flesh" is mortal. They study the processes which, upon their ultimate breakdown, cause death in all living things.
pirbird14 2 years ago
Hi pirbird14,
I agree that the mortality of individuals is highly likely. However, I chose not to use words like "prove," as that is not what the scientific method offers. Although layman like me can consider these as proven, in their truest sense, they are not. It is not possible to test every scenario to ensure it is true.
Empiricism results in skepticism, which I'm ok with. Although I cannot know with absolute certainty what truth is, I can have good reasons for believing what I do.
crazypills2 2 years ago
You're quite right. I should have said that biologists can show that we're mortal with the same degree of certainty that they can show that the earth is round.
Religion, on the other hand, merely asserts absolute certainty; and, instead of offering proof, demand abject submission to asserted authority.
pirbird14 2 years ago
Nice video Steve ! I find your calm voice and logical reasoning soothing =) .
***** alphadog
alphadog7473 2 years ago
Thanks for the kind words alphadog7473
crazypills2 2 years ago
Hi there,
Agree. People just have to be aware of the axioms usually only work in a limited realm, especially in mathematics. And they can happily contradict each other when they apply to different realms (curved and flat space, ...). I also agree, that we discover new realms, and that we come up with new axioms in order to navigate them. Thinking of it it would be interesting to flesh out which axioms about reality apply to the maximum number of realms.
Thanks again!
muuminlaakso 2 years ago
Hi muuminlaakso,
I only believe that there are three true axioms, none of which deal with mathematics. These are 1) existence exists, 2) identity, and 3 consciousness. But, identify and consciousness are tied to existence. I believe that these are the only three which are both self-evident and whose contradiction is self-refuting.
I may be wrong though.
crazypills2 2 years ago
That should be "whose denial is self-refuting"
crazypills2 2 years ago
Thanks Steve,
Could not come with any more myself. Always had my issues with identity too, since "things" truly can be identical on the microscopic scale (like in a Bose-Einstein condensate) it is only an approximation on the macroscopic scale.
muuminlaakso 2 years ago
Nice one. In passing you educated me about Euclid's "axioms". Well done. However, I do not agree on them not being right. There are geometries in which they are not, but in an Euclidean space they are. So what you can state without any problem is that Euclidean propositions do not hold in the Universe as we see it today. You said this implicitly, but I think this needs to be stated more clearly.
Just my two cents.
muuminlaakso 2 years ago
Hi muuminlaakso,
I don't mean to imply that Euclid's work is unimportant or even wrong, just as I wouldn't say that about Newton. However, as our understanding improves, our perception changes.
crazypills2 2 years ago
Brilliant, well said and well spoken. 5*
LithodidMan 2 years ago
Thanks LithodidMan.
crazypills2 2 years ago
OMG! I can see your face from here!!!
(Dont worry, I am high right now).
The axiom thesis is good, but I usually am not confronted with these things. Usually because they think I am insane or some such and don't respond to my comments. I can't blame them. I usually don't take them seriously at all and ask utterly retarded qestions for my own amusement. ;*)
GnosticAtheist 2 years ago
Thanks GnosticAtheist. I'm glad you stopped by.
Steve
crazypills2 2 years ago
very nice video. Good point.
Aprilshowersss 2 years ago
Thanks Aprilshowersss
crazypills2 2 years ago
You contradict yourself, surprise surprise, when you suggesst an axiom for you would be empiricism (more or less.) Yet Empiricism is NOT self evident to many people. Better luck next time.
Is evolution intuitively obvious? Many people assume it and use it as an axiom.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
Rich,
When did I state or even imply empiricism is an axiom? It definitely is not an axiom.
And, I never stated or suggested that evolution is intuitively obvious. Therefore, an individual who makes claims about evolution must provide evidence when questioned. And so must those who claim creationism.
crazypills2 2 years ago
Evolution may not be intuitively obvious, but it is such a core concept today that it's something that's completely reasonable to assume educated people are familiar with and accept. A bit like mathematics or Newtonian physics is something that can be assumed.
Not as an axiom though, if those mechanisms themselves are in dispute, they'll need to be backed up, but that only happens in discussions with members of bronze age cults.
Gnomefro 2 years ago
It's worth mentioning that there are many facts of evolution though, such as life evolving, that natural selection is a real mechanism and that the mechanisms of life changing are known. I suppose it's possible that you're confused by people pointing to those and saying that they are facts of evolution that have been observed and need to be explained in any theory of life.
Or something like that, but again, that's not an axiom. Just a side effect of science actually having evidence for ToE.
Gnomefro