learning to love — ucarr
I think the word "authoritatively" is doing a lot of work there. The only way this even remotely follows is if we're supposing that one can only know something "authoritatively" if one is omniscient. But that's dubious to say the least. I know its January 29th quite authoritatively, and am most decidedly not omniscient. — Seppo
1. Compassionate emotions and actions directed toward oneself. (Doing things that reflect a caring for self (in the same way we care for, for example, our children): exercise, healthy diet, avoidance of toxic people, places, relationships, etc.) — ZzzoneiroCosm
[....] — ucarr
Speculatively, I prefer pandeism ... to either term.Atheism can take many forms. Nature is just one of them. — dimosthenis9
Though I don't fully understand...Multiple personalities? — Cornwell1
One voice in my head agreed with me and another voice did not. So three voices could be three different (or muliple) personalities. Just my sense of humour, nothing more.I always enjoy a bit of pantomime based exchange, 'Oh no you don't!,' 'Oh yes you do!,' — universeness
I believe the gods are real existent though. How else can you explain the presence of the universe? — Cornwell1
I understand your frustration, I feel it too, we cant answer your question yet but that feeling of frustration is a driver that makes us continue to seek an answer. So far, if Cosmology is correct, we do understand the 'How,' back to the inflationary moment. We have no idea about the ultimate why? YET! — universeness
Do you advocate for social justice through personal empowerment? Do you believe it's achieved through universal access to personal development in the form of housing, education & employment? Do you think that, where appropriate, businesses should be owned & operated by the public? Do you advocate for pluralism with respect to a person's metaphysical commitments, or lack thereof — ucarr
Many of us agree that deity is idealism. Well, anti-deity is also idealism — ucarr
Now what? Where did it come from? — Cornwell1
You imply that a proposition can be analyzed & judged apart from its referent within the empirical world.
You therefore imply that language has existence & meaning independent of the empirical world it describes. — ucarr
You argument holds good up until the start of the 20th century and the arrival of QM. I resort to the empirical extremis, which greatly weakens my argument, but it's all I've got for now. In the approach & departure to & from 29 Jan, time dilation, grown significant at micro time intervals, perplexes the exact now of beginnings & endings of calendar days. Not only you do not know, authoritatively, the calendar date; no one does. Instead, we must make do with a cloud of probabilities describing our calendar date. — ucarr
The authoritative, certain knowledge long sought by science has been partially derailed by science itself — ucarr
If you say God doesn't exist then you make the same judgement as when you say That I don't exist — Cornwell1
Well, no, not at all. For one thing, whether there is a person to ignore is precisely what is in question, and for another, in thinking about whether God/gods exist, we are doing the opposite of "ignoring" the matter.In both cases you ignore a person. — Cornwell1
... Language can only exist and have meaning in relation to the empirical world and social/linguistic habits of communities of language-users. — Seppo
You had to mention Ayn Rand. When she's mentioned, I'm obliged to repeat that Ayn Rand is to philosophy what L. Ron Hubbard is to religion. — Ciceronianus
Who says abduction isn't powerful? — Tom Storm
Well, no, not at all. For one thing, whether there is a person to ignore is precisely what is in question, and for another, in thinking about whether God/gods exist, we are doing the opposite of "ignoring" the matter. — Seppo
The point is merely that this talk of "judging a being" implies that the proper name "God" has a referent, when this is, of course, precisely what atheism denies... and so its a better and more accurate analysis of atheism as the position that neither the proper name "God" nor the common noun "god" has a referent, that there is not any being or entity to which either accurately applies. — Seppo
Neither relativistic time dilation nor planck-scale uncertainty invalidates our authoritative knowledge of today's date (let alone any of the many other things we know quite authoritatively)- our dating methods are obviously relative to our own reference frame, and the calendar is a social convention and so the date just is whatever we agree that it is. — Seppo
Do you know the sign God has no referent, or do you theorize the sign God has no referent? — ucarr
Right. In other words, authoritative knowledge doesn't require omniscience. Maybe some knowledge claims require or imply omniscience, but that would need to be shown on an individual basis; it is not generally true that "authoritative" knowledge implies or requires god-like attributes.Inertial reference frames of relativity assert the lack of a universal time. What we know in our frame is not known empirically in someone else's frame. So authoritative knowledge of the date, speaking empirically, is local; nonetheless authority is authority, whether local or otherwise. — ucarr
Do you know the sign God has no referent, or do you theorize the sign God has no referent?
— ucarr
It makes no difference in this context; either way, God's existence is what is in question, and so talking of "judging a being", as if there is a being there to judge, is question-begging at worst, an extremely awkward way of speaking at best. — Seppo
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.