https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKX-QtEo2fI
>12 minute video
'no'
Naturalism is 100% reasonable and correct.
>>81004566
Please prove it
>>81004643
Humans are the result of 4 billion years of evolution and are biological organisms.
>>81004706
Does that mean Nature is all that exists (Naturalism)?
>>81004019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcnZRctcleM
>>81004826
When we're talking about what humans are and why they are the way they are, yes.
>>81004826
Yes, everything that exists is nature. If something supernatural actually exists, it isn't supernatural, just a still not understood natural phenomenon.
>>81004917
What about when we're talking about all that exists?
Is it all natural?
>>81004826
everything is a result of nature in one way or another. even an oil platform is nature. we used wood and minerals to build a platform, its all natural
>>81005062
I use "Nature" as a synonym for the physical world (mater, energy and physical forces)?
Why is this all that exists?
>>81005157
See >>81005240
Is Nature all that exists?
>>81005240
>>81005384
>Why is this all that exists?
because we have not yet proved if another plane of existence exists. and even if it did, wouldnt that be natural as well?
>>81004643
For it continues to provide correct results. What is your proposed alternative?
>>81004019
His argument seems a little bit absurd from the get-go. He implies that because what's happening in our brains is a physical process we cannot come to logical conclusions, correct?
>>81005384
even if a mystical being created everything, it would be natural as well, since it was in the nature of said being to create time and space and the everything. basically everything that ever was, is, and will be is natural
>>81005098
I seriously do not give a fuck, it's inconsequential.
>>81005441
>because we have not yet proved if another plane of existence exists.
That's does not follow. That's an Argument from Ignorance
>and even if it did, wouldnt that be natural as well?
It would be part of the Universe (your definition for "Nature") but it wouldn't necessarily be physical (my definition for "Nature")
>>81005611
Yes, because the processes of Evolution wouldn't necessarily imply us having the capacity to logically discern truth from falsehoods
>>81005697
It is very consequential for the possible existence of reason. See the OP video when you have some time
>naturalism is a truth claim
>If blind natural evolution is the only creative force behind humanity, then our thought processes are geared towards survival, not objective truth.
>if this is the case, the probability of the human mind being geared towards objective truth is extremely low and the human mind cannot be trusted to have justified true beliefs
>therefore if naturalism is true, we cannot actually know real truth, making the whole thing absurd.
>>81005749
>my definition for "Nature"
then your definition of nature is wrong. also, you cant prove what you dont know, so what the fuck do you expect? want me to prove to you that another plane of existence that is not considered 'natural' exists? thats fucking retarded. basically youre just being pedantic and a try-hard philosophers by asking questions that cannot possibly be answered. its an exercise in futility and serves no purpose whatsoever
>>81006153
For all intents and purposes, naturalism is correct and the most objectively correct way of looking at our universe
>>81005495
First tell me how you know which results are correct and which are false?
>>81006271
I know you think it's correct. Please check the OP when you're free
>>81006232
>then your definition of nature is wrong.
Because you don't agree with it? No
>also, you cant prove what you dont know, so what the fuck do you expect?
Not only that which you know is true or exists
>want me to prove to you that another plane of existence that is not considered 'natural' exists?
My job is to prove to you that this MUST exist
>by asking questions that cannot possibly be answered.
Then why are you attempting to answer it with Naturalism?
>its an exercise in futility and serves no purpose whatsoever
You whiny baby. You don't get to decide what does and does not have purpose
>>81006232
>>81006907
>Not only that which you know is true or exists is true or exists*
fixed
You might as well be wrong
>>81006907
>My job is to prove to you that this MUST exist
you've got my attention, anon. please go on.
>>81006214
Thanks mate
>>81007279
Basically check the OP video and this summary of the Argument from Reason that this anon did >>81006214
>>81004019
It runs up against some walls, and relies on circular reasoning or else spooky/dogmatic assertions (which most naturalists bark at other people for using) in getting off the ground.
>>81007649
Greetings tripm8. Glad to have you ITT
>>81004019
this video is bullshit, Atheism is the true religion
>>81008279
Try this video as well >>81004894
>>81006214
>Survival and being geared towards the truth are mutually exclusive 100 % of the time
Atheists BTFO!!!111!!!
>>81008595
The point is you can't tell which is which (truth, error) if Evolution is the only mechanism by which we developed logic
Of course. THE BIBLE contradicts it so therefore it's false.
If you disagree you're a fat fuck fedora nerd autist retard loser. Pic related LOL.
>>81004706
*tips fedora*
Evolution isn't real it says so in THE BIBLE.
Pic related: You right now.
>>81005157
*tips fedora*
G-d isn't. It says so in THE BIBLE.
>>81009538
The Bible doesn't need to contradict it
It is self-refuting
Watch the OP
>>81009793
*tips fedora*
THE BIBLE is all you need. If it's not in THE BIBLE it's either a sin or witchcraft (a sin) and you will go to HELL.
>>81010062
Are you ok?
>>81010391
Of course. I am blessed by G-d.
You, on the other hand, will be going straight to hell for claiming that you don't need THE BIBLE.
Now go tip your sweaty fedora over on /r/atheism.
>>81010583
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
You're just having an emotional reaction right now anon. Just let it sink in for a while
>>81011088
Nice one but you're still a fat fedora FAGtheist.
>>81011511
Is that what Christians called you? I'm sorry friend
>>81011682
Why would they? I'm not a FAGtheist.
>>81011900
Gaytheist? Gay-atheist? No?
>>81012095
Maybe all the drugs you take (lol no rules no consequences amirite xD) have rotted your mind. I'll pray for you.
>>81011900
Put your trip back on my homosexual friend.
>>81012474
I'll pray for you too.
>>81012365
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
Remember that it doesn't matter how much you mock a belief, it cannot refute it
>>81012831
I'm not mocking naturalism I'm refuting it.
It says there are supernatural entities in THE BIBLE. Therefore, naturalism is false. End of discussion.
>>81013121
Naturalism is self-refuting mate. It doesn't need the Bible to anything about it
>>81013121
lol
>>81013374
It isn't though, as >>81008595 puts it there is no requirement for self-deception in evolution.
>>81014042
And as I put it here >>81008888
There's no requirement for truth-hood either
>>81014402
So your argument amounts to 'because evolution does not require us to have innate infallible logic, u can't kno nuffin'.
Fortunately real philosophers solved this problem thousands of years ago by separating a priori and a posteriori.
So yes, one cannot prove the non-existence of the supernatural but that does not mean it exists.
This is why we require THE BIBLE to disprove naturalism.
>>81006318
Because we can conduct experiments and observe the results. Simple desu
It's the reason we can build buildings and fucking launch rockets, don't be a contrarian.
>>81015340
You can also not prove the actual existence of what you deem the natural *as* natural rather than supernatural - you're equally *if not more* fucked.
>>81016058
Thankfully I have my BIBLE to guide me in all matters. What do you have? A copy of The God Delusion LOL.
>>81015340
>So your argument amounts to 'because evolution does not require us to have innate infallible logic, u can't kno nuffin'.
Evolution does not allow us to have neither fallible nor infallible logic (an instrument that would be capable of knowingly discerning truths from falsehoods)
>Fortunately real philosophers solved this problem thousands of years ago by separating a priori and a posteriori.
The source authority for a priori knowledge is necessarily transcendental (beyond the empirical) - exactly as Kant has asserted
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_(philosophy)#Kant_.28and_modern_philosophy.29
>So yes, one cannot prove the non-existence of the supernatural but that does not mean it exists.
It must exist because to conclude that it doesn't is self-refuting
>This is why we require THE BIBLE to disprove naturalism.
It doesn't allow us to have a working logic
Nothing to do with the Bible
>>81016414
So many arguments - how can we possibly compete?
>>81015743
How can you use observations to determine which results are true and which are false?
I think therefore I am
That's all you retards need to worry about, everything else can only be known through consciousness. Get fucked atheist/theist/ and naturalist
>>81017774
>That's all you retards need to worry about
So you don't worry about what "you" do at all? Since "cogito ergo sum" doesn't tell you to do anything.
>>81017001
Sorry I should have said earlier, I;m tried. But what we can do is make predictions and test them against experiments. When the results match the prediction it allows us to form a better idea of the probably of an idea being correct.
nothing is 100% or certain, they're abstract concepts. What we can only hope for is finding the most practical and logical conclusions and to do so requires us to be materialistic or naturalistic.
What's the alternative to provdiing seemingly valid and useful conclusions?
>>81018537
>But what we can do is make predictions and test them against experiments. When the results match the prediction it allows us to form a better idea of the probably of an idea being correct.
>What's the alternative to provdiing seemingly valid and useful conclusions?
You can always do that as long as you keep aware of the "seemingly" part of your question
That would make you agnostic, not a naturalist
>nothing is 100% or certain,
Is this 100% certain?
>What we can only hope for is finding the most practical and logical conclusions and to do so requires us to be materialistic or naturalistic.
It requires us to assume Nature (the physical world) exists. But we cannot assume that it is all that exists.
That would be self-refuting
>>81018537
>When the results match the prediction it allows us to form a better idea of the probably of an idea being correct
In order to make that conclusion, you have to believe the future will be like the past. Why would the future be like that past?
>>81019645
Agnostic is a qualifier not a position.
>>81019818
>Muh Hume
Hume was a FAGtheist and a satanist. You're going to hell just like he did.
>>81020063
Why would the future be like the past?
>>81020238
>[TIPPING INTENSIFIES]
>>81019901
It is both
A position when it describes the attitude of the person towards the act of knowledge
And a qualifier when you can measure and/ or determine whether that person has knowledge of a certain something
>>81020238
>Tfw time is cyclical
Or so they say..
>>81019645
>You can always do that as long as you keep aware of the "seemingly" part of your question
Well if it's predictible and provides workable results, what's the problem?
>That would make you agnostic, not a naturalist
I thought we were essentially discussing the scientific method but sure using this framework a logical conclusion would to be agnostic since there's no convincing evidence for a god as anyone has ever described it, anyway
>Is this 100% certain?
I don't know, but it seems that way. It's difficult to factor in unknowns. Let's say it's a safe and educated assumption ;)
>It requires us to assume Nature (the physical world) exists. But we cannot assume that it is all that exists.
Lol ok, so we're talking about solipsism now are we? So what if we can't know for certain if reality exists? It's an utterly useless assertion.
I've asked twice and you've not answered: what would be a better alternative to being productive and making decisions?
>>81019818
>In order to make that conclusion, you have to believe the future will be like the past. Why would the future be like that past?
Because it has consistently been that way in our life times... come on m8
>>81020378
Questions trigger you pretty hard my gaytheist friend :^)
>>81020722
Or it's not. Or "time" isn't an actual thing to begin with, and thus has no qualities to which anyone might ascribe to "time".
>>81021179
>the future will be like the past... because in the past the future has tended to be like the past
That's viciously circular reasoning. That's completely illogical.
>>81021434
What relevance does it have to experimentation though? It's not circular to say that the best method of enquiry is to make predictions and test them. You're "not even wrong"-ing my argument.
>>81021967
In what twisted world is viciously circular reasoning *EVER* acceptable? You wouldn't accept circular reasoning in *ANY* other case.
>>81020970
>Well if it's predictible and provides workable results, what's the problem?
See >>81019818 (The Problem of Induction)
>I thought we were essentially discussing the scientific method but sure using this framework a logical conclusion would to be agnostic since there's no convincing evidence for a god as anyone has ever described it, anyway
>I don't know, but it seems that way. It's difficult to factor in unknowns. Let's say it's a safe and educated assumption ;)
By "agnostic" I mean agnostic towards the act of knowledge. A sort of sceptic (pyrrhonian scepticism)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhonism
"I do not know if I cannot know"
>Lol ok, so we're talking about solipsism now are we?
No. We're talking about how Naturalism (the exclusive belief in the Natural/ Physical world) is self-refuting
>I've asked twice and you've not answered: what would be a better alternative to being productive and making decisions?
Who knows? I'm telling you why Naturalism doesn't work
>>81016716
A priori knowledge is an illusion. It's something your brain reports to you that has never changed, so you just assume it's impossible for it to ever change.
It's entirely possible that the thing that makes 1+1=2 is the result of some phenomenon that's beyond our comprehension, a shadow cast from objects in another dimension. If the shadow moves, 1+1 might equal three, and our brain would be unable to comprehend the mechanisms of the new world we found ourselves in.
We assign utter confidence to a priori knowledge because we've never seen a counter example. In the end, you really CAN'T know anything, all you can do is assign probabilities to everything.
>>81021211
Why are you so skeptical of everything? Do you just enjoy being a contrarian?
>>81004019
Barely a few minutes in and I already can tell he is a Christian. It's funny how even seemingly intelligent ones such as this guy still lack logical reasoning.
>>81022344
Why is it circular? Just saying it over and over again isn't helping.
How is this circular?
>the best method of enquiry is to make predictions and test them
>>81022667
>In the end, you really CAN'T know anything
You couldn't even know this mate
>>81022862
Why do are you *NOT* skeptical of everything? Why would you *EVER* blindly accept something you never even gave a thought to? That's the mark of a thoughtless idiot.
>>81023307
That's right. This sentence is false, btw.
>>81023074
Watch the full thing mate
>>81023547
It's not false. It's unknowable, if you assume that nothing can be known
>>81022506
None of what you said refutes my point though.
You say naturalism is self refuting, why?
>>81023299
>Why is it circular?
>>81021179
Q: Why would the future be like that past?
A: Because it has consistently been that way in our life times
>>81023550
I don't need to, the points he's trying to make are already dumb enough for me to dismiss what he's saying.
>>81023777
See the OP and the summary here >>81006214
>>81024043
You can't actually know what he's gonna say until he says it my mate
>>81006214
really makes you think
>>81023861
You're not very good at explaining. You're just repeating your claim, which also happens to be a non sequitur - what does the past and present have to do with anything?
I have the idea that I can fly if I flap my arms and jump of the roof. I try this out and I don't fly, therefore it would appear that I can't fly that way.
>>81024837
See - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
For clarification
>>81024471
The statements that he made in the first 5 minutes that I watched are so profoundly correct that he has already convinced me to believe in God again.
t. christcuck
Actually between his smug attitude, cringey "humour" and dumb conclusions I really don't need to watch anymore
>>81023384
In that case you can't ever know if you are really talking to real people right now. You can't ever know if you are the only person with consciousness. You can't ever know if once you stop looking at something it's still really there. Have fun with your extreme skepticism.
>>81006214
>>81024202
>Naturalism is a truth claim
No. It's a framework for better understanding reality and is the closest we can hope considering there is no alternative. So not great to make a false assertion in point 1.
>If blind natural evolution
Wrong again. Who the fuck claims evolution is blind? Someone who has no idea what evolution is.
>if this is the case, the probability of the human mind being geared towards objective truth is extremely low and the human mind cannot be trusted to have justified true beliefs
Self assertion with no explanation. I disagree that the likelihood is "extremely low" and also think that it's irrelevant. We're living in a practical reality as far as we can tell. That's only what's important. We could be a brain in a jar, but so what?
>>81024837
>>81023299
>Why is it circular?
>>81021179
Q: Why would the future be like that past?
A: Because it has consistently been that way in our life times
>what does the past and present have to do with anything?
>>81018537
>When the results match the prediction it allows us to form a better idea of the probably of an idea being correct.
Apparently something to you retard. Just leave. You'll save yourself some embarrassment about being either a complete retard or else a weasel-like idiot who fucked up and desperately wants to not talk about how stupid and illogical the things he has already said are.
>>81025581
You're right; I can't. So?
>>81025893
That line of thinking is the mark of the mentally insane, desu
>>81025733
Why resort to ad hom? Can't you discuss in a civil manner? For a such an arrogant tripfag you should know name calling is a sign of defeat. If I'm such a retard, why not help me out and explain in more detail? Are you too good for that, kid?
>>81025437
>ignorance
>>81026082
I think the crazy person is the one abandons logic. And that's not the skeptic - that's the sheep.
believing in god/religion is an insult to human intelligence.
>>81026297
Says the one who can't even agree on what constitutes logic.
>>81023384
You should be skeptical of your own thoughts then. How do you know you aren't delusional?
>>81006214
Making sense isn't a prerequisite for existence.
I'm not trying to be a contrarian dick here, but I just think the whole concept of absolute knowledge leads people to some really really bad conclusions, and some dangerous ones as well. It gives people permission to stop questioning specific things, and to defend their "absolute" internalized truth even against damning evidence. I think this is something that has been really useful for western philosophy, leading to science and math and stuff, but those were just a happy coincidence of the suppositions they laid out. Moving into the future, things we can learn through science are becoming much more complex, much more situational, and it's going to take an open mind to be able to see through it all. I mean, after all, we usually have to wait for a generation of scientists to die off before a new school of thought has a chance to come to the fore.
I'm no social marxist or leftist or anything like that-- I think the rise of insane leftism is actually a consequence of this belief in a pure essential truth behind everything that ignores confounding factors. This belief in a priori knowledge has led people to think it's possible to make strong singular claims, such as "all humans are equal" and believe them without question.
So, if we can't trust anything, all we can do is play the odds. Keep doing things that work, stop doing things that don't. Experiment, search for correlations. Be practical-- do not overly concern yourself with the transcendental, metaphysical nature of what is and isn't-- that's an even more irrational form of faith than belief in nature spirits and wood nymphs. On a practical level, you know the wood nymphs aren't real. You know that you're setting out a small offering to them just to make yourself feel better. It's much harder to keep something like a belief in the Christian God out of your rational thought processes.
>>81026132
>ad hominem
You either A) don't know what that means, B) have your own special definition, or C) know what it means and trying to claim it's being utilized anyway.
I can't discuss something with someone civilly who can't even understand basic premise-conclusion arguments - not even *HIS OWN* - in which you have vicious logical circularity.
>>81024837
>>81023299
>Why is it circular?
>>81021179
Q: Why would the future be like that past?
A: Because it has consistently been that way in our life times
You're inarticulate and/or a liar and/or an autist. Likely a triple threat. And that's not ad hominem to say - that's an insult.
>>81025656
>>Naturalism is a truth claim
>No.
So you don't believe Naturalism ("the physical world is all that exists") is true?
>Wrong again. Who the fuck claims evolution is blind? Someone who has no idea what evolution is.
Blind as in not guided by any conscious intention. As in purely physical processes
>We're living in a practical reality as far as we can tell.
As far as we can tell. But if you assume everything is physical, it is self-refuting
>>81026658
>Says the one who can't even agree on what constitutes logic
>>81027162
I can't "be skeptical of my own thoughts" - if I'm thinking I have thoughts. They're *NECESSARILY* there. It's a *NECESSARY TRUTH*.
>>81025086
I see. The thing is I don't necessarily see it as a problem. So what if you can't be certain of order in the future, it's only important if the order actually changed and if an idea continues to be reliable then that's what is important. Maybe I'm looking at this from a scientific and not a philosophical viewpoint but this seems silly to me.
Example on wiki mentions generalising all swans are white, well, it's safe to say, even if wrong when eventually proven wrong with a black swan, that it was still a sound and logical claim.
>>81026246
No, ignorance is claiming that we can't trust our reasoning because our thoughts are created by chemical reactions.
>>81027879
>because our thoughts are created by chemical reactions
Are they?
>>81027250
>There is no absolute truth
Is this absolutely true?
>No
Then why pretend it is?
>>81027879
Reasoning cannot exist if our thoughts are just physical processes
>>81027303
>I can't discuss something with someone civilly who can't even understand basic premise-conclusion arguments - not even *HIS OWN* - in which you have vicious logical circularity.
This sounds like a cop out. Explain to me in detail why what I said was circular otherwise it would appear that you don't know what you're talking about. You're possibly the most pretentious anon I've seen here.
ad hominem
ad ˈhɒmJnɛm/
adverb & adjective
adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem
1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
I don't think YOU understand what ad hominem is. Address my points or ignore me. Simple.
>>81028281
It can and it does.
>>81004019
CONFIRMATION BIAS; HINDSIGHT BIAS. Everything is bias because we lack the intelligence to make correct extrapolation and we pack this lack of ability into concepts to disguise our lack of intelligence and to hide our redudance. Because we are intellectual trash that never used the brains we only use it for the amplification of our imprtance. We are intellecutal bankrupt, we have no morals but we like to invoke the morals in our adversitaries. We have perfectedt the reducance of our abilities by empathizing them. We love to use the mirror and that is the only thing we can do, we are surpassed by men out of nothing, we only know to ride the wave and we take pride in our abilities to showboat. We do not want to be exposed and we do not want others to see or inferoirity to people that only take a shit on the toilet that make up for a lifetime.
>>81027505
>So you don't believe Naturalism ("the physical world is all that exists") is true?
That's correct. I think it's what we can most closely attribute to "true".
>As far as we can tell. But if you assume everything is physical, it is self-refuting
Still haven't been convinced it's self refuting. I don't see any logical contradiction in it. Please elaborate.
>>81027692
>that it was still a sound and logical claim.
It may appear so, but it's not a logical claim. It's an evidence-based claim
Further evidence (black swans) would completely change how "sound" and "logical" that claim was
>>81028462
Not a reasoning that would allow us to discern truths from falsehoods
>>81004019
>I don't understand neuroscience so all reason is presumably wrong but faith is right somehow
Fucking hell...
>>81028951
>Further evidence (black swans) would completely change how "sound" and "logical" that claim was
I agree, but that's the point. We can only ever be as certain as our limited experimentation allows us to. This is science and why it changes all the time. This is a good thing.
>>81027579
Yea, but reality is still only a construct of your mind, which is determined by the makeup of your central nervous system. The way you view the world is uniquely dependent on you, i.e subjective. People with a slightly different organization of neurons see things slightly differently. So how does absolute objectivity hold up in the face of this knowledge? You can't even prove beyond a doubt the external environment you inhabit is actually as it appears, since all knowledge must filter through your five senses, which operate based on the unique workings of your brain.
>>81004019
>implying the ability to calculate distances in our advanced minds and plan out strategies that reliably work isn't naturally selected
>>81028146
>>Is this absolutely true?
>No
You're misrepresenting my argument.
All I can say is that there's *probably* no absolute truth. At the very least, as long as I'm unsure of what leads me to believe any specific thing, nor of the reliability of those mechanisms, I don't feel I am equipped to sort it out.
And before you say anything, I don't think anyone else is either. At least, that is to say, I doubt it.
So, when doubting everything, wat do? Follow probabilities.
>>81028364
>Explain to me in detail why what I said was circular
>>81024837
>>81023299
>Why is it circular?
>>81021179
Q: Why would the future be like that past?
A: Because it has consistently been that way in our life times
AKA:
>the future will be like the past... because in the past the future has tended to be like the past
WHICH IS *SIMPLY* LOGICALLY CIRCULAR. THE CONCLUSION - THAT THE FUTURE WILL BE LIKE THE PAST - IS DERIVED FROM THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE CONCLUSION IS TRUE.
THE FUTURE WILL BE LIKE THE PAST BECAUSE THE FUTURE IS LIKE THE PAST BECAUSE THE FUTURE HAS BEEN LIKE THE PAST BECAUSE THE FUTURE WILL BE LIKE THE PAST BECAUSE THE FUTURE IS LIKE THE PAST BECAUSE THE FUTURE HAS BEEN LIKE THE PAST BECAUSE holy shit.
I'm being baited.
Ad hominem is making or criticizing an argument by attacking someone's charatcer, e.g. "x is wrong because x is stupid". Simply calling you stupid is not ad hominem - it's an insult.
I'm done being baited - stay stupid forever. Every stupid thing you've said in this thread will be in the archives until the end of time.
>>81029508
>reality is still only a construct of your mind
Or it isn't and you're wrong.
>>81028728
>That's correct. I think it's what we can most closely attribute to "true".
How did you determine that's the most close to truth?
>Still haven't been convinced it's self refuting. I don't see any logical contradiction in it. Please elaborate.
If Nature (the Physical world) is all that exists then the physical processes which govern us (Evolution) could not have given rise to logic (a tool to authoritatively discern truths from falsehoods) because Evolution purely favours survival and passing of genes. Not necessarily truth nor falsities
>>81029301
If Naturalism holds then any results that we may get from reason are unpresumably right or wrong
>>81029882
No, it's a well known scientific fact that the brain is responsible for your thoughts and perceptions and emotions. It's been verified through numerous experiments all of which you can easily search up. You are wrong. Sorry pal
>>81029812
After all that you misunderstoof what I said. I said it's the most safe assumption we can make that the future's parameters will remain the same as now, allowing reasonable conclusions from experimentation, because our we have observed reality as consistently acting this way. This isn't circular at all.
>I'm done being baited - stay stupid forever. Every stupid thing you've said in this thread will be in the archives until the end of time.
wew lad that is some seriously terse buttmaddery. I think it will actually be your posts will bring more amusement in the future
>>81029342
>I agree, but that's the point. We can only ever be as certain as our limited experimentation allows us to. This is science and why it changes all the time. This is a good thing.
It's not about certainty. You couldn't even quantify how wrong or right you may be, in light of all possible new evidence
>>81030672
>safe assumption
>viciously circular logic
Bye bye retard~
>>81029555
>>implying the ability to calculate distances in our advanced minds and plan out strategies that reliably work isn't naturally selected
There's nothing to show that it has been
>>81030556
Or it isn't at all, unless you can confirm thoughts don't happen absent a brain. Which is an unfalsifiable proposition. It's literally beyond the scope of your capabilities.
>>81030059
>How did you determine that's the most close to truth?
Because like I said before there is no alternative to providing consistent and predictable results when tested. It may not be the most true but failing an alternative it is what we have.
>
If Nature (the Physical world) is all that exists then the physical processes which govern us (Evolution) could not have given rise to logic (a tool to authoritatively discern truths from falsehoods) because Evolution purely favours survival and passing of genes. Not necessarily truth nor falsities
But I disagree with the central premise. So what if survival is the basis of evolution? We still have the capacity to reason, as we are doing now. Whether we can know absolute truth is irrelevant. All we can do is test our surroundings.
naturalism is something that you have to assume in order to properly theorize about observable phenomena
there is no possible "non-physical" understanding of the universe, the universe is either entirely physical (naturalism) or its partially physical and partially incomprehensible (agnosticism? i guess you'd call that)
>>81004019
Well, when your country looses nationalism and puts the needs of citizens or other countries before the needs of your own citizens, you end up like Sweden, France, and Germany. So what do you think?
>>81029703
>All I can say is that there's *probably* no absolute truth.
>At the very least, as long as I'm unsure of what leads me to believe any specific thing, nor of the reliability of those mechanisms, I don't feel I am equipped to sort it out.
Then how have you calculated the probability for absolute truth?
>>81027579
>I can't "be skeptical of my own thoughts" - if I'm thinking I have thoughts. They're *NECESSARILY* there. It's a *NECESSARY TRUTH*.
Yes you can. It's not necessary that your memory is reliable. Even your feeling of being "yourself" is just a momentary configuration of neurons-- information, in other words. Ever hear of the boltzman brain? It's a hypothetical brain that, through random chance, assembles itself out in space, then, again, through random chance is gone one instant later. That brain may, in its microsecond of existence, believe itself to be any number of things. It may be the version of you that just typed that argument.
It's entirely possible that all existence is just random particles in an endless space assembling themselves into coherence for an instant, then being blown away, maybe to exist again in some time or space. Maybe, in this view, all we are is information-- the belief that we are who we think we are-- and the underlying substance of reality has no bearing. The only reason our reality seems coherent is because it's one of the infinite number of points of view that make enough sense to even think about at all.
So, sure, your thoughts exist. But that's only a consequence of the existence of the you who observes your thoughts.
>>81030844
Is it about certainty. For something to be true it must be certain. We don't or can't know absolutes. You can quantify how right or wrong you can be by making predictions and matching them with results.
>>81031632
>naturalism is something that you have to assume in order to properly theorize about observable phenomena
You do not have to assume everything is natural in order to talk about what you think is natural. No.
>>81031770
Shit, i read the title wrong. Oops.
>>81031740
You don't need to assume the Universe is entirely Physical in order to study the physical part of it
>>81031793
I never said a thing about memory. The subject is "thoughts". If I can think, I have thoughts. Necessarily. One cannot be skeptical of the proposition "there are thoughts", since to be able to *think* about the proposition, one must *necessarily* have thoughts. So *NO* - one *CANNOT* be skeptical that there *ARE* thoughts.
>>81031953
>>81031770
Oh /pol/
I think it comes down to this:
Unfalsifiable ideas aren't worth discussing in any serious way. Naturalism allows falsifiable ideas to be tested. There's no better alternative.
[spoiler]>>81029508
You dont understand it you fucking idiot. You take a phenomenone and exaggerate it. You take something bend it out of picture and then go from there. You onlyresonate to people that have little precison.
>>81031226
>Because thoughts spring up out of nowhere
>Because consciousness is created by the soul
>Believing this in the face of irrefutable evidence
Lmao, you sound so smug, thinking you know more than thousands of people before you who tested time and time again only to get the same results. Stay wrapped up in your little world of "objectivity" lol
>>81032628
>the universe can spring up out of nowhere, but not the thoughts which I think only exist within it
There's a word for this kind of thinking.
Also
>irrefutable
>>81032603
>Thinking you understand it
Ok smartass, tell us what reality is. You seem to know so much and be so "precise". But really you don't know shit and you are as clueless as everyone. Stay buttmad, idiot.>>81032971
>>81031302
>Because like I said before there is no alternative to providing consistent and predictable results when tested.
Why would the world be consistent and predictable?
>It may not be the most true but failing an alternative it is what we have.
That could not make it true. That would be an Argument from Ignorance
>But I disagree with the central premise. So what if survival is the basis of evolution? We still have the capacity to reason, as we are doing now.
Apparently we do. Which is an absurd thing to have (a working model of determining truths and falsities) if evolution favours only our survival
>Whether we can know absolute truth is irrelevant. All we can do is test our surroundings.
Test all you like. It's just pretending that we're finding truth (absolute or otherwise)
>>81032237
right thats what im saying
im saying you dont have to commit yourself to ruling out all possible phenomena that dont fit into our current understanding of the observable universe
you only have to commit to attempting to explain everything you find in terms of our current understanding of the observable universe
and i dont mean that you cant discover something that contradicts the previous understanding, just that every new "discovery" is only a discovery at all (and not more of a "mystery") if it can be fit into a consistent theory with the rest of our discoveries about the observable universe
the point is that its all gotta be conisstent with itself
and i think most naturalists are not the type of people who want to commit themselves to ruling out all possible events that might be described as "super natural" its just that they see no reason to believe those events will both end up occurring and also end up being totally impossible to analyze in a naturalistic framework, especially when you consider that naturalism is the ONLY framework that makes any sense at all
basically if you abandon naturalism you abandon understanding of any kind, in favor of faith, which isnt something im going to say is wrong out of hand, i just want to emphasize the distinction between faith and understanding
maybe faith is superior, but it is definitely different
>>81032971
Who said the universe? Oh yeah, but you don't know where that came from either, so your reply is irrelevant. Nice try tho!
>>81029812
>THE FUTURE WILL BE LIKE THE PAST BECAUSE THE FUTURE IS LIKE THE PAST BECAUSE THE FUTURE HAS BEEN LIKE THE PAST BECAUSE THE FUTURE WILL BE LIKE THE PAST BECAUSE THE FUTURE IS LIKE THE PAST BECAUSE THE FUTURE HAS BEEN LIKE THE PAST BECAUSE holy shit.
This is the kind of self-deluding shit that pure reason does to people. It forces them to contort their thought processes, bending them in ways they were never meant to go, getting so deep in abstraction that you forget the reality you live in.
Look at your argument from the point of view of someone not so fucked in the head. Why shouldn't we assume that the future will most likely be like the past, as long as any other time frame we can imagine has been the same?
You are reaching too hard to try and apply deductive reasoning to everything, thinking it's somehow more valuable because its truth is "provable" from some a priori point of view. You have completely stripped yourself of all common sense as a result.
>>81031862
>You can quantify how right or wrong you can be by making predictions and matching them with results.
Only in a relative sense. Relative to the data that you currently have now
>>81033469
>>81033469
Reality is the scientfic method of the mind. The higher your prediction skill the more likely your theory is. The better your imagination corelation to real life events the closer you are to truth. Unlike you retards that only exist in the void, like a teenager looking for a job. You are the teenagers of the philosphical world. All that option every option is eqally attractive and every option is equally rationalized. No vectors, only a house of cards that gets rebuild everytime you see some algorithm of the mind fail.
>>81033470
>Why would the world be consistent and predictable?
I don't know why but it is. Do you honestly expect the laws of physics to change? Even if they do it has no bearing on the validaity of conclusions given at the time.
>That could not make it true. That would be an Argument from Ignorance
Yes, which is why I didn't say that.
>Apparently we do. Which is an absurd thing to have (a working model of determining truths and falsities) if evolution favours only our survival
Then it may follow that survival includes cognitive abilities, such as the ability to reason probable truths through testing.
>Test all you like. It's just pretending that we're finding truth (absolute or otherwise)
Well it seems that pretending is working well so far. No honest person claims absolutes.
>>81032535
>Unfalsifiable ideas aren't worth discussing in any serious way
There are such things as scientifically unfalsifiable ideas
But that's assuming the world is purely scientific
>>81033963
>Only in a relative sense. Relative to the data that you currently have now
Of course. But it is working so very well.
>>81033953
>bending them in ways they were never meant to go
I find it more sad than anything else that people are so willing to love and employ logic in everything they else that do and believe *except* when it conflicts with their presuppositions and worldviews.
It's the most dishonest thing in the world.
>>81034163
And yet, all it is is predictions and relative guess work. Just admit you don't know shit and stop trying to be a smartass because you fail at it. Objectivity is and extension of subjectivity.
>Reality a scientific method of the mind
A durr, you just fucked yourself in the ass, nice going
>>81034375
>But that's assuming the world is purely scientific
It may full well be the case that there's "something else", but it looks like we don't or can't know about it so it becomes quite irrelevant. The best we have is the current materialistic way of approaching our surroundings.
>>81033963
A stepping stone for the green door right? After all you are green, making the different cirumstances work with persuation. The philosophy of persuation since you can rational every retardes shit with the proper sophistication. You will be food you usful idiot and i ll make sure of it. And not even your military friends will protect you, enjoy your grave. The end of your void the end, that is what you re folks will crave out of their own will.
>>81035292
Lol
>'Materialism'
>Tfw matter at the subatomic level is insubstantial
>>81033963
> Relative to the data that you currently have now
Yep. Even apriori knowledge is relative. It's relatively certain, yes, but there are still reasons to doubt.
It may sound like I'm quibbling here, but I think it's important. For far too long, western philosophy has ascribed semi-religious meaning to "truth." Besides many of the things they put forth as absolutes being factually inaccurate, I think it degrades your cognitive ability, and even robs your actual religious experiences of meaning as well, all while convincing you you're taking both these things to entirely new levels.
>>81034317
>I don't know why but it is.
Only apparently. It cannot be demonstrated
>Do you honestly expect the laws of physics to change?
I don't expect them to remain the same. I can only assume they do
>Even if they do it has no bearing on the validaity of conclusions given at the time.
It has no bearing on relativistic conclusions, no
>Then it may follow that survival includes cognitive abilities, such as the ability to reason probable truths through testing.
It *may* follow (If there was evidence for it). But it does not follow (as there is no evidence for such a mechanism being required by evolution)
>Well it seems that pretending is working well so far. No honest person claims absolutes.
It does seem that's it's working indeed
But there factually are such things as absolutes. Google "logical tautologies"
>>81035292
What in flying fuck is "best" about materialism? How could someone substantiate that claim?
Why prefer materialism to *anything else*?
Holy shit.
Does anyone else want to try and answer that? Someone who isn't the retard?
>>81034634
>But it is working so very well.
Apparently so
>>81035292
Best in what sense?
>>81035670
What exactly is the point you are trying to get at? That everything is insubstantial and nothing is provable? Ding dong, that applies to anything you say and think too, retard, you aren't exempt from the epistemological nature of reality.
>>81035498
not who you were replying to, but
matter at the subatomic level is still made up of observable forces and phenomena, thats the point, its observable
anything observable (i.e. reproducible so we all can observe it together) is part of the naturalistic/materialistic worldview, thats the point of the worldview, to explore the observable
when we observe something that contradicts are former understanding of the observable universe, naturalists and materialists rejoice
>>81035182
Well we you ll use simple algorthims to determine your subjectivity. Wrong time to be a smartass, wrong time to green door. The door is only the sophistication to violence, not a door to hinder it. We ll better huminity by showing you some rationalization. And not even the best of you can stop us because you pissed off the wrong person.
>>81036138
>What exactly is the point you are trying to get at?
I'm wanting to know *EXACTLY* what I'm fucking asking.
>Why prefer materialism to *anything else*?
>>81035478
What the fuck
>>81035572
>But there factually are such things as absolutes. Google "logical tautologies"
Well of course, I was referring to that other than logical axioms.
>>81036276
They're not really "axioms". Check them out for yourself
>>81036155
>The behavior of electron wave function is reproducible.
AtomicKek
>>81036175
Consciousness isn't quantifiable, try again.
>>81035670
>What in flying fuck is "best" about materialism? How could someone substantiate that claim?
>Why prefer materialism to *anything else*?
Because for the 1000th fucking time it's the only demonstrable method to allow us to test predictions. What's the alternative? Your arguments are utterly meaningless.
This guy gets it >>81036138
>>81035292
Materialism is a problem too. Too many people treat it as some kind of religious truth and end up disconnected from their emotions-- which also exist to help them survive.
Materialism has given us a lot of terrible things. Multiculturalism, nazism. They internalize the idea that the sentimental values you ascribe to things like culture or human dignity have no meaning, and they end up cutting their ties to the human world.
>>81035504
>Yep. Even apriori knowledge is relative
If it's relative then it cannot be true knowledge
>>81004019
Everything is absurd.
You should learn to embrace it.
>>81036691
>materialism
>method
>MATERIALISM
>METHOD
There's a reason I poised the question at anyone else but you. Thank you for yet again substantiating that reason as valid.
>>81036273
What i m trying to say is: Time to piss your pants frog, take advice from the alphabets since they know to piss for quite a while now. Remember that military project you discovered from gamer gate, now you make some tweeks and you need some toilet paper.
There's nothing I hate more than pretentious fucks that spend all day playing semantics games for no gain
At least when the kikes do it they're aiming for financial and political profit, you fucks are just pic related
>>81036898
Elaborate.
Naturalism is hedonism.
You nihilists will choose anything but Christ.
>>81036798
I agree but I'm not really talking about applying it to morality. I'm talking about it in the scientific sense of the persuit of finding the "most true".
I do actually think that human culture, life and dignity have no intrinsic meaning but I wouldn't want to live my life this way.
>>81037037
>Implying internet trolling isn't god-tier amusement
>>81036898
platonist please go
>>81035572
>as there is no evidence for such a mechanism being required by evolution)
really? there's no evidence that evolution would naturally select for spatial awareness and conscious planning in species such as humans that obviously rely on it for survival?
there's evidence that just about every aspect of human behavior is influenced by genes, all biological structures of the human body including the brain are formed from genetic "instructions" (DNA>RNA>cell structures, etc)
you can argue that we dont know enough about the mind to verify that our DNA plays an important enough role to allow for evolution to shape the mind
thats a very different claim than that "there's no evidence that evolution would naturally select for cognitive abilities"
it sounds like you're vaguely appealing to Plantinga's argument against naturalism, which is basically the most retarded shit out there
>>81036995
Jesus you are salty tonight hun
>>81037037
>I have no arguments about anything but I don't like someone else's conclusions or positions so I'll voice my displeasure via empty rhetoric
K.
>>81037102
If something is merely relatively true, then it cannot be actually true
The definition of truth being:
>conformity with fact or reality; verity:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/truth
ITT
Dumb Polacks who think they can prove theism/atheism true
You're not philosophers so stop trying
>>81036648
It is according to your philopsophy. since it is subjective i can quantify it any way i like. I can quantify it by the amount of shit you have in your ehad and the number of connections of your neurons. And it also justifies the correction i give to you. Just like a wise man said "i have a superior number of circuits".
But then again this guy was a fucking retard, that will get shown some correction. but he barely qualifies. barely. He needs some toiletpaper.
>>81004019
If your nation is beyond redemption
>>81037559
How about something is as true as we can be sure of? It might not be true objectively but if it appears that way in every instance, then maybe truth isn't important.
>>81004019
It seems like most of his argument so far (I'm a few minutes in) boils down to how uncomfortable he feels at the prospect of nothing he does mattering because everything is just chemical reactions in your head.
I don't think fear of the void is that great of an argument for having faith in a god. It just makes you sound weak.
>>81037021
>>81037467
Conclusions? Positions? This entire argument is completely, utterly, totally meaningless. It has absolutely no bearing on the real world. Any "conclusion" you reach from this debate can in no positive way affect your actions now or tomorrow.
Unless you do us a favor and opt for suicide.
>>81037986
That's how it works.
That's what they do.
Whether God actually exists or not.
>>81034830
That's just to be expected. The human brain isn't like a computer, it can't take in new, contradictory information without some clear way to separate it. It's a pattern matcher. To stretch out a metaphor, trying to store a thought that contradicts a pre-existing belief is like trying to save two files in the same place with the same name. They would overlap and interfere with each other.
So it takes time to sort your thoughts out, to understand both your own and your opponent's arguments.
If cognitive dissonance didn't occur, it's possible our brains might be a lot less useful than they are now.
>>81038165
>This entire argument
Characterize what "this entire argument" actually is, and we might have something to talk about, given (2 posts by this ID) and having said nothing of substance in address to anyone else's arguments at all.
>>81037335
>really? there's no evidence that evolution would naturally select for spatial awareness and conscious planning in species such as humans that obviously rely on it for survival?
No evidence that evolution necessarily leads to logic (an instrument capable of factually discerning truths from falsehoods)
>>81037559
That's an unreasonable standard.
>>81038536
>That's just to be expected
It's also to be discouraged. Which is what I'm telling you right now. Stop the doublethink.
>>81037654
>Subjectivity is determined by number of neurons in your head
You do know that no one has ever found a correlation between neural activity and raw experience. Experiencing seeing the color red isn't reducible to an algorithm. The wavelength of the light responsible for triggering the sensation of color red in a person's brain might be reducible to equations. But a person subjectivity experiencing a color, not the neural activity but the actual phenomenon of "seeing a color", how the FUCK do you quantify this, Mr. Mathanon?
>>81038680
You're doing well here tonight m8 made plenty of friends
>>81038109
What i m trying to say is that this kind of philosophy is used to justify anything, just like the retards that are shilling for hinduistic cast systems.
The people in this system dont care for their circumstances. I advocate to "correct" them. If you want to make change you "correct" them, and since they have no problem with any method, use any method. And the more chaotic this whole thing goes, remember those people. They are the usefull idiots. They are the ones wearing the mark.
>>81038165
>This entire argument is completely, utterly, totally meaningless.
Hey now, I've been trying to make people less faggy about philosophy.
>>81037559
>>81037559
your yellow text definition and the dictionary link dont contradict the concept of relative truth though
truth can conform to "fact or reality" and still be relative (in fact it must be), because what is "fact and reality" is its own question, and depending on your answer, you'll have different stuff to conform to
in fact truth is always relative, this was proven by a greek philosopher, i forgot which, his proof was that knowledge must either be
A-deduced from some accepted truth (i.e. its relative to the truth of the assumptions involved in deducing it)
B-accepted without any proof (and therefore not knowledge, because knowledge requires proof)
C-part of a circular proof (in the case where the assumption we talked about in choice A is proven by the proposition in choice A)
there is no escaping this, in order to have knowledge about a thing, it must be framed as knowledge relative to the assumptions made in your investigation of that thing, because the other two options are plainly unacceptable (knowledge without proof and knowledge by circular reasoning)
>>81037792
The truth is totally important anon. It doesn't matter how confident (sure) we fell about something being true
>>81038985
I will not discourage you from practicing English. Godspeed.
>>81038803
>No evidence that evolution necessarily leads to logic (an instrument capable of factually discerning truths from falsehoods)
This seems to be leading to nihilism of some sort. If we're incapable of discerning truth then how do you know if what you say is even true? What's the point to any of this line of reasoning?
>>81038919
The wavelength of the light is also subjective, in the sense it can only exist with a subject observing it.
>>81039226
kek'd and saved
>>81038919
I dont quantifiy this, i quantifiy the amount of bullshit you retards talk to justifiy anything. It cannot be quantifiyed by numbers you just talk retardes shit. To subtlely retarded shit based on this retarded philosophy. JUst like the feminists that think that the speed of light is a subjective constant because you cannot say it is really true right?
>>81039321
he seems to be appealing to plantinga's argument against naturalism
the idea is that you assume this bullshit that evolution has **no reason** to select for congitive capabilities that help us find "truth", and from that you can deduce that the only way for us to have true reasoning and beliefs is for God to implant magic cognitive capabilities into us
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AzNEG1GB-k
>>81038862
"Doublethink" is actually really useful when you're still evaluating all the possible options... which you should usually be doing.
Don't take this to mean that I ascribe the same likelihood to such events as "tomorrow 1+1 will equal 3" and "tomorrow it will rain." When considering my drive to work tomorrow, the first proposition has such a low probability that the only option is to ignore it.
>>81039538
This anon fucking gets it. Even data collected by scientific instruments must still pass through the consciousness of the observer, which is subjective by default.
>>81039311
>>81039311
The correct use of grammer and interpunction is subjective. Everything i just wrote was correct.
>>81039856
>crash course
literally why
>>81039214
>truth can conform to "fact or reality" and still be relative (in fact it must be), because what is "fact and reality" is its own question, and depending on your answer, you'll have different stuff to conform to
I assume there is a factual reality independent of our existence
You're free to assume there isn't
>in fact truth is always relative,
In fact? What fact? Relative fact right?
You're stuck in circular reasoning
>>81039733
Yeah I've heard this a lot from the christian presuppositionalists. Took me a while to understand what their actual points were then it turns out the premises are just circular...
>>81039699
>Buttangry because knowledge is relative and he can't know everything
Cool ad hominems!
>>81039321
It means Naturalism (the belief that the Physical world as we understand it now is all that there is) cannot be true
>>81040020
You are really funny. Just like them batmans, they ll get killled once they dont bow. We dont respect you. We came to win and we ll win. You ll bow.
>>81039858
>"Doublethink" is actually really useful
In no world is it "useful" to be contradicted by one's own reasoning. It doesn't serve a purpose other than to make someone "feel better" by holding simultaneously information they like and information that contradicts the information they like and refusing to connect the two. It's dishonest and/or stupidity, and should be discouraged *always*. Which is what I'm telling you - stop the doublethink.
>>81040478
It means we can't PROVE it. There's a difference.
>>81040478
Then it must also mean any other possible world view we have cannot be true
>>81039733
>the idea is that you assume this bullshit that evolution has **no reason** to select for congitive capabilities that help us find "truth
that's true though.
the biological imperatives are fucking, fighting, feeding, and fleeing.
philosophizing isn't one of them, in fact it's probably detrimental to your darwinian fitness, since no one wants to fuck philosophy majors.
>>81040322
Yeah buddy, just the wrong time to pull off your shit. Wrong time to be reddit.
>>81040025
Everything correct is incorrect. Check my dubz.
Keep practicing English my German friend - it is a worthy endeavor.
>>81036155
This whole thread is full of uneducated retards discussing things they have no formal understanding of, but your post is without a doubt the worst. Matter at the subatomic level is not made up of observable anything, which is why there are so many interpretations of quantum mechanics devoted to explaining what's happening before measurement. You don't know shit about the realist/instrumentalist debate and your pithy attempts at taking lessons in ontology from fundamental physics is laughable. Please kill yourself.
>>81040638
I think what you want to say is that you should examine your biases and attempt to correct for them. But holding different propositions in your head at the same time is a really important skill.
If you're saying you should only ever entertain one singular possible real truth then I completely disagree.
>>81040866
If you're so educated how about you contribute instead of being a childish arrogant faggot?
>>81039733
>the idea is that you assume this bullshit that evolution has **no reason** to select for congitive capabilities that help us find "truth"
It's not an assumption. It's fact
Evolution is only designed to favour survival and reproduction. Not truth discernment by any sense of the word
>>81031786
Through observations of the natural world.
>inb4 humans are geared for survival and can't actually think logically
There have been plenty of cases where humans have deliberately put their lives in danger for another human.
This goes against your argument stating that humans can only think in a survival mindset.
>>81040112
>>81040112
>I assume there is a factual reality independent of our existence
how is that relevant to the concept of truth though? you cant compare a belief or an idea to anything but another belief or idea
like i completely agree that if there was no intelligent life in the universe, the universe would still carry on with universe stuff
but that isnt relevant to TRUTH, truth is a human concept, it concerns whether an idea conforms to another idea (as we have no access to the universe sans the "filter" of idea/perception/belief)
>In fact? What fact? Relative fact right?
youre the one here who thinks relative facts can't be facts, i accept that all facts are relative. humans are forced to buckle down and say "im going to assume this for the purposes of this discussion" or no discussion can be had
truth is always relative because a couple of assumptions i make (and if you challenge the assumptions, i would have to provide you further assumptions and reasoning, it is an infinite regress, but there is no other option)
the assumptions i have in mind are:
a-truth/knowledge requires justification
b-all potential truths and falsehoods are ideas and consist of abstract items of human thought
from those assumptions i deduce that knowledge is always relative, and ive explained why in this post and previous ones, i can elaborate more if you want, or you can do your own research in the philosophical canon on the topic
>>81041043
You can't contribute when everyone has a different (and often faulty) understanding of the topic under discussion and what the contours of the debate really are. The best you (I) can do is correct the most egregious of errors
>>81040866
>uneducated
Education doesn't imply correctness.
Make an argument rather than shitting up the thread if you're so enlightened.
>>81041024
>But holding different propositions in your head at the same time is a really important skill
With the exception of when those propositions are contradictory, in which case you need to establish which proposition is wrong (or if something is necessarily wrong because it conflicts with a belief that is necessarily right, such as 1+1=3).
>>81040647
As a scientist you cannot allow yourself to believe things you cannot prove, Dr. Anon
>>81040670
Not really anon. It's just an argument against Naturalism
>>81041402
God not this credentialist bullshit again. "I can't argue with you because you haven't READ all the things I've read!"
This shit is common sense and intuition. If people misunderstand the underlying topic, then you should be able to easily refute them by pointing out what they haven't considered.
>>81041468
Didn't imply that, you huge faggot. But if you want to actually discuss something you should be educated on the subject.
