*6. The Big Bang Theory stands as the most widely accepted explanation for the origin of the universe. — Gnomon

But it cannot explain the origin of existence of the Earth and life, can it?

this distinction between ‘I know’ as epistemological and ‘I know’ as hinge conviction, — Joshs

There are different types of "I know". I think I know, I feel I know, I believe I know, I am sure I know. I know I know. IOW, "I know" always comes with the hidden label in the front.

In my opinion, our earthly powers of logic and reason are insufficient to answer such a question. — an-salad

The big-bang theory must have had been inferred from the observations on the other galaxies with their old stars dying with the explosion, then the new stars being born. What intrigues me more is the existence of our solar system, and especially on the existence of the Earth with all the elements which make life possible. The Earth is a unique star in the universe so far, with all the lives and eco systems fragile they may be.

Phenomenological means in my opinion that phenomenons are directly observable (possibly with the help of equipment). Fundamental reveals that there are underlying - not directly observable - causes. — Ypan1944

Excellent explanation. :up:

Thanks for the references. I don't need them though since I know what I mean by coherence. — MoK

When someone is pointing out on the the possible misuse or unclarity of the concept in use, they are not necessarily seeking for help. They were looking for your opinion on the point supported by reasoning and evidence. But your replies seem lacking the rational explanations, and trying to rely on the pointless denials and even making up as if the questioner was needing help.

Sure, you can use the concept under whatever definition you set up, but it would sound too subjective and unclear which lacks objectivity in the meaning.

Anyhow as said, I have exited from this thread, so will not be progressing any further in this thread.

Refer to
1) The Oxford Companion To Philosophy Edited by Ted Honderich
2) Philosophical Logic by Sylbil Wolfram

for coherence concepts. Bye~~

You need to read this post to understand the concept of coherence.
Anyhow, I am stalked by the emotionally motivated poster here, so I am not going to contribute anymore points in this thread. All the best & good luck.

OK, it is up to you, whether accept it or not. Just pointed out the unclear use of the concept "coherence". Carry on~ :)

That's not what "coherent" means at all. That's just a bidirectional implication. — flannel jesus

You need to read some basic philosophical logic books.

I asked for examples. — MoK

Please refer to the book on "coherence theory of truth" by by Cybil Wolfram, Philosophical Logic (London 1989)

Could you give an example of something coherent or incoherent? — MoK

I have already given you a clear explanation on coherence here.

Huh? — MoK

Your way of argument is just keep denying everything blindly. You don't accept or see the rational points.

Why don't you ask people for help? — MoK

I don't need help. You do need help. :D

I mean if X, my cup of tea has a location, is the case that only X is the case and Y, Z, etc. which refer to my cup of tea having other locations are not the case. — MoK

Your seeing a cup in a location is a subjective visual experience. It has no truth value. It is just a perception. When you make up a statement "I see a cup.", it can be true or false, depending on the fact there is someone else witnessing the cup, heard your statement and agreeing with your statement. It is only true on that instance. Otherwise, it is a meaningless self talk or monologue, with no value of truth or falsity.

In contrast, a statement such as "A bachelor is an unmarried man." or "1+1=2" has truth value with no need for anyone witnessing or agreeing.

What else could "magic" be anyway? — Quk

Magic is the created illusion. As long as the illusion exists, magic exists.

I don't think that I am distorting the facts. — MoK

Just keep denying blindly whatever has been countered, forwarded or pointed out, is not philosophical argument.

People apparently understand what I mean by the coherence in the experience so I don't think that I am using the concept wrongly. — MoK

So whatever the majority believes is the truth? :roll:

Not sure if your account on coherence is correct or not. My understanding of coherence is that when P is true, Q cannot be untrue, and vice versa. In this relation, P and Q are coherent.
— Corvus
No, I don't mean that. — MoK

That's what I read from the philosophical text books. Not making it up from the thin air.
Clarification on the concepts is part of the philosophical investigation and analysis.

You are the only person who is trapped in P1. Other people understood P1 and asked other questions. To be honest I don't know how I can help you. Perhaps others can help you. — MoK

I wasn't asking for help. You seem to be distorting the facts.
I was just pointing out on the wrong use of the concepts. Because of the misconception and misunderstanding of the concept in P1, the rest of the arguments seem to be unclear and muddled.

By coherent I mean that our experiences when we are awake are consistent. — MoK

Not sure if your account on coherence is correct or not. My understanding of coherence is that when P is true, Q cannot be untrue, and vice versa. In this relation, P and Q are coherent.

From the point of view, your use of coherence seems to be wrong, and misleading, which directed you to the misunderstanding.

Personal experience can be a solid ground to conclude that the experience is coherent. Our experiences when we are dreaming are mostly incoherent while they are always coherent when we are awake. — MoK

What do you mean by "coherent"? Can you explain "coherence" and "being coherent"?

Here, I am not talking about the cup of tea but my experience of the cup of tea only. — MoK

Psychological state or personal experience cannot be ground for objective knowledge.

The private experience is an objective ground for coherence. We don't have any other tools except our private experience anyway! — MoK

That is an idea of absolute idealist and solipsism. Problem with these ideas is that they cannot appeal to or share objective knowledge.

Can you give me an example of something you experienced in the past that was an illusion? — MoK

Illusions are possibility in daily life of humans. Your seeing a cup in a location could have been an illusion. There is no proof you were seeing a cup.

We couldn't possibly live in a reality that is not coherent. — MoK

The point is not about living in a reality, but the fact that private experience is not objective ground for coherence.

We couldn't possibly depend on our experiences if what we experience is a mere illusion. — MoK

Again, not the whole experience is illusion, but there are parts of experience which could be illusion.

Of course, your computer is coherent. Yet get on the screen what you type on the keyboard for example. — MoK

Ideas and thoughts could be coherent. Rains, snows, sky, horses, birds, phones, computers and keyboards are not coherent.

None of these. Something is coherent when it is consistent. — MoK

I don't need to prove it. It is a brute fact. — MoK

Seeing a cup in a location is your private perception. It lacks objective ground for anything being coherent.

But beliefs and thoughts could be incoherent. That is why I want to exclude them from the discussion. — MoK

It makes more crucial and important part of your experience is excluded from your premise, while relying on your personal subjective seeing a cup as ground for your belief on the contents of your experience being coherent. There is always possibility what you are seeing could be illusions.

Of course, your computer is coherent. Yet get on the screen what you type on the keyboard for example. — MoK

Computer screen and keyboard either work or don't work. No one describes computer screen and keyboard are coherent.

Isn't the Moon, something that has a diameter of 3,475 km, outside the mind? — RussellA

It exists in the physical world with no relation to the mind. However, when you perceive it, it appears in your mind. It doesn't exist in your mind. Your mind just sees it. Seeing is not existing itself.

How could we ever know such a thing? — RussellA

From reasoning and inference.

The Idealism of Berkeley doesn't think that anything physical exists outside the mind. — RussellA

Mind doesn't have outside or inside. Whatever appears in mind must exist, if they could be observed and verified as existing.

It makes perfect sense. — MoK

When something is coherent, it is meaningful. demonstrable, provable and verifiable. Can you prove your seeing a cup is coherent?

I am not talking about people's beliefs and thoughts. — MoK

Beliefs and thoughts of people are part of the world which you experience in daily life.

I am not talking about dreams here but our experiences when awake. Dreams are an example of incoherent experiences though so it should make sense to you when I speak about coherence in our experiences when we are awake. — MoK

Dreams are experience. Dreams don't exist outside of your experience.

Then consider your computer. Is your experience of your computer coherent? — MoK

Computers are tools for information storage, retrieval and searches for information. They are also communication tools. They are not coherent or incoherent.

I am talking about my experience to be coherent only. — MoK

The argument is too limited and unclear, but most of all misleading in its content and points. You need to clarify all the above points before progressing into P2 and C2.

how can the Universe exist without there being anything external to it? — RussellA

It follows that the universe has the external somewhere.

I am part of the world and the Moon is part of the world, but the Moon is external to me. — RussellA

But how can the internal exist without the external? Does your skin exist? Your skin is external to you.

I have the thought that nothing exists in the external world
Does it follow that I don't exist? — RussellA

Yes, it does. If nothing exists, then you cannot exist.

I have the thought that nothing exists in the external world
Does it follow that I don't exist?
No, because if I have a thought then I must exist. — RussellA

If you think that nothing exists in the external world, how your having a thought proves you must exist?
Surely you are a part of the world. No?

I already elaborated on the coherence in reality when I discussed my cup of tea here. — MoK

It does not make sense to say, your seeing a cup with a set of properties in a location is  the ground for the experience being coherent.  You are bound to have plenty of other experiences that are incoherent such as what other people feel, believe and think in their minds, and how they will act, decide or behave in the future etc etc.  You won't quite be sure why you dreamt what you dreamt in your sleep, and you won't know what you will see in your dreams in the future etc etc.

Another problem is just saying, your seeing a cup in front of you, cannot be the object ground for your experience being coherent, because no one knows what you are seeing or perceiving in your mind just by listening to your statement or claim on what you were seeing.

There is also possibility that what you were seeing was an illusion, not real perception too.

The object is a substance that is perceived by the mind. Please see the last comment. — MoK

It would be far more clear to say, body, mind or object than substance, because substance can mean many other things, and it doesn't not directly denote or refer to any particular objects. It is an obscure word which has wide scope on its meaning from ancient times.

I think that most physical theories are phenomenological and very few fundamental. — Ypan1944

I agree. There are no such things as gravity, but only the phenomenon that things fall down to the ground from the air when released. From the observations of the phenomenon, they named the phenomena as gravity.

As I said, the reason can be right or wrong, so it is not a good example for our discussion. — MoK

Reason is not just for right or wrong. It is the general faculty for all knowledge.

The rest of our experiences are, however, coherent. — MoK

How do you know they are coherent? What is the ground for your experience being coherent?

A substance is something that exists and has a set of properties. — MoK

Is Mok a substance? He exists and has a set of properties.

The object is not in my experience. — MoK

Where is the objects then? What does the object denote in actuality?

Because it is needed for the sake of discussion. — MoK

Substance is an abstract concept which has no reference, hence it sounds vague and ambiguous. Not a good word to use for the discussion.

I hope it is clear by now. — MoK

Not quite.

"I think therefore I am" is the first principle of Descartes philosophy. — RussellA

"I think therefore I am" is not an affirmation, but inference. He was still doubting his own existence, and the possibility that he thinks. But his doubt on it couldn't be doubted.

I think X implies I am doubting. For instance, I think God exists, I think there are ghosts, I think the world will end soon, I think I am thinking .... etc are all implications of doubting.

Why are our thoughts different from our senses in that the content of thoughts cannot be doubted? — Kranky

You can doubt anything, but the fact that you are doubting cannot be doubted, hence the only certainty in the universe. Wasn't it the idea of Cartesianism?

What I am interested in is reality as we experience it. — MoK

In that case, it is nothing to do with coherence. You cannot claim coherence from experience when you are not interested in right or wrong. Something is coherent if it makes sense. Making sense is possible when something is reasonable.

I don't have direct access to the substance, the object here. I am arguing in favor of it. I have direct access to my experiences only. — MoK

What is the substance? Would it be objects in your experience? Why use the word substance? The word substance is not clear in the context.

This coherence cannot be due to the experience itself — MoK

The coherence must be from our reasoning.

If we accept these two, then we realize that there must be a substance that the experience is due — MoK

What is the substance in your experience? We don't see or know anything about a substance in our experience. We know about the content of experience, not a substance.

I said: "Which premises, P1 or P2, do you have a problem with?". I was referring to the premises rather than you. — MoK

You should have said "Which premises are problematic?" rather than "P1 or P2, do you have a problem with?" Your sentence was then not communicating your original intention or idea.

1) Our experiences are coherent, — MoK

Our experience is not always coherent. Some are, and some are not. So, it is already unclear from the start.