The burden of proof: Theism as properly basic

[MindOverMatter2]

And that cannot be found in epistemology. Epistemology is about how to think, not about answers.

You cannot find true answers without a sufficient epistemological foundation

 

[Texas_Roofer]

You cannot find true answers without a sufficient epistemological foundation

This is typical of the false epistemological precepts which create the disheartened feeling. When a student of epistemology builds his personal or group precepts he simply substitutes his beliefs over those of others and thus commits the action for which he argues against. This is not intrinsic to epistemology, correctly studied epistemology enlightens the student to a vast chasm of difference between “truth” ( I would prefer fact) and “knowledge” (I would prefer perception). Unfortunately this knowledge is often rejected by the student as it requires they leave “knowing less”. The actual truth is they leaving knowing more, however the more part is undesirable.

hope that helps

 

[MindOverMatter2]

This is typical of the false epistemological precepts which create the disheartened feeling. When a student of epistemology builds his personal or group precepts he simply substitutes his beliefs over those of others and thus commits the action for which he argues against. This is not intrinsic to epistemology, correctly studied epistemology enlightens the student to a vast chasm of difference between “truth” ( I would prefer fact) and “knowledge” (I would prefer perception). Unfortunately this knowledge is often rejected by the student as it requires they leave “knowing less”. The actual truth is they leaving knowing more, however the more part is undesirable.

hope that helps

Not really. You haven’t demonstrated why my understanding of epistemology is wrong. You have only demonstrated that it is undesirable to you. You have asserted that there is a more correct way of doing epistemology without presenting evidence of the fact. The rest is esoteric. I find it difficult to understand what you are saying, if you are saying anything at all.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Not really. You haven’t demonstrated why my understanding of epistemology is wrong. You have only demonstrated that it is undesirable to you. You have asserted that there is a more correct way of doing epistemology without presenting evidence of the fact. The rest is esoteric. I find it difficult to understand what you are saying, if you are saying anything at all.

Well that is unfortunute, let me only point to this:

This is typical of the false epistemological precepts which create the disheartened feeling. When a student of epistemology builds his personal or group precepts he simply substitutes his beliefs over those of others **and thus commits the action for which he argues against. **This is not intrinsic to epistemology, correctly studied epistemology enlightens the student to a vast chasm of difference between “truth” ( I would prefer fact) and “knowledge” (I would prefer perception). Unfortunately this knowledge is often rejected by the student as it requires they leave “knowing less”. The actual truth is they leaving knowing more, however the more part is undesirable.

hope that helps

so in the end most go down one of two scenarios 1) learn they actually “know less” as do their opponent, or 2) openly contradict themselves hoping their argument skills hide the internal hypocrisy. Notice what is available to the former. Notice what is the fate of the latter.

Yet, I do wish you well

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Well that is unfortunute, let me only point to this:

so in the end most go down one of two scenarios 1) learn they actually “know less” as do their opponent, or 2) openly contradict themselves hoping their argument skills hide the internal hypocrisy. Notice what is available to the former. Notice what is the fate of the latter.

Yet, I do wish you well