Sure you can, but that is the clear case putting the cart in front of the horse. There can be no question about the nature of philosophy, it is supposed to be a “high level” view of reality, an abstraction of reality.
No skin off my nose either. Though most of us don’t fall to being patronizing.
So, you cannot unprove it? Then how can you expect it to be proved? Does everything need to be proved anyway?
It was not intended to be patronizing. People believe in all sorts of things. It is their right to do so. Of course they should not expect to be taken seriously.
Are you serious? It is only possible to “disprove” something in a formal, axiomatic system. The existence or non-existence of dragons, angels, demons, gods, leprechauns, honest lawyers is not of that nature. They can be “proven” to exist, but cannot be disproven. However, just because something cannot be disproven it does not lend credence to the idea that they exist.
No, not “everything”.
I already directed you to it, but here is the actual link to the detailed explanation:
Which is quite ok by me.
Sure thing. I will reject it. I am not sure if the label “classical” is important.
Likewise. It is always a pleasure to see your posts. In May and June we are going to take a long trip to Europe, so I will have no access to the Net. If you fail to find me, that is the reason.
Its defined as “protecting from teaching error in regards to faith and morals”. If this were to be hypothetically true, then no, people who have this gift would not be capable of distortion in the proper situation.
My point was that you cannot argue against the Catholic church by saying that infallibility is not logically consistent, because it is. This does not prove truth, but it does mean that it is not self-contradictory.
It is not ex cathedra. No Catholic claims it is.
Here you go, from newadvent,org:
*
* The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.
* Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).
* Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.
* Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.We are in agreement that solipism is false. The question is how reasonable this shared belief is for each of us in regards to our held positions.
I’m talking about how we know about the whole mirage/lake question to be true itself. (not that I intend to support solipism, which would be heresy). Solipism to me seems a logically possible position, so we need to see if we can disprove it. I have faith. What do you have?
I see no reason to trust my own personal, unplanned, unguided, undirected assemblage of matter at all. (but of course, I think it is planned…)
Only if you turn out to be right. If I’m right, then it takes on a bit more importance.
So then, do you expect to be taken seriously?
And same, the inability to prove something does not prove it doesn’t exist. To disprove something, one must be able to fully define, and show the flaw in it when you follow the implications.
We are in agreement. How rare.
Your argument of ‘fallacy of composition,’ in that, it has fallacy of composition.
This is a typo
I don’t care. You can disregard me, if you so choose.
Exactly. You define God - fully - and I will pick the argument up.
Show me, where.
No, it is not. Let’s use a formal language:
, … have the property “P”. has the property “P”, therefore the set “S” also has the property “P”. has a property of “P” where “P” means “being caused” is already false. There is no need to go any further.Not “came” into existence - it simply exists.
We arrive at a usual stalemate. It is your “responsiblity” to prove that there is such a thing as infallibilty.
Of course there are Catholics who will disregard it. You will probably call them heretics.
Thank you. It is not really clear how to decide if something is meant to be ex-cathedra.
Reason
. Solipsism in not necessarily “false”, more like nonsensical. If someone would hold this view - seriously - then one sentence from his mouth would refute it. After all he would address an “audience” which does not exist.I do. A few millions of experiments assure me that my mental image of reality is correct.
No, I would not. But that is not unique, I try to verify whatever I am told - within reason, of course.
Listen. As always, in science it does not matter, who says it, what does matter, what is being said.
I am responding to your argument, so I am on the defensive and you on the offensive. Therefore, the responsibility for proof lies with you. I am not arguing for my position, but rather arguing against your position.
You saying it is not very convincing.
My position is simple: “infallibility” is nonsensical, since all humans are fallible (able to make errors) and therefore all human groups are fallible, too. Which part would you like to deny?
Which part is not convincing? That all humans are fallible? Or is the Pope not human?
The only ex cathedra statements I am aware of are the immaculate conception and assumption. The usually way the solemn magisterium is employed is through councils, the validity (and thus, infallibility) of which are readily apparent.
And how would he know for himself that that audience is real? Again, I am not arguing for solipism, only that atheism undercuts realism (and thus leads to some form of solipism).Reason
These experiements operate within the system in question. Therefore, they don’t assure anything. Imagine you are trying to find out if a computer is working correctly. To that end, you run a test on the same computer. This test says that the computer is working correctly. Do you see the problem?
Interesting response. What makes you think your cluster of neurons is any more capable of verifying or disproving these arguments than the monkey’s cluster? How do you know that you are in a position to evaluate the truth of the monkey’s arguments? If we are both ultimately animals, what makes you think that our species is any more capable of arriving at truth than a monkey?
Something being said presupposes something to hear it. Imagine a stream of data being sent to a computer. This stream is completely true and is “what matters”, as you said. If this stream is being sent to a computer that is not necessarily designed to draw true conclusions from it, then I will be fairly skeptical of any conclusions drawn from the true data stream.