Actually, he is saying that “contradictions” don’t appear in this Lebenswelt. Similarly, the a priori, or tautologies, are present in every state of affairs, but are logically “senseless”.
Faith is a bad word for many, but this is only because they fail to recognize how much they actually accept on pure faith. The vast majority of individuals don’t really understand how things actually work. It works, and that’s all that matters. But this goes beyond the pragmatic world of the laymen; it’s true in the scientific and philosophical realms as well. Mathematicians, physicists, and economists are forced to take take things as given. It took Bertrand Russell 300 pages to prove that 1 + 1 = 2, but he failed to define addition. Why does zero factorial equal one? General relativity is still incompatible with quantum mechanics, and there are logical paradox’s everywhere.
Philosophers have spent countless centuries trying to prove and debating the most basic things, but Cartesian doubt, the problem of induction, and other basic problems remain. I mean, no one here can even prove to me that they actually exist. So even if you accepted God on pure faith, you would be no different from the philosophers and scientists who arbitrarily place themselves on pedestals. But one does not require pure faith to know that some sort of God exists if one understands that infinite regress = illogical.
Thank you Esuric. It is a real struggle to explain that empiricism does not apply to every domain.
2 must reads IMO:
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus by Ludwig Wittgenstein
Cartesian Meditations by Edmund Husserl
You seem to think that if you fail to understand X, then X must be false? The thing is, you don’t see why my argument is a reductio-ad-absurdum, and yet my argument IS a reductio-ad-absurdum. If you want to learn what a so-called reductio-ad-absurdum is, maybe this can help : http://www.iep.utm.edu/reductio/
Also, it seems that some of your comrades have pointed out that your understanding of “proving a negative” is flawed, too. Perhaps when you are done bettering your not-so-perfect command of logic, you might want to address this fact :
The fraudsters who run organized religions HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
Sorry, I’m not sure what you mean. By the way, I’m talking about organized religion.
And yet catholicism is eternally true because the pope says so. Isn’t it amazing?
Listen, I don’t care about your strawmen. Take them to youtube.
Esuric, please realize that you don’t exist.
But one does not require pure faith to know that some sort of God exists if one understands that infinite regress = illogical.
Perhaps I just don’t understand what this means, is God supposed to be the beginning of the causal chain? Because that still raises further question.
I’m almost sorry that I posted this in the first place.
Just kidding, I’m not.
But it doesn’t matter anyway because it’s turtles all the way down.
Everyone has heard of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, right? Would you rather believe in a god who can provide you with safety or a god who you can eat?
Will, we’ll try one more time. For the team.
That is incorrect. Can I ignore the rest of your response and you make a new one since this premise is false?
I believe John is making an episetemological error. ERO is just my pet troll. You can read Nir’s posts to see that what I am talking about is what is known as an argument from ignorance, which I believe I linked you or MaikU to earlier in the thread.
You’re assuming they are a fraudster before you have determined the fraud.
That is like bringing a man into court who is accused of murder, and because he is a murderer (so you claim) he must prove he is innocent. That’s not how courts work. That’s not how logic works. Even if everyone saw him commit murder, he comes into court an innocent man until his guilt is established. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.
When you claim that the people running religions are frauds, you’re accusing them of a crime. The burden of proof is on you to prove the crime. You can’t just keep asserting they are guilty because they are guilty and expect that to be treated as a reasonable argument.
And that doesn’t even address the issue of what is and is not fraud which you have also tortured quite a bit. Fraud requires intent to deceive, otherwise everyone in society who gives an incorrect answer, would be fraudulent by your definition.
I understand you have a bias against organized religion. It is probably well founded. I have a bias against statism. However, that doesn’t mean that just because we dislike something, or believe it to be wrong, that all the rules of thinking go out the window.
I had to read the transcript, their accents were unbearable. I’d say they are both incorrect, absolute concepts of “good” and “evil” don’t exist and using God as the beginning of the chain is question-begging. Must there be an explanation for existence? Maybe, I take it on “faith” that we just do.
<3
ERO is just my pet troll. You can read Nir’s posts to see that what I am talking about is what is known as an argument from ignorance, which I believe I linked you or MaikU to earlier in the thread.
I really hope you go back on vacation and:
- grow up
- learn some manners
- get some philosophical background, because you have no clue what an actual negative proof is
Libertystudent:
Consciousness is an effect of matter. The brain, the source of consciousness, emerges from matter.
the lack of evidence is not what makes the logic true. I’m saying that evidence is simply irrelevant in this case.
It is a contradiction, indeed, and not aesthetics.
Thanks.
No one cares.
So you have a proof without a proof?
How do you know a consciouness without matter does not exist? If you say, because consciousness requires matter, we’re back to the beginning again. Sure, A =A law of identity. Consciousness is defined by its relationship with matter. Fine. Then what if there is another form of “being” which doesn’t conform to this definition of matter, or consciousness as we understand it?
I’m not disputing that you know that consciousness requires matter. I am saying that you cannot prove that an exception does not exist which would render the understanding to be, “most consciousness requires matter” or “this is like a consciouness without matter”.
You can’t claim an exception to your knowledge, or new knowledge doesn’t exist because the conclusions you have already drawn do not allow for it.
I don’t know where to go further on this, because we have a fundamental disagreement about knowledge.