Your premise that 'unacquired knowledge = causation' is the leap. God's knowledge is unaquired because it's inherent, not because it causes everything. His omniscience simply means he knows all truths, including future free choices, because they are true, not making them true.

I cant prove it. Because the non-existence of other methods is hardly provable. Its like saying disprove the claim that flying elephants exist or disprove that Zeus exists or any other god. Cant do it. Its impossible. Its also not something I would even rate as important to prove. Its just my state of knowledge about the human ability to prove stuff. Thats it. Again whats your point?

Thats a way bigger leap than mine, buddy.

My point remains: Your statement 'the scientific method is the only way to prove truth' is a truth claim. If science is the only way to prove truth, then your claim itself must be scientifically proven. The fact that you 'can't prove it' (as you admit) means your own statement about truth is self-refuting. It's not about disproving a negative; it's about your claim failing its own test.

No. My position separates knowing from causing. Your position equates them for unacquired knowledge without demonstrating why that's necessary. The logical leap is equating knowledge with causation.

This post was edited by majorblood on Jul 15 2025 11:54am

Listen: Give me ONE example, just ONE logic example in which knowledge that is not aquired does not equal causation. If you can do that, then I retreat my case.

Why is it a truth claim, if I dont claim its true?

It's a truth claim because it asserts something about reality – specifically, how truth can be found. You've also explicitly called it 'true' and 'undisprovable' previously. If it's not a truth claim, it's just an unsubstantiated opinion with no bearing on our discussion about truth.

I mean, yes it seems to be undisprovable to me but its not something I would ever try to defend too vigorously. Quite the opposite. I would love it, if someone comes along with another method.

Also what do you mean "with no bearing on our discussion?" I didnt bring it up, you did. Again, if you have another method we can use, be my guest.

This post was edited by Saurod on Jul 15 2025 12:08pm

I've been attempting to get you to understand your claim that science is the only method to determine truth is self-refuting.

Science does not determine truth as it is inductive. It correlates observations in an attempt to draw a conclusion.

Things that deductively arrive at truth would include Logic, Math, Philosophy.

This post was edited by majorblood on Jul 15 2025 12:26pm