FWIW, my "search for truth" was never emotionally motivated (e.g. to find a warm & welcoming religious community to replace the ultra-conservative clique I was born into)*1. Instead, it was simply a dispassionate (agape) love of Wisdom (i.e. philosophy).Thanks for sharing. All I can respond is keep searching for truth. I'll do the same. If one of the religions is true and can be found, then philosophy, being the search for truth, will sooner or later find it. — A Christian Philosophy
No - I believe this topic is purely theological, that is, it can only be derived based on divine revelations. That said, the philosopher may be able to uncover other christian claims (e.g. the golden rule of ethics) and eventually conclude that the bible is a trustworthy source. I explain this in my video #3. If interested, you can search for the following title in YouTube (the forum moderators don't like me posting my video links):so you think you can deduce transubstantiation from the cogito? — Banno
The two are not incompatible. You may act as a christian, and one the side, search for truth starting from scratch. In fact, the christian is encouraged to search for truth. "Seek and you shall find".But a faithful Christian starts of with the truth. So the philosophy must be disingenuous. — Banno
Well that depends on their arguments.Some philosopher's would already say that Christianity has been found inadequate: case closed. — Tom Storm
The christian claims: e.g. that God exists; that Christ is God; that man has a soul; that good and evil are objective; etc.What would it mean to say Christianity is true? Is this a philosophical question or a historical/scientific one? Which version of Christianity would you want tested in this way? — Tom Storm
I'll try. Topics may be one of the following three: (1) rationally verifiable (using reason alone), (2) empirically verifiable (observable or detectable), or (3) not verifiable at all.I don't understand what you're saying. :blush: Can you elaborate...please? — Agent Smith
To clarify, I am not questioning the validity of the scientific method - it's a correct method. But my point is that the scientific method (which validates by empirical verification) cannot be validated by empirical verification, because it is circular. X cannot be used to prove x. And to claim that "it works" is to say that the scientific method has been verified empirically to work.Sure it can be defended – it works. — 180 Proof
The christian claims: e.g. that God exists; that Christ is God; that man has a soul; that good and evil are objective; etc. — A Christian Philosophy
It is simple induction (or sometimes called abduction): inference to the most reasonable or probable explanation. E.g. We do not know with certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow, yet it is very reasonable given our experience of the world up to now.
Keep in mind you could always remain agnostic. But let's say we had to choose. Then we should assume that the unverifiable claim is true, because the fact that there is a precedence for truth and not falsehood is a sufficient reason to tip the scale.
But also, the argument gets stronger with more verifiable claims; which better represents the case for the Christian claims. — A Christian Philosophy
If we demonstrate that the black cat is real, then we should believe it is real. What does it matter that we have "already found it" beforehand?I don't see the point of your searching for a black cat you have already found. — Banno
I don't believe this distinction works. Propositions refer to things; things such as the scientific method. In other words, "the scientific method is a valid method" is a proposition that can be verified."Verification" applies to propositions (i.e. claims) As I've pointed out, "the scientific method" is a an archive of procedural practices of unparalleled fecundity and not a proposition. — 180 Proof
I understand that. But the original point was that a method cannot be used to defend itself. As an example, imagine someone who rejects the validity of the scientific method on the premise that observations are not valid evidence (e.g. they are false perceptions). You could not defend the scientific method by pointing to phenomena or other observations, since he does not believe that observations are valid evidence.To say the scientific method works simply means it has produced many (scientific) theories that do a good job of a) explaining phenomena and b) predicting phenomena, whatever these phenomena are. — Agent Smith
That one in particular seems odd to me. "Christian" has the word "Christ" in it haha. The others you have listed may indeed be disputed. That's fine; I think what I have listed originally is at the core of all Christian branches. If philosophy validates these claims, Christianity is off to a good start.I've met many Christians who do not think Christ was identical to God. — Tom Storm
I understand that. But the original point was that a method cannot be used to defend itself. As an example, imagine someone who rejects the validity of the scientific method on the premise that observations are not valid evidence (e.g. they are false perceptions). You could not defend the scientific method by pointing to phenomena or other observations, since he does not believe that observations are valid evidence. — A Christian Philosophy
Sure it can be defended – it works. — 180 Proof
But my point is that the scientific method (which validates by empirical verification) cannot be validated by empirical verification, because it is circular. X cannot be used to prove x. And to claim that "it works" is to say that the scientific method has been verified empirically to work. — A Christian Philosophy
.Science works. — jorndoe
The scientific method can be used to create useful technologies.
Is that what you mean? — Yohan
I don't believe I do. What do you have in mind?
— A Christian Philosophy
Huh? — Agent Smith
But I think we are passed that now :blush:. We can just focus on the other conversation.Danke for the explanation. Do you see any connection between 1 & 3? — Agent Smith
I agree, and that's because there is empirical evidence that it works. I'll wait and see where you are going with this, but I worry we will run into circular reasoning again.do you agree that by works, we mean that insofar as the scientific method is at stake we can explain & predict phenomena amazingly accurately? — Agent Smith
Could you show me where in my statements I am moving the goalpost?You're moving the goalposts. — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.