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

When does proving one's truth claims come to an end?

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

  • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post

    We are both making philosophical points constantly, points that we each assume to be trueand factual, otherwise we wouldn't be making them. They cannot be 'proven' to be true with absolute certainty, just as you say that no scientific claim can be. But there are degrees of justifiability with philosophical conclusions just as there are with scientific conclusions. The most certain claims are not available to science but are directly present to the subject, such as "I am conscious," "I exist" "I experience pain." Science depends on a whole raft of assumptions about reality already having to be true whereas the claims I mention do not. They are directly present and irrefutable.
    The claims you mention are “irrefutable” only because they are ultimately subjective, i.e. based on personal opinion or experience. And one cannot refute subjective personal opinions even if such personal opinions are shared by others.

    Again, you've just made another philosophical argument which I can disregard as not being factual.
    The argument I have made is suitable for fact-gathering, which yours are not. For fact-gathering (or data) one needs objective information which is fact-based, measurable and observable. In short scientific methodology. Philosophy on its own doesn’t cut it.

    I don't know what you mean by 'academic,'
    Well, I’ve explained it several times. As opposed to scientific methodology a philosophical argument is merely academic in that it cannot be multiply tested and shown to be factual. The same applies to any philosophical attempts to rebut a philosophical argument. They are just words without objective, measurable, observable substance.

    Reason, logic, and philosophical interpretation are endemic, and essential, to all of human thought, whether you like it, acknowledge it, or not.
    Yes, I agree, they are essential in as far as they go. But these disciplines are limited in what they can offer – as I’ve stated many times.

    Why not try to argue the actual merits of the case rather than focus on extraneous issues? Could it be because you can't?
    Focusing on “the actual merits of the case” requires the correct discipline to do so - this where we are in disagreement regarding science vis-a-vis metaphysics.

    No, I was referring to the worth of Bach's music itself. Of course he cannot compose any more oratorios, but again that's merely the necessary conditions. Bach's music would not exist without his conception but his conception doesn't = his music.
    A Bach oratorio is just a collection of sounds which many of us subjectively enjoy. It doesn’t exist as some sort of separate “conception” other than the consequence of Bach’s genetic inheritance and social conditioning. Just as we are genetically predisposed and socially conditioned to enjoy certain types of music, like Bach, which other cultures see as mere racket.

    My argument functions on the assumption that phenomenal concepts don't reduce to physical concepts. there are many possible implications of that. Some physicalists like Galen Strawson accept that argument.
    Then you need to explain what your “phenomenal concepts” are and why they have meaning – as I’ve asked repeatedly.
    “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 Post
      The claims you mention are “irrefutable” only because they are ultimately subjective, i.e. based on personal opinion or experience. And one cannot refute subjective personal opinions even if such personal opinions are shared by others.
      Nonsense! It is NOT subjective that I exist. How could it possibly be subjective? To whom or to what? I cannot doubt if there is not a subject there to do the doubting. If you drop a bowling ball on your foot and are hopping around in pain, it isn't a 'subjective' feeling or opinion that you are in pain. My consciousness constitutes my belief that I am conscious. It cannot be a subjective opinion that I am conscious. How can I possibly be mistaken about it? I can be mistaken about the contents of my consciousness, but not the fact that I am conscious. Subjective feelings or opinions are all things you can be mistaken about. How could you be mistaken about any of these things?



      The argument I have made is suitable for fact-gathering, which yours are not. For fact-gathering (or data) one needs objective information which is fact-based, measurable and observable. In short scientific methodology. Philosophy on its own doesnÂ’t cut it.
      So you've said umpteen times. That assertion itself is an alleged fact. That assertion itself is a philosophical conclusion. Does an anvil have to drop on your head before you get the point?



      Well, IÂ’ve explained it several times. As opposed to scientific methodology a philosophical argument is merely academic in that it cannot be multiply tested and shown to be factual. The same applies to any philosophical attempts to rebut a philosophical argument. They are just words without objective, measurable, observable substance.
      And as I've explained several times, human knowledge doesn't exist in such a simple compartmentalized way. It exists on a continuum. Logic, reason, observation, memory, intuition, and many other faculties are at play in complex inter-relations all the time. An 'academic' philosophical argument IS tested by its soundness. Yours, for instance, are extremely weak.

      And again, you are making factual PHILOSOPHICAL claims, so you are contradicting yourself.

      As far as your reading of science, have you read Thomas Kuhn? And as I've said many times, science would be impossible without an entire underlying set of metaphysical pre-suppositions. So science is philosophically dependent.



      Yes, I agree, they are essential in as far as they go. But these disciplines are limited in what they can offer – as I’ve stated many times.
      In as far as they go? Do you know what the words 'endemic' and 'essential' mean? Like saying semantics is limited in what it can offer to language.



      Focusing on “the actual merits of the case” requires the correct discipline to do so - this where we are in disagreement regarding science vis-a-vis metaphysics.
      In determining the explanatory scope of science, which this question essentially is, one cannot assume that the only possible discipline that could offer an answer would be science; that would be to beg the question. To approach the question fairly, you would have to place "science" in brackets, ie to not "place your thumb on the scale" and pre-determine the outcome from the beginning. The only way to do that is through philosophy.

      Now I know that you think that philosophy is illegitimate in trying to determine the answer, but it's the only way to approach this question without begging the question. Philosophy does not pre-determine the outcome of the debate. All of the researchers and writers who agree with YOU have realized that they've had to define and defend their positions philosophically. All of the scientific reductionists have realized that a PHILOSOPHICAL foundation had to be made for their position.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        A Bach oratorio is just a collection of sounds which many of us subjectively enjoy. It doesn’t exist as some sort of separate “conception” other than the consequence of Bach’s genetic inheritance and social conditioning. Just as we are genetically predisposed and socially conditioned to enjoy certain types of music, like Bach, which other cultures see as mere racket.
        Many of us 'subjectively enjoy' the sound of rain falling on leaves. Perhaps there's a bit more to it than that? And how do you know you aren't as 'genetically predisposed' to believing in the things you're espousing as I am, in which case we have no grounds for dispute? The fact that each of us is claiming that what we believe is 'true' or 'factual' in some way suggests that we each think there's a reasonable ground for our beliefs and not just an adaptive ground. There is the possibility of true novelty such as through emergent properties.



        Then you need to explain what your “phenomenal concepts” are and why they have meaning – as I’ve asked repeatedly.
        I already have several times. What's the point of repeating it if you've pre-determined that only one answer can possibly fit?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          Nonsense! It is NOT subjective that I exist. How could it possibly be subjective?
          It IS subjective that you believe you exist. A person in a coma exists, although he is unaware of it.

          So you've said umpteen times. That assertion itself is an alleged fact. That assertion itself is a philosophical conclusion.
          I’ve repeatedly acknowledged this. Scientific methodology is grounded in ‘metaphysical naturalism’ and its correlate of ‘methodological naturalism’ both of which exclude the notion of the ‘supernatural. Metaphysical naturalism holds that all properties related to consciousness and the mind are reducible to, or ensue from, nature” – there is no good reason to think otherwise.

          And as I've explained several times, human knowledge doesn't exist in such a simple compartmentalized way. It exists on a continuum. Logic, reason, observation, memory, intuition, and many other faculties are at play in complex inter-relations all the time.
          Similarly with science – existing empirical data is reinforced by newly discovered data although, unlike philosophy science has the methodology to test its data.

          An 'academic' philosophical argument IS tested by its soundness.
          An “academic” philosophical argument is indeed tested by its “soundness”. A “sound” argument is an argument that is valid and whose premises are all true. In other words, the premises are true and the conclusion necessarily follows from them, making the conclusion true as well. But, unlike science which can empirically test its premises, an “academic” philosophical argument has no mechanism to test its premises. It cannot arrive at a “true conclusion”.
          “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 Jim B. View Post
            Many of us 'subjectively enjoy' the sound of rain falling on leaves.
            We are environmentally conditioned to enjoy certain natural sounds just as culturally we are socialized to enjoy certain types of music.

            Perhaps there's a bit more to it than that?
            What “more than that” do you suggest?

            And how do you know you aren't as 'genetically predisposed' to believing in the things you're espousing as I am, in which case we have no grounds for dispute?
            We are genetically predisposed to believe data about the way the world around us functions. It’s a survival thing.

            The fact that each of us is claiming that what we believe is 'true' or 'factual' in some way suggests that we each think there's a reasonable ground for our beliefs and not just an adaptive ground. There is the possibility of true novelty such as through emergent properties.
            Possibly. But science is better equipped than philosophy to investigate “emergent properties”.

            I already have several times. What's the point of repeating it if you've pre-determined that only one answer can possibly fit?
            As opposed to your predetermined notion of “phenomenal concepts” you mean?
            “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 Post
              It IS subjective that you believe you exist. A person in a coma exists, although he is unaware of it.
              This is confused. 'Subjective' means: "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions." To have personal feelings, tastes or opinions, there must be a person there, an "I" or a subject within whom those subjective states are occurring. If there is no "I", there is no possibility of subjectivity. It is a belief that I exist, but it is a more certain belief than any belief that can possibly be derived from scientific research, because that research already assumes the reality of an external world, of a self, of inductive regularity, etc... This is an actual truth discoverable about the world that results from philosophy and is not possible from science.


              Just because a comatose person isn't able to believe that she exists has nothing to do with the argument. She also cannot acknowledge that 1+1=2, but that doesn't mean that 1+1=2 is subjective. She cannot acknowledge ANY truth at all.


              I’ve repeatedly acknowledged this. Scientific methodology is grounded in ‘metaphysical naturalism’ and its correlate of ‘methodological naturalism’ both of which exclude the notion of the ‘supernatural. Metaphysical naturalism holds that all properties related to consciousness and the mind are reducible to, or ensue from, nature” – there is no good reason to think otherwise.
              THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUPERNATURAL. How many times do I have to say that? Why don't you try to actually learn something about this issue?



              Similarly with science – existing empirical data is reinforced by newly discovered data although, unlike philosophy science has the methodology to test its data.
              That statement itself is not a scientific finding, so it is not strictly factual by your own criteria. So I can disregard.



              An “academic” philosophical argument is indeed tested by its “soundness”. A “sound” argumThis is an actual truth about theent is an argument that is valid and whose premises are all true. In other words, the premises are true and the conclusion necessarily follows from them, making the conclusion true as well. But, unlike science which can empirically test its premises, an “academic” philosophical argument has no mechanism to test its premises. It cannot arrive at a “true conclusion”.
              I'M SORRY, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE TO GET THROUGH TO YOU. THIS STATEMENT YOU JUST MADE IS A PHILOSOPHICAL STATEMENT. IT PURPORTS TO BE 'TRUTHFUL' AND 'FACTUAL.' SO YOU CONTRADICT YOURSELF.

              As I pointed out above, and in many other cases, philosophical arguments can make real claims about the world, many of them decisive.
              Last edited by Jim B.; 03-03-2020, 04:43 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                We are environmentally conditioned to enjoy certain natural sounds just as culturally we are socialized to enjoy certain types of music.
                Of course, but those are the minimal conditions and are laughably insufficient for explaining everything about the experience.



                What “more than that” do you suggest?
                As Louie Armstrong famously said, "Man, if you gotta ask, you'll never know."



                We are genetically predisposed to believe data about the way the world around us functions. It’s a survival thing.
                So how are you NOT a believer in evolutionary psychology?

                For you to believe that you can represent this evolutionary process 'truthfully,' means that there must be at least a logical distinction between that process and your capacity to rationally and faithfully represent it. Otherwise, your capacity for representing is merely another adaptive tool, and we as humans could never 'stand outside' logically speaking of that process to represent it more or less accurately. Physical evolution explains a lot about us, but evo psych goes too far in positing that it explains EVERYTHING, because then it undercuts our ability to confidently say that it explains everything.



                Possibly. But science is better equipped than philosophy to investigate “emergent properties”.
                In terms of their causal properties, perhaps, but probably not in other respects.



                As opposed to your predetermined notion of “phenomenal concepts” you mean?
                How do you know that it's pre-determined if you don't know what it is?

                Comment


                • QUOTE=Jim B.;715909]'Subjective' means: "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions." To have personal feelings, tastes or opinions, there must be a person there, an "I" or a subject within whom those subjective states are occurring. If there is no "I", there is no possibility of subjectivity. It is a belief that I exist, but it is a more certain belief than any belief that can possibly be derived from scientific research, because that research already assumes the reality of an external world, of a self, of inductive regularity, etc... This is an actual truth discoverable about the world that results from philosophy and is not possible from science.
                  The subjective belief that “I” exist is an instinct common to most sentient creatures. One doesn’t require philosophical argument OR science to arrive at this conclusion.

                  THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUPERNATURAL. How many times do I have to say that?
                  If you are not arguing for the supernatural then you shouldn't be concerned about accepting the scientific position that all properties related to consciousness and the mind are reducible to, or derive from, nature.

                  THIS STATEMENT YOU JUST MADE IS A PHILOSOPHICAL STATEMENT.
                  Yes. It is a “philosophical statement” about the requirements of a “sound” philosophical argument, which you vaunted as the means of testing an 'academic' philosophical argument.

                  But “a deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound”.

                  https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

                  And a philosophical argument has no mechanism for arriving at a 'true premise'. Alternatively, as opposed to philosophy, science verifies its premises (or hypotheses) by empirically testing them multiple times. As such it has arrived at conclusions that are sufficiently reliable to determine the laws and constants of the universe and put a man on the moon.
                  Last edited by Tassman; 03-04-2020, 01:41 AM.
                  “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 Jim B. View Post
                    Of course, but those are the minimal conditions and are laughably insufficient for explaining everything about the experience.
                    So you agree that we are environmentally conditioned to enjoy certain natural sounds just as culturally we are socialized to enjoy certain types of music. What more is required?

                    As Louie Armstrong famously said, "Man, if you gotta ask, you'll never know."
                    By which you presumably mean you think there must be more than merely a natural explanation for these things but are unable to explain it. You just know it.

                    For you to believe that you can represent this evolutionary process 'truthfully,' means that there must be at least a logical distinction between that process and your capacity to rationally and faithfully represent it. Otherwise, your capacity for representing is merely another adaptive tool, and we as humans could never 'stand outside' logically speaking of that process to represent it more or less accurately.
                    Outside of what, exactly?

                    In terms of their causal properties, perhaps, but probably not in other respects.
                    What other respects?

                    How do you know that it's pre-determined if you don't know what it is?
                    Tell me what you mean by “phenomenal concepts”.
                    “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 Chrawnus View Post
                      Morality however, doesn't seem to be prior to God's nature in the same way logic (which as I see it is in it's basest form simply the distinction between "meaningful" and "nonsensical" states of/statements about existence, or sets of statements about existence) is. It's impossible to me to speak coherently or meaningfully about God's nature in any way that is not logical, or in a way that is contrary to logic, but it does seem to me to be possible to speak about God's nature in a way that is completely devoid of moral language. It is perfectly possible to take any moral statement about God's nature and actions and rewrite them in such a way that they are stripped of any reference or inference to moral value judgements/propositions, and you're still left with a perfectly coherent description of God's nature and dealings with the universe. In short, it doesn't seem to me like moral values/statements/propositions define/bind/constrain (or whatever word you prefer) God's nature in even remotely the same sort of way that logic does.
                      I agree. I meant 'logical' in the sense that the distinction between God and moral goodness is only logical or conceptual and not actual, that God is in actuality one with 'the good' for eternity because that is his eternal nature.


                      I agree that God doesn't have any moral obligations, but not because He is morally perfect. A created being could theoretically be morally perfect, but still have moral obligations. God doesn't have any moral obligations because He Himself is the source of moral obligations. Humans have moral obligations not because we're finite imperfect beings, but because we are created by and stand in relation to God, and a core component of that relation is moral obligations. Regardless of whether we've attained moral perfection or not, these moral obligations still apply to us. Moral perfection would simply lead to us fulfilling our moral obligations willingly and without feelings of compulsion, but the obligations themselves do not disappear simply because our unwillingness to fulfill them disappears.
                      This is where we differ. If God is the source of goodness, then he sets the standard and criteria for what constitutes goodness, the metric of goodness, if you will. He is "goodness itself." But when we ascribe a property to something, we mean that it can be judged by a standard that is logically independent of itself. Otherwise the process of property-ascription loses its meaning. If "God is the Good" is to be understood as a strict identity statement, then there is no independent way of filling in the statement with meaning. It becomes in effect a tautology along the lines of "God is God" and "God does what God does."

                      For "God is the Good" to be understood as a strict identity statement, then the Good has to be logically prior to any good-making property, such as being just, loving, merciful, etc. The good has to logically come before anything that could possibly make it good; otherwise, God's goodness would be logically dependent on those properties and there would therefore be a moral standard independent of God.

                      If God "is" love, is this because love is good, or because love happens to be what God is? If God is love because love is good, then the good must be logically prior to love; but then God's goodness is a featureless blank without anything making it good. But it makes more intuitive sense to say that God is love (even though I have problems with saying 'God is love' as an identity statement) because love is good than to say that God is love simply because that is what God is. Sounds like a tautology.


                      As to why God is perfect, I would posit that it is because God is the greatest conceivable Being, or greatest possible Being, and a perfect Being is greater than a being who is not perfect. And as to why what we call God's moral nature consists of the exact attributes that it does (i.e those attributes that make God act in a way that we call moral), I would simply say that it is because a Being who has those attributes is greater than a being who does not have them, or a being that only has them to a certain degree. I.e, God's moral nature is a consequence of Him being the greatest possible Being, and none of his moral attributes need to be explained by reference to a moral standard independent of God. In fact, if such a moral standard does exist (and to me such as standard seems unnecessary to explain any facet of reality), God's nature is perfectly explainable without any inference to such a standard.
                      But 'perfection' strongly connotes "the exact meeting of a standard." "Perfect" in relation to what? How can something or someone be 'perfect' in regards to a standard that he himself sets? The word loses its meaning, like Wittgenstein's famous question "What time is it on the sun?"



                      It makes perfect sense to me to wonder why goodness is a part of God's nature, and I would posit that the answer lies in Perfect Being theology.
                      Yes, God is the greatest conceivable Being, but as I said, God's moral perfection does not necessarily help you. According to the Autonomy Thesis, which I'm defending, either God has good reasons for his commands or he doesn't. If he does, then those reasons, and not his commands, are the ultimate grounds of moral obligation. If he does not have good reasons, then his commands are arbitrary and may be disregarded.

                      Moral autonomy and responsibility are both premised on the fact that moral obligation is grounded in reasons that are equally transparent and accessible, ideally, to all moral agents and to the different semantic meanings to the phrases: "being morally obligatory" and "being willed by God" even if they happen to coincide in fact.


                      Is love a good thing merely due to the fact that God loves? Or does God love because to love is a good thing? I know you're saying they are the same thing in terms of his character, but there's a logical distinction that must be made. Even if God is the primordial and exemplary instance of loving, that would not, IMO, alter the fact that love is an intrinsically good thing. And if it is an intrinsically good thing, then there is a moral standard that is logically independent of God.

                      How, just by being the primordial and exemplary act of loving, would God make love a good thing? If God is the primordial and exemplary instance of mathematical thought, would that thought actually confer reality on mathematical objects?

                      It's not clear how God could actually confer goodness on things that people normally consider to be intrinsically good things, such as health, life, consciousness, friendship, love, etc.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Hornet View Post
                        Suppose you make a truth claim and someone else asks you to prove it. If you prove it, he can ask you to give a proof for that proof. When does proving one's truth claims come to an end? Are there any beliefs that do not have to be proven?
                        I would question whether rational proofs are ever possible, about anything. There is absolutely nothing, it seems, so certain that a determined sceptic cannot shoot it full of holes.
                        Scepticism about the value of reason STM to be the wisest policy - what we call knowledge, is perhaps better regarded as highly probable, as probably a close approximation to truth, but always as revisable. And I would extend this to scepticism itself. I think I know, and can know, nothing for certain - not even that I know, and can know, nothing.

                        I think apologetics for Christianity is immoral in principle, and often unhelpful in practice. If something can be established by reason, it is fatuous (or worse) to require it to believed by faith. If one can know by faith that there is a God, and that He rewards those who seek Him, then it is impertinent to drag in rational argument to establish those points. If reason were the path which led to God, we would have no need of the Cross. But God has revealed His Wisdom through the “folly of the Cross” - therefore, the Church has no need of the all too human wisdom of apologetics, which is no more than the uninspired and very fallible opinions of flawed & sinful human beings. If apologetics were real knowledge, it would convince others - in practice, it calls forth endless replies and refutations. One can only infer that it is less reasonable, and less useful, than it may seem to be.

                        Christ is shown proclaiming the Good News - He is not shown supporting what He says by detailed reasoned argument, in the Greek manner. He relies above all on arguments from authority; that of the Scriptures, or of His works. He leaves people free to follow Him - or not to, or even to leave off following Him. IMHO, it was a mistake on the part of some of the Apostles to try arguing for what they preached, because argument is able to be used to support anything whatsoeved; it is inherently unstable and unreliable.
                        Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 07-17-2020, 10:51 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          One believes what can be supported by evidence. Science is supported by empirically testing observations and deriving conclusions. Religious beliefs have no such methodology to test its claims.
                          Fair enough - but, suppose the evidence is less reliable than it seems ? And how would even know beyond all question ? People are fallible, and a delusion shared by a trillion people is (presumably) still a delusion. So while it can be argued from many types of evidence that (say) diamond is composed of carbon, that is (ISTM) a probabilistic judgement, and not a fact true beyond all possibility of argument.

                          At bottom, ISTM that scientific “knowledge” is no more indubitable or certain than the religious kind, and that both “knowledges” are enveloped in obscurity.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
                            Fair enough - but, suppose the evidence is less reliable than it seems ? And how would even know beyond all question ?
                            NO knowledge is “beyond all question”. There are no proofs in science, merely knowledge that has been sufficiently tested to the extent it can be regarded as being true – e.g. the speed of light in vacuum, or the gravitational constant etc.. All the accepted laws and constants of the natural world may be “less reliable" than they seem, but to date they have been shown to be reliable.

                            At bottom, ISTM that scientific “knowledge” is no more indubitable or certain than the religious kind, and that both “knowledges” are enveloped in obscurity.
                            Religious knowledge is purely subjective whereas science is objective in that its theories, laws, experimental results and observations are accurate accounts of the external world.
                            “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 Rushing Jaws View Post
                              Fair enough - but, suppose the evidence is less reliable than it seems ? And how would even know beyond all question ? People are fallible, and a delusion shared by a trillion people is (presumably) still a delusion. So while it can be argued from many types of evidence that (say) diamond is composed of carbon, that is (ISTM) a probabilistic judgement, and not a fact true beyond all possibility of argument.

                              At bottom, ISTM that scientific “knowledge” is no more indubitable or certain than the religious kind, and that both “knowledges” are enveloped in obscurity.
                              There are numerous problems with your conclusions in the above. The knowledge of the 'religous kind' is fundamenatlly subjective, and cannot be confirme objectively. This is demonstrated that there are many religious beliefs and claims are widely different conflicted between different religions and sects, and there is no way to objectively confirm who is 'right.' In science Methodological Naturalism can over time confirm the knowledge of our physical existence is predicable, and in wide if not universal agreement in science. As a result computers work and airplanes fly.
                              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 Jim B. View Post
                                As I pointed out above, and in many other cases, philosophical arguments can make real claims about the world, many of them decisive.
                                Decisive? Like what?!?!?!
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                505 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