I agree that there is one ultimate truth to everything. Science purports to know it but those scientists familiar with the metaphysical reality of our existence know better. Of course, practicality demands that we accept what our senses seem to register as ultimate truths. But there is no 100% guarantee that it is. Actually, science can't even prove that we aren't presently all brains in a vat and that all these things being supposedly perceived are merely the result of input from some virtual reality supercomputer. In short, science CANNOT prove that an external world even exists. The only thing science can do is work with the sense impressions we seem to receive from a seemingly exterior world, tag it as factual for the sake of expediency and sanity and proceed from their as if all were 100% real.
Which of course it is, in a subjective way. Science, deals ultimately with the supposedly perceived phenomena but the nomena, ultimate reality will always be beyond reach. Let me give you an example. Let's suppose that there are a million aliens from other worlds each hardwired to perceive the same stimuli, of indeed there is such a thing, differently. One alien perceives a supposed object as a flame, another as a liquid, another as a solid rock, another as a transparent rock, and another doesn't perceive it at all. One alien perceives a stimuli as bitter, another as sweet, yet anther as tasteless. One perceives the molecules of a flower as aromatic another as a pungent stench. Each reacts differently to what is supposedly an exterior stimuli. But whose reality is the real one? If I perceive an object as round, and another alien perceives it as square, or a rectangular prism. or a triangle ad infinitum. What is that's stimuli ultimate nature?
Can we say with 100% that our perception is to be considered the real one. Each one of the millions of aliens could argue the same way based on what they perceive but each one would be merely reporting what he is detecting within the bounds of his hardwiring.
So what really is the nature of existence?
Even the seemingly iunviolabe laws of mathe,matics will break down if one alien race is incapable of perceiving things numerically as we do. To them two objects are perecived as one. All their tests verify it to the satisfavction of theiur own perceptions. We voiew them as peculiar and they us in the same way. Multiply thgese idoisyncracies to hundreds of alien species and the ultimate reality of things will appear to be what it really is, beyond our range. All we would be able to do would be to agree to disagree and admit that we don't know what ultimate reality is.
That being said you can now better understand how I view the following statement:
And there is the crux of the matter. Science doesn't claim to go beyond its bounds. The ones claiming that science can delve into areas it was never intended to delve into and make declarations it has absolutely no right to make, such as the inexistence ofd God are persons who wish it were so or perhaps imagine it to be so. But as for science itself, it has never made that claim because to put it simply it can't.
As for the Christian bewlief in God, that too can be assailed in asimilar manner. Yet, for the sake of expediency and sanity and because it makes more sense to the majority of people on earth, they have opted to believe that there is a God and that he has communicated with us through certain writings. In this regard science simply must remain within the limited bounds of its own limited supposedly external and supposedly perceived universe.
Last edited:
