-Whether science is the only source of truth.
-Whether every truth claim must be verified empirically
Objection1:
It seems that science is the only source of truth. For anything to be verified it must be subjected to scientific inquiry. Whereby It should be verifiable through the sense perceptions. It must be observable and repeatable. And since science is the only faculty that deploys the empirical method, therefore science is the only source of truth.
Objection 2:
It seems that God exists not. For that which cannot be ascertained by the scientific method through the five senses cannot be demonstrated to be true. Therefore all claims for the existence of God cannot be verified or known to be true, for such is beyond the scope of science and therefore just speculation.
On the contrary, even the statement that science is the only source of truth cannot be verified scientifically. It is a self defeating statement that falls on the account of its own weight.
Self evident truths
Reply to objection 1:
Self Evident truths- I answer that, Indeed science is like a candidate with an undeniably good performance record. But not every truth claim needs verification through scientific inquiry. For there are certain self evident truths which in and of themselves require no further scientific inquiry, but rather are true or false by definition. For instance, a statement such no man can be alive and dead at the same time needs no empirical verification, just as a statement such as it is impossible for the reader to exist and not exist at the same time and in the same relationship, for such statements are true or false by definition, needing no further presentation of proof as to their validity, for they are self evident truths. Such truths need no scientific inquiry.
Hence it does not logically follow that every truth claim needs scientific or empirical subjection..
The Moral Law- Furthermore, a statement such as murder is wrong is a statement of moral truth. Such a statement is known intuitively, or through human moral intuition. It would be practically impossible and unnecessary to again subject such a truth claim to scientific empirical testing because the truth of it is known intuitively by all.
Hence it goes against the claim that every truth claim must be verified empirically or that science is the only source of truth.
Reply to Objection 2: As demonstrated in response 1, science is just one of the ways through which we know what we know. But it is not THE only way to know what we know. And as much as God transcends the physical world which science studies, His existence can be known from observation of nature and argument by inference to the best explanation, guided by self evident truths. For the same way a man knows as self evident knowledge, the creative capabilities of the only two possible alternatives to the origin of the universe and life i.e intelligent creation and unguided/mindless creation is the same way the man can apply inference to the best explanation to the question of origin of the universe and life by eliminating that which of the two options clearly is incapable of producing the effect in question (the universe and life) thereby arriving at the conclusion of creation via an intelligent creator.
Conclusion
It must be absolutely granted that science is not the sole method of truth verification but rather one of the many ways through which truth is verified or known. It is chiefly dishonest and improper to grant absolute authority to science in all truth matters by the claim that ''we are waiting for science to provide the answers'' to the question of the origin of the universe and life. While through the same scientific method countless of qualified scientists have arrived by it to the conclusion of the existence of God. Why then do skeptics not believe these scientists, or are they perhaps through science waiting for an alternative to the God hypothesis while claiming that science is the only source of truth.
Science has its sphere of influence, but this sphere of influence is not absolute. The knowledge of Gods existence is self evident, and to claim that this knowledge needs scientific inquiry is equivalent to granting science the authority it does not have.