In my wanderings debating on a catholic forum I've had an argument thrown at me involving Tautologies, using them as an example of things that require no observable empirical testing to be true. I'm pretty sure this is merely a quick lead in to show that God is one of these things that doesn't require observable empirical testing to be true
I just thought I'd run my response by the crowd here first, to see if anybody else has any thoughts on this particular topic, as I've not seen this kind of thing argued before.
"Agreed. And now, we can agree that there are truths which do not require observable
empirical testing. They are true in their inherent rationality.
I give more credit to our rational faculty than you do, Phooney. You only accept what you can
prove has been demonstrated by whatever physical observable science is available at any given
time. I say our rational faculty can lead us into higher truths."
This is very interesting. I will take some time at some stage to read up on tautologies in
propositional logic. I have already mentioned such things that are proven through retortion,
like me saying "I exist". The inherent truth of tautologies is something else that I am happy to
concede. I think it is safe to say that yes tautologies are true by definition, but they don't
neccesarily have any correspondence reality or existence. Your unicorn tautology is a good
example, just because a unicorn eats hay or it doesn't, says nothing about whether unicorns
exist. Also, while true, they are incoherent if you or nobody else knows what a unicorn is, with
as much meaning to people as complete gibberish. Just as a logically sound argument is only true
when the premises are true, despite being logically sound.
Are you saying "God exists" is a tautology or something?
"There are mathematical truths, for example, which cannot be tested empirically."
Sure, such as we can say that the number 5,392,292,748,173,290,098,234,329,293,239,726,239,923 is
a number, but nobody will ever count to it. Luckily for us such mathematical truths are built on
simpler truths, that allow us to satisfactorily prove complicated concepts that we are, I agree,
unable to test empirically.
"It is not uncommon for a physicist to say, "we know x is mathematically true, but we
cannot prove it observably."
reality and existence. The example I have brought up earlier in this thread and in the last one
was loop vortex theory, which was mathematically sound and matched observations, but has been
proven to not be an accurate model of the universe.
coincidentally, I requested and received a book for Christmas called "What we Believe but Cannot
Prove: Science in the Age of Certainty" which I am looking forward to reading, but it is a few
books down in the list at the moment.
"If you could BOLD or something my stuff or your stuff when you respond, I could get
through it more quickly..."
them ever since, I will try to use it from now on. I see by quote 669 that you have some
problems with it as well!