Reporting from Southeastern United States: Yes, clearly. Black people couldn't even eat lunch at the same place without a constitutional amendment. They turned that spot in my city into a civil rights museum. The complaints are due to the fear that civil rights will organize and reinvigorate an under served group of people.

In reply 5, you said I couldn't speak English, because what I showed you in reply 1 contradicts your position. — InPitzotl

This made my Friday worthwhile. Thank you.

Does your "theory" take into account the most recent discovery of a human species more closely related to humanity than Neanderthals? No, it was released today. Do you see the issue? Fact/Researched based evolution is always catching up with itself; but you presuppose an entire understanding of unknown information, then "deduce" the effects of a change to it. It can't be done under any logical framework. Did God effect evolution? Dunno, too many variables. Imposing an anthropic framework over a reverse inductive argument with the confidence of an eye surgeon denotes mistakes were made. Handle it.

I have made an argument apparently demonstrating beyond all doubt that our faculties are the product of design, not chance. And you think I need help? — Bartricks

Yes, and for this reason. cheers

Your analysis of my argument is wrong. — Bartricks

Your attempting a reductio ad absurdum against secular scientific evolution. Saying that if it was unguided, then it would be otherwise. Which supposes the effects of non-intervention on a theoretical human mind. I'd be more likely to just believe it out right than think anyone could correctly guess the outcomes of an evolutionary system sans divine intervention. So, if you are correct, your argument is impossible. I wish I could help.

I am curious though, as to what sort of evidence you think God has not seen the need to provide. Evidence of Creation, Guided Evolution or something else. — FreeEmotion

Until recently I was under the assumption God intended for us to have to claim to be atheist if we are honest. However, after seeing undeniable proof that I can't convey or attempt to defend, I think otherwise. I still think the atheist are honest, but I have a theistic belief I cannot defend, so it's irrational, but not less real to me.

but as far as I know I don't think the mods are going to mind this — BitconnectCarlos

The running debate is kind of keeping the thread alive, because most of the post don't necessitate a response. By all means keep rolling.

So answering the question, if time is real or not will be a game changer in how you will interpret evidence, truth and science. — SteveMinjares

It will also determine whether or not your GPS system works.

:cool:

I enjoy and agree with Popper's 3 worlds interpretation of metaphysics.

Think that's an end to this discussion. — Banno

Bell rings.

There is something fundamentally wrong with defining knowledge with the requirement that it must always be true. The only thing that is always true is a theoretical statement that corresponds exactly to the actual state of affairs. I believe we often make this theoretical statement, but we also fall short of it and produce an approximation that can be improved upon. To say these approximations that we work with everyday to model and test our reality are not knowledge; misinterprets the human condition and it's unmediated connection to the world.

Or not.
In addendum if "false knowledge" is incoherent because it changes the logical operation of 'true' then "true belief" is just as incoherent, because it removes the logical operator 'or'.

It's funny I read Popper first(20 years ago), so most philosophy has seemed very strange as a result. As much as he seems to want to dismiss a lot of it, I believe his intention was to make it useful. He was also the inspiration for the thread if it wasn't obvious.

There is no contradiction because a faculty and what it gives one an awareness of are distinct. For example, if my eyelids are sealed shut then I still have a faculty of sight, but it is now impotent to make me aware of anything. I have sight, but I am unable to see. — Bartricks

Thanks for directly addressing the matter. I found this defense of the premise to be much more coherent and informative.

I think what you are trying to say is evolution alone can not account for the ways in which humans think as there aren't environmental stresses that move an animal to paint a picture or write a song.

But like I say, this is pointless quibbling. — Bartricks

The value placed on a discussion is subjective I suppose. It may be pointless if you have a belief already established and this is an effort at rationalizing it.

I think you have something there; the majority of responses have been over usefulness. Interesting.

I don't understand your edit. My premise assumes no such thing. — Bartricks

After I reviewed the two I came to the same conclusion. It isn't entirely clear.

I defended it in the OP. You need to address the argument I gave in support of it. — Bartricks

The rant about clouds and pie? Yeah, lets say I'm missing the correct tools to really give that it's proper treatment. I'm going to address the words in the premise only, because that's how a premise works.

If our faculties of awareness are wholly the product of unguided evolutionary forces, then they do not give us an awareness of anything.

Now, at first glance this appears like a contradiction. If we have awareness by way of X we do not have awareness. The reason is because of the contradiction. We can not both have awareness and not have awareness.

My understanding is that when you need a decision to be supported by a moral theory you just utter the phrase "because of social contract theory" and no one asks any questions. What it lacks in rigor it makes up for in raw efficiency. But, at some cost I imagine.

I thought I addressed your first premise verbatim. And noted that it was false. I edited it for added clarity.

Is that too much to ask for? — creativesoul

I figured throw a wide net and look for any common threads. It seems a few people changed their metaphysical frameworks. One nearly escaped nihilism. The open prompt was more of a challenge to the philosopher in general. If you haven't corrected a mistake in a while; then maybe there's one to look for.....I would be interested to participate in your revision.

If you look at the theory of evolution, the theories of origin of life, and the theory of the origin of the universe, there is simply no room for God's action there, there are no gaps for God to act. Do you agree? In which case it is impossible to see how any 'harmonization' could be done rationally. It is not that God is unnecessary, it is necessary that there is no God. — FreeEmotion

Rather, I can suppose there is a God of some type that prefers not to be identified with physical evidence. The trouble we have now with everyone who thinks they know what God wants is bad enough. Logically, if God wanted to tell you something then God could? So, if you don't have evidence it is because God hasn't seen the need to provide any.

Lots of people suffer including myself that does not justify claiming you are the opposite sex or having multiple invasive surgeries and a life time on hormones and other meds.

Why is the only route to eliminating suffering, body modification and making people pretend you are the opposite sex, allowing men to compete against women in sports when they have obvious biological advances. Why the need to groom other people and society because of ones own gender crisis? It is all unreasonable solutions. — Andrew4Handel

It's the same reason you ask some one their name; instead of give them one. You aren't really in a position to say what is justified to alleviate other people's suffering. You treat people like the gender they appear to be all day long. It takes zero effort on your part to allow some else to live their life the way they choose. Have you ever spoken with or known anyone that's transgender? If your only knowledge is the adverse reaction to their personal medical needs, then your over looking quite a bit.

What if I don't approve of your lifestyle? What right do I have to judge it?

or perhaps unsupported is a better word, and that evidence is valid, even though it is circumstantial. Of course, support for sub-claims does not prove the principle claim that is being made: for example, if is not possible to prove the existence of God, beyond all reasonable doubt, one could easily argue for a sub-claim convincingly: Taking God's existence as a given, then either God created the universe of the universe created God, it follows that the former inference is logical one. — FreeEmotion

Well, you are demonstrating my point to a degree. We start talking of evidence and it moves to an "unsupported claim". Taking the existence of unicorns for granted I can tell you that they eat twice a day. It doesn't really follow, but I think it's more important that people be ok with that; otherwise their beliefs hang on some tenuous evidence. I can't really prove that it matters that I do the right thing when no ones looking, but I believe it.

I want to address your comment "When they say they can prove their faith is true" - this is one branch of something have encountered recently, under the God-Aweful name of 'Apologetics'. — FreeEmotion

Actually, that was Greg. I would have qualified it differently. My point was not to play both sides. If it's simply an irrational belief, then leave it there. Generally my position is that it's more important to be honest than convincing when it comes to religion.

I don't know what you mean. Someone believing they are born in the wrong body is having their suffering caused by a delusion and it is possible to make someone think they were born in the wrong body by lying and endorsing this ideology rather than telling them no it is not possible. — Andrew4Handel

You don't really know what that suffering is like, but it seems to be a serious matter so why not show some humanity and let them do what they need to do. I don't have any interest in your evidence.

Gender critical conversation like mine is a minority conversation, gender ideology and trans ideology is pushed at us left right and centre and is well funded infiltrating public schools, big business, twitter, reddit and so on. The world revolves around it now, making people declare their pronouns and respect hundreds of fantasy gender identities, censoring people, calling the police and firing people from jobs. — Andrew4Handel

How do you explain the lack of a threat it poses to other people? No one is trying to change your gender against your will I hope.

I would appreciate it if you could give me examples of the 'evidence' the Creationists in question are presenting. — FreeEmotion

I was thinking more just in principle; if a position is going to lean on an irrational belief then evidence supporting it doesn't seem to have any purpose other than to retract an acknowledgement of an irrational position. Off the top of my head; I think there have been people that try to add up consecutive lifetimes to arrive at a number. I think they have located the garden of Eden and the ark a few times. Flat earth seems to ride on an unspoken purpose of being evidence for creationist. Then, denial of fossils and other indicators as tests of faith. I believe a few irrational things, but I wouldn't consider trying to prove them or assert their implications.

Interesting. Thank you.

Ok

Yep. That's why there's a "T" in JTB. — Banno

IIF a belief can be true or false, then a true belief is not a belief, because a belief can be true or false.

But go ahead and see if you can articulate exactly what the issue is. Here's the JTB account: A statement counts as knowledge if and only if it is justified, true and believed.

Tell us exactly what you see as the problem. — Banno

A belief can be true or false
Knowledge is a belief
Knowledge can only be true

I couldn't figure out how to apply the account. I'll look again and repost there. Thanks.

Thanks for the responses. Very interesting.

That must be a worry for you. You've previously shown some confusion about JTB accounts, which don't admit of degrees. One cannot know things that are not true; althogh one might believe them. — Banno

It is certainly interesting. Considering there are literal pieces of paper called degrees which denote a level of knowledge. If the JTB is a conceptual scheme that misrepresents the world then it contradicts your assertion below.

Our language is in direct unmediated contact with the world, and not separated from it by some conceptual scheme. — Banno

One of these concepts doesn't fit well. It's odd to find such a glaring hole in the JTB schema while not really looking for one.

As for being irrational, what can I say? If a person believes irrationally that miracles happen, then they could believe that any number of miracles could have happened. The initial belief may be irrational, i.e. belief in miracles, I accept that person would be guilty as charged but you can only charge them once. — FreeEmotion

You can charge them again if they start presenting you with evidence as if they had a rational belief. An irrational belief doesn't require evidence. It's unnecessary and at worst distracting to the people looking for rational based understandings.

Done properly, one's awareness of vast ignorance keeps the tendency toward intellectual narcissism at bay.

How is it possible.

It isn't from a scientific perspective. How has it become so accepted as a concept? — Andrew4Handel

I think it's related to the degree of suffering that is caused by the mismatch and the seriousness in regards to what people will do to over come it; relative to the almost non-existent burden it places on society. Not accepting it means my comfort level with your internal state is more important than the suffering caused by it. Which is selfish to the point of evil.

Being distances itself from itself in ways that create myriad, unique, fleeting perspectives from which to experience itself, and each person is one of these perspectives. — charles ferraro

I would add we also give meaning to what we see based on the fleeting perspectives which adds a metaphysical dimension that wouldn't otherwise exist.

What about: philosophy is a word we give to a kind of thinking distinguished by the questions being asked. Those questions are perennial ones, showing up in all ancient writings -- what is life, death, a human being, existence, love, justice, meaning, happiness, "goodness," etc. — Xtrix

This would better fit the second half of my definition.

Or an El Dorado like search for truth with an emotional purpose. — Cheshire

1. If our faculties of awareness are wholly the product of unguided evolutionary forces, then they do not give us an awareness of anything
2. Our faculties of awareness do provide us with some awareness of something
3. Therefore our faculties of awareness are not wholly the product of unguided evolutionary forces — Bartricks

1. The environment we develop in and our education effect awareness.
2. Hence the word awareness.
3. I see what you did there.

This is an either/or false choice fallacy. Interesting strategy.
Edit: The first premise suggest there is a choice between unguided evolution and nothing else that would steer an individuals awareness. I believe this over looks the agency of people that influence an individual during development.

The Psychiatry Paradox: Psychiatric illnesses are inorganic (software) in nature but the therapy is organic (hardware) in nature. — TheMadFool

Not entirely true, Schema Therapy, Talk Therapy, CBT, and arguably studies with psychedelic's show a way to rewrite the software by gaining chemical induced access. However, it is true and debated that in some cases the short term goal of stability is being over favored against a long term goal of resolution.

Philosophy is the development of self-aware thought and it's communication; with the presupposition that logical continuity validates an idea. Or an El Dorado like search for truth with an emotional purpose.

Our language is in direct unmediated contact with the world, and not separated from it by some conceptual scheme. — Banno

Then how is it possible that some people know things better than others and yet all knowledge is equally true by standing definition. Seems we would have to be wrong in order to improve knowledge.