RE: Is there objective Truth?
October 19, 2016 at 4:34 pm
(This post was last modified: October 19, 2016 at 4:40 pm by Soldat Du Christ.)
"IMO, concluding that there is either a supernatural or natural cause, isn’t fully addressing my inquiries: you have proposed two and only two possible ways to find objective truth, but why must it only be these two? Suppose these two methods of interpreting reality are only a few incredibly small subsets (or even microscopic elements) that are part of a humongous set comprised of various ways of interpreting reality. Since supernaturalism and naturalism have not unraveled the objective truth of reality, then perhaps there are other subsets which could better explain and unravel it. Perhaps we haven't even uncovered the subset that we are a part of. What are your thoughts, sir? Am I making any sense?"
If i could use a diagram as an example, the point i'm trying to make is that this choice is the first axiom from which we build our beliefs, knowledge, and interpretations off of. And that no matter what "new" ways you discover to aproach lifes problems, it will always begin with this question.
Naturalism > Athiesm > militant athiesm
> reserved athiesm
> Gnosticism
> Solipsism
> Humanism
Super Naturalism > Christianity > Catholic
> orthodox
> Islam
> buudhism
If epistemolgy is a tree, this decision makes up the trunk. One could also think they have discovered a new epistemlogy, but still can be boiled down to reveal the ultimate axiom at the core of there reasoning. It's all about pointing out hidden assumptions. For example, athiests will general assume naturalism, but don't even realise how that decition dictates there following ability to reason, considering the absence of objectivity.
If you disagree please elaborate
If i could use a diagram as an example, the point i'm trying to make is that this choice is the first axiom from which we build our beliefs, knowledge, and interpretations off of. And that no matter what "new" ways you discover to aproach lifes problems, it will always begin with this question.
Naturalism > Athiesm > militant athiesm
> reserved athiesm
> Gnosticism
> Solipsism
> Humanism
Super Naturalism > Christianity > Catholic
> orthodox
> Islam
> buudhism
If epistemolgy is a tree, this decision makes up the trunk. One could also think they have discovered a new epistemlogy, but still can be boiled down to reveal the ultimate axiom at the core of there reasoning. It's all about pointing out hidden assumptions. For example, athiests will general assume naturalism, but don't even realise how that decition dictates there following ability to reason, considering the absence of objectivity.
If you disagree please elaborate