mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
I can't as you don't know if I am me or not. This text is not evidence that I am me. That is an external experience to you and not you thinking as you.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Knowledge, evidence, truth, proof, assumption, axiom, belief, faith and so on
- Thread starter mikkel_the_dane
- Start date
I can't as you don't know if I am me or not. This text is not evidence that I am me. That is an external experience to you and not you thinking as you.
an anarchist
Your local loco.
Well I do think. I can verify that. If I let you know that I can think, it is true. You may refuse the evidence, but the evidence is fact.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Hmm, on second thought, maybe you can't think
I've never explored or studied this topic myself. I just felt like playing Devil's Advocate this morning.
But I am unconvinced that we can't be sure the universe is real. I feel the arguments I have presented in this thread have been valid. As a "layman" I disagree with your stance.
Okay. Believe what you believe. I believe differently.
an anarchist
Your local loco.
You believe that nothing can be believed. Right?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Okay, I still believe differently.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, that nothing can be known. All I have, is faith and belief.
an anarchist
Your local loco.
Well, the points I made in the thread still stand, regardless of your belief.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, to you. Not to me.
Just for the fun of it:
That is one current meta-text on the problem.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
That depends on whether or not they can adapt to the new way of life.
It may be that the mind depends on the physical brain for its existence. The spiritual may supervene upon the physical.
I'm inclined to agree that there are spiritual qualities to being alive. And those qualities are fundamentally different than physical processes.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
No things cannot be known . . . You have to connect to things and not word salads in general to know something.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yes, that is the problem of what correspondence is in the correspondence theory of truth. But that is in a sense a part of the broader problem of what is real?
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
You´re going in speculative circles - Connect to real things in nature.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, I am a skeptic, so I believe differently.
cladking
Well-Known Member
For example for what the universe is and if that is known and so on, there are a lot of possible answers that include a lot of words in different combinations.
One example - it is known as true with reasonable certainty that the universe is...
So what is your own worldview for what knowledge and all those other concepts are? And please include other concepts than those I listed if relevant.
So here is mine as a skeptic. Since I can't know what objective reality is in itself, I act with faith and belief in that the universe is epistemologically fair, real, orderly and knowable. But I accept that other belief systems are possible.
As for debate. Well, what is truth and are there only one form or many? The same for other concepts and it connects to universal versus relative.
We know in our souls there is truth. But no truth can be expressed in language because words have no fixed meaning. We can approximate truth but then someone will come along and parse your sentence wrong.
Many believers in science believe they have a monopoly on truth but the reality is paradigms change, experiments are reinterpreted, new experiments show we are wrong, and a steady stream of funerals will forever assure that science changes.
So believers in science usually double down on their omniscience and then try to take credit for technology they had no hand in creating as proof they are right and you are wrong.
So we have a world where no two people agree and no two models are identical but everyone has every answer.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
How can you believe differently of natural things as for instants the Earth, the Moon, the Sun, and our Milky Way galaxy? They are real things and common for all humans!?
The fact that youi are putting words together in a learned and coherent manner is all we need. Language requires thinking to some degree and the two can't be separated.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
It is about knowledge and if I know that they are real.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, yes. It makes sense, but we still disagree when it gets closer to what truth and science is.
AppieB
Active Member
Sure, this refers to the continuous flow of the cognitive abilities (thinking) we call conscience experience (1) as I stated earlier and we both agreed upon. This is what you could call "the subjective."All words which are not about external reality. In even broader terms, all experiences which are not about external reality.
Here are some examples of that:
In other words, all mental and non-external sensory experiences. For example self is a part of the world, but not a part of external reality. But so is how it matters for a human to be a human, if it matters to that human.
We also agreed that we presuppose the external world/reality (2). This is what we could call "objective".
So to summarize we have:
1. the conscience experience (subjective)
2. the external world/reality (objective)
You were assuming or accusing me of having a double standard in regards to beliefs. How is that so? What is unclear? What's the next step you want to explore about my beliefs and worldview?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Are both the subjective and objective part of the world? Can the subjective be reduced to being the objective, such that the subjective is not really real?