Truth

[Hugo]

I detect a supposition here on your part, one that I would contend. The idea that the truth about existential questions in life - like those about God, religious truth, morality, and things like that - are to be attained through a process similar to the one that we utilize to find out facts about the material world around us isn't really an Islamic idea to being with. I mean, if God wanted us to reach the truth about Him and His true religion through empirical, scientific means, then the most obvious way for Him to reveal Himself would be through, well, simply showing Himself to us, right? Yet, the Qur'an ridicules the mere idea, which, at least, tells us that this notion of using the scientific method as a yard stick to find out whether or not Islam is the truth isn't something that a Muslim would say is the proper method in the first place. In other words: no one said that it is scientifically provable that Gabriel, for instance, cleansed the heart of the Prophet. I am not saying that one should believe based on blind faith or something like that. And I do believe that Islam is the truth and can be provable, in a sense. But my point here is that the discussion cannot even begin before we agree on what it actually means to prove something, and a Muslim would say that the empirical method is the wrong one due to its limitiation (and by limitation I mean: it is used to find out truth about the material world, and God isn't material, nor are religious truths).

If you see my earlier post you will note that I state that empiricism is logicically unsound though sometime its all we have. Secondly, I would say that the scientific method is much to be preferred but when it comes to God and revelation there is no material evidence available to us. The problem often is as expressed by Socrates 3,000 years ago when he said " is what is Holy, Holy because the God's approve it, or do they approve it because it is Holy" and is a classic induction hypothesis. Therefore, whether the Bible or the Qu'ran is from God or not, is a question of faith not proof because no such proof exists - we can can trace the text, date the text and so on but they cannot prove a God exists.

Finally, proof is a hard concept but means that the phenomenon we are looking at is always true, it’s not a matter of belief but something that cannot be avoided (gravity for example) - Archimedes principle is unconstrained, meaning it is always true for everyone, all the time, everywhere, is accepted by all and cannot be avoided or ignored by anyone - simplistically, it does not matter what kind of bath you get in, colour shape or whatever, the water will always be displaced. In contrast if I say the Qu'ran is the word of God because it is linguistically perfect then such a test cannot ONLY apply to the Qu'ran, it must apply to ANY book, ipso facto ANY book can be from God. Of course I can suggest other seemingly plausible tests but they will all fail the test of Universality because they are essentially inductive and hence cannot be proof and in a way the reason is obvious and that is we cannot even prove God exists.

I am not arguing that God does not exist since there is no way of knowing that one way or the other but what in faith I have done and in principle anyone can do is become convinced after reading say the Bible and seeing its teaching outworking in ones own and the lives of others - I don't think it is possible to go beyond that.

 

[Hugo]

right so you now you believe that the law of gravity is now not absolute as it suffers from induction! Have you wasted everyones time by talking about something you have just refuted 7 pages later????

I get the feeling I am wasting my time with you. From the time signature of my original post and your reply we have a maximum of 6 minutes so you are not even considering what I have said are you and certainly not bothering to check any thing out - perhaps you ought to be aware of the saying "awareness of our own ignorance is the doorstep to knowledge?

The laws of nature DO NOT suffer from induction. Induction as I have shown gives you NO CERTAINTY, it cannot with reliability predict the future. But if I have a law of nature I can do it with precision. For example, if I know the voltage and resistance in a circuit I can work out exactly what the current will be, I do not need knowledge of past events to do that. It is suggested there are 18 basic physical laws in the universe: Fluid mechanics : Archimedes’ principle, Force, mass, and inertia, Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion, Newton’s three laws of motion, Euler's laws of rigid body motion, Newton’s law of universal gravitation, Heat, energy, and temperature, Newton’s law of cooling, Boyle’s law, Law of conservation of energy, Joule’s first and second law, The four laws of thermodynamics, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

 

[جوري]

perhaps you ought to be aware of the saying "awareness of our own ignorance is the doorstep to knowledge?

We certainly hope you take your own advise pithy phrase -- fact is, most people here feel that you are wasting their time and not reading anything and your replies aren't in fact either inapplicable to anything they've said nor draw from its premise or dodgy at best when you can't reconcile your own beliefs, least of which when simply stated a couple of pages ago.. I'd put that into a table of you vs. those who feel you are wasting their time and if the percentage is overwhelmingly against you, then I'd consider that there is something wrong with your person rather than there is something wrong with everyone else!

all the best

 

[Zafran]

I get the feeling I am wasting my time with you. From the time signature of my original post and your reply we have a maximum of 6 minutes so you are not even considering what I have said are you and certainly not bothering to check any thing out - perhaps you ought to be aware of the saying "awareness of our own ignorance is the doorstep to knowledge?

The laws of nature DO NOT suffer from induction. Induction as I have shown gives you NO CERTAINTY, it cannot with reliability predict the future. But if I have a law of nature I can do it with precision. For example, if I know the voltage and resistance in a circuit I can work out exactly what the current will be, I do not need knowledge of past events to do that. It is suggested there are 18 basic physical laws in the universe: Fluid mechanics : Archimedes’ principle, Force, mass, and inertia, Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion, Newton’s three laws of motion, Euler's laws of rigid body motion, Newton’s law of universal gravitation, Heat, energy, and temperature, Newton’s law of cooling, Boyle’s law, Law of conservation of energy, Joule’s first and second law, The four laws of thermodynamics, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

From all your examples you need to test these if they work - lets take the law of gravity - how do you know that the law of gravity is going to work in the future - your answer becasue all the experiments I have done in the past say so - its induction and thats what it suffers with? what part of this do you not understand. All of the exmaples you give preety much rely on experiments from the past.

By the way this isnt just me if you Go back to Lynk post (57) he expalins the same thing maybe you should apply "awareness of our own ignorance is the doorstep to knowledge"? Did you miss that on purpose?

You need to solve the problem of induction for this to be absolute. If you cannot do that then it is a belief that these laws will work in the future.

I have read your previous post and it makes your position look even weaker!

 

[Hugo]

We certainly hope you take your own advise pithy phrase -- fact is, most people here feel that you are wasting their time and not reading anything and your replies aren't in fact either inapplicable to anything they've said nor draw from its premise or dodgy at best when you can't reconcile your own beliefs, least of which when simply stated a couple of pages ago.. I'd put that into a table of you vs. those who feel you are wasting their time and if the percentage is overwhelmingly against you, then I'd consider that there is something wrong with your person rather than there is something wrong with everyone else!

I do but here what have you added to the discussion? But like always in these threads no one has to read what others have written

 

[جوري]

I do but here what have you added to the discussion? But like always in these threads no one has to read what others have written

rather what have you added to the discussion with your all too frequent dodges by way of pithy phrases oh pithy one? We are simply pointing out the obvious which you desire from others but seem to exempt of yourself.. I highly doubt you sit down with yourself and reassess why many seem to have formulated a similar stance on the quality of your posts or lack thereof.......

all the best

 

[Zafran]

I do but here what have you added to the discussion? But like always in these threads no one has to read what others have written

This does seem to be the case with you - but if your going to repeat the same rhetoric over and over again when it isnt accurate dont expect people to nod there heads in agreement with everything you say. Your view on Newtons law being absolute and not suffering from induction being a big one.

 

[Hugo]

From all your examples you need to test these if they work - lets take the law of gravity - how do you know that the law of gravity is going to work in the future - your answer becasue all the experiments I have done in the past say so - its induction and thats what it suffers with? what part of this do you not understand. All of the exmaples you give preety much rely on experiments from the past.

Induction gives no certainty of future events but laws of nature do. I can design a circuit using known laws, I can work out the trajectory of a ball and know where it will land and so on. What an experiment does is CONFIRM a law and ones confirmed we may uses it with absolute confidence. If you don't agree the add some content, explain how induction and deduction differ? I will now consider post 57

Newton's laws are NOT 'absolutely' true and they do rely on inductive reasoning. The mathematical equations only describe what would happen IF my assumptions about the natural world are true and your assumptions of the natural world are only true because of some inductive reasoning.

This is NOT correct, it is true that Newton might have been inductive when he was searching for those laws and eventually guessed what they might be. However, at some point he was able to formulate a theory and once he had that he could decide what data was needer to verify them. Ever after the discovery the predictions they make about the natural world will be correct. If there is an assumption here it is that the laws of nature don't change and since Newtons Laws have been used trillions of times everyday for as long as the Universe has existed it is hardly an assumption is it? The whole point of reasoning in a way is to discover the laws of nature and that of course gives us power over it.

But if the universe changed all of a sudden and Newton's laws no longer applied, what would happen to your mathematical equations? They would no longer apply and would no longer be able to give you accurate predictions

But surely in any conceivably Universe some laws must apply and so there would in effect always be Newtons laws in one form or another. But what possible mechanism can you think of that would cause the laws of nature to change? It is of course true that some recent cosmological measurement hint that the value of the fine-structure constants may have changed over the history of the universe (85 million years). If confirmed, the results will be of enormous significance for the foundations of physics but physics remains and what this would be about is why the laws are as they are - for example, we are familiar with magnetism and we have precise laws surrounding it but what exactly it is, is a mystery.

So it's very naive of you to say you will always know equations in Newtons physics will always be true; they will only always be true if what they are meant to describe stay the same and there is no logical guarantee that they will!

This make no sense to me - you like every one else uses their Iphone every day, get on Aeroplanes, turn on the TV and so on NO ONE would think me in any way odd or naive for thinking as I do. They would though most likely think you bonkers for suggesting all this may may change tomorrow. The premise is that the laws of physics don't change and as far as I know there is no evidence at all that they do unless you have some - as I have said every law of physics (including the ones we don't know about) have worked perfectly trillions upon trillion of times - how much evidence do you want?

A rule of thumb that that helps clear up confusion between certainty and near certainty is to see if you get a contradiction if you assumed that something you think is absolute is not absolute. It's easy to see how tomorrow the universe could magically change and all your laws of physics will turn out to be wrong (this is logically possible and if this logical possibility exists you can't claim certitude, or at least not in the 'deductive' sense) but I suppose it's harder to see how an equation as simple as x + 1 = 4 could give you a wrong answer. Math is a little funny though, it seems to be the case, as Godel proved, that math will be true but unprovable logically.

This is a bit muddled as I cannot for the life of me see easily or otherwise how the laws of the Universe could change - so perhaps we are at an impasse - you accept the premise that the laws can change and I that they cannot. So in a way perhaps we both agree with Godel (well we cannot do anything else can we as he has PROVED it, unless you think that could change as well?) that in any system there will always be something that you cannot prove but have to assume (though Turing and others made it worse).

 

[Hugo]

This does seem to be the case with you - but if your going to repeat the same rhetoric over and over again when it isnt accurate dont expect people to nod there heads in agreement with everything you say. Your view on Newtons law being absolute and not suffering from induction being a big one.

But cannot you see that if Newtons Laws are inductive I would have to have tables of velocity and acceleration from past experiments and if I wanted to find a particular value I would have to look it up using these past events. But we don't do that do we because we KNOW the law that connects the variables so we DO NOT need to know about past events to predict motion events in the future.

 

[Abu Zakariya]

If you see my earlier post you will note that I state that empiricism is logicically unsound though sometime its all we have. Secondly, I would say that the scientific method is much to be preferred but when it comes to God and revelation there is no material evidence available to us. The problem often is as expressed by Socrates 3,000 years ago when he said " is what is Holy, Holy because the God's approve it, or do they approve it because it is Holy" and is a classic induction hypothesis. Therefore, whether the Bible or the Qu'ran is from God or not, is a question of faith not proof because no such proof exists - we can can trace the text, date the text and so on but they cannot prove a God exists.

Finally, proof is a hard concept but means that the phenomenon we are looking at is always true, it’s not a matter of belief but something that cannot be avoided (gravity for example) - Archimedes principle is unconstrained, meaning it is always true for everyone, all the time, everywhere, is accepted by all and cannot be avoided or ignored by anyone - simplistically, it does not matter what kind of bath you get in, colour shape or whatever, the water will always be displaced. In contrast if I say the Qu'ran is the word of God because it is linguistically perfect then such a test cannot ONLY apply to the Qu'ran, it must apply to ANY book, ipso facto ANY book can be from God. Of course I can suggest other seemingly plausible tests but they will all fail the test of Universality because they are essentially inductive and hence cannot be proof and in a way the reason is obvious and that is we cannot even prove God exists.

I am not arguing that God does not exist since there is no way of knowing that one way or the other but what in faith I have done and in principle anyone can do is become convinced after reading say the Bible and seeing its teaching outworking in ones own and the lives of others - I don't think it is possible to go beyond that.

Fair enough, I do think that I can see your point here, but I don't agree with what you say about there not being a way to know whether or not God exists. God wants us to accept His message of truth and He wouldn't have made His existence (or His message) unknowable. It isn't scientifically verifiable, I think, due to the limitations of the scientific method but that doesn't mean that it is unknowable.

 

[Zafran]

Induction gives no certainty of future events but laws of nature do. I can design a circuit using known laws, I can work out the trajectory of a ball and know where it will land and so on. What an experiment does is CONFIRM a law and ones confirmed we may uses it with absolute confidence. If you don't agree the add some content, explain how induction and deduction differ? I will now consider post 57

How do you know where that ball will land, how can you work this out? we'll see your reasoning here and you'll see you use induction. How do you know these known laws for example making a circuit? Your not deducing anything your using induction you'll see from the explanation you'll give.

This is NOT correct, it is true that Newton might have been inductive when he was searching for those laws and eventually guessed what they might be. However, at some point he was able to formulate a theory and once he had that he could decide what data was needer to verify them. Ever after the discovery the predictions they make about the natural world will be correct. If there is an assumption here it is that the laws of nature don't change and since Newtons Laws have been used trillions of times everyday for as long as the Universe has existed it is hardly an assumption is it? The whole point of reasoning in a way is to discover the laws of nature and that of course gives us power over it.

Pin point example of induction we know that Newtons laws have worked because they have worked trillion years in the PAST so clearly according to you they will work in the future for that reason - By the way how do you know that Newtons laws have been working trillions of years in the past and how are you certain with this one?

This make no sense to me - you like every one else uses their Iphone every day, get on Aeroplanes, turn on the TV and so on NO ONE would think me in any way odd or naive for thinking as I do. They would though most likely think you bonkers for suggesting all this may may change tomorrow. The premise is that the laws of physics don't change and as far as I know there is no evidence at all that they do unless you have some - as I have said every law of physics (including the ones we don't know about) have worked perfectly trillions upon trillion of times - how much evidence do you want?

why is it because our I phones, Aeroplanes and TV have worked in the past - so they Must work in the future - I get you more induction. You also ram it home by saying it worked trillions and trillions of time when? oh in the past - more induction you should by now understand where I'm getting at.

another thing is that how do you know that the laws of newton dont change??? is it that also becasue they havent changed in the past - so clearly they wont change in the future (according to you) - More induction.

So all the examples you have given so far are based on induction - every single one. You do see this right.

 

[Zafran]

But cannot you see that if Newtons Laws are inductive I would have to have tables of velocity and acceleration from past experiments and if I wanted to find a particular value I would have to look it up using these past events. But we don't do that do we because we KNOW the law that connects the variables so we DO NOT need to know about past events to predict motion events in the future.

Hugo man seriously no you dont know that - the only thing you are certain and absolute of is that Newtons law work fine in the past - that in no way means we can be absolute or certain that they will work in the future - For you to believe that which you have shown in your previous post is only by Induction - do you understand now. I have highlighted your inductive reasoning in your previous post. I think its quite clear.

 

[Hugo]

Hugo man seriously no you dont know that - the only thing you are certain and absolute of is that Newtons law work fine in the past - that in no way means we can be absolute or certain that they will work in the future - For you to believe that which you have shown in your previous post is only by Induction - do you understand now. I have highlighted your inductive reasoning in your previous post. I think its quite clear.

Before we continue can you just tell me if YOU think that the only form of reasoning is inductive?

 

[Zafran]

Before we continue can you just tell me if YOU think that the only form of reasoning is inductive?

No but it is for Newtons law and experimental science.

 

[Hugo]

No but it is for Newtons law and experimental science.

Ok, that is your view but what others methods are there other than induction and perhaps you will give an example of use?

 

[Zafran]

Ok, that is your view but what others methods are there other than induction and perhaps you will give an example of use?

Do you accept that your using induction or not - i believe you are and have clearly shown it with your examples.

 

[Hugo]

Do you accept that your using induction or not - i believe you are and have clearly shown it with your examples.

We all use induction in our every day lives but I do not use induction when say I cite Ohms law. But let me answer by asking you two questions.

1. Do you agree that induction is flawed because it implies a circular form of reasoning that in general it cannot be trusted to give us a reliable predictor of the future?

2. If we consider Newtons 3 Laws of Motion, can you explain how he got them by induction - the usual classical forms v = u + at, s = (u + v)t/2 etc?

 

[Hugo]

Fair enough, I do think that I can see your point here, but I don't agree with what you say about there not being a way to know whether or not God exists. God wants us to accept His message of truth and He wouldn't have made His existence (or His message) unknowable. It isn't scientifically verifiable, I think, due to the limitations of the scientific method but that doesn't mean that it is unknowable.

Some points which we might usefully consider.

1. I don't think the scientific method is at fault its that we cannot get material data with which to work?
2. One has to be careful when arguing in the form of what God would or would not do because it pre-supposes he exists so we end in a paradox. However, I do concur that we can find God if we search for him. Christians and Jews are unconcerned about proofs but take the line expressed in Jeremiah 29:10-15 (NIV)

For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you," declares the LORD, "and will bring you back from captivity.​

Of course contextually this is about those in exile but in a sense without God we are all exiled. So the key for the Jew and Christian is not to look for proofs of God but rather to focus on finding God, so when we read the Bible we ask what is God saying to us?

One might go further back to Abraham the father of all our faiths. He had no scripture, no miracles, no proofs but somehow in Ur where he lived, part of a glittering Sumerian civilization, he sought God and heard his call and set off for the promised land - which at that time was inhabited by nomads.

So yes, God is knowable but we must seek for Him and his working and prompting in our hearts and minds and of course now we have much more than Abraham to aid the search. So looking for proofs seems empty to me as well as rationally impossible. If we speak of evidence then I see it in the lives of the Biblical characters, Biblical teaching and I see how it transforms lives today - but this is just evidence not proof and so each of us must be convinced like Abraham in our own minds that God is/has called us.

What is your take on this?

 

[Zafran]

We all use induction in our every day lives but I do not use induction when say I cite Ohms law. But let me answer by asking you two questions.

1. Do you agree that induction is flawed because it implies a circular form of reasoning that in general it cannot be trusted to give us a reliable predictor of the future?

2. If we consider Newtons 3 Laws of Motion, can you explain how he got them by induction - the usual classical forms v = u + at, s = (u + v)t/2 etc?

1 - No what I am saying is that newtons law, Ohams law and any other law are the best Guess work we have - but in no way does this mean that it is absolute like you are claiming. I Believe its a belief and strong one that Newtons laws will work in the futuire but that is only what it is a strong belief not certainty or absolute which you are arguing for.

2 - and what does this have to do with certainty - Even if Newtons laws worked in the past by Newton carrying out tests does that mean they are certain or even absolute to work in the future - of course not. We can believe it but by no means does it mean it is certain.

Now If you still believe that Newtons laws are absolute then whats your problem with somebody claiming that his or her religious scripture is absolute???

 

[Hugo]

1 - No what I am saying is that newtons law, Ohams law and any other law are the best Guess work we have - but in no way does this mean that it is absolute like you are claiming. I Believe its a belief and strong one that Newtons laws will work in the futuire but that is only what it is a strong belief not certainty or absolute which you are arguing for.

I would go along with the notion that Newtons laws are the best explanation we have. Now I can explain how by deduction we get these laws but you cannot (well not so far anyway) explain how they arise by induction. The point is that I can test these laws, anyone can test them and get the same results BUT we KNOW induction does not have that property. One cannot logically hold to the view that induction is only 'certain' in some cases and not others.

Please think about this and let me hear your answer. Einstein, in the early 1900s brought us amongst other things General and Special Relativity - can you explain how he did that using induction? This is a critical question if your arguments are correct and you don't need a degree in physics to answer it.

Now If you still believe that Newtons laws are absolute then whats your problem with somebody claiming that his or her religious scripture is absolute???

I have no problem in general with anyone claiming their scriptures are absolute but the issue is not what is claimed but what can be proved and I have yet to see a proof, a universal proof that ANY scripture is unequivocally the very word of God. If you wish to present one then do so.