Relativist

I think you're discussing the semantics of everyday language - many people say "I believe X" to convey a degree of uncertainty. There could be an impl...

No, not all unproveable truths. I was being careless in my wording. More precisely: most of our rational, acquired beliefs are IBEs. (My objective had...

"..I guessed that this meant that some of our beliefs are provably true, and are not IBEs. If that guess is correct, then apparently you must hold tha...

I think we should keep the underlying logical limitations in the background of our minds, but we shouldn't let this undermine practical critical think...

Good question. We have beliefs that follow necessarily from other beliefs/facts, so they're provable in that sense. It seems inescapable that we depen...

Is this a premise? Your OP seems focused on morality. Are you defining God as nothing more than the foundation of objective moral values? That may be ...

Agreed that we need to establish what "undetermined" means, when were talking about beliefs. I've been treating "underdetermined" as any belief that i...

. I see your point, that by labelling X and IBE, underdetermination may not apply. Labeling it the explanation would be underdetermined. But I suggest...

If we accept abductive reasoning (inference to best explanation on available evidence - IBE) as leading to rational beliefs, is there really a problem...

I agree with you, although the religious connotations of "soul" leads philosophers to shy away from using that word. There's a good article in the Sta...

What do you mean by "adequate"? Logically possible? Absence of explanatory gaps? Having rational justification to accept?

I just finished reading Michael Tye's book, "Vagueness and the Evolution of Consciousness". Tye labels himself a physicalist/representalist, but propo...

Strict identity IS lost with every breath. So this approach uses perdurance to account for individual identity over time.

There is no objectively correct answer. Any answer depends on metaphysical assumptions about the nature of individual identity. I gave you an answer i...

What's a "fact"? It's apparently not something existing in the world, so what is the correspondence? It seems to be a correspondence between two "thin...

Any analysis would depend on one's attitude toward essentialism: is there an individual essence? If not, then (it seems to me) that individual identit...

How do you account for truth? Is truth entirely subjective?

The universe does change over time, from the perspective of any intra-universe reference frame. If anything exists outside the universe, it would "see...

No, I don't think the universe is contained by time, but I believe time is real within the universe - and therefore there was a time before life emerg...

It seems to me that everything that exists is an object, so I don't see an issue.

Yes, but he does not say that science answers all questions. Scientific knowledge is a superior authority, because it's the only methodology that reac...

So you interpret, "we can give a complete account of man in purely physico-chemical terms" to mean "all questions should be deferred to science". That...

Fair enough. I'm inclined to avoid using the term when discussing epistemology, because it means different things to different people. I prefer to use...

I appreciate that your hypothesis is modest, and doesn't thoroughly undermine a general naturalistic world-view. You seem to specifically address phys...

It makes sense to think that IF the complex machinery of the brain produces qualia, THEN it is physically possible to develop a machine that reproduce...

No, it's not faith by my definition. It's a properly basic belief*. It's basic, because it's innate- not derived, and not taught. It's properly basic ...

Let me clarify. Let's define fact as: a true proposition. The issue I was alluding to was: what's the truthmaker for the fact? I'm assuming truthmaker...

Fully account? Certainly not, but I have an account that (AFAIK) accounts for more than the alternatives. I'll describe why I accept this as the close...

Understood. I'm not familiar with his work. I was just responding to what I inferred from Wayfarer's quote - which (I assume) he provided to make HIS ...

Yes he did, but I agree with David Armstrong, that they are superfluous and unparsimonious. The world consists of the things that exist. The truthmake...

Where did Armstrong say that all questions should be deferred to science? He was a reductionist, and believed that all substance and function was redu...

That would only be true if we had perfect and complete knowledge of how to reduce everything to fundamental physics, and the capacity to compute human...

But "the self" is a mystery before we consider its grounding and a mystery even after we acknowledge there's something immaterial. Embracing physicali...

I did not suggest closing off inquiry. Rather, I value truth-seeking, and truth-seeking requires objectivity. Wishful thinking about an afterlife is s...

Sure, but that doesn't give epistemic license to fill the gap arbitrarily or with wishful thinking. Yes, but it's a wide space of possibility. As I pr...

Rational belief is justified belief- i.e.having reasons to believe some proposition is true. "X is possible" is not a justification to believe X rathe...

No. I acknowledge everything you said about the impact of mind on the world, but it's independent of the (meta)physical nature of mind. The world we i...

I'm conceding there may be some non-physical aspect of mind, because of the explanatory gap that materialism has regarding consciousness. For purposes...

This depends on the unjustified assumption that we actually have the capacity to see around those veils, and it places unwarranted trust in one's intu...

I agree 100%. All we can do is to try and peek back layers of the onion, but sooner or later we'll get to a point beyond which there can be empirical ...

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, but my question is a bit different. My question, "why take a hypothetical possibility seriously?" was intended to...

This is not speculation, it's inference that there is an ontological foundation to reality. The alternative is an unexplainable infinite series of cau...

We agree there could be no causal relation, but I further argue that it is incoherent to consider a world (the entirety of reality) to include a "noth...

No. I am referring to everything that exists, including a supernatural (if one exists), or anything else that might exist - including minds, even if t...

Absolute nothingness is conceivable and it is logically possible, but it is metaphysically impossible in a world in which things exist. IMO, time init...

Then you misunderstand. "The world" is the entirety of reality, which would include the supernatural, if it exists. If there exists a supernatural, th...

Non-sequitur. If it was initiated, then it wasn't the initial state of affairs. Either there was an initial state of affairs, or there's an infinite s...

I see no such implication. Walk me through it, and do so without treating existence as a property.

What I find mysterious is that anyone would think that there was a prior state of non-being / nonexistence. What exists today is a consequence of what...

You had asked me: Why did you ask this, if you don't believe there is an initial step even if LFW is true? What's the relevance? I've been attempting ...