But you believe in them. Through what form of “knowing” do you attribute this belief to?
the documentation and evidence supporting the witnesses.
Oh, so what makes them continuously adhere to their beliefs still then?
no idea. it doesnt make sense to me to believe in something that you have no evidence of any kind for.
The evidence for the axioms lies largely in the practical applications of it.
thats a verification/falsification style statement. largely discredited in the philosophy of science as it too, self refutes. it was popular with the logical postivists, until that was pointed out however.
Regardless of the various debates, the commutative, associative laws etc. of mathematics are validated in practice, you still aren’t making any sense.
i was referring to logicism, intuitionism, constructivism, formalism, realism and platonism, the search for mathematical foundations
however you still have to accept the axioms you mentioned as true. just as one does the laws of logical inference. while we could easily say that verification breeds certainty and therefore some measure of truth, that would just be appealing to a vanity that our worldview is correct because we have induced enough examples. though, given the formal problem of induction, we know that is not true.
so it is simply safest and most accurate to say that all axioms are simply self evident.
I should have phrased it better, I agree, it’s not necessary a tangible quality, but something that can be measured. Specific quantities are items which can be measured.
Those two things aren’t related, there is nothing to stop anyone from attempting to confuse someone even if they didn’t know them. Non-sequitir fallacy much?
i was explaining why empiricists generally reject metaphysics. and how such rejection is based on not fitting into their self refuting worldview. thats all.
I won’t claim to adhere to all aspects of the philosophy of empiricism, but the practical application of this is science, what of this poor educational system?
i refer to an educational system that doesnt teach critical thinking. for instance all the science education, but never a whisoer that the basis, empiricism, is actually a false idea because it self refutes. the upshot of which is a generation of scientifically inclined people who shout that G-d ideas do not exist because it doesnt meet a standard that they dont know is false. even worse, given that lack in the education of critical thinking, they make the exact same mistake in defense of their wordview with the self refuting verification/falsification schemes.
ive seen some brilliant people who simply didnt know what they didnt know.
Let’s ignore the fact that for the last 400 years or so, religion, more specifically Christianity and Catholicism has always been opposed to scientific research, even in the case of Christian scientists, I don’t seen any poor educational system, that’s a delusional statement.
where did the Church oppose scientific research? the Galileo incident aside, i dont know this statement is true.
Practicality mainly, what is Christian philosophy ultimately? The meaning of life, and how to live it, correct? The ultimate philosopher is Christ, because he provides all the answers and the correct way to live life apparently. The life that we live is based in reality, the sciences deal with reality.
To keep insisting that there is something above the senses, and we need something other that the sciences to prove it is ridiculous, that’s not founded in reality, if it DID existed and was outside of our sense or ability to technologically measure it, what difference does it make anyways? It still can’t be validated by our understanding of reality.
This is conveniently argued by claiming we can resort to reason to understand it, I think a better term for it is active imagination, so far the sciences have advanced our ways despite the many oppositions to it, that’s a practical example of a form of philosophy being validated, or should I say aspects of it through praxis.
first, i should point out that Christain philosophy, Jesus who is G-d, not a philosopher, and metaphysics are all entirely separate ideas.
second, how is this different than empiricists who reject it on the same basis? if you are in fact an empiricist, or at least making the empiricists argument, than i would simply point out that, not meeting a false standard, is hardly a basis for rejection.
you seem to be implying that practicality is restricted to that which is empirically observable. i see no reason to think that, especially if we view it in light of theism, in which the non-empirical is of great utility, in that we expect to recieve a just reward for our earthly life.
Then there is the great question, if all of this did exist, I refer to the metaphysics and ultimately god himself, why won’t he just make it obvious to us mere mortals by appealing to the senses?
He did. He left a many witnesses. Jesus came down and suffered with us. He caused dozens of books to be written about Him by those witnesses. etc.
but if your asking about an eternal presence, i suppose that would kill the point of allowing people to freely love Him. it is easy for women to love a rich man, because they can see his value, it isnt real love, but love motivated by desire to be with the rich man. but only to enjoy his wealth. this way we have a chance to love G-d simply for his goodness.
How about the one I made just above? Is that a good starting point?
i suppose but its not really on the topic of the thread. in fact most of this post isnt, you should start a new thread for each different subject you wish to address.
