Replies

So pray tell, how, dear kosta, does my method differ from yours? Evidently there is an axiom at the "bottom" of your intellectualizing. In this respect, there is no difference between you and me. At that level. So to speak.

Where and what is the axiom in my learning that the stove is hot by touching it?

How is that the same as starting with an axiom, "which is 'self-evident' to me,'" as you put it?

You write "I aver that the Truth of Reality is in-built, from the moment of Creation, via Logos, Alpha and Omega."

Based on what evidence?

I believe the language of mathematics/logics authoritatively expresses this Reality

I couldn't disagree more. The Hubble Space Telescope is a living example of this. Someone trusted the numbers more than reality and the Telescope was launched with 'myopic' optics. On paper, however, the instrument was 'flawless.'

That is, it seems you propose yourself as the "measure" of all that is.

And who isn't? But I don't force my imagination on others as self-evident truth.

To which I might say: Well, this may be the measure of you; but not necessarily of the rest of us. God have mercy....

When the "rest of us" say things like "On the other hand I start with an axiom, which is "self-evident" to me,"I would say the "rest of us" are no different.

All I can say (suggest) is that, to the extent you put the needful criteria of your self first, you occlude God's Truth.

I assume you you believe the Bible, which says that all have fallen short of the glory of God, which would include both of us as well. If you are going to judge others, bear in mind that perhaps your ego also occludes God's Truth, whatever it may be?

You know, I am so amazed how readily self-professed Christians can accuse, indeed, condemn, someone who is not on their sheet of music.

My point about axioms is that they are not arbitrary, nor subjectively determined in any sense

Oh?

The crucial point about the mathematical axiom is that it is a universal by definition

But it's not real; it's hypothetical.

That is, applying to all times and places whatsoever, for all time.

Hypothetically speaking...

You know, I am so amazed how readily self-professed Christians can accuse, indeed, condemn, someone who is not on their sheet of music.

You are not being condemned by betty boop nor by me. You are not even being judged by either of us.

Our judgments on this thread concern beliefs, spirituality, theology, philosophy, worldviews and paradigms.

And we are polar opposites to you on most of these. Christianity is not compatible with metaphysical naturalism.

Concerning mathematics and universals, every time a mathematician uses a variable in a formula it attests to the universality of the formula.

And we are polar opposites on mathematical paradigms. The Platonist paradigm says the geometry exists and the mathematician comes along and discovers it. The Aristotlean paradigm says the mathematician invents the geometry.

You write "I aver that the Truth of Reality is in-built, from the moment of Creation, via Logos, Alpha and Omega."

Based on what evidence?

In my view, the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences (Wigner) is like God's copyright notice on the cosmos.

But if a person precludes God on principle under metaphysical naturalism, he cannot receive even that evidence.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: - Romans 1:20

God is not a hypothesis. He lives. His Name is I AM. I've known Him for a half century and counting.

I couldn’t disagree more. The Hubble Space Telescope is a living example of this. Someone trusted the numbers more than reality and the Telescope was launched with ‘myopic’ optics. On paper, however, the instrument was ‘flawless.’

###

IIRC, . . . that describes an error

WITH the numbers.

NOT an error OF the numbers.

Numbers are pretty basic critters.

The fallible humans goofed WITH the numbers. The numbers just sat there—puzzle pieces in the humans’ hands.