You would find the reference in the language game but he very specifically speaks about everything having a reference. — Shwah
Don't tell me you don't fear them cause they don't exist! — EugeneW
He was discussing 'time reversal' based on a question he had been asked — universeness
am much more afraid of what my fellow humans might put me through than I am of gods. — universeness
like a quote from a song by crowded house. 'god is just jealous because the devil looks so cool in red.' — universeness
You cannot approach theism from an epistemological standpoint or you simply can't ask the questions you did. In that then it's useless to define theism as belief rather than propositional statements. — Shwah
I don't really care to speak about my religion but suffice it to say that many theistic conceptions are naturalist entirely or idealist (spinoza, aristotle are an example of the former and berkeley and, perhaps, hegel are examples of the latter). I will say science, which is concerned with nature in a particular way, can't ever deny supernaturalist concepts because no supernatural objects etc ever go into its domain — Shwah
The conception of a pentaune god does not require the communication nor livingness of said conception of god to exist. I don't have to worship a pentaune god to develop a thought puzzle around this. This applies towards any science or math field as well (e.g. we can theorize gravitons and what they may do if they exist without being forced to base our physics on it or even insert it at all). We also apply ethical conundrums into thought puzzles. — Shwah
In any case the main point is you can't use an epistemological definition for theism to ask this and if you're questioning these things then you necessarily are using an ontological nature to interpret and question these things (you need a framework to do so). — Shwah
That ties more into the point that atheism is not a position one can meaningfully get to without separating atheism from theism and implying atheism is just some random name for a gaming group that has shared likes and dislikes. A huge fall away from all atheist claims and from new atheist claims and from hitchens and all before him — Shwah
soon to be revealed on this forum! The world of philosophy, religion, and physics will shake in its foundations.. — EugeneW
A good build-up EugeneW, be careful you don't over-reach. — universeness
I'll go a bit further and say everybody uses their logic language of choice, even if they don't know it or contradict themselves, so saying "logic is my epistemological choice" is trivial at best. — Shwah
math cannot be material at least epistemologically. — Shwah
This is an asymmetric relationship where we don't need physics to do math — Shwah
Also physics is very much a philosophical endeavor and was called natural philosophy (as a group name with chemistry, biology etc) until a century and a half ago — Shwah
↪Gregory A Why are people theists? Why do people believe in God?
a day ago
— baker
As a loser, a homeless person, someone sleeping in a car, yet with a message, can communicate with others wherever they are in the world I can't help but consider such an outcome so slanted in my favour can come about by mere chance. But, still don't let me stop you believing that a 12v powered tablet computer, a hotspot from my phone, like the Mount Rushmore memorial are simply Natural features of an uncaring universe. — Gregory A
There's no way to get to an "atheist" position ontologically or epistemologically — Shwah
An egotheist, then — baker
side example, your grandma says "I love you, do you believe me?" — Shwah
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.