Originally posted by seer
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
When does proving one's truth claims come to an end?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostIt's a badge I wear with honor, brother.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 seer View PostNothing common about a child of the Most High God, sanctified by the blood of Christ!The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostWhat do you think of these propositions? Would they require either a circular, regressive, or axiomatic argument to prove them?
1. Contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.
2. I am feeling pain.
What do you think of statements where if one denies them, then one contradicts himself? For example, suppose someone makes the statement, "I exist." If he denies it, wouldn't he be contradicting himself? One would have to exist in order for him to deny it.
Is the Munchausen Trilemma stating all of the possible options? What do you think of the idea where a proposition is proven true by the fact that if one denies the proposition, then one contradicts himself?
Norman Geisler in his book, Christian Apologetics, teaches that undeniability is a test of truth. Something is true if it cannot be denied. What do you think of this?
What do you think of axioms where if a person denies them, he contradicts himself? A person ends up contradicting himself if he denies the law of contradiction.Last edited by Hornet; 01-03-2020, 01:59 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hornet View PostIf I'm in pain, it is self-evident and undeniable that I'm in pain. How would this be fallacious?
What do you think of axioms where if a person denies them, he contradicts himself? A person ends up contradicting himself if he denies the law of contradiction.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 seer View Post
And if he contradicts himself what does that tell us? It certainly does not tell us that the laws of logic are universal or inviolate. BTW - I do believe that the laws of logic are absolute since I start with God...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostBy starting with God, you are starting with an unverified premise. Therefore you cannot claim your conclusion "that the laws of logic are absolute" is true.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 seer View PostOK Matt I get this, so can you give me an actual example of such a feasible break? I could imagine many non-arbitrary or non-question-begging breaks that have no correspondence with reality or truth.
This methodological tactic is aporia. This is a kind of break. Why? It leaves unanswered questions regarding the epistemic legitimacy of intuition, the metaphysical grounding of intuitions, questions from evolutionary psychology and cognitive neuroscience, etc.
At the same time, it's non-question-begging, because opting for what you have more reason to believe makes you a responsible epistemic agent. You're not using your intuitions to demonstrate objective moral values to someone who disagrees; you're explaining why you yourself are convinced that there are objective moral values. To side with prima facie seemings is an epistemic virtue.
Further, it's non-arbitrary because such a siding is in alignment with well-established epistemic norms: believe a proposition P when P seems to you to be the case, and there aren't any overriding defeaters D such that you see D defeats P. If you don't think D defeats P, and P seems to you to be true, then believe P. All of this breaks from following an issue down to its explanatory foundation. But if we demanded this from the everyday 'Joe' on the street, then the absurd conclusion would follow that before we know anything, we'd all first need to be professional epistemologists, which is a bit too much.
Use aporia again. What seems more plausible? That folks know some stuff? Or that some obscure philosophical theory that implies that only someone thoroughly acquainted with epistemology (the ins and outs of metaphysically complete demonstration) knows some stuff? What to do when defeaters are presented is a separate question, and you might have to adjust where you broke off the searching prior to the defeater, remembering that it's a defeater that you perceive to be a defeater.Last edited by mattbballman31; 01-04-2020, 11:22 AM.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 seer View PostWhat do you start with Tass that you can justify? I will be waiting...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 PostYou made the claim that "the laws of logic are absolute" since you "start with God", it up to you to justify your premise. Otherwise you don't have an argument. ...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 PostStarting with God is a justification for the absolute properties of the laws of logic. There's a transcendental deduction of the properties for the ground for the absolute properties of the laws of logic. You start with the laws of logic. See that they're absolute. And then you posit a ground for the possibility of the properties that inhere in the laws of logic. That itself is a method of justification with a philosophical pedigree dating back to Kant. Unless you conflate your scientistic verificationism with epistemic justification, you won't be able to see that. And that, in the words of Yoda, will be why you fail.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostSo circular it bites you in the butt!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 PostYou made the claim that "the laws of logic are absolute" since you "start with God", it up to you to justify your premise. Otherwise you don't have an argument. ...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 mattbballman31 View PostA non-arbitrary or non-question-begging break would be relative to context. It'd be relative to your interests and goals in a discussion, or relative to the interests and goals of how you come to an intellectual peace about an issue. For example, perhaps you settle upon a belief in objective moral values because your moral intuitions are so powerful that any premise in a philosophical argument leading to the conclusion that relativism or subjectivism or nihilism or non-cognitivism is the case is less plausible than the cognitive content you are immediately acquainted with by virtue of the intuitions.
This methodological tactic is aporia. This is a kind of break. Why? It leaves unanswered questions regarding the epistemic legitimacy of intuition, the metaphysical grounding of intuitions, questions from evolutionary psychology and cognitive neuroscience, etc.
At the same time, it's non-question-begging, because opting for what you have more reason to believe makes you a responsible epistemic agent. You're not using your intuitions to demonstrate objective moral values to someone who disagrees; you're explaining why you yourself are convinced that there are objective moral values. To side with prima facie seemings is an epistemic virtue.
Further, it's non-arbitrary because such a siding is in alignment with well-established epistemic norms: believe a proposition P when P seems to you to be the case, and there aren't any overriding defeaters D such that you see D defeats P. If you don't think D defeats P, and P seems to you to be true, then believe P. All of this breaks from following an issue down to its explanatory foundation. But if we demanded this from the everyday 'Joe' on the street, then the absurd conclusion would follow that before we know anything, we'd all first need to be professional epistemologists, which is a bit too much.
Use aporia again. What seems more plausible? That folks know some stuff? Or that some obscure philosophical theory that implies that only someone thoroughly acquainted with epistemology (the ins and outs of metaphysically complete demonstration) knows some stuff? What to do when defeaters are presented is a separate question, and you might have to adjust where you broke off the searching prior to the defeater, remembering that it's a defeater that you perceive to be a defeater.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
|
173 responses
643 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
06-07-2024, 07:30 AM
|
Comment