I asked this in the wrong thread (since I didn't know this one existed, and ended up hijacking the thread):

Why is the universe being ordered "self-evidently true", but god's existence is not?

I would say that the universe's existence is axiomatic. We assume we are not in a dream. But, the fact that it's ordered does not have to be. I'd like to see that other post where you explain why it has to be an axiom rather than a (scientific) fact.

Other posts I wrote in that thread that should have been here:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's equivocating the word "faith". We've been through all this before. He's saying that induction is "faith" (or at least thinking that induction is valid/reasonable is).

[/ QUOTE ]

More specifically, he is stating that the idea of an orderly universe, which is required for the validity of science, is based on an unprovable assumption and therefore must be taken on faith.

However, as I stated in the thread I started earlier today, that the universe is currently ordered is axiomatic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah... and we know the universe is ordered by induction. We examine it. Since every oberservation has shown it to be ordered, we induce that it is ordered. And the sun will come up(*) tomorrow. I know that by faith, of course. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

(*) Note: by "come up", I mean that the rotation of the earth will bring the sun into our line of sight, in a way that it appears to be "coming up". [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Induction doesn't provide certainty, though. Axioms do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science doesn't provide certainty either. It provides cogency.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Science doesn't provide certainty either. It provides cogency.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the point. The point is that you can be certain that nature is ordered because it's axiomatic. If you "knew" through induction, you wouldn't be 100% certain.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not 100% certain. And, by "Universe", I'm talking about the whole thing. Not just the part we've observed. We are talking about NotReady, here... and his point was that scientific knowleged relies on faith. Again, science doesn't provide certainty. It uses induction. But, that's not "faith". I have no idea what your argument is here.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not 100% certain. And, by "Universe", I'm talking about the whole thing. Not just the part we've observed. We are talking about NotReady, here... and his point was that scientific knowleged relies on faith. Again, science doesn't provide certainty. It uses induction. But, that's not "faith". I have no idea what your argument is here.


[/ QUOTE ]

No kidding.

You think I'm talking about knowledge gained through scientific means. I'm not. I'm talking about whether or not the universe is ordered, and how certain we are of it. We know it's ordered. If that knowledge is based on induction, we aren't certain, and therefore we aren't certain that science is completely valid, since it's based on the idea of an ordered universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not true. Validity is not the same as certainty.

[ QUOTE ]
However, if that knowledge (universe is ordered) is axiomatic, then we *are* certain, and therefore we *are* certain that scientific methods are valid, even if their conclusions aren't 100% true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is "we"? And who made the axiom? And why does this matter? And... nevermind.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't leave this alone...

[ QUOTE ]
However, if that knowledge (universe is ordered) is axiomatic, then we *are* certain, and therefore we *are* certain that scientific methods are valid, even if their conclusions aren't 100% true.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sound like NotReady, now. His axiom is that God exists. Yours is that the Universe is ordered.

I'll repeat: I am not 100% certain that the Universe is ordered. I treat it as a fact, however, due to the overwhelming amount of evidence indicating that it is.

Would you mind explaining why you think the universe being ordered has to be an axiom, rather than a scientific fact?

(Note: a scientific fact is not 100% certain. It is considered to be a fact due to the overhwelming supporting evidence, and therefore, by induction is considered to be a fact.)

[/ QUOTE ]