I don't believe I do. What do you have in mind?

I don't see the point of your searching for a black cat you have already found. — Banno

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?

Sure it can be defended – it works. — 180 Proof

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.

I don't understand what you're saying. :blush: Can you elaborate...please? — Agent Smith

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.

Example of (1): "Nothing is true" is a self-contradiction, therefore "Some things are true" is necessarily true. This is verified without the need for empirical evidence.
Example of (2): "Whether there is methane on Mars". Best to go and collect empirical evidence.
Example of (3): "Whether there exist beings which we cannot detect or interact with in any ways". This seems unverifiable either rationally or empirically, and thus it is superfluous.

Scientism believes in (2) and correctly rejects (3), but omits (1).

Hello.

Some philosopher's would already say that Christianity has been found inadequate: case closed. — Tom Storm

Well that depends on their arguments.

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

The christian claims: e.g. that God exists; that Christ is God; that man has a soul; that good and evil are objective; etc.

so you think you can deduce transubstantiation from the cogito? — Banno

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):

Philosophy vs Theology | A Christian Philosophy - Part #3

But a faithful Christian starts of with the truth. So the philosophy must be disingenuous. — 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".

By the way, that was a good joke.

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.

Actually it isn't reasonable. X, Y and Z each stand or fall on their own accord. Since they are unverified, at best all that anyone can reasonably say about any one of them, is that it might possibly be true. Neither the number of verified claims, nor the number of unverified claims is relevant. — ThinkOfOne

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.

Let's say a given source only makes two claims. One verifiable. The other unverifiable. The verifiable claim is verified to be true. According to your argument, if the verifiable claim is verified to be true, then it is reasonable to infer that the unverifiable claim is also true. — ThinkOfOne

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.

It's justification lies in the fact that its rejection would be problematic in terms of claims that are unverifiable which simply means propositions whose truth value can't be ascertained at all. — Agent Smith

Just because some topics are not empirically verifiable, does not mean they are not verifiable or defendable by reason alone. E.g. the scientific method cannot be defended empirically (that would be circular) but it is defended by epistemology, which is a rational science.

Hello.
Indeed, philosophy is inherently critical of everything: christianity, atheism, and everything else.
That said, even if someone is biased (e.g. they subscribe to a particular religion), they can still arrive at truth, because valid arguments are valid regardless of intents.

But here is a better way to look at all this:
Philosophy is the search for truth; thus if Christianity is in fact true, then philosophy will find Christianity. And if Christianity is not true, then philosophy will find that too.

Sorry, which part?

Hello.

Just because A, B, C are true, it does not reasonably follow that X, Y and Z are necessarily true. — ThinkOfOne

It does not necessarily follow, but it it reasonable. I explain this argument in the video Part #4 haha.
But I'll give you the summary here.

If all A's we can observe are B, then it is reasonable to infer that "all A's are B", because the other possible explanation, "some A's are B and some are not", fails Occam's Razor. And if all A's are B, then the A's we cannot observe are also B.
E.g. If all swans we have observed so far are white, it is reasonable to infer that all swans are white, and we expect the next swan to be white.

Here is a closer example to the argument in the video: Suppose a fortuneteller claims he can predict what will happen to you tomorrow. He claims A (something that is not reasonably foreseeable) will happen, and indeed, A does happen the next day. Then he does it again, and again for 100 days in a row. Is it not reasonable to believe his next prediction?

Sounds like a good approach to me. If you already accept a being that is the First Cause, then here is a simple argument to tie it to the God of the bible:

Due to the Principle of Sufficient Reason, since nothing comes from nothing, then the First Cause must have necessary existence. In other words, its identity is existence.
Exodus 3:14: God's name is "I AM". I = my identity; AM = being or existence.

I'd never observed a single "christian" who'd come close to living as Jesus had lived. — 180 Proof

We should make a distinction between Christianity and the christians. No doubt, some christians are bad christians; but this does not suggest that Christianity is false; inasmuch as bad mathematicians don't make mathematics a false science.

at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. — 180 Proof

Being a Christian is easy in theory: It is all derived from the two great commandments (Matthew 22:36-40).
1. Love God: Admittedly this one is hard without the instructions of theologians, but generally means go to church, pray, some sacraments, etc.
2. Love your neighbour as yourself: follow the Golden Rule of ethics. Note that many people - not just christians - do this one; which means that many people are at least 50% christian.

Indeed, ideally, seeking truth should be for the sake of the good; i.e., we should only care about topics that will affect our lives. I think some philosophical topics fit that, but I agree that some don't.

Thanks for the feedback. I thought I did, at time 1:32, but I can try to emphasize it more going forward.

Maybe I'm still too hopeful and naive, but I'd say we could find the true religion in the same way we find any truths, and debunk false religions in the same way we debunk any errors:

False religions will have contradictions or will be unreasonable, e.g., fail Occam's Razor.
The true religion will have no contradictions and will be reasonable, i.e., arguments may not give certainty but at least reasonableness.

This is how religion works. I like how you described that New Testament or Quran are their "starting point of reasoning." — javi2541997

What you describe here is Theology: the search for conclusions under the starting point of some divine revelations.

A christian philosophy would be the search for truth under the starting point of reason and observations of the natural world (like any other philosophy), and then attempt to uncover the same conclusions as the christian theology. This is explained in my video Part #3 (I will not put the link because I think the moderators of the forum don't like this).

When philosophy asks "What exists" or "What's real", that encompasses all that could be asked of philosophy. [...] If objective, it [morality] exists independent of how we view it, we just need to discover it. — L'éléphant

Agreed. Since values drive our behaviours, then any values that exist objectively will dictate how we should behave.

Understood. So in your view, a philosophy would be the early stage of a science, like a fetus becoming a newborn.

In a nutshell, I think philosophy is “universal phenomenological ontology” and is distinguished from general thinking by its questions— the question of all questions grounded in “What is being?” — Xtrix

Ontology - the science of being - is definitely part of philosophy. But other sciences traditionally fit under philosophy as well, such as Ethics - the science of (truly) right conduct.

The initial conception of truth was a kind of uncovering, de-concealing, or disclosure in the early Greek period — not the correspondence type view we see today of a subject accurately describing an external object. — Xtrix

The correspondence theory is often traced back to Aristotle’s well-known definition of truth (Metaphysics 1011b25): “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true”—but virtually identical formulations can be found in Plato (Cratylus 385b2, Sophist 263b). — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Hello.

Philosophy is positing what exists and/or what is real. If we get this right, then nothing else should be confusing. — L'éléphant

Yep. Truth means correspondance to reality. Thus your definition is very similar.

On another note, I confirm that since your name corresponds to your profile pic, you are in fact positing what is real. :up:

Hello, and thank you for the feedback. Yeah - I agree that a lot of people believe in a religion because of emotions and not reason. That said, I also think the right religion can be found by reason.

The latter. The fact that scientific results are obviously true (e.g. we all take planes) shows that the scientific methods are correct, and thus so are their foundations. If a tower stands, it means its foundation is well built.

Admittedly, it is not certain because everything I ever observe could be a dream, but it is very reasonable. At the end of the day, we all behave as though what we observe is real.

Hello. I agree that questioning definitions would be a rational and not empirical science, because we cannot test what we cannot yet define. However, I'd say philosophy is more than that. E.g. ethics seeks correct behaviour, and not merely definitions.

Hello.

Aristotle on Nichomachean Ethics proposed that one of the aim of wisdom was happiness. — javi2541997

Yes, I agree with that. We all seek what we believe to be good; and in order to find what is truly good, we must seek what is true. Philosophy is the search for truth, and this search is for the end of the true good.

Hello. I agree with you. To clarify, empirical science does not mean observation without reason. It means reason with observation; in contrast to rational science which means reason without observation.

Hello. What would you say is the goal of philosophy?

Philosophy means "love of wisdom", and wisdom means "conforming our beliefs to reality (i.e. true beliefs) and our behaviour to reality (i.e. right behaviour)".

Hello.

metaphysical statements are not propositions but rather presuppositions. They are underlying assumptions which people are not generally aware of that underpin our understanding of reality and knowledge, including science. — T Clark

Yes - I think this is similar to what we call axioms or first principles. Metaphysics is sometimes called "first philosophy".

If we ignore or deny the fact that metaphysics and epistemology provide the foundation for science, the argument might convince scientists they can be truly objective. — T Clark

Indeed, first principles are the foundation for all our knowledge, including science; and by definition, they cannot be defended. However, by mere common sense, are they not obviously true? At the end of the day, planes fly.

Hello. I pretty much agree with you definitions.

Science, being empirical, must be testable.
Philosophy: I also agree with the habit aspect. Wisdom (the "sophy" part of philosophy) is not just the right beliefs but also the right behaviour that follows.

Hello.

is metaphysics really "the science of reality"? I think it would be study of what is outside our objective experience, thinking about the fundamental nature of reality. Not something that we can experiment with. Hence the word meta in front of physics. — ssu

Yes - that's what I meant in shorthand: the science of fundamentals of reality.

Many people think of science as something where you can apply the scientific method, basically something that is experimental. Hence the difference what you mean by emprical and rational sciences ought to be discussed as many understand the scientific method to be empirical. — ssu

This is indeed the modern meaning of "science", i.e. 17th century and onwards. But the word was used before in a broader sense. E.g. Aristotle used it as any topic that pertains to truth.

For your statements to be valid, we have to accept the possibility of a reality outside of logic. But I don't accept this premise, because logic dictates what can exist in any possible world; and anything that does not follow logic does not exist in any possible world.

A horse exists in the actual world.
A horse with a horn, i.e. unicorn, exists in a possible world.
A horse with a horn and not a horn at the same time does not exist in any possible world.
A god who can do x and not x at the same time does not exist in any possible world.

Do you agree that it is actual nonsense - an actual contradiction - to maintain that of two people, the one with less power is the more powerful? — Bartricks

Yes.

Do you agree that a person who is not bound by logic is more powerful than one who is? — Bartricks

No - not if the idea of "not bound by logic" is itself nonsense. If the concept of logic is in fact the way I understand it, then the question is equivalent to asking "Do you agree that a person who is capable of [insert nonsense, meaningless noise] is more powerful than one who is not?"


Here is a quick explanation of what logic is, which may help to confirm we have somewhat the same idea about it. https://youtu.be/a-PZP_5DPK4?t=221
(Really it's about deduction but logic in metaphysics is equivalent to deduction in epistemology).

I don't think it is possible to go beyond or change the laws of logic when the concept is properly understood. As an analogy, one that doesn't understand the concept of pressure may think it is possible to have negative absolute pressure, but properly understood, we know it is not possible.

The laws of logic are not like the laws of physics which are what they are but could have been otherwise. As you say, anything that is not logical is nonsense. But even an omnipotent being cannot do nonsense, not because they are limited, but because nonsense is simply meaningless. To say that God can create a rock that he cannot lift is as meaningless as saying that God can "afgnzx", where the term "afgnzx" is meaningless.

If you maintain that God is able to do all things that logic permits, but not those things that logic does not permit, then God is constrained by logic and thus not omnipotent - which is a contradiction. — Bartricks

Sure. But in catholicism, the term omnipotence is meant in this sense: The ability to do anything that is logically possible. With that definition, there is no contradiction. Now if this is not how the term "omnipotence" is commonly used, then another term could be used instead.

That God is not three persons and one person at the same time is entirely consistent with him having the ability to be. — Bartricks

Gotcha. It is possible for God to become 3 persons and 1 person at the same time, but he is not that in actuality.

I am not a theologian, so I cannot defend the catholic premises about God. All I can do is show that they do not entail any contradictions.


But I do not fully understand your view. If God can do anything such that there is nothing that he cannot do, then why also claim that he cannot become 3 persons and 1 person at the same time?

For instance, it is an essential property of a bachelor that they lack a wife. That does not mean that a person who is a bachelor is essentially wifeless. It just means that you have to lack a wife in order to qualify as a bachelor. — Bartricks

What you say is true of concepts like bachelor because bachelor is a property and not a substance. Many things can be bachelors. It would also be true of gods (lower case g) such as in the greek mythology. But God in Christianity is not a property but a substance. That substance is goodness, is power, etc.

For to be essentially omnipotent is to be incapable of not being. But then that is a restriction. — Bartricks

This is in agreement with the Catholic doctrine. God can do anything that does not contain a contradiction. God being all-good, all-powerful and all-actuality means he cannot be evil, weak, or cease to exist. In general, this means God cannot have what would be seen as negative properties or conditions; but by common sense alone, this would not be considered a weakness.

I also see nothing in the bible that commits one to the view that God has the properties of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence essentially. — Bartricks

Catholic theology is not solely derived from the bible but relies heavily on philosophy and science. A catholic saying is that God wrote two books: scripture and nature. These essential properties might be found in the works of scholastics who combined the bible with Aristotle, especially Aquinas' book called Summa Theologiae.


As for Jesus, I believe the short answer is that he was not omnipotent in his human nature. But that's a whole other can of worms which arguably is even more challenging than the topic of the Trinity haha.

what would you call a person who is all powerful, all knowing and all good in the normal sense of the term good? I'd call them 'God'. — Bartricks

There is a distinction between having properties essentially and having them non-essentially (or accidentally). It would be possible for a being to be all powerful, all knowing and all good in a non-essential way, which means they could lose these properties without losing their identity, and thus they would not be God. They would have these properties but not be these properties. God is identical to those properties.

I see no problem in thinking it denotes exactly the same property it does when applied to us. — Bartricks

They are not wholly the same because we can grasp the concept of goodness as it applies to beings to varying degrees (e.g. we understand that a sinner has a lower degree of goodness than a saint), but we cannot grasp the concept of a being that is goodness essentially.

That property being the property of possessing a character that is fully approved of by the personal source of all norms and values. That is, God is good by virtue of approving of himself. — Bartricks

Indeed God is also the source of these properties in the creatures (the things he has created). But these properties also need to be essential to him. He could not simply be able to disapprove of himself. I.e. the statement "I, God, am not good" is a self-contradiction.

That seems a clear misuse of language. Relations are not persons. I am in front of my computer. That's a relation. It's not a person. There's not me and, in addition, the person of the relation I stand in to my computer. — Bartricks

I agree when we speak of "persons" as used in the common language. But properties assigned to God are to be understood analogically and not literally. E.g. when we say God is good, it is not meant in the same sense are we are good, i.e., that we obey the moral laws. God does not obey the moral law as though the law is outside of him and above him. It is meant analogically. Similarly, Divine Persons are not literally the same as persons in the common language. In the same article, Divine Persons are also called Divine Relations, so you can call them relations if that makes things clearer.

they say that there are three persons in one person - which makes no real sense at all. — Bartricks

Indeed this statement does not make sense; but in catholicism, this is false. The trinity is not 3 persons in 1 person. It is 3 divine persons in (or having) 1 nature. 3 ≠ 1, but it is possible that 3x = 1y.


Your interpretation of 3 conditions for 1 person makes sense; but for reasons I do not know, theologians throughout history have opted against it.

But then don't you have three distinct persons - three gods - not one? — Bartricks

Here is the catholic take as I understand it. Christianity is a monotheistic religion, thus, 1 God. That God has a set of absolute properties plus a few properties of relations. "The Divine Persons are none other than these relations" (from the same article mentioned above). My understanding is that since properties of relations do not make a new substance, they do not make a new God. Yet they are something, and when it comes to divine properties, these make a thing called a divine person.


Regarding your interpretation of the passsages: I agree that if there is a contradiction, then we must look for a different meaning. But it may be only an apparent and not a real contradiction. This is the take of Christian theologians who have thought about this over many years, including the many objections that typically come up.

A person is a mind, a bearer of mental states. A 'nature' is had by something. You can't be 'in' a nature - that makes no sense. — Bartricks

Sure. It can be rewritten as "3 divine persons having the same nature".

There are three distinct minds 'in' what? And if they're distinct minds, they are not one and the same mind. — Bartricks

I'm not sure we can equate "divine person" with "mind". In catholicism, properties assigned to God are said to be analogical and not literal. But that may not matter as long as they are something. Now, divine persons are indeed not one-and-the-same, due to having distinct properties of relation.

What passage from the bible forces one to think that there are three distinct persons [...] — Bartricks

I am not a theologian, but here are some possible passages:

• "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" - Matthew 28:19 - this shows there are 3 things.
• "But I tell you I am going to do what is best for you. This is why I am going away. The Holy Spirit cannot come to help you until I leave. But after I am gone, I will send the Spirit to you." - John 16:7 - this shows the Son and Holy Spirit are separate things.
• "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." - Luke 22:42 - this shows the Father and the Son are separate things.

Or one person who has different properties at different times - just as I was once short and now I am tall? — Bartricks

God is said to be eternal, unchangeable (due to being all actual and having no potential), and thus its properties are not in time.