RE: how do you forgive yourself?
July 20, 2012 at 1:24 am
(This post was last modified: July 20, 2012 at 1:30 am by Jeffonthenet.)
(July 19, 2012 at 12:00 pm)Skepsis Wrote:(July 19, 2012 at 11:45 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: It seemed to me that the underlined statement was the logic upon which his entire case must depend, whether he really recognized that or not. And according to the statement I underlined, I cannot accept the reality of the past or basic logical truths or the reliability of my sense perception because none of these can be verified without circular arguments.
Did you not even bother to read my post? I explained in detail why I felt that the use of the term "scientific method" was a tool in his analogy. He never said that the scientific method is the only way to truth, nor did he imply it in the statement he made.
In the case of things that can't be evidenced but are necessary for a fulfilling life, I assume them. Things that are necessary to live my life, like my sense perception and my existence, I assume. I do this because it is necessary to do so to live in this world.
Things that aren't necessary (99.999999999% of everything) I question vigorously. I require evidence for these claims.
Also: What do you mean when you say "basic logical truths"? I.e.?
I really read your post and tried to respond honestly. I am sorry if I overlooked something. I appreciate you taking the time to respond again, but I do not agree with you that you assume certain basic beliefs simply because you must do so to live your life. I think you accept these beliefs because you actually think they are true, not just because you think that they are practical to accept. Even if it is only .0000000001% of your beliefs that you accept as assumption, you must build upon this .000000001% just about every belief you hold, so it is quite significant. B
By basic logical truths I mean things like the law of non-contradiction--probably the most basic of all logical laws. It states that A cannot be both A and not-A in the same time and in the same sense. It seems to me, and I believe most all philosophers agree with me that logical laws like this law cannot be demonstrated without assuming it.
Quote:Did you even read the same post as me? How did you get that his logic necessitates the affirmative position that there is no God?
I await correction.
I read your post. Please stop accusing me. You keep claiming I am ignoring your points, and I am really trying to do the exact opposite, so I don't think discussing with you is really helpful for either of us so I cannot promise more responses to you.
(July 20, 2012 at 1:20 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: You ignore the possibility that you could simply be mistaken. Honesty doesn't guarantee that you are correct. No skeptic is going to take only your word for anything out of the ordinary, no matter how honest he believes you to be.
If I had an atomic watch it was highly unlikely that I was mistaken. Likewise, it could be that one could have a bona-fide experience of God and with it would come the certainty similar to that of having an atomic watch. I cannot produce the experience and likewise I cannot produce the watch.
"the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate" (1 Cor. 1:19)
