Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

What does it matter . . . ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    Truely unknowable truths - we do not even know what they are.
    If those conflicting claims are of no consequence, it may not matter. But if one claim has a more dire consequence to ignore. We would need a very good reason not to believe it. If believing it can make any difference. The standing evidence is we are all going to die some day. Denying that and that we believe that, will not stop that.
    Well science does make truth claims. Or nothing in science could be believed. And information cannot be accepted as true knowledge unless that information is actually believed.



    We cannot choose what we do not know about. We cannot honestly claim to believe what we cannot accept - even if it were true.

    So even if logically we understand a reason something is accepted as true, if we for what ever reason find it untenable, how can we believe it? The drawback is, it might matter and we might not be able to believe it anyway.
    Que sera sera, whatever will be will be. Be led by your reason.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      Truely unknowable truths - we do not even know what they are.
      If you don’t even know what they are how do you know they exist?

      If those conflicting claims are of no consequence, it may not matter. But if one claim has a more dire consequence to ignore. We would need a very good reason not to believe it. If believing it can make any difference. The standing evidence is we are all going to die some day. Denying that and that we believe that, will not stop that.
      Correct. One believes whatever is supported by the best evidence regardless whether or not we like it.

      Well science does make truth claims. Or nothing in science could be believed. And information cannot be accepted as true knowledge unless that information is actually believed.
      No it doesn’t. Science made factual claims based upon verified empirical evidence. But all scientific claims are potentially falsifiable...even long established ones like gravity or the speed of light.

      We cannot choose what we do not know about.
      Well yes, obviously! So what’s your point?

      We cannot honestly claim to believe what we cannot accept - even if it were true.
      There is no good reason not to accept and believe what has been empirically verified.

      So even if logically we understand a reason something is accepted as true, if we for what ever reason find it untenable, how can we believe it? The drawback is, it might matter and we might not be able to believe it anyway.
      Not believing verified facts no matter how untenable is mere ‘denial’, which in psychiatry refers to “a defense mechanism in which the existence of unpleasant internal or external realities is denied and kept out of conscious awareness. By keeping the stressors out of consciousness, they are prevented from causing anxiety”.

      https://medical-dictionary.thefreedi...l+(psychology)
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        Que sera sera, whatever will be will be. Be led by your reason.
        For better or worst that is what we all do. The point comes down to when we refuse to acknowledge what needs to be acknowledged. What needs to be acknowledged is when it matters.
        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          If you don’t even know what they are how do you know they exist?
          It is not funny when what you didn't know does one in.




          No it doesn’t. Science made factual claims based upon verified empirical evidence. But all scientific claims are potentially falsifiable...even long established ones like gravity or the speed of light.
          On the contrary. Unless a thing is believed it is not one's knowledge, whether what is believed is factual or not.


          Well yes, obviously! So what’s your point?
          Some just choose to refuse to understand or even know some things which really matter. And their refusal prevents them from knowing it matters.


          There is no good reason not to accept and believe what has been empirically verified.



          Not believing verified facts no matter how untenable is mere ‘denial’, which in psychiatry refers to “a defense mechanism in which the existence of unpleasant internal or external realities is denied and kept out of conscious awareness. By keeping the stressors out of consciousness, they are prevented from causing anxiety”.

          https://medical-dictionary.thefreedi...l+(psychology)
          Well, it matters in what way something is considered "untenable" does it not now?
          Last edited by 37818; 11-16-2017, 02:53 PM.
          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
            It is not funny when what you didn't know does one in.
            Unless something happens to alert us to the existence of the previously unknown, there is no way of knowing it exists or reason to believe in it.

            On the contrary. Unless a thing is believed it is not one's knowledge, whether what is believed is factual or not.
            There is no valid reason to refuse believing in what can be empirically verified.

            Some just choose to refuse to understand or even know some things which really matter. And their refusal prevents them from knowing it matters.
            How do you know it “matters”?

            Well, it matters in what way something is considered "untenable" does it not now?
            Not believing verified facts, no matter how untenable to one’s religious faith, is mere ‘denial’.
            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
              What does it matter if what you do not believe happens to be true over against what you actually believe happens not to be true?
              Let me tease this out. There are two things there:
              1. My not believing X, and X being true.
              2. My believing X, and X being false.

              Well, it matters if you want to have true beliefs, and avoid false beliefs. You get to know more reality. It also helps when you look both ways to cross the street. If I'm affected by 1, I may die, because I might disbelieve that a fast moving car will kill me if I'm in its path, even though it's true that a fast moving car will me if I'm in its path. And 2 is just the contraposition of 1.
              Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
              George Horne

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                Unless something happens to alert us to the existence of the previously unknown, there is no way of knowing it exists or reason to believe in it.
                There is not much of anything that can be decided about what we cannot know.


                There is no valid reason to refuse believing in what can be empirically verified.
                Yes. But that does not deal with what is not empirically known. In metaphysics what can be empirically known?


                How do you know it “matters”?
                When it comes to metaphysical arguments that cannot be empirically tested. There are still choices. Even refusing to make choice do to any non-empirical claims is still to make a choice. What will matter is what turns out to be true.


                Not believing verified facts, no matter how untenable to one’s religious faith, is mere ‘denial’.
                Yes. So what verifiable fact do you have that the Jesus of Christianity did not rise from the dead? It is a verifiable fact that Christianity makes the claim that Jesus as the Son of God rose from the dead. And that claim is founded on the claims found in the Christian new covenant writings and predictions of the Hebrew scriptures (Isaiah 53:10, that He will have died and yet see His descendants.)
                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  There is not much of anything that can be decided about what we cannot know.
                  Just as I said.

                  Yes. But that does not deal with what is not empirically known. In metaphysics what can be empirically known?
                  Metaphysics cannot arrive at a true conclusion unless it begins with a true premise. And it has no mechanism for formulating a true premise; it can only rely on axioms or assumptions.

                  When it comes to metaphysical arguments that cannot be empirically tested. There are still choices. Even refusing to make choice do to any non-empirical claims is still to make a choice. What will matter is what turns out to be true.
                  Without scientific knowledge we have no way of knowing what is true or not true.

                  Yes. So what verifiable fact do you have that the Jesus of Christianity did not rise from the dead? It is a verifiable fact that Christianity makes the claim that Jesus as the Son of God rose from the dead. And that claim is founded on the claims found in the Christian new covenant writings and predictions of the Hebrew scriptures (Isaiah 53:10, that He will have died and yet see His descendants.)
                  It is a verifiable fact that dead organisms do not come back to life. Christian claims of Jesus’ resurrection are not reliable in that our only knowledge of them is based on scripture, which was not recorded in the earliest instance until c. 40 years after the event by non-eyewitnesses...which probably renders subject to embellishments.
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    Metaphysics cannot arrive at a true conclusion unless it begins with a true premise. And it has no mechanism for formulating a true premise; it can only rely on axioms or assumptions.
                    Mechanism? What does that mean?

                    What's wrong with relying on assumptions and axioms?

                    Without scientific knowledge we have no way of knowing what is true or not true.
                    False and self-refuting. There are a priori truths, modal truths, counterfactual truths, moral truths, aesthetics truths, mathematical truths, necessary truths, and religious truths that don't need scientific knowledge. What mechanism is there is determine that scientific knowledge is the only way to know truth?

                    It is a verifiable fact that dead organisms do not come back to life.
                    No it's not. Your epistemology restricts you. I reject your epistemology.

                    Christian claims of Jesus’ resurrection are not reliable in that our only knowledge of them is based on scripture, which was not recorded in the earliest instance until c. 40 years after the event by non-eyewitnesses...which probably renders subject to embellishments.
                    Why does that make it unreliable? Pauls letters quote traditions going back to within 5 years of the event. How do you know the Gospels of Matthew and John aren't written by eyewitnesses? No, saying they're anonymous isn't going to work.
                    Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                    George Horne

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                      Mechanism? What does that mean?
                      It means a reliable methodology.

                      What's wrong with relying on assumptions and axioms?
                      “Assumptions” and “axioms” cannot be shown to be true, therefore any conclusions based upon them cannot be shown to be true.

                      False and self-refuting. There are a priori truths, modal truths, counterfactual truths, moral truths, aesthetics truths, mathematical truths, necessary truths, and religious truths that don't need scientific knowledge.
                      Oh! And how do you know these non-scientific “truths” are true?

                      What mechanism is there is determine that scientific knowledge is the only way to know truth?
                      Scientific knowledge is empirically verifiable other forms of “truth” are not

                      No it's not. Your epistemology restricts you. I reject your epistemology.
                      It’s a free world.

                      Why does that make it unreliable? Pauls letters quote traditions going back to within 5 years of the event. How do you know the Gospels of Matthew and John aren't written by eyewitnesses? No, saying they're anonymous isn't going to work.
                      Virtually all biblical scholars employing standard historical-critical methodology reject claims of eyewitness reportage. Even Richard Baulkham in his much vaunted ‘Jesus and the Eyewitnesses” can do no better than quote Papias’ second and third-hand reports.
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        It means a reliable methodology.
                        Why doesn't metaphysics have a reliable methodology, and what do you mean by 'reliable'?

                        “Assumptions” and “axioms” cannot be shown to be true, therefore any conclusions based upon them cannot be shown to be true.
                        What do you mean by 'shown'?


                        Oh! And how do you know these non-scientific “truths” are true?
                        Which ones? I have reasons for all of them.


                        Scientific knowledge is empirically verifiable other forms of “truth” are not
                        1. Define 'scientific knowledge'.
                        2. Why can't forms of truth that aren't empirically verifiable be known?
                        3. What "form of truth" does the statement "Scientific knowledge is empirically verifiable other forms of 'truth or not' have? Empirically verifiable or not? If the former, how? If the latter, self-refuting.

                        It’s a free world.
                        Not really. But it is a free country!

                        Virtually all biblical scholars employing standard historical-critical methodology reject claims of eyewitness reportage.
                        Prove this, please.

                        Even Richard Baulkham in his much vaunted ‘Jesus and the Eyewitnesses” can do no better than quote Papias’ second and third-hand reports.
                        1. Why do you think Baulkham was quoting Papias?
                        2. Why is referring to Papias incompatible with Matthew and John being eyewitness reports?
                        3. What about Paul?
                        Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                        George Horne

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                          Why doesn't metaphysics have a reliable methodology, and what do you mean by 'reliable'?
                          Reliable’: “that may be relied on or trusted; dependable in achievement". There is no “reliable” methodology for a metaphysical argument to arrive at the true premise necessary for a true conclusion...only assumptions and axioms.

                          What do you mean by 'shown'?
                          To show: “to cause or allow to be seen; exhibit; display” – Oxford Dictionary.

                          Which ones? I have reasons for all of them.
                          No doubt! How do you “know” they are true reasons?

                          1. Define 'scientific knowledge'.
                          Scientific knowledge: "1. knowledge accumulated by systematic study and organised by general principles".

                          2. Why can't forms of truth that aren't empirically verifiable be known?
                          Because you cannot establish a verifiable true premise.

                          3. What "form of truth" does the statement "Scientific knowledge is empirically verifiable other forms of 'truth or not' have? Empirically verifiable or not? If the former, how? If the latter, self-refuting.
                          Empirical science is verifiable, metaphysical questions such as this are not...for reasons given above.

                          Prove this, please.
                          The term historical-critical method is shorthand for a whole collection of methodologies and strategies for arriving at historical accuracy. Miracles are excluded because they cannot be verified. Hence the only scholars positing Jesus’ miracles tend to be apologists.

                          1. Why do you think Baulkham was quoting Papias?
                          Papias is one of the key parts of Bauckham’s argument and supposedly met with 'eyewitnesses', but ALL his accounts are second or third-hand reports.

                          2. Why is referring to Papias incompatible with Matthew and John being eyewitness reports?
                          Papias does not provide firsthand evidence of eyewitness reportage

                          3. What about Paul?
                          Paul seems totally unaware of the Jesus stories and teachings that ended up in the gospels...so much for the oral tradition that was supposed to have been floating around in the pre-gospels period.
                          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                            Why doesn't metaphysics have a reliable methodology, and what do you mean by 'reliable'?
                            As far as any methodology reliability refers to how consistently and reliably the methods may be applied and tested.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                              <snip>

                              It is a verifiable fact that dead organisms do not come back to life. Christian claims of Jesus’ resurrection are not reliable in that our only knowledge of them is based on scripture, which was not recorded in the earliest instance until c. 40 years after the event by non-eyewitnesses...which probably renders subject to embellishments.
                              Well if it was a matter of scientific fact that dead organisms did come back to life, then the resurrection of Christ would have no significance.
                              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                                Well if it was a matter of scientific fact that dead organisms did come back to life, then the resurrection of Christ would have no significance.
                                It is a verifiable fact that dead organisms do not come back to life and there is no good reason to think that the alleged resurrection is an exception.
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                508 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X