Soleron said:
Immortal said:
It can't be proven. No divinity or similar concept can ever be proven to be any more than one's imagination.
Well, if I'm going down, I'm taking you with me. In a sense.
Tell me, can you really "prove" most scientific concepts (or anything at all)? They are all, ultimately, based on complete and utter assumptions. I mean, for example, a lot of scientific progress is made through observation. Tell me, what the heck does observation prove? Is there any reason to believe that what you, I or 7 billion people see has any basis in reality whatsoever? Science is also, you might say, based on logical deductions and reasoning. Tell me, what on earth is logic? Isn't it just what you think makes sense? Also, let's rewind a bit. How the heck do you prove anything at all? Just because your reasoning makes sense to yourself and 7 billion other people, it means that your reasoning is valid? I think not.
I'm definitely treading on existential grounds here (nothing can prove that we actually exist and stuff), but I'll be impressed if you can reasonably argue against this.
This is why I like Maths (well, the "Pure" kind, I suppose, if I know it well enough to refer to it). It needn't be real or apply to the world as you know it. It's all abstract and in your head, where nothing needs proof, :D. |
Have you heard of Godel's incompleteness theorem? It is proven that you cannot prove the axioms of any mathematical system are consistent with each other. This means there are some mathematical statements that are true but cannot be proven to be true. Mathematics is at least as insecure as physics. Your argument that nothing can be proven is true but misleading: this can be relatively more or less sure. Like, 1+1=2 is much more certain than gravity, which is much more certain than string theory, and most religious claims about a God that affected the universe AFTER its creation (which seems to be a requirement for religion otherwise why worship/act different if there's no consequences) are among the least proven things on the planet.
|
I hadn't heard of it, but I know the concept already. I don't quite see how you're inferring your third statement, though. How is an axiom true if it cannot be proven to be so (okay, I just contradicted the definition of an axiom, but whatever)? It's just an assumption if it can't be proven, isn't it? Also, doesn't saying that rather destroy this thread? That something is true when it can't be proven... I think you can see the contradiction between that statement and the OP. I personally agree that taking the existence of a God or gods as an axiom is utterly ridiculous, but that's just an opinion. Also, while this is irrelevant, I'd argue that maths is actually more secure than physics. Physics, in most cases, has more to do with the real world (like your example of gravity), which just throws plenty more assumptions into the mix. You do realize, though, that we're sitting on a useless argument if we discuss what's "more true"? If I just want to be rotten, I can ask you how things are said to be more proven than others and who decides this based on what reasoning which has what qualifications to play a role like this in deciding such important matters. And then I can throw you a few more whys and wherefores until you get sick of arguing.
Also, when I was talking about math, I meant the completely nonsensical abstract stuff (like the fourth spatial dimension, an obsession of mine). It doesn't matter whether it can be proven as long as it's confined within the logic concocted by my mind and owes no explanation to any questioning soul.
