RE: Argument from perpetual identity against naturalism.
March 19, 2013 at 5:50 pm
(This post was last modified: March 19, 2013 at 5:53 pm by Mystic.)
You can't prove a properly basic knowledge to be a properly basic knowledge by debate. That's simply it's nature as far as I can tell.
In stating most humans know they are a perpetual identity, I am stating it's a properly basic knowledge. How can I prove that? Well perhaps if I can prove God, I can, but I don't think you can.
If it lied in a complicated philosophical/psychological explanation, then I would say it's impossible most of humanity knew on that basis.
In stating most humans know they are a perpetual identity, I am stating it's a properly basic knowledge. How can I prove that? Well perhaps if I can prove God, I can, but I don't think you can.
If it lied in a complicated philosophical/psychological explanation, then I would say it's impossible most of humanity knew on that basis.
