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

Circular Arguments?

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Really how do you know that? After all your conscious understanding plays no role in the process - according to you.
    My conscious understanding is tantamount to my brain state, which is a process of information.
    Blog: Atheism and the City

    If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
      My conscious understanding is tantamount to my brain state, which is a process of information.
      But your conscious understanding is causally impotent, and therefore without meaning. How can you call that true knowledge?
      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


      • #33
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        But your conscious understanding is causally impotent, and therefore without meaning. How can you call that true knowledge?
        My conscious understanding is tantamount to my brain state, which is causally effective, and therefore meaningful.

        If you want me to believe in substance dualism/interactionism and that the mental can cause the physical, you would have to point to something the brain does that is in apparent conflict with the Standard Model or general relativity. (Bending spoons across large distances would qualify, for example.) Or, if you have no evidence, just admit your position is not based on evidence, but rather based on faith.
        Blog: Atheism and the City

        If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.

        Comment


        • #34
          As far as I can understand, Sea of Red, JimL, The Thinker, et al., think that it is possible to predict what Sea of Red, JimL, et al., will do at any given moment, at least in a theoretical sense.

          Scientism is self-contradicting (the doctrine that only sentences that have been empirically verified are acceptable as assertions of truth--logical positivism).
          The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

          [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

          Comment

          Related Threads

          Collapse

          Topics Statistics Last Post
          Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
          161 responses
          514 views
          0 likes
          Last Post shunyadragon  
          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