ILovePhilosophy.com

In this thread, I'm going to quickly explain why the theistic worldview is rational.

I am a perenial theist, which means that I see truths of the divine in many different religions and philosophies.

There are various forms of evidence for the existence of God.
The primary ones that are compelling are philosophical arguements.

The Kalam cosmlogical argument, to me, is the soundest one.
In essence, it posits that whatever begins to exist has a cause, and that the physical universe had a beginning and that the cause of this
universe is something timeless, immaterial, intelligent and very powerful. These qualities are conventionally associated with God.

According to popular science, the big bang theory is the most plausible explanation for the origin of the universe.

So, contrary to popular opinion, science actually evinces the possibility of God's existence, as the big bang theory is congruent
with the Kalam cosmlogical argument, something based in philosophy.

There are many more things I can state on this topic, but I will leave it at this and see what sort of dialogues can occur through this.

Lol
Just yesterday I was archiving this;

The Big Bang is the greatest chunk of horseshit ever devised.
Atheists believe in it. They believe in an even more irrational notion than God.
God is simply not built of reason, you arrive at it through a more complete psychic process. It is a stage of mind, a humanity. And the poems about gods creating the world, are all about elements and logics, not about bearded old men.
The Big Bang however, this is fully and actively contrarational. I is onsensical to posit a beginning of time including a state before that, which was supposedly singular and yet gave birth to something that is not - so, you mean, god exists, we just call him "science" now, and destroy science, but dont mind because we're morons anyway not to be trusted with it... the belief of the Last Man: a seismic event in time space occurred, thus this was the god that died and we are now ashamed to believe in, because ae sin and do nothing but sin and waste out lives. Fuck Big Bangers -

The error: tto push causal logic through a state defined as negative of the causalitylogics you are working with, so as to arrive at the conclusion that everything was created in an instance out of a timeless all-being.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=188756&start=1250#p2713695

Erik_ wrote:In this thread, I'm going to quickly explain why the theistic worldview is rational.

I am a perenial theist, which means that I see truths of the divine in many different religions and philosophies.

There are various forms of evidence for the existence of God.
The primary ones that are compelling are philosophical arguements.

The Kalam cosmlogical argument, to me, is the soundest one.
In essence, it posits that whatever begins to exist has a cause, and that the physical universe had a beginning and that the cause of this
universe is something timeless, immaterial, intelligent and very powerful. These qualities are conventionally associated with God.

According to popular science, the big bang theory is the most plausible explanation for the origin of the universe.

So, contrary to popular opinion, science actually evinces the possibility of God's existence, as the big bang theory is congruent
with the Kalam cosmlogical argument, something based in philosophy.

There are many more things I can state on this topic, but I will leave it at this and see what sort of dialogues can occur through this.

KCA begs the question why there is anything at all including God if such a thing exists. What do we know about "timeless, immaterial" things? It's an explanation in need of an explanation. And in as much as it no empirical referent, I don't see how explanation is possible. So, it seems best understood as a metaphorical way of saying that ultimate reality is a mystery.

E wrote:
There are various forms of evidence for the existence of God
The primary ones that are compelling are philosophical arguments

The Kalam cosmlogical argument to me is the soundest one
In essence it posits that whatever begins to exist has a cause and that the physical universe had a beginning and that the cause
of this universe is something timeless immaterial intelligent and very powerful . These qualities are conventionally associated with God

According to popular science the big bang theory is the most plausible explanation for the origin of the universe

So contrary to popular opinion science actually evinces the possibility of Gods existence as the big bang theory is
congruent with the Kalam cosmlogical argument something based in philosophy

The Big Bang is the most plausible explanation for local cosmic expansion not for the origin of the Universe [ they are not the same ]

The Kalam says that everything that comes into existence has a cause but virtual particles have no cause

Absolute non existence cannot be sustained because of quantum fluctuations
Therefore there cannot have been a point at which everything simply began

Philosophy can never provide evidence for anything only science can

Erik_ wrote:
The Kalam cosmlogical argument, to me, is the soundest one.
In essence, it posits that whatever begins to exist has a cause, and that the physical universe had a beginning and that the cause of this
universe is something timeless, immaterial, intelligent and very powerful. These qualities are conventionally associated with God.

Yet, there is only anecdotal evidence for the existence of such a being, such as people's testimonies. I'm agnostic, but I think that logical arguments for the existence of God all encounter the same problem, in that they all require a leap of faith. How can an argument be sound or even relatively sound if the conclusion is reliant upon faith and not fact? I don't believe that theism is unreasonable, because there may be compelling reasons why people believe in God, but I don't understand how in epistemological terms, belief can be called “justified”? How do we argue that someone's belief in God is justified, for what reasons?

Fanman wrote:

Erik_ wrote:
The Kalam cosmlogical argument, to me, is the soundest one.
In essence, it posits that whatever begins to exist has a cause, and that the physical universe had a beginning and that the cause of this
universe is something timeless, immaterial, intelligent and very powerful. These qualities are conventionally associated with God.

Yet, there is only anecdotal evidence for the existence of such a being, such as people's testimonies. I'm agnostic, but I think that logical arguments for the existence of God all encounter the same problem, in that they all require a leap of faith. How can an argument be sound or even relatively sound if the conclusion is reliant upon faith and not fact? I don't believe that theism is unreasonable, because there may be compelling reasons why people believe in God, but I don't understand how in epistemological terms, belief can be called “justified”? How do we argue that someone's belief in God is justified, for what reasons?

Hey there fanman (Hope you're a fan of blue waves lol)

Matt Dillahunty turned me onto a good argument against faith which is: because faith can be used to justify any position, it can justify no position. Succinct and solid.

Hey Serendipper, blue waves are all good buddy .

I agree that whilst faith can be based upon interpretations, inclinations or even seeming correlations, it lacks the rigorous validity which would allow it to be justified as knowledge. If faith could be confirmed or justified, it would cease to be faith and become knowledge. The very nature of faith is belief without evidence, so it doesn't actually justify anything outside of what the individual believes. As such, I think we are well within reason to reject faith based claims posited as knowledge. The KCA is perhaps the strongest logical argument for the existence of a creator, but it relies on cause and effect, which IMV makes it anecdotal rather than evidential. It seems logical that all things have a cause, but it is impossible to know if that is actually the case. Furthermore, if we accept that all things are caused, why should we then accept that one single being is uncaused .

Fanman wrote:

Erik_ wrote:
The Kalam cosmlogical argument, to me, is the soundest one.
In essence, it posits that whatever begins to exist has a cause, and that the physical universe had a beginning and that the cause of this
universe is something timeless, immaterial, intelligent and very powerful. These qualities are conventionally associated with God.

Yet, there is only anecdotal evidence for the existence of such a being, such as people's testimonies. I'm agnostic, but I think that logical arguments for the existence of God all encounter the same problem, in that they all require a leap of faith. How can an argument be sound or even relatively sound if the conclusion is reliant upon faith and not fact? I don't believe that theism is unreasonable, because there may be compelling reasons why people believe in God, but I don't understand how in epistemological terms, belief can be called “justified”? How do we argue that someone's belief in God is justified, for what reasons?

Belief is seen to be justified only by its consequences.

There is, as all beginning thinkers realize, no cerainty to be attained whatsoever.

All knowledge requires a basic faith in the soundness of ones own mind. A philosopher is someone who radically questions this presumption.

In very simple terms, this is what Sokrates teaches.
The belief that one can be certain, as a limited being, of anything at all was put in question.

Fanman wrote:Hey Serendipper, blue waves are all good buddy .

I agree that whilst faith can be based upon interpretations, inclinations or even seeming correlations, it lacks the rigorous validity which would allow it to be justified as knowledge. If faith could be confirmed or justified, it would cease to be faith and become knowledge. The very nature of faith is belief without evidence, so it doesn't actually justify anything outside of what the individual believes. As such, I think we are well within reason to reject faith based claims posited as knowledge.

All good stuff!

But what Matt meant is since faith can be used to substantiate anything, for instance flying pixies, then faith can't be used to substantiate any one thing in particular. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcB_g_ElIdQ

We could say Yahweh exists by faith or we could say Zeus exists by faith or the flying spaghetti monster exists by faith, and since faith substantiates a whole slew of contradictory things with equal authority, then faith cannot be used to substantiate anything since it makes no difference.

But there is another interpretation of faith that I'm not sure Matt or many others are aware of, which is knowledge that is not conceptual and this is differentiated from "hope" or "belief" as it is in fact knowledge, but not knowledge in the form of a concept (think of instinctual knowledge like how you beat your heart; you clearly have the knowledge of how to do it, but you've no idea what that knowledge is or how to convey it.).

More on this topic here viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193866&p=2697490#p2697490

The KCA is perhaps the strongest logical argument for the existence of a creator, but it relies on cause and effect, which IMV makes it anecdotal rather than evidential. It seems logical that all things have a cause, but it is impossible to know if that is actually the case. Furthermore, if we accept that all things are caused, why should we then accept that one single being is uncaused .

What's a thing?

How does a cause influence an effect?

If a cause influences an effect, then how is a cause distinct from an effect?

If a cause cannot exist without an effect and if an effect cannot exist without a cause, then cause and effect are codependent and this dependency precludes either as being a separate thing. Causes influence effects because they aren't distinct things.

Also, causality is temporal in concept and time is an emergent property of the universe, and if time began after the universe began, then what does "before" mean before time existed and what are the implications on causality? It's a lot like asking what is north of the north pole.

Time can only be thought of as a relation of one aspect of the universe to another. For instance, it may take 1/24 revolution of the earth to drive to the next town which is what is meant by "1 hour". So, when we ask for a measure of time before there was movement in relation to other movement, then what does it mean? Time does not have a fixed, absolute, objective value, but is only a relation of movements within the universe and therefore time can only come into existence after there is something conceived to be moving.

Jakob wrote:There is, as all beginning thinkers realize, no cerainty to be attained whatsoever.

Are you sure?

All knowledge requires a basic faith in the soundness of ones own mind. A philosopher is someone who radically questions this presumption.

In very simple terms, this is what Sokrates teaches.
The belief that one can be certain, as a limited being, of anything at all was put in question.

Then we must question that. If you can't trust yourself, can you trust your mistrust of yourself?

I am a liar. If I am a liar, then I'm lying when I say I'm a liar, which means I'm not a liar, but I just lied.

If you think your information is unreliable, then the information that the information is unreliable is itself unreliable.

That philosophy negates its own foundation.

Erik_ wrote:In this thread, I'm going to quickly explain why the theistic worldview is rational.

I am a perenial theist, which means that I see truths of the divine in many different religions and philosophies.

There are various forms of evidence for the existence of God.
The primary ones that are compelling are philosophical arguements.

The Kalam cosmlogical argument, to me, is the soundest one.
In essence, it posits that whatever begins to exist has a cause, and that the physical universe had a beginning and that the cause of this
universe is something timeless, immaterial, intelligent and very powerful. These qualities are conventionally associated with God.

According to popular science, the big bang theory is the most plausible explanation for the origin of the universe.

So, contrary to popular opinion, science actually evinces the possibility of God's existence, as the big bang theory is congruent
with the Kalam cosmlogical argument, something based in philosophy.

There are many more things I can state on this topic, but I will leave it at this and see what sort of dialogues can occur through this.

Nah! theism cannot & NEVER be justified rationally.

The Kalam cosmlogical argument faced various rational restraints, i.e.

1. The epistemological infinite regression, i.e. there is no absolute first cause,
2. Cause and Effect re Hume is psychological, i.e. customs, habits and constant conjunction.
3. Scientific theories are merely polished conjectures [Popper] therefore cannot be a justified argument for an absolute God.

From the above, there are no reliable grounds for any sound justifications to theism.

The only sound justification to theism are desperate psychological and emotional necessities to soothe an inherent existential crisis. The thought of a God is merely thinking of something fake [illusory] to relieve psychological impulses.

Note thoughts themselves [even unjustified] do have great impacts on the person to the extent of killing the person, generate a positive attitude or providing reliefs to psychological pains, in this case the thought of God provide reliefs for existential pains.

The solution to all violent and evil acts related to God is to address it from the psychological perspectives within the theists brain/mind.
This had been addressed by Buddhism and other non-theistic spiritual paths since thousands of years ago albeit using crude methods. So we have to refine these existing methods.

In the first place the idea of God as real is an impossibility.
God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474&hilit=god+impossibility
Thus to even start a discussion on whether God exists as real is moot.

Prismatic567 wrote:

Erik_ wrote:In this thread, I'm going to quickly explain why the theistic worldview is rational.

I am a perenial theist, which means that I see truths of the divine in many different religions and philosophies.

There are various forms of evidence for the existence of God.
The primary ones that are compelling are philosophical arguements.

The Kalam cosmlogical argument, to me, is the soundest one.
In essence, it posits that whatever begins to exist has a cause, and that the physical universe had a beginning and that the cause of this
universe is something timeless, immaterial, intelligent and very powerful. These qualities are conventionally associated with God.

According to popular science, the big bang theory is the most plausible explanation for the origin of the universe.

So, contrary to popular opinion, science actually evinces the possibility of God's existence, as the big bang theory is congruent
with the Kalam cosmlogical argument, something based in philosophy.

There are many more things I can state on this topic, but I will leave it at this and see what sort of dialogues can occur through this.

Nah! theism cannot & NEVER be justified rationally.

The Kalam cosmlogical argument faced various rational restraints, i.e.

1. The epistemological infinite regression, i.e. there is no absolute first cause,
2. Cause and Effect re Hume is psychological, i.e. customs, habits and constant conjunction.
3. Scientific theories are merely polished conjectures [Popper] therefore cannot be a justified argument for an absolute God.

From the above, there are no reliable grounds for any sound justifications to theism.

The only sound justification to theism are desperate psychological and emotional necessities to soothe an inherent existential crisis. The thought of a God is merely thinking of something fake [illusory] to relieve psychological impulses.

Note thoughts themselves [even unjustified] do have great impacts on the person to the extent of killing the person, generate a positive attitude or providing reliefs to psychological pains, in this case the thought of God provide reliefs for existential pains.

The solution to all violent and evil acts related to God is to address it from the psychological perspectives within the theists brain/mind.
This had been addressed by Buddhism and other non-theistic spiritual paths since thousands of years ago albeit using crude methods. So we have to refine these existing methods.

In the first place the idea of God as real is an impossibility.
God is an Impossibility
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... ossibility
Thus to even start a discussion on whether God exists as real is moot.

Please explain how you use empiricism to prove impossibility. If I observe millions of white swans and never see a black one, does that make a black swan impossible?

felix dakat wrote:

Prismatic wrote:Nah! theism cannot & NEVER be justified rationally.

The Kalam cosmlogical argument faced various rational restraints, i.e.

1. The epistemological infinite regression, i.e. there is no absolute first cause,
2. Cause and Effect re Hume is psychological, i.e. customs, habits and constant conjunction.
3. Scientific theories are merely polished conjectures [Popper] therefore cannot be a justified argument for an absolute God.

From the above, there are no reliable grounds for any sound justifications to theism.

The only sound justification to theism are desperate psychological and emotional necessities to soothe an inherent existential crisis. The thought of a God is merely thinking of something fake [illusory] to relieve psychological impulses.

Note thoughts themselves [even unjustified] do have great impacts on the person to the extent of killing the person, generate a positive attitude or providing reliefs to psychological pains, in this case the thought of God provide reliefs for existential pains.

The solution to all violent and evil acts related to God is to address it from the psychological perspectives within the theists brain/mind.
This had been addressed by Buddhism and other non-theistic spiritual paths since thousands of years ago albeit using crude methods. So we have to refine these existing methods.

In the first place the idea of God as real is an impossibility.
God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474&hilit=god+impossibility
Thus to even start a discussion on whether God exists as real is moot.

Please explain how you use empiricism to prove impossibility. If I observe millions of white swans and never see a black one, does that make a black swan impossible?

Note sure of your point?

My point is for anything to be real it must be empirically proven or at least empirically possible.

A black swan is not impossible because 'swans' and 'black' are proven empirical elements. A black swan if not yet proven, then we have to wait for empirical evidence to confirm its possibility.
It is valid to speculate there are black swans in a planet 1000 light years away. Such a speculation is valid and empirically possible, the only question is 'where is the evidence'? It is not impossible for humans to reach a planetary system 1000 light years away, but in our present capability, the possibility is 0.00001%.

Anything that is empirically possible and can be verified cannot be dismissed as impossible.
Thus an empirically related God, e.g. that bearded man in the sky [anthropomorphized] is possible. The challenge is to bring empirical evidence of such a god for verification which is very unlikely.

Whatever is an empirically-related-ideal, e.g. an absolute perfect circle which can be theorized is impossible to be verified empirically.

Due to the onslaughts of attacks from skeptics and non-theists, theists has shifted their belief of God to that of the ultimate absolute perfect God and it imperatively has to be.
But the ultimate God which is Perfect, Absolute and the likes, is purely an abstract thought driven by existential psychology thus cannot be empirically possible. It is an impossibility to be real, i.e. not empirically possible to be real.

Erik_ wrote:In this thread, I'm going to quickly explain why the theistic worldview is rational.

I am a perenial theist, which means that I see truths of the divine in many different religions and philosophies.

There are various forms of evidence for the existence of God.
The primary ones that are compelling are philosophical arguements.

The Kalam cosmlogical argument, to me, is the soundest one.
In essence, it posits that whatever begins to exist has a cause, and that the physical universe had a beginning and that the cause of this
universe is something timeless, immaterial, intelligent and very powerful. These qualities are conventionally associated with God.

According to popular science, the big bang theory is the most plausible explanation for the origin of the universe.

So, contrary to popular opinion, science actually evinces the possibility of God's existence, as the big bang theory is congruent
with the Kalam cosmlogical argument, something based in philosophy.

There are many more things I can state on this topic, but I will leave it at this and see what sort of dialogues can occur through this.

The big bang was more noticeable than the subtle swelling that got forgotten in the aftermath of what can be seen as obviously more volatile and violent. It usurped the position of top priority. But, if you compare the big bang to say... when a child first fully develops day to day conscious thought and awareness...

Serendipper,

I like your comments on faith, cause and effect and time, they are well thought out. I agree that if there was something existent before time began, it would be problematic to measure in linear terms, such as cause and effect, because there is no such frame of reference. All we can say is that anything pre time simply “existed” and there's a sense of infinity about that.

In terms of faith, I agree that there is a type of faith that we can call justified, but that, I feel, is based upon empirical knowledge, such as having faith that things which have occurred repeatedly will continue to occur. Religious faith is justified based upon correlation and testimonies, it's anecdotal, not completely blind, but lacking in rigorous testability and empirical veracity.

Prismatic567 wrote:

In the first place the idea of God as real is an impossibility.
God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474&hilit=god+impossibility
Thus to even start a discussion on whether God exists as real is moot.

Anything that is empirically possible and can be verified cannot be dismissed as impossible.
Thus an empirically related God, e.g. that bearded man in the sky [anthropomorphized] is possible. The challenge is to bring empirical evidence of such a god for verification which is very unlikely.

Fanman wrote:Serendipper,

I like your comments on faith, cause and effect and time, they are well thought out. I agree that if there was something existent before time began, it would be problematic to measure in linear terms, such as cause and effect, because there is no such frame of reference. All we can say is that anything pre time simply “existed” and there's a sense of infinity about that.

In terms of faith, I agree that there is a type of faith that we can call justified, but that, I feel, is based upon empirical knowledge, such as having faith that things which have occurred repeatedly will continue to occur. Religious faith is justified based upon correlation and testimonies, it's anecdotal, not completely blind, but lacking in rigorous testability and empirical veracity.

Yes I agree, but just to keep the conversation going, what justifies empirical knowledge?

"All statements must be supported by empirical evidence, except this one." Why not that one? Where is the empirical evidence substantiating the empirical evidence requirement? Obviously it can't exist, so something has to be taken on faith or we'll have no axioms upon which to build a foundation of science.

We could say objectivity justifies empirical evidence because peers can review it, but here I'd object on the grounds that appeal to popularity isn't objectivity, but merely a collection of subjective opinions. If everyone on earth says the sky is blue, it's still only the subjective opinion of everyone on earth and not an objective viewpoint. If I see a blue sky and everyone agrees with me, then I can have faith that the sky is blue, but is there a way to really prove it?

What is the difference in knowing and believing?

empirical/deduction
a priori/a posteriori
faith/evidence
mind/matter

When I really get to pondering these sorts of things deeply, I begin to not see differences.

Its been awhile since I visited these forums and a lot has changed for me since.

A lot of you are looking for empirical evidence to confirm presuppositions that are either for or against God. You're not looking for what you're not looking for. Dust to dust, the story of humanity is one of death and destruction, which is why most languages and civilizations have already been wiped out. Nowadays we are more inclined to take positions of arrogance due to our perception of time. Time is unreal although our perception and judgement of our past depends on it. The conception of God passed down through oral traditions, pagan religions, and modern monotheisms have revisited the idea of an infinite God or Gods that 'is' rather than 'will be' or 'has been'. Its so funny that we think we know when we don't, we don't know shit. We've been bunched up in cities for 5 or 6 thousand years, and walking on 2 legs for about 2 million years. The Earth will eventually shake us off like a bad case of the fleas, and nobody knows if some of us will survive by colonizing other planets. If God had thoughts, or perceived in any way, what would prove his 'million years' are the same as ours? What makes you think we share God's language and means of measurement?

For me, God and Theism is comparable to mathematics and music rather than hard sciences. Are we supposed to use archaeology, or linguistics, or biology, or cosmology, to prove the existence of God? Are there really a bunch of keyboard warriors waiting to be converted once there is a convincing argument for the existence of God? Empirical and analytic knowledge must be used in conjunction to support scientific theories, but analytic knowledge can exist without empirical evidence. The justification of empirical knowledge is supported by others' tests and past theories being proved or disproved. The oral tradition represents an early version of peer review that wasn't easily recorded or tested, but could develop more complex systems the more popular it became. The objection here could be that authority and popularity doesn't get us closer to the truth, or in establishing a higher/better truth than those established in the past. I've always found it fascinating that atheists could be more if not just as 'moral' than the quiet Christian who donates to charities silently, understands the importance of peaceful debate and protest, supports his/her family and friends, and never goes to far extents to preach their conception of theism to others. Atheists are on an attack against Gods, while the radicals who believe in some Abrahamic religions are against believers and non-believers depending on which moral code is socially accepted.

I believe luck is the will of God, and the acceptance of faith is based on your resilience against randomness. Probability can only take us so far until the conditions are too specific or too general accidentally. What determines this range of what is acceptably specific and acceptably general is the approval of authority and popularity over time, agreeing that this new way is better than some old way.

Serendipper wrote:That philosophy negates its own foundation.

What is the foundation of philosophy?

Venture wrote:Its been awhile since I visited these forums and a lot has changed for me since.

Welcome back!

The Earth will eventually shake us off like a bad case of the fleas

George Carlin

I've always found it fascinating that atheists could be more if not just as 'moral' than the quiet Christian

Who would you find more trustworthy:

- The one who didn't steal your stuff because he typically held himself to a strict moral code.
- The one who didn't steal your stuff because he genuinely had your best interest in mind because he realized that having a successful friend is good for him?

Is the best path to morality through the amygdala (instinct) or the cerebral cortex (cognition)?

If we start with the proposition that I will always do what's best for me, and if what's best for me is what's best for you, then wouldn't I always do what's best for you? But if I hold myself to a moral code and then find that stealing your stuff is better for me than having integrity (because who will be the wiser), then it seems to me that the amygdala isn't as reliable.

On the other hand, if I don't like you, what's to stop me from stealing your stuff apart from having a moral code? In this case, it seems the amygdala is more reliable and this could be why in Kennesaw, GA, where gun ownership is mandatory, there are no murders in 10 years.

My philosophy professor put a question before the class: Who is better: the one helps little old ladies across the street because he feels it's his duty or the one who does it because he likes it? I have yet to conclusively answer that.

On one hand, the one who likes it may stop liking it and then stop doing it while the one who does it because it's his duty will continue even if he doesn't like it.

On the other hand, the one who does it for reasons of duty simply likes being duty-oriented, so wouldn't he be just as susceptible to a change of taste?

encode_decode wrote:

Serendipper wrote:That philosophy negates its own foundation.

What is the foundation of philosophy?

Welcome back to you too

I'm not sure of the foundation for philosophy itself, I was just saying that a philosophy that starts with the premise that one cannot trust himself is a philosophy that is self-defeating because the premise itself would be in question.

I usually define "philosophy" as an articulable preference.

What's your philosophy for eating pizza? Do you start at the center and then eat the crust (or fling the crust back in the box)? Or do you start with the crust and finish with the best part? Whatever your preference, I'm sure you could rationalize why you do it and that would be your philosophy.

What's your philosophy for brushing your teeth? Do you put the paste on the brush and then wet the brush or the other way around?

Every branch of science starts with a philosophy. The philosophy of mathematics articulates the foundation for the study of mathematics. The philosophy of medicine starts with a framework and foundation on which to build the science.

That's what philosophy is, but its foundation? I don't know. It's just how you're put together I guess.

Serendipper wrote:I'm not sure of the foundation for philosophy itself, I was just saying that a philosophy that starts with the premise that one cannot trust himself is a philosophy that is self-defeating because the premise itself would be in question.

Ah ha . . . yes . . . a philosophy. Often overlooked is the fact that there is no philosophy but just a bunch of philosophies.

Serendipper wrote:That's what philosophy is, but its foundation? I don't know. It's just how you're put together I guess.

Philosophy has no foundation but a good philosophy does.

I am pretty certain that you catch my drift.

encode_decode wrote:

Serendipper wrote:I'm not sure of the foundation for philosophy itself, I was just saying that a philosophy that starts with the premise that one cannot trust himself is a philosophy that is self-defeating because the premise itself would be in question.

Ah ha . . . yes . . . a philosophy. Often overlooked is the fact that there is no philosophy but just a bunch of philosophies.

Similar to no objectivity, but instead it's a collection of subjective opinions.

A proverb is no proverb to you till your life has illustrated it. - John Keats

Serendipper wrote:That's what philosophy is, but its foundation? I don't know. It's just how you're put together I guess.

Philosophy has no foundation but a good philosophy does.

I am pretty certain that you catch my drift.

What's interesting here is that I can only catch drifts in terms of what avenues life has endowed me with. Your conveyance to me depends on my having been exposed to something I can use to relate to your experience. What exists depends not only on the object, but also the subject.