Susanna Krizo

NN, I’m not stupid, you’re not stupid, so let’s not treat each other like one is, ok?
You wrote that a formal proof can be derived from an axiom. For the readers who may not know what an axiom means:
“In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.” (From wikipedia)

I.e. you do not need to prove what the axiom (or first principle) is, for it is considered self-evident. As you also admitted, everyone has a different opinion as far as the first principle is concerned. And here’s the problem: you consider the man’s headship a self-evident truth which you do not need to prove and from this axiom you create your formal proof that the man has authority over the woman.
If I would use this same principle, I could call myself a god. The axiom would be that a god can create and sustain life, and since I have just created a new human being which I sustain through the milk I create, I am a god. I.e. anyone could choose an axiom of their own and provide logical proof. For this very reason, in theology, we must all agree what the axiom is, e.g. God exists, and it must not only be logica, it must also be found in the Bible. So far I have asked you to provide a text which says God gave the man authority over the woman, but the only thing you have done is to provide formal proof that your axiom, which you cannot prove, is correct. It ain’t gonna work.

Formal proof is any logical proof developed from axioms (’first principles’ – truly fundamental first principles, by definition cannot be proven). This is quite as true of science as of theology (though of course what each considers “first principles” are quite different)

And as far as a hypothesis goes, I do not have a poor understanding of it. You do not begin with falsifying your hypothesis, you begin by seeingif you can show it to be correct. E.g. I begin with the question: If I eat a pound of candy every day, will I gain weight? The next step is to try it out, to eat a pound of candy each day and see what the scale shows, while controlling all the variables. If after a set amount of time, let’s say a week, I have gained weight, my hypothesis has been proven true. If I have not gained weight, my hypothesis has been proven incorrect and I need to modify it, or discard it. You must begin with an assumption, for the purpose of a hypothesis is to see whether your assumption was correct or not. In science, a hypothesis must be falsifiable to be considered strictly scientific. Since you cannot prove God exists, or that he does not exist, theology does not function in the same way as science. This does not mean that we cannot use the same principles, but we must remember that some things can be proven, others cannot. As far as the man’s headship is concerned, you have chosen to treat it as a first principle which cannot be proven, whereas I treat the subject as one needing more proof than just “God says” for I believe if Gof said it, I would find it in the Bible. This is where the whole debate hinges on. Either you prove to me that God says in the Bible that he gave the man authority in the Bible or I will consider you to have lost the debate.