I'll grant that for 2+2=4 - but maths is pure, logical, and provable. Science is not provable, or sometimes even logical - try non-contradiction and wave/particle duality!
This is a bit off topic, but what contradictions do you see in wave/particle duality? What two things cannot both be true and why?
What science isn't provable or logical?
Actually, I was about to bring up axioms.
Axioms in logic are "
a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it. "
Belief in any axiom is an act of faith; and we all have axioms. Again, for many theists,
God is one of their axioms; which rather scuppers your entire argument.
What are you a subjectivist or something?
Way to take the third and mathematic definition and make a specious assertion from it. The first definition of an axiom is "a self-evident truth that requires no proof," From your link. Your definition (the last, #3) pertains to hypothetical mathematics, for the sake of study. In matters of truth, you do not assume axioms, nor do you do so for the sake of study. In matters of truth you accept them because they cannot fail to be true, and you deal with the rest of the matters of truth within their framework. Or do you not accept the existence of self-evident truths?
You do not "believe" in an axiom, you either accept it or you fail to. My existence is a self evident axiom for this conversation, it is not based on faith. Where did you get that "belief in every axiom is an act of faith" tripe?
We also do not "all have axioms" either what they're talking about is an axiom or it isn't. Theists hold mutually incompatible beliefs for their gods, these are not axioms, because they contradict. If they contradict, they cannot both be true, if one (or both) is NOT TRUE it is NOT an axiom.
And yet you believe that the Founding Fathers existed, based purely on writings about and by them. Were you there?
Of course, but not merely based on writings about them. From a variety of evidence, such as their writings, legislation they wrote, their portraits, their homes, Jefferson's Cane sitting on his desk in Philadelphia, the corresponding histories of every other nation, writings of their political opponents, the accounts our our ancestors, etc...
All of these things add up, free of contradiction, and are supported by the evidence. Scripture doesn't have 1% of that kinda verifiability.
Many people claim to love God; and I bet there's a measurable response from that.
As I said above - theists also have their evidence. That you disagree with it does not make it any less in their eyes; that's the nature of subjectivity.
So? I know that when you point out that their "evidence" doesn't constitute evidence by any logical or scientific standard it doesn't effect their opinions on alleged evidence. Thats what it means to be closed minded, to refuse to change your mind when faced with new evidence or the fallacies in your own. Thats not the nature of subjectivity, but of gullibility.
If all these alleged theists have "evidence" for their mutually incompatible and contradictory gods/claims, and thus they cannot all logically be correct, what does that say for your standard of evidence? Don't you realize that if you accept such a shotty standard for truth that you allow for the demonstrably false?
Your failed attempt at making equating all knowledge, beliefs, and axioms as "just as faith based" has been noted, its such a common gutter debate tactic when its clear that the truth is against you. But I am NOT a man of faith, I accept nothing without evidence and
EITHER you have good reasons for what you believe or you don't, period.
EDIT: More importantly, we have to accept the same rules of logic in order to have a debate on epistemology. In your POV are contradictions possible in the universe? Because in mine they aren't, and when you think you've found one you should check your premises.... one of them is wrong. If you allow for contradictions, then there is nothing to be gained in debating with you.
eace
