(December 29, 2015 at 8:23 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:I'm having a lot of conversations with a lot of people on the forum. Lots to read, and I want to try and respond to all the messages I get out of respect to each poster.(December 29, 2015 at 8:12 am)Delicate Wrote: I suggest you look up foundationalism and basic beliefs.I think I have explained my position so please don't try to give me home work.
It will connect the dots with much of what you're saying so you don't have to reinvent the wheel.
Oh and I see you have dodged my questions again about the nature of god which makes me think you don't know.
It's possible for things to skip through the cracks.
If I miss a question it might be because I'm responding rapidly and skimming.
Could you try and be charitable? If I were as uncharitable as you are you know things wouldn't be pleasant. I'm asking you to reciprocate the charity I'm showing you.
PS- not homework. Learning.
Foundationalism has grappled with the question you're trying to address and has already provided a name and a rigorous and well-established formal system within which your described doxastic structure fits. What your describe IS a homespun and patchwork version of foundationalism.
Your assumptions correspond to basic beliefs.
But you also said some really silly things like "Where as what you suggested was that ultimately we can't be sure this is all unreal so you may as well believe in god."
I never suggested anything like this.
I think you're seeing ghosts of theism lol.