Sushupti said:
How true!
Who denies god then?
- Thread starter Light Travelling
- Start date
How true!
For the thousandth time:
From Quine's "Two dogmas of empiricism":
From Quine's "Two dogmas of empiricism":
The totality of our so-called knowledge or beliefs, from the most casual matters of geography and history to the profoundest laws of atomic physics or even of pure mathematics and logic, is a man-made fabric which impinges on experience only along the edges. Or, to change the figure, total science is like a field of force whose boundary conditions are experience. A conflict with experience at the periphery occasions readjustments in the interior of the field. Truth values have to be redistributed over some of our statements. Re-evaluation of some statements entails re-evaluation of others, because of their logical interconnections -- the logical laws being in turn simply certain further statements of the system, certain further elements of the field. Having re-evaluated one statement we must re-evaluate some others, whether they be statements logically connected with the first or whether they be the statements of logical connections themselves. But the total field is so undetermined by its boundary conditions, experience, that there is much latitude of choice as to what statements to re-evaluate in the light of any single contrary experience. No particular experiences are linked with any particular statements in the interior of the field, except indirectly through considerations of equilibrium affecting the field as a whole.
water,
Perhaps instead of floating around various threads and dropping Quine, you might try and a), contribute something more pertinent, b), try to think of something original.
Just because you've discovered indeterminacy, nominalism, etc., doesn't mean that there isn't more to know.
Perhaps instead of floating around various threads and dropping Quine, you might try and a), contribute something more pertinent, b), try to think of something original.
Just because you've discovered indeterminacy, nominalism, etc., doesn't mean that there isn't more to know.
I'm prepared to accepted this arguement, for the sake of battling over a minor point.Sarkus said:
being a strong atheist, I also dont like the use of the word belief or faith, because both words, mean to me, irrationality, in the context of religion.
and to all here, yes I am absolutely sure there is no god, it does not exist.
I am actually a secular humanist/atheist.
Last edited:
Well I for one never heard of (weak, strong atheist) till I came here visiting these boards. The fact still remains, neither can weak, strong atheist, nor agnostic, theist of any variation, provide evidence of knowledge of what god is, nor do any can provide evidence of it's existence or lack there of.
So to claim the non-existence of an entity, you are implying "knowledge" of what that entity is, and that it does not exist. We all know what a "unicorn" represents to be, though most of us know it does not exist. Because through experience of our existence and history of our sciences we understand that "unicorns" are mythical creatures. Thus the assumption "unicorns don't exist" is accurate and true. Unicorn are known entities of mythology, and we "know" they don't exist.
Gods on the other hands, even though beying part of mythology are all together a different aspect of our reality. Specially the undetifiable "god" of Hebrew scriptures. For one, no one knows what "God/god" is, and to assume it's existence or lack there off, is only an assumption, untill an identification of this entity is made. Therefore no one can claim it's existence or lack there of without putting their foot in the mouth and admiting to having knowledge of it's identity, and that it does not exist or that it does. Thus and in conclusion> A-theist (non belief in theological assertions) Theist (belives in mythological gods with out proofs, they base their believes in "faith")
Agnostic ( trys to scape debate by admiting no knowledge of god's existence or lack thereof)
Godless
So to claim the non-existence of an entity, you are implying "knowledge" of what that entity is, and that it does not exist. We all know what a "unicorn" represents to be, though most of us know it does not exist. Because through experience of our existence and history of our sciences we understand that "unicorns" are mythical creatures. Thus the assumption "unicorns don't exist" is accurate and true. Unicorn are known entities of mythology, and we "know" they don't exist.
Gods on the other hands, even though beying part of mythology are all together a different aspect of our reality. Specially the undetifiable "god" of Hebrew scriptures. For one, no one knows what "God/god" is, and to assume it's existence or lack there off, is only an assumption, untill an identification of this entity is made. Therefore no one can claim it's existence or lack there of without putting their foot in the mouth and admiting to having knowledge of it's identity, and that it does not exist or that it does. Thus and in conclusion> A-theist (non belief in theological assertions) Theist (belives in mythological gods with out proofs, they base their believes in "faith")
Agnostic ( trys to scape debate by admiting no knowledge of god's existence or lack thereof)
Godless
