That study shows that humans might be predisposed toward belief in gods and afterlife. It makes no mention of children at all. — Isaac

Oh my God dude really? This conversation is over. You're not actually interested in a serious discussion.

No you need to understand you have a body when you go see your doctor. Thanks for the conversation — Gregory

I have a body. I'm not the body. And the body is not material. So again, you're on this low level that I'm not engaging with. You think words make reality, they do not. Matter is just a word.

"If the world ceased to exist it would be true there was once a world although there is nothing anywhere in any sense whatsoever"

Which pure empiricism cannot justify in any way whatsoever.

Great. Let's have the citations then. — Isaac

Google's algorithm isn't helping me find the particular study, but here's a related study: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm

And like, I don't know how you can expect me to have all of the scientific studies ever published ready on the spot, that's a very unreasonable standard of evidence.

So? Do the children concerned believe that these gods, angels, and demons are material objects ideas? Believing something exists which, it turns out, doesn't is not a measure of one's commitment or otherwise to physicalism. — Isaac

Nobody believed in "material objects" before the 16th century. Materialism was not believed by even the Epicureans. This is just a posthoc reading back into history something people didn't believe.

No, it doesn't . That's a language game. You need to read up on Derrida, Wittgenstein.

So there is no foundation to the claim you have a body? Lol, tell that to your doctor — Gregory

I admitted I have a body, but that body is not "material" that is just an assertion.

Platonists can think whatever they want when they do science. Their experiments are on matter regardless of what they think. — Gregory

No, they are demonstrably not, Matter has never been demonstrated to exist.

False. Life has meaning because soul emerges from matter. Truth has no substance but the soul does. Some things are true, but I don't think "uinversals" in the Platonic sense are real — Gregory

Soul emerges from matter? Dude, you've lost it. Go lie down somewhere. This conversation is over.

Of course. The one rule in science is "identical objects act identically in identical situations". Knowing there is matter is a priori to all science. — Gregory

No, it's not an a priori to all science. It's a priori to modern scientific method that's based on the mechanical philosophy of Descartes and others.

People did science for thousands of years before and they weren't materialists.

I think that's a childish assertion — Gregory

So? Who cares what you think? There are no universals according to your worldview, "reality" is just a mental illness created by the chemicals in your brain and there's no ultimate meaning or purpose to life so there's no meaning or purpose to what you say, think or do. So, I frankly don't give a crap.

What I am trying to say is that nobody can be a foundationalist in their reasoning. But saying "I believe in matter" is not the same thing as saying "I believe in Platonic forms". Those two assertions have nothing in common because you are matter and speculating about forms is just philosophy. You are not philosophy — Gregory

You're right, one is based on natural law, namely Platonism. The other has absolutely no foundation whatsoever. Matter has never been demonstrated to exist whatsoever. What exists are qualities of experience, or Platonic Forms.

I'm not a Foundationalist, so I am not claiming certainty.

Qualities of experience is not matter. You're asserting this, without justification.

What would it otherwise be based on? Science? Science is based on tentative, limited, particular empirical sense data. It's pragmatic. So there would not be universal truth according to that paradigm.

It's a belief. I'm glad you admit it. There's absolutely no such thing as matter outside of your ad hoc belief. It's a religion. Great.

There are no universal truths if you deny universals. You are playing a sophistic game of wanting to have your cake and eat, which is what all Modernist philosophers do. Postmoderns are honest. "No universals, no universal truth." Let's be honest with our worldviews.

There is no consensus in philosophy. We experience matter and classify them according to their natures. Universals are spooks of metaphysicians — Gregory

Everything you say is a spook. Is it universally true there are no universals?

No, it's the worldview that I have. Believing that everything in your mind is a chemical illusion is mental illness.

There are not universals, but there are material natures. The latter are defined by the matter we experience — Gregory

But we've never experienced natures or matter. And a nature is a universal. Every metaphysician knows that.

That's absurd to the higher degree. You are denying you are a body then — Gregory

Correct. I am a spirit soul which has a body. A body is like an avatar in a video game.

Thought of in Platonism or Hegelism terms, sure. Not in Kantian or empiricist terms though — Gregory

Because those philosophies are inconsistent. "There are natures but there are not." Pure sophistry.

Formalism is denying that talking about matter in ontological terms is legit, so maybe speaking of nominalism might be a derail even though it runs counter to Platonism — Gregory

Speaking of nominalist philosophy isn't a derail, trying to talk about the history of it is a derail. Those different issues.

If it's much older, prove they believe in Platonism? Matter is entirely provable. Punch yourself in the arm or pick up a chair — Gregory

No, matter is not provable. Qualities of experience are all that has ever been proved. You've decided ad hoc to call these qualities of experience "matter"

Matter is not a property, it is a substance. You are made of matter. It doesn't matter is messed up people also believe in nominalism. A healthy person can believe in it to. Are all Platonists perfect? — Gregory

Substances, natures, essences are universals. How can you not understand that?

Platonism, at least in it's classical formulation, I actually reject. I hold to the formulation that the Vedanta schools hold to.

That doesn't tell us what THEIR ancestors believed. Humanity is between 200, 000 and 300,000 years old — Gregory

That's also false. Modern science says humanity is 350,000 years old. More than that, you're just assuming modern science is true. Which is just an assertion. I would claim it's much older. Anyway, this is a derail.

I don't need to prove my position is the oldest to prove your position is only 700 years old with no antecedent.

How do you know that? — Gregory

Because we have historiographical studies of ancient societies, and as far as we can tell, the vast majority of human societies held to a form of Idealistic Panentheism. Mesoamerican socities, ancient European, Vedic, East Asian. Several.

No it doesn't. It just says that a tree and another tree don't share some quasi non-material nature in common. Its just a bunch of matter. And matter is real. Qualities might be outside or inside the mind, but even Kant realized we have to posit SOMETHING out there, because otherwise we have solipsism. Solipsism is absurd, so there world is not fantasy. This is clearly true (platonism is not)

It does totally. That's why Max Stirner, Nietzsche, Existentialists, Postmodernists and nihilists are honest and consistent nominalists.

EXACTLY. They share no properties in common. "Just matter" no dude, "matter" is a property. They don't share that property. You just said they share no inherent natural properties. Matter is property. You contradict yourself in the same sentence. And you're proving my point.

Matter is a quality of experience, you can't prove it is real. And quantum physicists can't even describe the mass, charge, spin, location, weight etc. of "matter" which is no different than it not really being there.

No, empirico-materialism leads to solipsism. According to Kant, and according to you, all that exists is reducible to sense perceptions (without anything linking them together due to Hume's problem of induction) and chemical combinations in the brain creating the illusion of "reality."

Your worldview leads to solipsism, my worldview says the world exists actually and truly. There are properties, natures, qualities, essences, natures that things truly actually have.

Nevertheless, this representation is closer to Nazareth or Palestine geography or ethnics. — javi2541997

Here's another point, Nazareth doesn't even seem to have existed during the time of Jesus. What's more, it doesn't even seem to be the case that he was from Nazareth. He wasn't called "Jesus of Nazareth" in the Bible, but "Jesus the Nazorean" and you can just look up the words in the text. Nazorean means something like a guru in modern contexts, it doesn't mean a particular place.

So this just adds to the mystery.

I was talking about child development - as I thought should have been clear. The cultural affectations that adults later see value in appropriating are irrelevant. — Isaac

That's also false. Children are believers in gods, angels, demons, entities like that, until society socially conditions them out of it.

That's been studied. And Idealism doesn't say "the world is all in my mind" it says the world is constituted of mental/spiritual/conscious stuff. It doesn't have to be in any particular person's mind.

It may be pointless for me to keep trying but: earnest summaries like 'there is no truth' are basically worthless to me. 'Words have no concrete meaning' is also, by itself, stupid. All one sentence pronouncements are stupid, including this one. — norm

I know, you're a nihilist. Everything is worthless to you. I understand that perfectly.

Yes it is. Neutrality is a position.

If I was debating whether we should put criminals in jail or not, being neutral is a position. It's not unbiased. Same with if we were debating whether the Earth is flat or not. Neutrality is a position.

It's only 700 years old. "Platonism" is as old as humans have been walking the Earth.

And I'm not arguing for Aristotle's metaphysics. I dont accept that.

As for "adult fantasies" the whole nominalist worldview would logically entail that all of reality is a fantasy. There are no actual qualities or properties things actually share, so they don't have properties or qualities. Which means everything you have ever seen heard or experienced is a mental illusion created by your brain. Nothing is real. If you think that makes sense, go for it.

How much is this going to cost me? Do you get a cut for every referral? — norm

The cost is discipline and time. And you're obviously not interested. Don't bother. You can stay in your post-truth worldview, and I have my worldview.

I am not a philosopher. I practice critical thinking with a philosophical bent. I'm not into labels. I have spelled out what I consider to be reliable and non reliable pathways to knowledge. I do privilege empiricism and methodological naturalism but I don't think we can be 100% certain of anything. To be called an anti foundational skeptic is thematically close, but way too grand and extreme. I am still working out what I am. Sorry if that sounds inadequate. — Tom Storm

Right. So that's exactly my point, you aren't even clear on what your own position is. So how can I answer your position if even you are not clear on it? This is just an unfair game you're playing at.

So I'm offering my system, and I'm asking you to tell me what's wrong with my system. You haven;t done that, you're just rejecting it for some unknown reason that you haven't explained yet.

Uh, I haven't seen it a single time. Are you an empiricist? You disagreed with my analysis of empiricism. You also disagreed with my analysis of rationalism.

So are you just an anti-Foundationalist Skeptic? I don't know at all where you're coming from.

I have no reason to accept that there is supreme consciousness - this needs to be demonstrated. The fact that Yoga means unification is understood, but so what? Sikh, for instance, means 'seeker of truth', is there evidence Sikhism has access to the truth? No. The notion that you have to do a proper Yoga system is exactly the kind of thing every cult, religion and belief system would maintain. How could they not? By what criteria do you tell genuine claims like this from phoney ones? — Tom Storm

That's fine, but I'm asking you, what do you consider genuine epistemology? You can't have this double standard where I have to provide my epistemology but you don't have to provide yours.

More than that, I don't really care if you accept my epistemology or not. It's what it is, if you reject it, that's up to you.

You have given me no useful information about method or experiment or even what it is that is being tested. Just claims. By the way, ancient people would have been correct in not accepting something until it can be demonstrated. The bit about raising hands and giving up is not really related and seems to be surplus, emotive dramatisation. Main point: once we can reliably test for it then we know it is likely to be true. — Tom Storm

Like I said, the demonstration is through the third form of epistemology, which is consciousness. Through consciousness, we can know the Supreme Consciousness. This is what yoga aims to do. Yoga in Sanskrit means "unification" with ourselves, then the Divine. You have to do the proper yoga system under the guidance of a proper guru, that's the experiment.

It's not unknowable. That's what I am saying. It's very knowable, you just need to do the experiment. What you're saying is like what people would argue about quantum particles and atoms in the ancient world. "We can't see them, we don't know they're there, they're unknowable, there's no known method to know about them, we have to raise our hands up and just give up!" This is the type of reasoning you're using. And I'm telling you the method.

So, I'm not going to respond to all of this, only parts.

The first part about Celsus: you have no way of knowing if Celsus had any sources for Jesus outside of the Gospels. If he didn;t, then there are no sources for Jesus.

Second: The Proto-Evangelium of James is usually dated much later than the 2nd century from my recollection. Usually 4th century or 3rd. Even so, we know from the study of Christian literature that the vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast majority of Christian literature was fabrication, forgery or outright falsification. There's no reason to think that the Protoevangelium is any different.

Third, there are no sources of Mary's existence prior to the Gospel of Matthew, and more important the Gospel of Luke. There is no Mary in the earliest Gospel, Mark, nor is Mary mentioned a single time in Paul's Epistles. So, Mary likewise, could've been a fabricated character by the Gospel writers.

Some people say yes, others say no. I personally think it isn't, but...

Modernity and Postmodernity are indefensible. Nihilism is a philosophically indefensible position.

Oh no, I understand everything your position says very well. Words have no concrete meaning, yes. Which means everything you say has no concrete meaning. That's the point. So, I guess you're just killing time?

For me the big issue turns out to be language, though that's not the perfect word. There isn't a perfect word, or that's what I roughly believe. What we want to say can't be said, that's what I almost want to say, but it's not quite right. Language is a public system, and it's more outside than inside. It's as much material as mental. It makes such questionable distinctions possible. Undecidable, but not decidedly undecidable. — norm

Language is socially constructed by humans. I think Daniel Everett in his book "Language: The Cultural Tool" has proved as much. I am not taken by language. I'm taken by the nature of the truth, if there is such a thing. If not, who cares there's no reason to waste my time here then. Philosophy is about truth, if there's no truth, then go home and play soccer or watch Friends.

There's a sense in which I agree with you, but it's a delicate issue. Language is tricky. Irony is complex. People often don't or even can't say exactly what they mean directly. Sometimes a joke tells the truth. Sometimes a paradox tells the truth. — norm

I know about Ironism, I think I own Rorty's "Contingency, Irony and Solidarity" that, or another work of his. I own one of his books.

Nevertheless, just because people who are professionals and experts in obscurantism, State and corporate propaganda and sophistry say something, this doesn't mean they are right, especially when they are debunked by their own presuppositions on this issue of truth, and it doesn't mean that they're worthy of consideration.

Yes, I recognize that. And by your own admission, there is no truth. Which means, again, by your own admission your position is not true.

I appreciate the perspective that the Postmodern philosophers, Nietzsche, Stirner, Rorty, Derrida, Foucault, Davidson, Putnam, Kuhn, Wittgenstein etc. etc. bring to the table. It's very consistent with nominalist presuppositions. I admire consistency. But I don't consider it philosophy.

I consider Premodern philosophy and Modern philosophy as philosophy.

Premodern is the higher, Modern is the lower. Since Premodernism alone attempts to get at Universals and Absolutes. Modernism admits it cannot and occupies itself with the particulars of experience via pragmatic scientism.