quote:
However, it is beyond doubt that, to prove any thing, there must be some premises, some assumptions. The assumption behind all of Science is that if something is true, there must be experimental evidence of it. Even Science which many believe in, has its assumptions. The difference between Science and Religion then, is only that the assumptions behind Science are very "natural" to believe.
Not true!
quote:
In the argument that follows, there will be assumptions. But these assumptions too are very natural to believe, as natural as those of Science. One should not disregard its validity, merely because it is not based on the same assumptions as those of Science. Here is the argument:
Pure myth!
quote:
The intuitive principle that we always access in order to determine the truth of individual propositions, I call as Truth (with the upper-case T). Truth is unchanging, eternal, omnipresent and is the basis of all that exists. To see that this is true, consider anything that "changes". For example think of water turning to ice. First, there was something which appeared to be liquid. Then we thought that the "truth" is that, it is liquid. Then something happened and now it appears to be solid. Now we think that it is solid. But really liquid and solid are only appearances. The actual substance present there is neither liquid nor solid. It is something else. The actual substance present there has not changed. "Truth" has not changed. Note that by saying that solid and liquid are "mere appearances", it is not meant that they don't exist. It means that they exist relative to some unchangeable substance, of which both are composed. They cannot exist independant of that unchangeable substance.
Absolute fiction!
quote:
Since this argument can be applied to anything that changes, it follows that there must be something unchanging, behind everything that changes. In the same manner, whenever we observe a "difference" between two entities (objects, concepts, or anything else), there must be some underlying unity between them. For example, we see the colours "red" and "blue" as different. But there is some underlying similarity between them, in that, both are colours. Both red and blue are appearances of the same fundamental entity, colour. What is the similarity between a song and a chair, you may ask. A song is an object that can be perceived through the ear, a chair through the eye - both are sense-objects. This may appear to stretch it too far. But really, it shows that the very fact that we can perceive two different things means that there must be some underlying similarity between them.
Poppycock, I say!
quote:
Thus there is something which remains same whenever anything changes. Behind every form, there exists the same entity. The very fact that a particular form exists implies that that entity is present in it. That entity is Truth. This then is the proof that Truth is unchanging, eternal, omnipresent and is the basis of all that exists. Infact this may be taken as the definition of Truth.
Pure speculation!
quote:
As we delve deeper into physics, we observe that all objects are made of the same particles. Energy and matter can be produced from one another. Matter results in "curved space". Space and time are actually not separate, but part of the same thing called as space-time. Hence even Science supports the view that there is one unchanging substance and everything else is an appearance of it. However one should not rely solely on scientific theories since they are bound to change. They are also based on assumptions, which are based on our notion of Truth. The above argument hence, provides a more direct way of achieving the same result. The argument will not change, whatever may happen to Science.
Bullshit!
