Sciencie does not ultimately determine truth of course but its humanities only known gateway to come to conclusions about truth so far. At least to my knowledge. Again, if you have something else or even better to draw conclusions from, just tell me. But yes, I agree with you.

This post was edited by Saurod on Jul 15 2025 12:34pm

Also majorblood, let me quote myself here: This challenge still stands.

I AM THAT I AM

God knows of his own existence, yet he is uncaused. He did not cause himself to exist.


You can apply the same idea to 2+2=4. God's knowledge of 2+2=4 did not cause it to be true.

Glad we agree science doesn't ultimately determine truth.

'it's humanities only known gateway to come to conclusions about truth' is the very truth claim that you can't scientifically prove, making it self-refuting.

And yes, I just told you about other methods: Logic, Math, and Philosophy, which use deduction to arrive at truth claims

i think its only a worthwhile discussion to religious fanatics who believe some entity bestowed free will upon them so they can shitpost on a 20 year old gaming forum

to a mentally healthy person ofc they can do whatever they want, thats why we have serial killers and billionaires doing the most evil shit imaginable, no "god" is like yeah let that freak pedophile murderer(hypothetical) go and kill all those innocent children its gods will yeahhhhh

and people are born with mental defects that can cause them to have uncontrollable mental lapses, sometimes destroying their lives and they have no control over that lol, you wouldnt go up to a mentally insane person and just be like "free will bro u can stop having those hallucinations whenever u want" because that would be really stupid, and to that mentally ill person they certainly dont have control over their brain and that would be in a way not having free will, no choice they could make would stop their hallucinations(and i understand they technically would have the choice to take their meds but that doesnt seem to help some users here so is it really a choice?)

I think you are not representing free will here adequately.

free will does not mean ultimate power, it simply means the ability to make actual choices. It does not mean all outcomes are caused by a persons intentional choices.

in the example you gave of someone suffering from mental illness they are not lacking free will, they simply may not have the mental ability to act in specific circumstances

I'm not sure what the insult with the first sentence is supposed to be. Free will is one of the most fundamental concepts in all of human existence, without it literally everything is pointless as there is no agent to do something.

e.g. there is no morality if there is no agent to make a moral decision

This post was edited by majorblood on Jul 15 2025 01:11pm

Sure, God knows about himself and he always was. I dont think thats relevant for the topic tho and its also consciousness rather than knowledge. Also this weird example is exclusively about himself - which is not influencial towards anyone elses decisions.

As for the 2nd example: God is the creator. He caused 2 + 2 = 4 to be true, sure. Who else should have?

So I stand by my point. Everything god knows is the way it is BECAUSE he knows it - and not the other way around. Our decisions cannot be detached from god because of his omniscience. He has to be responsable because if he wasnt, his knowledge would have to be passive - which means aquired. Which would mean he is not allknowing.

This post was edited by Saurod on Jul 15 2025 03:28pm

Sorry but thats a strawman fallacy.

I didn’t say “science is the only path to truth,”
but rather the only known way to reach conclusions about truth, as far as I know.

You attack this as if it was a dogmatic scientistic claim, which it clearly isn’t.

The claim “science is our only known gateway to truth” is not self-refuting, it's an observational, not a logical claim.
It doesn’t need to be scientifically provable to be plausible, based on human experience and methodology.

You seem to confuse the question of “how we come to know truth” with “what truth is.”
Logic and math offer formal truths, but they often require empirical input to apply to the real world.
In practice, science relies on both logic/math and empirical observation — they aren’t in competition, but complementary.

Calling it a 'strawman' doesn't change what your claim is. You assert that science is 'humanity's only known gateway to conclusions about truth.' That is a universal truth claim about epistemology.

It's self-refuting because you then admit it 'doesn't need to be scientifically provable.' If a claim about how we find truth doesn't need scientific proof, then science is clearly not the only way to establish plausibility or truth. You're trying to create an exception for your own statement, which undermines your entire argument.

And no, I'm not confusing 'how we know' with 'what truth is.' Your claim is about 'how we know.'

Logic and math establish deductive, necessary truths (like valid arguments or 2+2=4) through reason, independently of empirical observation. Science uses these truths, but it doesn't prove them. They are distinct and foundational methods of arriving at truth.