(July 8, 2012 at 7:05 am)CliveStaples Wrote:(July 8, 2012 at 5:53 am)cato123 Wrote: I am relieved to learn that you do not seriously consider the stupid proposition that you gave another AF member; namely, how can you be sure that we weren't created some short time ago with seemingly older entities and historic events only having the appearance of age. This is the bullshit I attempted to dispell.
That's not a proposition. "How can you be sure that we weren't created recently, but with the appearance of age?" is a question. It isn't "true" or "false".
I consider that a serious question. If you don't think it's serious, then I don't think you've though through what implications it would have on evidentialism.
As a strict matter of logic, lots of patently absurd possibilities exist. You would have us realize this in order to suggest we question the possibility of all evidence based reasoning? Or am I missing your point?
The little closed loops of logic only caricaturize reality by exposing the implication of language. Formal logic is such a fragile and limited tool. Is there any reason to think that examining the implication of speech will lead to a better understanding of what that speech is about, the world for example?
