(July 21, 2012 at 11:54 am)Felasco Wrote: It's entirely true we have an understanding of some of reality. This does not automatically equal being capable of understanding ALL of reality.
And the rationale behind your supposition that we aren't is...?
(July 21, 2012 at 11:54 am)Felasco Wrote: The god proposal and the anti-god proposal are both statements about the fundamental nature of reality.
How do you know that? You said it yourself that you don't know anything about the fundamental nature of reality (or if there is a fundamental nature of reality) to know whether god has anything to do with it.
(July 21, 2012 at 11:54 am)Felasco Wrote: One proposes the fundamental nature of reality is intelligence, the other proposes the fundamental nature of reality is non-intelligence. Both parties, making claims, about an arena they can not define.
Really? Because both philosophy and science have been studying and defining that one since the very beginning. Its called metaphysics. Look it up.
(July 21, 2012 at 11:54 am)Felasco Wrote: Apologies, no idea what you're saying here. Try again?
We know something - therefore we can know something.
We know of nothing that is beyond our knowledge.
Therefore, there is no reason to believe that anything is beyond our knowledge.
(July 21, 2012 at 11:54 am)Felasco Wrote: My claim is that we currently have no way of knowing if we are qualified to know or not. If anyone feels that we do have the ability to know what does or doesn't exist in an arena that we can't define, please make your case.
And that claim is refuted by the fact that we do know thereby proving that we are qualified to know. That is how we know that we know. The arena is defined. It has been studied and continues to be studied.
