You have to understand what you are trying to prove before you can prove it.
But seriously, read Nicholas of Cusa. He knows all about this. If you want to know how to know what is true in religion and supernatural epistemology, he will tell you. And he is a totally orthodox Catholic. So if you think the Catholic Church is the one to beat, go to him. If you can refute him, you can refute the entire doctrine of the Catholic church.
Cusa is in my mind, the most thorough Catholic theologian who has ever lived. Pope Benedict XVI studied him a lot. All true Catholic doctrine has been based off of his ideas. He has a very scientific understanding of God, the Church, the Universe, and Jesus Christ. If you want scientific religion, you’ll find it in Nicholas of Cusa. He proves that the most scientific religion ever created is Catholicism.
Spock
Provided that these events actually happened, which is a huge “if”, no they do not substantiate that there was some supernatural event taking place. After all Jesus was a human, observable, touchable. And so was Peter. If we would stand in the presence of God, then God must assume a human form, so we can be in his presence.
I am open to this scenario. Where is God? Some nice posters suggested that I should go and pray the rosary in some Catholic church, and God will “surely” answer. I even went to the St Peter’s Cathedral in the Vatican (just happened to be on a vacation), and I don’t think that there is a holier place anywhere. Guess what happened? Nothing.
Spock
This is exactly right. If you don’t want it, you are not going to get it. If you want instant gratification, it’ll never happen. It takes a marathon effort until you finally get the results you are looking for.
A lot of us would disagree with your position that literature, movies, painting, etc do not involve disclosure about the world … and with your contention that every artistic opinion is purely subjective/private/equivalent, i.e., without any objective validity whatsoever.
Do you know why you’ve set up your requirements like this? Why do you need something as strong as proof for religious questions?
Interesting posting.
I never said or implied the last part. If you find a piece of art pretty or moving then it will have a certain “value” to you. But again, that is a subjective evaluation. As the old saying goes: “Wagner’s music is actually much better than it sounds”. It is all in the mind. Some people create pieces of “art”, by affixing non-connected urinals to a wall. In my eyes it is junk. In someone else’s mind it may be a wonderful piece of art. Who is right? Both of us? Neither one of us? Does the question “is that exhibition artistic?” make even any sense? I don’t think so. Art is a means to induce certain brain processes - especially music. Our brains are very different, and the same music may affect one person and not affect another one. Art needs no “epistemology”.
Emphasis mine and it is the pertinent part of your question. The old - now defunct - logical positivism stated that there is only one way to obtain knowledge: the empirical way. That concept would be self-refuting, since its veracity cannot be established empirically. I don’t even know if there are logical positivists today.
I don’t really “need” it. I am simply curious if there is any? Let’s just say, to leave no stones unturned. I am aware that I am far from being “omniscient”, and so I like to listen to others, whose point of view is different.
Sure. I do not have any “formal proof” or even “any empirical evidence” that there are other intelligent beings in the universe. Yet, I believe it very strongly, based upon a few calculations. I think that it is extremely improbable that we are “alone”. However, I do not base my life on it. Whether we are alone or there are other intelligent beings “out there”, is really irrelevant. the more important and pertinent a question is the higher degree of certainty we need to be assigned to it.
No “proof”, but strong, observable evidence is needed. If I would come home and found my wife in bed with someone else, I would give her the benefit of doubt, and wait for an explanation. Based upon the decades we have been together, when she never gave any sign of infidelity, I would be willing see if there is a good explanation. But if I found her in bed with a stranger every day, then I would not accept the explanation any more. Yes, “love” needs to be susbtantiated (or proved).
Sure, it would lead to one. We are making incorrect conculsions all the time. That is why it is so important to stay open, and listen to other points of view. But the openness should not become “gullibility”. And so far, I have not seen or heard any valid arguments. Of course my standards are high, BUT not selectively so. I do not hold religious claims to a different standard than I hold secular ones.
For one, I see no reason to distrust philosophy. So far I have found that any distrust in the ability of philosophy with regards to metaphysics is an ideology that has serious problems–logical positivism being just one example.
I don’t have to do any further work as you wanted proof of the “supernatural” not a defense of any particular religious beliefs. Off-topic and irrelevant.
But that is the problem. You ask for proof of the supernatural and we answer that under your epistemology we cannot. And then we say but it is still possible to prove the supernatural, which must mean your epistemology is flawed; and so it is. Now we are trying to help you see the flaw in your epistemology. This is where the conversation has ended up.
So you “don’t base your life on” the ‘theory’ that you’re not the only person in the universe? It’s not my place to tell you how to live your life, but if you’re serious about this, you’ve chosen a really unusual path. Most of us really do base our life and all our important choices on the assumption that the ‘theory’ that other people are real, is correct. It’s what makes our lives meaningful. Most of us make relationships with others the central point of our lives. We base our life on that.
What you’re describing here sounds like a calculus where we weigh the certainty of various propositions against the seriousness of the decisions we make based on those propositions. I think this puts a lot more subjectivity into all of your decisions than you may realize:
There are two approaches here. Either the metaphysics is applicable to reality, in which case it is superfluous, or it contradicts reality, in which case it should be discarded. Suppose that a proposed “meta”-physics presents a basic principle that matter can be freely created or destroyed. Based upon that “principle” it would reach some end-results. What is your attitude toward it? Mine is simple: throw it into the trashcan of ridiculous ideas. The basic metaphysical principles MUST mirror real nature, otherwise it will be just empty speculation.
That particilar principle is obvious, being one of the axioms of formal logic (which is an axiomatic system).
Not true. I did not present any epistemology concerning the supernatural. My epistemology says nothing about the supernatural. I am still waiting to see if there is any method to decide if a claim about supernatural (and yes, angels, demons, souls are part of it) is true or false. After all, if an epistemology is supposed to be useful, it should be applicable to a particular supernatural belief system.
Show me a different one, and I will examine it. As I said, so far, no one has come up with anything better. The concept of “proof” is only applicable in a formal, axiomatic system. The method is validated - but not formally proven - by its usefulness.
Well, that is what I am looking for.
Start with an observable phenomenon, apply fallacy-free logic, and show me that the end result is “supernatural”.Huh? I never said that I subscribe to solipsism. I said that the idea that there is a different intelligent life in the universe bears no significance. Obviously I meant non-human, extraterrestrial life, out somewhere, and its possible existence is irrelevant to us. I simply brought it up as an example that I believe stuff even if there is no direct evidence for it.
You seem to misunderstand me. I was talking only about weighing the testimonial evidence, not the repeatable, observable, objective evidence. Facts are subborn things, they can be disregarded at one’s own peril. When it comes to testimonials, there is a huge amount of subjectivity involved. That is why testimonials should be used only as a last resort, and we always must be cognizant of the fact that testimonials are very unreliable (as any police investigator will affirm - you have 10 witnesses and you will hear at least 11 conflicting descriptions of the event
).Agreed; but what happens when your metaphysical principle is taken from reality? (you will have problems taking your principle from reality without induction unless you accept some form of essentialism).
Although it is true you can represent the principle of metaphysical identity as an axiom, it is a principle nonetheless and describes all of reality. Do you care to deny this?
I think here you might be confused. I agree that you did not present any epistemology concerning the supernatural… you presented your own which excludes the supernatural based upon the arbitrary scope of the scientific method. Your epistemology not only says nothing about the supernatural but actively denies it; that’s called ideology (in the negative sense) when you cannot justify it. And focus more on what is true than what is useful, it will be more useful here.
And that is what you will find if you re-examine Aquinas. I’m game; show me a fallacy in one of the first 3 ways of Aquinas (the ones I am more familiar with).Well, that is what I am looking for.
Of course it is inductive. We (as the human race with billions of individuals) kept of observing reality, and made our abstractions of it. The concept of “essence” makes no sense at all.
No, why should I deny it? It is still a corollary of observations.
Of course my epistemology excludes the supernatural, just like it excludes from my metaphysics. That is what I am expecting from you. That is what I keep asking all the time.
But I can justify it: there is no reason to hypothesize it, because the physical world is self-sufficient. But I still keep an open mind, and ask you to present your case.
You present them with your words. I don’t want to waste a lot of time and effort on a possible misunderstanding. If I don’t understand something, I will ask for clarification. Of course Aquinas’ proofs have been debunked a long time ago. I am surprised that anyone still considers them useful.
And this is why you do not understand. The metaphysical principle taken from reality would NOT be taken by inductive means. Abstraction and essences are what we are dealing with here. If you deny essences then you fall into incoherence, which is basically what we are dealing with here.
A corollary of observations. Fine. And yet a necessary principle. It is impossible for it to be false. It seems like you just conceded my point that your epistemology is not satisfactory.
And the self-sufficiency of the world is what is at issue. That is a philosophical claim, can you substantiate your claim? I will substantiate mine by appealing to one of the arguments from Aquinas below.
I am having second thoughts about presenting the argument because you are using the wrong category to evaluate his arguments. Talk of useful is not what is ultimately important here. Truth; whether the conclusions are true or false is the point. As far as I know Aquinas’ 5 ways have not been debunked but only misunderstood; to substantiate your claim you must present evidence, such as some kind of fallacy or problem.