There's actually a name for this, its called Alatrism. You might also consider Deists, who believe in some type of deity, but do not believe it desire...
It can if a God can be shown within the natural sciences. And by natural sciences, I mean testable reality. Let me give you a couple of examples: Some...
If you are arguing against an evidenced position, then yes. If you simply decide to not accept evidence, than no. Not accepting evidence in this case ...
quote="Shwah;674294"]Rationalism is used even in the scientific method with hypotheses and conclusions (usually inductive arguments). True, but even r...
100% in agreement here. Incorrect. Lets not let words hide their clear meaning. "Empirical" simply means, "Something that can be detected/measured". I...
Certainly! If we are talking about professional fields of study, I believe the standard is usually the scientific method. Provide a hypothesis, then t...
Ok, lets just go with this then. I actually don't mind, as words mean different things to people. Lets say everything we do is a belief, and we need a...
I'm not sure where you got the idea that a belief cannot be analyzed. If you believe something, you have a reason for it. The question you have to ask...
Those aren't equivalent at all. What you're trying to state is non-belief in a God is a feeling. Atheism is not a feeling, period. I don't believe in ...
It is fine to propose that God is natural, but naturalism is also about the rejection of the supernatural. The supernatural is essentially unproven ma...
If someone has never heard of a God, they aren't atheist, they are just ignorant. Once a person has heard of a God, it is up to the people who believe...
Perfectly fine! For me it gave me a new avenue and way of describing what I've been thinking. Lets see if I can clear up your further issues. Recall t...
You may be correct. If you read the rest of the reply I stated, "I leave it up to you." The part you quoted was a "maybe" statement of consideration. ...
As it has been noted over the years by many, sometimes when Sherlock Holmes claims to use deduction, it is actually "Induction". You're doing that now...
Have you asked philosophers what their opinion of the good life is? It sounds like you think philosophers generally don't have an opinion on this. How...
Well, its not a rejection of the PSR, but an amendment. You see, the argument concludes that the principle of sufficient reason fails if not worded co...
Wonderful analysis Bob. I think you're seeing the distinction, but also the underlying sameness that runs through them both. This is because at their ...
I'm genuinely still unsure what you're trying to say with your reply. I did understand this last part. If you are talking about the first premise bein...
No. I am stating any one thing either has a prior cause for its existence, or it does not. Let me simplify it further. Premise: A. Every piece of exis...
Don't forget the "or". Its one of two outcomes. Either infinite regression, or finite regression. In that first premise I am simply proposing there ar...
Understandable. I note in later discussions that actually showing that a specific existence is self-explained would be nearly impossible. A self-expla...
So "existence" is generally seen as "everything". "An" existence is a snapshot identity within. An atom is "an existence", but is part of "all existen...
Ok, this is good. But what about the second part of the sentence, "Or there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events foll...
I don't see how they are mutually exclusive based on how I describe state relations in the OP. Feel free to point out where this exclusion exists. If ...
It doesn't to me. Neither eliminates causality, which is all I care about. B theory also does not eliminate time. There is still clearly a past state,...
I never claimed that in the OP. Please re-read again, or check some of the better follow up comments. I stated even if an infinite number of prior eve...
Good responses! Let me follow up. Lets say, "Yes". I believe they are correct. Better? Maybe not. If you're claiming your premises contradict mine, I ...
Probably because whether you dream or not has very little impact on yours and other's lives. I stir my coffee clockwise with a spoon. There aren't any...
You don't need Wittgenstein, any first year philosophy student knows this! If you read again, I'm agreeing with you to a point. We can know certain th...
There is not necessarily a clash here. We know the wavelength of light is how colors are seen. We know the eye takes in colors and the brain interpret...
How is this not proof? If I stated, "When I sleep, I have experiences", then if I others say, "Oh yeah, I have that too", that's proof/evidence. If no...
No, my point is that just because you make an assumption, it doesn't make them valid or right. If you target the OP by saying, "Well I could have made...
Which is fine, I have no issue with that. My point is matter and energy is able to interplay in such a way as to create a thinking human being. Its in...
Not a paradox at all. I go over this here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1 Yes, it is logicall...
Bob, I admit, this tripped me up at first. I had to think a while on your post, to try to get to what felt like was missing. Maybe I'm generalizing to...
I think we might be talking past one another unintentionally. I think you misunderstand that I am not referring to falsification as a logic chart. You...
Sometimes I think on the fact that I exist at all, and am filled with absolute wonder. It is truly astounding that existence "is", and that I am one o...
Wayfarer, I'm not Karl Popper. I don't care why he wanted to use falsification. I'm not asking you for the standard of a scientific theory, which is M...
Wayfarer, this is the problem when you debate other people, and not the people you are talking to. I'm not asking you to use the scientific method. I'...
I thought we had already resolved falsifiability and were simply talking about evidence of something non-physical at this point. But ok, if that is yo...
Since you did not reply with any evidence of the non-physical, then we both know you don't have any at this point. Then why didn't you engage with me ...
I said plenty. And I said why it wasn't evidence. And you didn't refute this. Lets define "psychosomatic effects". Any result pertaining to the influe...
Upon reviewing, I have. Maybe you haven't understood mine? I've been asking you repeatedly to show me evidence of what non-physical is, and you haven'...
NoAxioms, isn't that true about anything? I mean, I can just come back and state if you had made different assumptions and conclusions, then you could...
Yes. This doesn't make human interactions any less meaningful. How we function does not change the reality of our function. I agree. I was just answer...
Comments