-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Any atheists on this board?
- Thread starter McNamara
- Start date
- Status
Hi all! I have been reading the thread for the past couple of days and thought that perhaps this mathematician/physicists would attempt to say something constructive.
Jester's paper was interesting. I think that the idea of predication and causality are truly boggeling. Kant's ideas are all based on a priori and a posteriori experiences. However, upon looking at those premises as a scientist and as a skeptic I have to say there is no such thing as a priori. This means that no knowledge exists before experience. That is to say there are no Platonic forms. If there is not a mind, some mind, to reflect upon knowable things then reality is altered. This could mean that if everyone stopped thinking about apples they cease to exist, but I personally do not take it that far. What I am saying though is that reality is subjective because our only knowledge comes from experience. So, what is knowable? What are the tools we have to experience with? Is there such a thing as reality?
Anything that comes into our realm of experience is knowable. That does not mean that we do know it, but it is possible for us to know it. Tool we have: our minds, skeptisism, physics, mathematics, etc. Basically science. That does not mean that science is reality because as already stated there is not a definitive reality. Definitive reality only exist if you buy Kant's a priori knowledge idea.
Issac Newton, Kant and Descartes use the a priori idea (absolute time,space, and plance) to make their ontological argument. Their proofs for the existance of a God are logically corrupted if you take away their "safety blanket". There are many other way to make a ontological argument, but all of them require knowledge to exist before experience. It is utterly circular; it is a loophole that most people are fooled into.
Just a few closing questions. If there is no definitive reality, there is no definitive morality...i am sure you all got that...i am being redundant. i apologize. So, how do we go about designing a moral code? How do we stop asking the "cause" of things?
AdJ
Jester's paper was interesting. I think that the idea of predication and causality are truly boggeling. Kant's ideas are all based on a priori and a posteriori experiences. However, upon looking at those premises as a scientist and as a skeptic I have to say there is no such thing as a priori. This means that no knowledge exists before experience. That is to say there are no Platonic forms. If there is not a mind, some mind, to reflect upon knowable things then reality is altered. This could mean that if everyone stopped thinking about apples they cease to exist, but I personally do not take it that far. What I am saying though is that reality is subjective because our only knowledge comes from experience. So, what is knowable? What are the tools we have to experience with? Is there such a thing as reality?
Anything that comes into our realm of experience is knowable. That does not mean that we do know it, but it is possible for us to know it. Tool we have: our minds, skeptisism, physics, mathematics, etc. Basically science. That does not mean that science is reality because as already stated there is not a definitive reality. Definitive reality only exist if you buy Kant's a priori knowledge idea.
Issac Newton, Kant and Descartes use the a priori idea (absolute time,space, and plance) to make their ontological argument. Their proofs for the existance of a God are logically corrupted if you take away their "safety blanket". There are many other way to make a ontological argument, but all of them require knowledge to exist before experience. It is utterly circular; it is a loophole that most people are fooled into.
Just a few closing questions. If there is no definitive reality, there is no definitive morality...i am sure you all got that...i am being redundant. i apologize. So, how do we go about designing a moral code? How do we stop asking the "cause" of things?
AdJ
"This could mean that if everyone stopped thinking about apples they cease to exist, but I personally do not take it that far. What I am saying though is that reality is subjective because our only knowledge comes from experience."
Taking something to the extreme is a good way to test your logic...
I would say that reality is objective and our perception of that reality is subjective...
A green stoplight is a green stoplight even if someone that is colorblind sees fucia..
I would tend to agree with you more if you stated that truth exists, and it is our knowledge, gained through experience, that allows us to see truth.
I like your closing thoughts, nash. If you follow that logic, and deny there are moral absolutes, then it is also a circular argument. Why do you not steal? Because it is good for society. Why is it good for society? Because it is wrong to steal.
Taking something to the extreme is a good way to test your logic...
I would say that reality is objective and our perception of that reality is subjective...
A green stoplight is a green stoplight even if someone that is colorblind sees fucia..
I would tend to agree with you more if you stated that truth exists, and it is our knowledge, gained through experience, that allows us to see truth.
I like your closing thoughts, nash. If you follow that logic, and deny there are moral absolutes, then it is also a circular argument. Why do you not steal? Because it is good for society. Why is it good for society? Because it is wrong to steal.
Nashmodeler,
You bring up some interesting points. The issue of a priori knowledge has been examined through the ages-that is, whether a priori knowledge is possible. Given that our condition is based upon both experience and reason, I don't know if it is even possible for one to conclude one way or the other. For it is impossible to live without some a posteriori experience. However, I begin to think of mathematical theorems and how they relate to a posteriori experience. Do you think experience is required for many basic and even complicated mathematical axioms and theorems? Intuitively I answer no. But then this would require that we come into existence with inate ideas. This is what Descartes argued in support of a priori knowledge, and I guess is what you refer to as the "safety net". Just curious as to what your thoughts on this are. It definitely boggles the mind.
Riley,
I disagree with your claim that reality is objective. Like Nashmodeler said, our "knowledge" of our envioronment is based on our experience. This experience is based on our own perceptions, and there is really know way of knowing that our perceptions present us with accurate and true information of our environment. It's like the brain in the vat scenario or the dream scenario. That is, we could all be "brains in a vat" having images and perceptions pumped into our brains. We percieve one world but really exist in another world. This is of course just an example, but another example is the dream scenario. That is, when you dream it is often impossible to know whether or not you're dreaming. Your body is asleep but your mind is percieving a completely different environment. It is possible that what your experiencing now is nothing more than a dream. Now, these examples seem pretty far fetched, but you can see some of the problems that arise with assuming reality is objective. Like you said, our "perceptions are subjective", but that's all we have to go on. So, how could one know if reality is objective?
You bring up some interesting points. The issue of a priori knowledge has been examined through the ages-that is, whether a priori knowledge is possible. Given that our condition is based upon both experience and reason, I don't know if it is even possible for one to conclude one way or the other. For it is impossible to live without some a posteriori experience. However, I begin to think of mathematical theorems and how they relate to a posteriori experience. Do you think experience is required for many basic and even complicated mathematical axioms and theorems? Intuitively I answer no. But then this would require that we come into existence with inate ideas. This is what Descartes argued in support of a priori knowledge, and I guess is what you refer to as the "safety net". Just curious as to what your thoughts on this are. It definitely boggles the mind.
Riley,
I disagree with your claim that reality is objective. Like Nashmodeler said, our "knowledge" of our envioronment is based on our experience. This experience is based on our own perceptions, and there is really know way of knowing that our perceptions present us with accurate and true information of our environment. It's like the brain in the vat scenario or the dream scenario. That is, we could all be "brains in a vat" having images and perceptions pumped into our brains. We percieve one world but really exist in another world. This is of course just an example, but another example is the dream scenario. That is, when you dream it is often impossible to know whether or not you're dreaming. Your body is asleep but your mind is percieving a completely different environment. It is possible that what your experiencing now is nothing more than a dream. Now, these examples seem pretty far fetched, but you can see some of the problems that arise with assuming reality is objective. Like you said, our "perceptions are subjective", but that's all we have to go on. So, how could one know if reality is objective?
After I posted the previous reply I began to think more about perceptions. Are perceptions really subjective? Or, I guess I'm really starting to wonder if that's possible. When I think of subjectivity I think that two or more parties are required to make something subjective. Separate or differing perceptions are needed for subjectivity. So then, an individuals perceptions are known by only the person percieving them and really can't be subjective, objective or anything else. They just are. There just in the mind, there to be interpreted by the person recieving them. Any other thoughts on this. You guys probably think I'm off in lala land now.
rare21 - G.K. Chesterton? "When a Man stops believing in God he doesn¹t then believe in nothing, he believes anything." =)
"If there were no God, there would be no atheists." - Where All Roads Lead, 1922
"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried." - Chapter 5, What's Wrong With The World, 1910
"It has been often said, very truely, that religion is the thing that makes the ordinary man feel extraordinary; it is an equally important truth that religion is the thing that makes the extraordinary man feel ordinary." - Charles Dickens
"Theology is only thought applied to religion." - The New Jerusalem
"The truth is, of course, that the curtness of the Ten Commandments is an evidence, not of the gloom and narrowness of a religion, but, on the contrary, of its liberality and humanity. It is shorter to state the things forbidden than the things permitted: precisely because most things are permitted, and only a few things are forbidden." - ILN 1-3-20
He has many many many many many many more timeless quotes. He wrote about everything. Probably the most neglected author of the 20th century and possibly the best. He was friends with Hillaire Belloc, if any of you have read him.
Josh
"If there were no God, there would be no atheists." - Where All Roads Lead, 1922
"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried." - Chapter 5, What's Wrong With The World, 1910
"It has been often said, very truely, that religion is the thing that makes the ordinary man feel extraordinary; it is an equally important truth that religion is the thing that makes the extraordinary man feel ordinary." - Charles Dickens
"Theology is only thought applied to religion." - The New Jerusalem
"The truth is, of course, that the curtness of the Ten Commandments is an evidence, not of the gloom and narrowness of a religion, but, on the contrary, of its liberality and humanity. It is shorter to state the things forbidden than the things permitted: precisely because most things are permitted, and only a few things are forbidden." - ILN 1-3-20
He has many many many many many many more timeless quotes. He wrote about everything. Probably the most neglected author of the 20th century and possibly the best. He was friends with Hillaire Belloc, if any of you have read him.
Josh
megan620
EA-6B ECMO/IA Wife
I'm going to start this post by saying that I am not an atheist, but I am certainly not a devout follower of any particular religion. I was raised in an "every sunday we have to go to curch household" and when I read things such as contemplate why must I go to church? Why is one religion right and another wrong? But, the more I learn about the human body and how it is formed and how it works together in such a complex manner to make us living & breathing beings...I find it hard to follow that there is NO higher power.
I can't help but wonder why it is that everyone who has posted has mentioned physics/scientific, philisophical, literature-based, (etc.. )comments have failed to mention any medical science arguments. How many of you have studied embryology? When you look at all of the intricately timed growth, folding, and cell division of a growing life (human or animal), I think that it's INCREDIBLY hard to believe that there is NOT a higher power of some sort behind that complexity that results in life as we know it.
Take for instance, the human heart's development from one primitive cardiovascular tube into the four chambered, multi input & output arterial & venous system...well, it really is amazing. The most amazing part to me is how just by simple folding of the embyrologic tissue in one way and twisting in another leads to the division of the systemic and pulmonary circulations in utero & in life. Once the heart of an embryo (later known a fetus) has developed a separation of the atria from the ventricles, two membranes(septum primum & secundum for those who are interested) separate the right and left atria. Each have a small opening for blood to flow through (known as one of the 3 fetal circulatory shunts), so the infant does not send it's circulating blood to the lungs (because they aren't breathing with their lungs yet, they breathe via the mother's blood from the umbilical cord).
The exact moment an baby is born and takes it's first breath, the pressure change that occurs by using the lung causes the two membranes to collapse together, and there by closing off this shunt (the two openings in these membranes do not overlap--if they do it is known as atrial septal defect)! And viola, the infant has now separated the right and left sides of their heart into pulmonary and systemic circulation just because of a pressure gradient change!
I know that 99% of people posting here are aviators, and that you probably don't care how embryology works (or don't have the spare time to investigate it). But, if you've read my post and followed my very, very brief version of all that happens in the heart of an embryo and you still don't think that any higher power exists, then consider the following: while the heart is developing, the nervous system, skeleton, musclulatture, internal organs, skin, etc are simulatneously developing at just the perfect rate so that everything in the body has enough room and is in the correct order so a new life can exist. Maybe you can believe that, but at this time in my life, well I can not. If you still are an atheist after all of this...I'll ceratinly say you stick to your version of "faith" (faith in no god, that is)!
FYI: I just couldn't read all 5 pages of this post without adding my two cents in. But, honestly I have enjoyed reading everyone's points of view on the topic. (Also, for the record, I do not have kids, so please don't read into my post as some kind of womanly/maternal rambling.)
~Megan
( If anyone is interested in further information or clarification aboput embryology and you don't want to publicly post it, please feel free to PM me!)
I can't help but wonder why it is that everyone who has posted has mentioned physics/scientific, philisophical, literature-based, (etc.. )comments have failed to mention any medical science arguments. How many of you have studied embryology? When you look at all of the intricately timed growth, folding, and cell division of a growing life (human or animal), I think that it's INCREDIBLY hard to believe that there is NOT a higher power of some sort behind that complexity that results in life as we know it.
Take for instance, the human heart's development from one primitive cardiovascular tube into the four chambered, multi input & output arterial & venous system...well, it really is amazing. The most amazing part to me is how just by simple folding of the embyrologic tissue in one way and twisting in another leads to the division of the systemic and pulmonary circulations in utero & in life. Once the heart of an embryo (later known a fetus) has developed a separation of the atria from the ventricles, two membranes(septum primum & secundum for those who are interested) separate the right and left atria. Each have a small opening for blood to flow through (known as one of the 3 fetal circulatory shunts), so the infant does not send it's circulating blood to the lungs (because they aren't breathing with their lungs yet, they breathe via the mother's blood from the umbilical cord).
The exact moment an baby is born and takes it's first breath, the pressure change that occurs by using the lung causes the two membranes to collapse together, and there by closing off this shunt (the two openings in these membranes do not overlap--if they do it is known as atrial septal defect)! And viola, the infant has now separated the right and left sides of their heart into pulmonary and systemic circulation just because of a pressure gradient change!
I know that 99% of people posting here are aviators, and that you probably don't care how embryology works (or don't have the spare time to investigate it). But, if you've read my post and followed my very, very brief version of all that happens in the heart of an embryo and you still don't think that any higher power exists, then consider the following: while the heart is developing, the nervous system, skeleton, musclulatture, internal organs, skin, etc are simulatneously developing at just the perfect rate so that everything in the body has enough room and is in the correct order so a new life can exist. Maybe you can believe that, but at this time in my life, well I can not. If you still are an atheist after all of this...I'll ceratinly say you stick to your version of "faith" (faith in no god, that is)!
FYI: I just couldn't read all 5 pages of this post without adding my two cents in. But, honestly I have enjoyed reading everyone's points of view on the topic. (Also, for the record, I do not have kids, so please don't read into my post as some kind of womanly/maternal rambling.)
~Megan
( If anyone is interested in further information or clarification aboput embryology and you don't want to publicly post it, please feel free to PM me!)
Jester-
Mathematical proofs, axioms, postulates must come from experience. They simply can not lie within the a priori sphere. however, that is not to say that that sphere exists. I mentioned Platonic forms....it would be nice to think that a triangle or sphere existed before experience. or that a form of the perfect embryo existed before experience, which i think Megan was referring to. why is the "form" necessary? What is intrinsically a must about them? i think Descartes is brillant, but looking at his book "The Geometry" and "Rules for the Regulation of the Mind" one sees how he discovered the quadratic equation from experience. he designed and made this great contraption...it is worth checking out if you ever have the time.
of course some axioms are not expeienced directly, i.e. we don't travel at the speed of light, but Einstein was influenced by the experiments in physics. that is, physical experiements (be they objective or subjective is still up for grabs).
each person makes their reality. i am red colorblind so i definitly have a different take on how objects appear. so, each person's reality is subjective to others, and to themselves. why? because the "I" has a mind and knows (or believes at least) that other "I's" exits and do not always agree with them. actually, most often the other "I's" do not agree with my "I". so, there can be no objective reality even within oneself. if there was then we would never doubt, and all of us doubt. or at least we have the ability to. that ability may be a clue to the lack of objectivity within our realm of experience.
AdJ
Mathematical proofs, axioms, postulates must come from experience. They simply can not lie within the a priori sphere. however, that is not to say that that sphere exists. I mentioned Platonic forms....it would be nice to think that a triangle or sphere existed before experience. or that a form of the perfect embryo existed before experience, which i think Megan was referring to. why is the "form" necessary? What is intrinsically a must about them? i think Descartes is brillant, but looking at his book "The Geometry" and "Rules for the Regulation of the Mind" one sees how he discovered the quadratic equation from experience. he designed and made this great contraption...it is worth checking out if you ever have the time.
of course some axioms are not expeienced directly, i.e. we don't travel at the speed of light, but Einstein was influenced by the experiments in physics. that is, physical experiements (be they objective or subjective is still up for grabs).
each person makes their reality. i am red colorblind so i definitly have a different take on how objects appear. so, each person's reality is subjective to others, and to themselves. why? because the "I" has a mind and knows (or believes at least) that other "I's" exits and do not always agree with them. actually, most often the other "I's" do not agree with my "I". so, there can be no objective reality even within oneself. if there was then we would never doubt, and all of us doubt. or at least we have the ability to. that ability may be a clue to the lack of objectivity within our realm of experience.
AdJ
Nashmodeler,
I tend to agree with you, to some degree, about the sphere of complete a priori knowledge. It is impossible, I think, to rid all experience from our mind like Descartes tried to do and arrive completely a priori at a truth. I'm not saying that complete a priori knowledge is impossible, just that I don't think we could ever know whether we had arrived at a truth a priori. However, with Platonic forms I don't think it is the intent to say that a circle or any other geometric form exists without our experience of it, rather that mathematical axioms that define a cirlce or triangle exist without our experience of them. For example, the sum of a triangles interior angles would still equal 180 degrees whether we recognized it or not. Regardless of our knowledge of anything about a triangle this would still hold true.
I tend to agree with you, to some degree, about the sphere of complete a priori knowledge. It is impossible, I think, to rid all experience from our mind like Descartes tried to do and arrive completely a priori at a truth. I'm not saying that complete a priori knowledge is impossible, just that I don't think we could ever know whether we had arrived at a truth a priori. However, with Platonic forms I don't think it is the intent to say that a circle or any other geometric form exists without our experience of it, rather that mathematical axioms that define a cirlce or triangle exist without our experience of them. For example, the sum of a triangles interior angles would still equal 180 degrees whether we recognized it or not. Regardless of our knowledge of anything about a triangle this would still hold true.
I have really enjoyed reading most of these posts... it's a nice break from studying!
While I spent that better part of 5 years studying Metaphysics, Epistemology, Pure Reason, and really old dialogues from dead guys I won't bore you with that stuff... but I would like to add one quote for you to think about though. "Beware the man of a single book"
It's very easy to see that a lot of you are well versed in Christianity or Physics or Philosophy... but how many of you have ever really given true study to any other theories? The definition of the word ignorant is "Lacking education or knowledge". How many of us are knowledgeable not only with what we have faith in... but what we don't have faith in? Having an uneducated Faith/belief any anything is the basic definition of ignorance... or at best only a blind belief in nothing...
"God offers to every mind its choice between truth and repose. Take which you please - you can never have both." ~Ralph Waldo Emerson
LTJG Payne
While I spent that better part of 5 years studying Metaphysics, Epistemology, Pure Reason, and really old dialogues from dead guys I won't bore you with that stuff... but I would like to add one quote for you to think about though. "Beware the man of a single book"
It's very easy to see that a lot of you are well versed in Christianity or Physics or Philosophy... but how many of you have ever really given true study to any other theories? The definition of the word ignorant is "Lacking education or knowledge". How many of us are knowledgeable not only with what we have faith in... but what we don't have faith in? Having an uneducated Faith/belief any anything is the basic definition of ignorance... or at best only a blind belief in nothing...
"God offers to every mind its choice between truth and repose. Take which you please - you can never have both." ~Ralph Waldo Emerson
LTJG Payne
As you can see I've been gone all weekend. If I have a choice between drinking and listening to a great rock band, or debating philosophy/science/theology, I think you know which one I'd pick!
nashmodeler gave a really good explanation of subjective reality. This is one of my biggest objections to the various logical arguments for God. Kant, Descartes et al were really brilliant people, well-versed in mathematics and philosophy, but every argument of theirs fails in the premise. Nearly every human being has certain perceptions of the world which agree closely enough with other humans as to make normal discourse and debate possible. However, one thing which must be made clear at the beginning of the debate is an agreement on the premise or assumptions that are to be made. That's where most arguments fall apart - the participants cannot even agree what basic assumptions must be made. Why? Because reality is subjective and based on our experiences. The only "a priori" knowledge one could argue for is the existence of our survival instincts, which are encoded in our DNA when we are conceived. Beyond that all knowledge comes to us from experience. One can have some really outrageous abstract thoughts, but unless they correspond with an experience of reality outside our minds, such thoughts are merely "mental masturbation."
Faith is one such abstract thought. I generally know two kinds of people with faith. The first type claims some a posteriori knowledge they gained which supports the a priori existence of God, and hence is the reason for their faith. The second type, which is more rare, recognizes that their spiritual experiences are purely subjective and they have no way to know whether they have anything in common with other believers. They have faith simply because it's comforting to believe in God, and they readily admit this.
The stunning differences in religions around the world is a strong indicator that knowledge is subjective, and suggests not that many gods exist, but that no gods exist. God was originally invented as a way to explain natural phenomena and, later, to give early societies structure and discipline. As we've seen over the centuries, the number of phenomena formerly ascribed to God have been reduced to virtually none. Similarly, many societies peacefully coexist on secular systems of law, including our own. For those who argue that the Constitution is based on Biblical morality, I strongly urge you to actually read the Constitution, and if you have time, the Federalist Papers. It is telling that the few laws actually based on Old Testament morality are being struck down as un-Constitutional, and rightly so.
That pretty much discredits the idea that morality can only come through God or an objective standard. I think some of you are referring to cultural relativism when you say, "subjectivism means that Hitler was doing what was best for his society." Cultural relativism follows from subjectivism, but it is only one of many possible conclusions. In my opinion, a subjective moral system benefits the entire human race, not just one culture. It doesn't take faith in God to reach this conclusion.
As for the objectivity of mathematical axioms, I've long wondered about this one. Yes, the axioms may exist without our experience of them, but do they exist anywhere outside our own minds? I'm not sure. You won't find a perfect circle or a right triangle anywhere in the universe. I would offer that the rules which allow us to think abstractly of a perfect circle are inherent in the physical laws, which are part of the fabric of space time and have existed since the beginning of the universe. We can discover these laws, but some of the conclusions we reach require circular reasoning. I.e., I define 'a' to be this, and it follows that 'b' will do this. That's great, but it rests on the premise, and we need to have some experience of the premise in reality for the reasoning to be more than a thought exercise. It's a very good question, though.
In conclusion, Jesus loves you Kevin! Have a doughnut.
nashmodeler gave a really good explanation of subjective reality. This is one of my biggest objections to the various logical arguments for God. Kant, Descartes et al were really brilliant people, well-versed in mathematics and philosophy, but every argument of theirs fails in the premise. Nearly every human being has certain perceptions of the world which agree closely enough with other humans as to make normal discourse and debate possible. However, one thing which must be made clear at the beginning of the debate is an agreement on the premise or assumptions that are to be made. That's where most arguments fall apart - the participants cannot even agree what basic assumptions must be made. Why? Because reality is subjective and based on our experiences. The only "a priori" knowledge one could argue for is the existence of our survival instincts, which are encoded in our DNA when we are conceived. Beyond that all knowledge comes to us from experience. One can have some really outrageous abstract thoughts, but unless they correspond with an experience of reality outside our minds, such thoughts are merely "mental masturbation."
Faith is one such abstract thought. I generally know two kinds of people with faith. The first type claims some a posteriori knowledge they gained which supports the a priori existence of God, and hence is the reason for their faith. The second type, which is more rare, recognizes that their spiritual experiences are purely subjective and they have no way to know whether they have anything in common with other believers. They have faith simply because it's comforting to believe in God, and they readily admit this.
The stunning differences in religions around the world is a strong indicator that knowledge is subjective, and suggests not that many gods exist, but that no gods exist. God was originally invented as a way to explain natural phenomena and, later, to give early societies structure and discipline. As we've seen over the centuries, the number of phenomena formerly ascribed to God have been reduced to virtually none. Similarly, many societies peacefully coexist on secular systems of law, including our own. For those who argue that the Constitution is based on Biblical morality, I strongly urge you to actually read the Constitution, and if you have time, the Federalist Papers. It is telling that the few laws actually based on Old Testament morality are being struck down as un-Constitutional, and rightly so.
That pretty much discredits the idea that morality can only come through God or an objective standard. I think some of you are referring to cultural relativism when you say, "subjectivism means that Hitler was doing what was best for his society." Cultural relativism follows from subjectivism, but it is only one of many possible conclusions. In my opinion, a subjective moral system benefits the entire human race, not just one culture. It doesn't take faith in God to reach this conclusion.
As for the objectivity of mathematical axioms, I've long wondered about this one. Yes, the axioms may exist without our experience of them, but do they exist anywhere outside our own minds? I'm not sure. You won't find a perfect circle or a right triangle anywhere in the universe. I would offer that the rules which allow us to think abstractly of a perfect circle are inherent in the physical laws, which are part of the fabric of space time and have existed since the beginning of the universe. We can discover these laws, but some of the conclusions we reach require circular reasoning. I.e., I define 'a' to be this, and it follows that 'b' will do this. That's great, but it rests on the premise, and we need to have some experience of the premise in reality for the reasoning to be more than a thought exercise. It's a very good question, though.
In conclusion, Jesus loves you Kevin! Have a doughnut.
- Status