Janus

Within the context of faith it is not possible to have significantly "differing perspectives" when it comes to the essential elements of that faith. I...

There is no point in discussing your religion with anyone who doesn't share your particular preconceptions/ beliefs. Discussion with other adherents, ...

This seems to be a monstrous irony coming from you!

Perhaps he is both objecting and pretending to make progress while going round and round. Objecting and pretending seem to go hand in hand.

Talking and thinking about it may not lead to any " observable movement towards implementing any discussed solution", but it may nonetheless move some...

No, it's also a matter of faith and practice (which are really inseparable). the beliefs associated with religion, taken as propositions (which many f...

"Can't understand it": how presumptuous you are! If someone disagrees with you it shows a failure of understanding. And yet you seem to be able to off...

If a belief is not supported by logical or empirical evidence, then it must (purportedly at least) be supported by intuition or personal experience. B...

And you are elevating stupidity to a philosophy... :rofl:

No, it's recognizing the need to include science, since it is the most reliable method of investigating the nature of the real. Science cannot reasona...

The cosmological argument is, if sound, at most an argument for a 'prime mover'. If we are to have a comprehensive, unified vision of what the prime m...

Why not? Example?

Since all arguments are based on natural reasoning and evidence there can never be any rational or empirical demonstration of the existence of superna...

Neither arguments for nor arguments against the existence of a God of religion have any place in philosophy. Its too nebulous. What God? The "God of t...

That a scripture or oral teaching is "revealed truth" is obviously a dogma, a matter of faith; something that cannot be philosophically argued for.

I believe the Schoolmen acknowledged that the so-called rational arguments for God's existence were based on faith: "faith seeking understanding".

Can any specific religious claims be rationally argued for without support from dogmatic premises? Karma, reincarnation, resurrection, personal God or...

I disagree with you in that I think that what may appear to be "talking for its own sake" may lead to changes that are impossible to foresee. It's ana...

There may be people who suffer depression on account of intractable neurological conditions, who would find it simply impossible to eat well or become...

Agreed. Perhaps that's so. Much of what we think and do seems to be based on fear. Sometimes it seems to be nameless dread or existential angst, so no...

It seems to me that depression is, more or less depending on its intensity, a refusal to carry on; that is a refusal to cope. As living beings there w...

There are normative criteria to define what constitutes doing philosophy. They are pretty broad and yet what you are doing seems to fall outside their...

My capacity to use words is my understanding, to be sure, but my capacity to use words is not my actual use of words. I can have the mental capacity a...

Your framework has not been shown to be philosophical, but merely religious, and hence there is no place for it on a philosophy forum. A religious fra...

In the context of philosophy an argument from authority is not considered to be sufficient. You would need to make a further argument as to why the au...

:cool:

I provided some argument for my belief that children cannot be born believing in God; that is the difference between your approach and mine. If your p...

It's not "a form of lying" in an 'open' marriage.

You provide no argument just more assertion. I see no reason to take your word for it. Also, you should be careful as the moderators do not consider t...

I cannot see how it is possible to "believe in God" without possessing linguistic ability; so humans cannot be born believing in God. Maybe it could b...

That contradicts your hypothesis that religion is necessary to ground morality.

Trite!? LOL. Navigation systems are able to make use of words, so if you are right then they understand the words they use. I won't be drawn into the ...

Do these non-religious "aspects" offer a unifying vision of life? This also raises the question of what counts as religious.

So you think we can understand words even if we have no idea what they mean? Concepts are shared understandings.

If words did not embody concepts how could we understand them? I haven't defined concepts as mental objects so that purported difficulty of radical su...

Words don't refer just to things, they also refer to actions and to generalities. So, "the" refers to an act of indicating or specifying some things o...

Religion is to offer a unifying vision of human life. One interacts with a religion (and its adherents) if one finds its vision of human life inspirin...

Words have referential associations, which some would count as meanings. If, in any particular case, the user of a word intends some particular refere...

Now you seem to be trying to change the subject. In any case, I don't believe that the notion of human equality is unique to Christianity.The assumpti...

The wealthy, the powerful the famous and the priveleged do get different treatment, because they are accorded more respect for their socially benefici...

What you seem to be ignoring is that there is no disinterestedly rational justification for not treating all people as equal before the law. Coupled w...

The absolutely independent pre-conceptual existence of entities is something illegitimately extrapolated from their necessarily conceptually shaped ex...

I think of knowledge as familiarity with things. Our familiarity with things is a human familiarity and in that generic sense interpretive. Individual...

No, the pre-conceptual existence of an entity is something merely stipulated on account of the apparently very plausible assumption that what, for exa...

Yes, and this is utterly trivial; something merely stipulated; the trees are already taken for granted in asking what you know about them.

So why are you, irrelevantly, asking me whether they existed prior to any conceptualization, rather than dealing with the question of whether we can p...

You were speaking about knowledge of the things weren't you?

What knowledge of trees as existing prior to any conceptualization can you arrive at through "complex analysis"?

Of that which existed prior to any conceptualization or analysis at all, yes.

Simple answer: we can't because no parts/ entities of analysis are pre-reflective. If you think they are, then you have committed a fallacy of misplac...