Originally posted by 37818
View Post
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
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
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostTruely 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.
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
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostQue sera sera, whatever will be will be. Be led by your reason.. . . 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
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostIf you don’t even know what they are how do you know they exist?
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.
Well yes, obviously! So what’s your point?
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)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
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostIt is not funny when what you didn't know does one in.
On the contrary. Unless a thing is believed it is not one's knowledge, whether what is believed is factual or not.
Some just choose to refuse to understand or even know some things which really matter. And their refusal prevents them from knowing it matters.
Well, it matters in what way something is considered "untenable" does it not now?“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
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostWhat does it matter if what you do not believe happens to be true over against what you actually believe happens not to be true?
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
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostUnless 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 no valid reason to refuse believing in what can be empirically verified.
How do you know it “matters”?
Not believing verified facts, no matter how untenable to one’s religious faith, is mere ‘denial’.. . . 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
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostThere is not much of anything that can be decided about what we cannot know.
Yes. But that does not deal with what is not empirically known. In metaphysics what can be empirically known?
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.
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.)“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
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostMetaphysics 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.
What's wrong with relying on assumptions and axioms?
Without scientific knowledge we have no way of knowing what is true or not true.
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.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
-
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostMechanism? What does that mean?
What's wrong with relying on assumptions and axioms?
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?
No it's not. Your epistemology restricts you. I reject your epistemology.
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.“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
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostIt means a reliable methodology.
“Assumptions” and “axioms” cannot be shown to be true, therefore any conclusions based upon them cannot be shown to be true.
Oh! And how do you know these non-scientific “truths” are true?
Scientific knowledge is empirically verifiable other forms of “truth” are not
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.
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.
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
-
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostWhy doesn't metaphysics have a reliable methodology, and what do you mean by 'reliable'?
What do you mean by 'shown'?
Which ones? I have reasons for all of them.
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.
Prove this, please.
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?“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
-
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostWhy doesn't metaphysics have a reliable methodology, and what do you mean by 'reliable'?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
-
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.. . . 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
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostWell 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.“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
|
172 responses
587 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
137 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Comment