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 37818What is it that you actually know that you do not believe? That is not possible not to know anything unless it is believed.
Are you seriously asking Tassman about what he knows to be true, but doesn't believe to be true? That would be an oxymoron to ask someone! Or are you asking him about what he knows, in contrast to what he merely 'believes' to be true, where 'believes' mere denotes a lesser degree of certainty, or one not based on strong empirical or deductive foundation?
The second sentence seems broken, I cannot make sense of it. Did you mean to say "It is not possible to know something, unless its believed?"
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostOne would think, one would want to choose what is true. Yet according the Romans 3:11 humans at large do not.
And the answer to that question is, again, that if you want to know the truth, then it matters whether your beliefs are false or true.
I can't see that there's much more to discuss here.Last edited by Leonhard; 02-04-2018, 04:42 PM.
Comment
-
I think that's a bit too strong. We can extract some things from mundane observations. "Things change." Is one of those observations. We don't live in a universe without change of any sort. We look around and see events happening in sequence. Drops falls. Matches are lit. We breathe, we think, etc...
Saying then "There is motion", which is a metaphysical statement (one contested by Parmeneides but upheld by Aristotle) is then not without evidence, and I wouldn't call it an assumption, even if it doesn't fit within the confines of scientific postulations in as much as its such a trivial and simple observation.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI think that's a bit too strong. We can extract some things from mundane observations. "Things change." Is one of those observations. We don't live in a universe without change of any sort. We look around and see events happening in sequence. Drops falls. Matches are lit. We breathe, we think, etc...
Saying then "There is motion", which is a metaphysical statement (one contested by Parmeneides but upheld by Aristotle) is then not without evidence, and I wouldn't call it an assumption, even if it doesn't fit within the confines of scientific postulations in as much as its such a trivial and simple observation.
BTW: You'e removed the link to my original post, which I seem to remember was quite some time ago.Last edited by Tassman; 02-04-2018, 11:00 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostNo it doesn't "fit within the confines of scientific postulations" of verification; therefore it cannot be shown to be true. Hence, while it may well be a valid argument it will not be a sound argument.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostIs english your first language? I have a hard time believing you're deliberately being this obfuscating.
Are you seriously asking Tassman about what he knows to be true, but doesn't believe to be true? That would be an oxymoron to ask someone! Or are you asking him about what he knows, in contrast to what he merely 'believes' to be true, where 'believes' mere denotes a lesser degree of certainty, or one not based on strong empirical or deductive foundation?
The second sentence seems broken, I cannot make sense of it. Did you mean to say "It is not possible to know something, unless its believed?"
*I know many people who have a hard time communicating what they intend. For example, I often have to "translate" what my mom is intending to say, as opposed to what she actually said, to my dad.
**There are certain people who seem to think that belief is "a four letter word".
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostIt seems a perfectly valid argument. Its not a scientific argument, but that does not invalidate it, nor does it render it unsound. What problems do you have with using this argument?Last edited by Tassman; 02-05-2018, 11:36 PM.
Comment
-
Cool. How doesn't this apply to metaphysics?
Explain how Gettier's refutation of knowledge as justified, true belief doesn't involve true premises leading of necessity to a true conclusion? How is your definition of reliability not an assumption or an axiom?
Cool. How can't metaphysical arguments reveal truth such that the truth causes or allowed to be seen a truth, or exhibits or displays a truth?
The question presupposes epistemological internalism, which I wouldn't expect you to know about, since you're not a philosopher, which means you're the quickest to be subject to a philosophical gaffe.
Scientific knowledge: "1. knowledge accumulated by systematic study and organised by general principles".
Because you cannot establish a verifiable true premise.
Empirical science is verifiable, metaphysical questions such as this are not...for reasons given above.
And the only idiots that say foolish things like this tend to be atheist fundamentalists. I can give you a litany of scholars that don't adopt such an idiotic methodology as their only methodology.
Can't be verified??? I mean, how scientistic can you get?
How does being an apologist discount the scholarship? You're an apologist for your point of view. Is everything you say, therefore, suspect?
Cool. What's wrong with second or third-hand reports? Other than the uncritical, historical-method spectacles cemented onto your oblivious face?
Papias does not provide firsthand evidence of eyewitness reportage
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.Last edited by mattbballman31; 02-15-2018, 06:01 PM.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 PostCool. How doesn't this apply to metaphysics?
Explain how Gettier's refutation of knowledge as justified, true belief doesn't involve true premises leading of necessity to a true conclusion? How is your definition of reliability not an assumption or an axiom?Cool. How can't metaphysical arguments reveal truth such that the truth causes or allowed to be seen a truth, or exhibits or displays a truth?
The question presupposes epistemological internalism, which I wouldn't expect you to know about, since you're not a philosopher, which means you're the quickest to be subject to a philosophical gaffe.
Grossly naive and simplistic. So broad that it applies to metaphysics, and even the humanities in general. Next?
Oh, that's right. You're the one that blithely assumes hard scientism, a demonstrably stupid doctrine.
Your philosophical reasons for such scientism are laughable.
And the only idiots that say foolish things like this tend to be atheist fundamentalists. I can give you a litany of scholars that don't adopt such an idiotic methodology as their only methodology.
Can't be verified??? I mean, how scientistic can you get?
How does being an apologist discount the scholarship? You're an apologist for your point of view. Is everything you say, therefore, suspect?Cool. What's wrong with second or third-hand reports? Other than the uncritical, historical-method spectacles cemented onto your oblivious face?Why does this matter?
Oh, geez. The 'ole Gospels vs. Paul argument. Prove this, please.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe problem arises as to 'What is valid faith?' There are a multitude of variable contradictory fallible human claims as to 'What is valid faith?' What objective criteria could be used to make this determination?. . . 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 Leonhard View PostIs english your first language? I have a hard time believing you're deliberately being this obfuscating.
Are you seriously asking Tassman about what he knows to be true, but doesn't believe to be true? That would be an oxymoron to ask someone! Or are you asking him about what he knows, in contrast to what he merely 'believes' to be true, where 'believes' mere denotes a lesser degree of certainty, or one not based on strong empirical or deductive foundation?
The second sentence seems broken, I cannot make sense of it. Did you mean to say "It is not possible to know something, unless its believed?". . . 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 PostPoint of argument, nothing can be one's knowledge unless said knowledge is believed. Again, it is understood, that belief is not the source of knowledge. It is the basis of something true being one's knowledge. Belief is not the cause of truth. Truth is to be the cause of belief.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostPoint of argument, nothing can be one's knowledge unless said knowledge is believed. Again, it is understood, that belief is not the source of knowledge. It is the basis of something true being one's knowledge. Belief is not the cause of truth. Truth is to be the cause of belief.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe bold brings out more questions than it resolves. The big question is; How do you determine your criteria of 'Truth' so that you will be willing to believe?Originally posted by Tassman View PostThe trick is in determining what is true.
The method called the scientific method has to be believed as a method. Can that method be used to test itself?. . . 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
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
609 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
Comment