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

  • #91
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Again: Are you suggesting that we can only know things, true things, by scientific testing?
    We cannot verify facts via subjective feelings and experiences; for facts we need scientific testing.
    “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


    • #92
      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      We cannot verify facts via subjective feelings and experiences; for facts we need scientific testing.
      That is just nonsense Tass, most of the facts you know have nothing to do with scientific testing they are historical, personal or otherwise. You had breakfast last Thursday morning, the specifics are facts learned via personal experience and historical. No science necessary.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #93
        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.
        One can test religious beliefs with what the Bible teaches. The Bible is inspired by God and it is the final authority.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          “Love” can be viewed as an extension of the evolved nurturing instinct common to many living creatures and therefore explainable by science – just as any verifiable factual knowledge is explainable by science.
          You're trying to reduce a complex, multi-dimensional phenomenon such as "love" to a single explanatory level. That's called 'explanatory monism'. Your explanation is useful as long as it's understood to apply to that one descriptive level. An explanation or description at a single level is never meant to be exhaustive.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by seer View Post
            Jim that was not the point I was making, whether I decide God is real or not has nothing to do with it. I'm asking theoretically on what basis could we ever object to a moral act of God?
            In theory, it's not metaphysically possible, although logically possible, to object to a moral act of God's if God's character aligns with the good and with love. My point was that morality is based on reasons and reasons are equally accessible to all moral agents.




            I agree, and they line up with the morally qualities of God.
            Yes, they line up with the moral qualities of God, but that doesn't mean that God is the source of or identical with those qualities.




            No I'm saying that without God there are no universal moral truths, only relative moral beliefs.
            Whether moral truths are universal or relative has nothing to do with whether or not God is the source of them. In fact, positing God as the source relativizes them more than not doing so, IMO, because it makes them brute, and without reasons for being.



            No, there is nothing prior in God's moral nature. Mercy, love, forgiveness, justice that make up his goodness are just as eternal and immutable as His overall goodness.
            I think you've got two problems.

            You've got the redundancy problem I already mentioned. If God sets His own standard of goodness, then you're not ascribing meaning to words the way we normally do. When we ascribe a property P to X, we mean that there is a separate standard for judging and applying P to X, something separate from X. If X can set its own standard for P, then all we're saying is that "X is being X," or "X is doing Xness". X loses the meaning that we usually associate with words for properties. If God sets His own standard for goodness, then 'the good' means 'what God is, commands, or wills.' So that 'God is good' comes to mean "God is or does whatever God is or does."

            The second problem is the emptiness problem based on logical priority.

            http://faculty.georgetown.edu/koonsj.../Euthyphro.pdf




            What on earth are you talking about? And I will ask again, what effect or influence could your standard have on an immutable moral character? It would be completely superfluous to a morally unchanging being.
            God's unchanging nature is eternally one with the truth, whether that's mathematical, logical, moral, or otherwise. There is no effect or influence, any more than He's 'influenced' by the number 7. Effect and influence connote time and change and these are timeless abstractions.

            I do believe God is influenced by the world, answers prayers, intervenes in history, etc, but that's another aspect of His being.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Hornet View Post
              One can test religious beliefs with what the Bible teaches.
              Disagreement about what the bible teaches has been the cause of many religious wars. Plus it has been the origin of a multiplicity of denominations each of which just "knows" its got it right and the others have got it "wrong".

              The Bible is inspired by God
              No it's not.

              and it is the final authority
              Only for those who agree it is inspired by God. And can agree on what it means. See above.
              Last edited by Tassman; 01-21-2020, 11:38 PM.
              “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


              • #97
                Originally posted by seer View Post
                That is just nonsense Tass, most of the facts you know have nothing to do with scientific testing they are historical, personal or otherwise. You had breakfast last Thursday morning, the specifics are facts learned via personal experience and historical. No science necessary.
                OR you may have imagined that you “had breakfast last Thursday morning” - you may have been dreaming, you may be deluded. In short, if the fact of your claiming to have breakfast ever became an issue it can be scientifically determined – at least potentially. Same applies to your belief in a deity and your claim of a personal relationship with it. But, unlike your breakfast, there is no scientific way to determine the truth or otherwise of your claim.
                “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


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                  You're trying to reduce a complex, multi-dimensional phenomenon such as "love" to a single explanatory level. .
                  No, I’m referring to the origins of “love” as an evolved instinct common to many living creatures and therefore explainable by science. I am not elaborating on the multi-dimensional nature of "love" as a phenomenon. Although, there is no good reason to think that it too cannot be explained by science.
                  Last edited by Tassman; 01-22-2020, 12:00 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


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    No, I’m referring to the origins of “love” as an evolved instinct common to many living creatures and therefore explainable by science. I am not elaborating on the multi-dimensional nature of "love" as a phenomenon. Although, there is no good reason to think that it too cannot be explained by science.
                    Given that "science" has been unable to explain anything other than the mechanical/physical aspects of the universe so far I'm not really sure from where you're getting this utterly unfounded confidence in the capabilities of science.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      OR you may have imagined that you “had breakfast last Thursday morning” - you may have been dreaming, you may be deluded. In short, if the fact of your claiming to have breakfast ever became an issue it can be scientifically determined – at least potentially. Same applies to your belief in a deity and your claim of a personal relationship with it. But, unlike your breakfast, there is no scientific way to determine the truth or otherwise of your claim.
                      Tass you may have imagined that science works, or that there is such a thing as science - you may be dreaming, or deluded.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                        In theory, it's not metaphysically possible, although logically possible, to object to a moral act of God's if God's character aligns with the good and with love. My point was that morality is based on reasons and reasons are equally accessible to all moral agents.
                        But reasons are relative to the moral goals one has. Gandhi has certain goals, Stalin others.


                        Yes, they line up with the moral qualities of God, but that doesn't mean that God is the source of or identical with those qualities.
                        If God isn't the source of universal moral truths then what is? You?



                        Whether moral truths are universal or relative has nothing to do with whether or not God is the source of them. In fact, positing God as the source relativizes them more than not doing so, IMO, because it makes them brute, and without reasons for being.
                        That is silly, if God's moral nature is immutable then moral truths are not relative and are universal. They in a sense are brute facts as God Himself is a brute fact since you can not offer reasons for His existence.




                        I think you've got two problems.

                        You've got the redundancy problem I already mentioned. If God sets His own standard of goodness, then you're not ascribing meaning to words the way we normally do. When we ascribe a property P to X, we mean that there is a separate standard for judging and applying P to X, something separate from X. If X can set its own standard for P, then all we're saying is that "X is being X," or "X is doing Xness". X loses the meaning that we usually associate with words for properties. If God sets His own standard for goodness, then 'the good' means 'what God is, commands, or wills.' So that 'God is good' comes to mean "God is or does whatever God is or does."

                        The second problem is the emptiness problem based on logical priority.

                        http://faculty.georgetown.edu/koonsj.../Euthyphro.pdf
                        Jim, I'm not going to wade through through that link. First, God does not set His own standard, He is by His immutable nature that standard. But you need to answer - if God's nature does not set the standard EXACTLY what does? And like I said I doubt if you can define "the good" with out begging the question. So you are in a no better position, logically.


                        God's unchanging nature is eternally one with the truth, whether that's mathematical, logical, moral, or otherwise. There is no effect or influence, any more than He's 'influenced' by the number 7. Effect and influence connote time and change and these are timeless abstractions.
                        So again, of what use is this independent standard? The standard would be completely superfluous.
                        Last edited by seer; 01-22-2020, 07:16 AM.
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • Given that morality is about interpersonal relationships I'm not really sure in what ways it makes sense to say that the ultimate standard or source of morality lies outside of God. I can easily conceive of a world devoid of God (questions of metaphysical or logical impossibility aside) where no such standard exists, so if the ground/source/standard of morality/goodness does not lie in God it seems to me like it would only be an accidental aspect of any universe. I.e there would be possible (that is, conceivable) worlds where this outside standard did not exist.

                          Then there's also the issue that the Bible clearly teaches God's ultimate sovereignity over all that exists apart from Him, which would be inconsistent with an external standard to which He has to align Himself.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                            Given that morality is about interpersonal relationships I'm not really sure in what ways it makes sense to say that the ultimate standard or source of morality lies outside of God. I can easily conceive of a world devoid of God (questions of metaphysical or logical impossibility aside) where no such standard exists, so if the ground/source/standard of morality/goodness does not lie in God it seems to me like it would only be an accidental aspect of any universe. I.e there would be possible (that is, conceivable) worlds where this outside standard did not exist.

                            Then there's also the issue that the Bible clearly teaches God's ultimate sovereignity over all that exists apart from Him, which would be inconsistent with an external standard to which He has to align Himself.
                            And the fact that I have never seen a moral realist define what is good without begging the question. Or as Jim B. did just assert that moral truths were axioms.
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                              They are “speculations” nevertheless and cannot be verified by anything other than an academic argument.
                              As I already said, academic, a priori arguments establish the necessity or possibility of something. It's a completely different kind of verification. Verification should be understood analogically relative to the methodological constraints of different domains of inquiry. To univocally impose one kind of verification onto the framework of non-scientific disciplines is just mistaken.

                              How can your metaphysical argument be justified as any more than an academic mind-game, when there is no mechanism to arrive at a verifiable true premise and consequently cannot arrive at a verifiable true conclusion?
                              You have to go through them on a case by case basis. I could go into philosophical methods with a test-case, but it would take too long. And to call this nothing but an academic mind-game is so snobbishly condescending as to not even merit a response. But to go over a little short-cut. As we've already told you a million times, the methods and findings of science, though not conversant with philosophy, do rely on philosophical assumptions. And so the empirical beliefs can't be more certain than the philosophical assumptions upon which they're based. If you think a physics-based theory is true, you have a background-belief about a theory of truth. The same methods that go to establish a theory of truth will be the same methods you use to establish metaphysically necessary or possible entities, events, things, or properties. They go hand-in-hand. So, either go with philosophy and its methods (which doesn't involve, or rely upon, empirical confirmation) or throw it all out and lose all the philosophical assumptions you need to keep your empirical theories afloat.
                              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 Post
                                As I already said, academic, a priori arguments establish the necessity or possibility of something.
                                A priori arguments do not establish the “necessity or possibility” of anything. They proceed from purely theoretical deductions, NOT from observation or experience.

                                As we've already told you a million times, the methods and findings of science, though not conversant with philosophy, do rely on philosophical assumptions. And so the empirical beliefs can't be more certain than the philosophical assumptions upon which they're based.
                                As I have already responded “a million times” I’m not "invalidating" philosophy. It has its place. It’s essential for holding the scientific structure together - it can ensure self-consistency and avoid errors of false inference. But, I repeat, philosophy cannot in and of itself arrive at new factual knowledge about the real world. For this you need scientific methodology.

                                If you think a physics-based theory is true, you have a background-belief about a theory of truth.
                                More to the point, what "a physics-based theory" has is a scientific methodology to establish facts and build on these facts the results of which are all around us.

                                The same methods that go to establish a theory of truth will be the same methods you use to establish metaphysically necessary or possible entities, events, things, or properties. They go hand-in-hand. So, either go with philosophy and its methods (which doesn't involve, or rely upon, empirical confirmation) or throw it all out and lose all the philosophical assumptions you need to keep your empirical theories afloat.
                                Putting a man on the moon is sufficient to keep my "empirical theories afloat".
                                “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
                                507 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