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

Origin of the Mind/Mental States

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

  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    You have to accept that reasoning is a valid method of finding the truth as a first principal, as something self-evident. Reasoning is a basic principal that you can't "prove" without using reason. A big circle.
    Reason and logic are self evidential valid methods of finding truth as has been proven throughout time. Reason is not itself something that need be proven, it's what we use to prove facts about the world. The facts concerning the world would be first principles, the physical laws say, would be first principles.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
      Reason and logic are self evidential valid methods of finding truth as has been proven throughout time. Reason is not itself something that need be proven, it's what we use to prove facts about the world. The facts concerning the world would be first principles, the physical laws say, would be first principles.
      Tell Tassman that.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        You've agreed to my comment that "A premise that "might be true or false" will result in a conclusion that "might be" true or false", but you snipped the important bit, namely that such a premise "may be merely a belief not a reliable fact". Why?
        Well, I don't believe there is a dichotomy between beliefs and facts, which this part of your comment seems to imply.

        Best wishes,
        Lee
        "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          Well, I don't believe there is a dichotomy between beliefs and facts, which this part of your comment seems to imply.

          Best wishes,
          Lee
          this eludes to an underlying problem with with you view of reasoning if you do not distinguish between the reasoning for objectively verified facts, and the reasoning for subjectively held beliefs.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
            Well, I don't believe there is a dichotomy between beliefs and facts, which this part of your comment seems to imply.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              He is arguing that correct reasoning is a first principal that you have to just accept as valid and true. Which you do. It is Prima Facie.
              valid

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                valid
                Yeah. But you were arguing that you can't accept reasoning as a valid method of finding the truth without the scientific method. And that is false. Reasoning is prima facie a valid method of finding the truth. It is a first principal. You can't even come up with the scientific method without first using reasoning.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  Yeah. But you were arguing that you can't accept reasoning as a valid method of finding the truth without the scientific method. And that is false. Reasoning is prima facie a valid method of finding the truth. It is a first principal. You can't even come up with the scientific method without first using reasoning.
                  lee_merrill asserts that reasoning is not the first-principle to justify the validity of reasoning

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    lee_merrill asserts that reasoning is not the first-principle to justify the validity of reasoning
                    He does? Can you show me where?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      He does? Can you show me where?
                      lee_merrill stated that reasoning itself is not the first-principle for the validity of reason, and requires the first-principle as supernatural.

                      Originally posted by lee-merrill
                      I am making a positive claim, actually, and one demonstration is in the validity of human reasoning. The naturalist has no basis on which to establish the validity of human reasoning, therefore it is supernatural.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sparko
                        He does? Can you show me where?
                        lee_merrill stated that reasoning itself is not the first-principle for the validity of reason, and requires the first-principle as supernatural.

                        Originally posted by lee-merrill
                        I am making a positive claim, actually, and one demonstration is in the validity of human reasoning. The naturalist has no basis on which to establish the validity of human reasoning, therefore it is supernatural.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          Yeah. But you were arguing that you can't accept reasoning as a valid method of finding the truth without the scientific method. And that is false. Reasoning is prima facie a valid method of finding the truth. It is a first principal. You can't even come up with the scientific method without first using reasoning.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            lee_merrill stated that reasoning itself is not the first-principle for the validity of reason, and requires the first-principle as supernatural.
                            Which is why you need to accept reasoning as a first-principal, unless you want to accept "God" as who makes reasoning valid. Because there is no way to TEST for it, because any testing would require reasoning to determine the outcome of the test.

                            Comment


                            • Was that reasoning you used there Tassman?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                Was that reasoning you used there Tassman?
                                No, no it wasn't...
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                172 responses
                                611 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Working...
                                X