• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟59,815.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
What is properly basic will depend upon a person's noetic structure of beliefs and which of those beliefs were formed immediately and noninferentially by their belief forming cognitive equipment. In saying that a belief is properly basic for me, I am not arguing that it is properly basic for you, or that it even should be.

And again, that doesn't mean it's correct.

Einstein's discovery of General Relativity is well known to those in the scientific community. It was the beginning of a string of events that led to a greater understanding of our universe. Einstein's calculations revealed that there was actually a definite beginning to all time, all matter, and all space. Being irritated by this discovery he later introduced a cosmological constant into his equations to make them seem to point to the fact that the universe was static. This deception, which was discovered by another scientist, Alexander Friedmann, was what Einstein called: "the greatest blunder of my life".( From George Gamow, My World Line, 1970)

British cosmologist Arthur Eddington sympathized with Einstein. He stated: "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of nature is repugnant to me...I should like to find a loophole."( Quoted in Hugh Ross,The Creator and the Cosmos, Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1995, 57)

Dutch astronomer Willem de Sitter and astronomer Edwin Hubble subsequently confirmed through observation that the universe indeed was expanding and that therefore the General Relativity of Einstein was true.

Lets look at some of the corroborating evidence.

1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states among other things, that the universe is running out of usable energy. We experience it everyday when we drive our cars. We put fuel in the tank and as the engine runs, fuel is used. When the fuel runs out the engines shuts off. Unless fuel is put in the tank, the engine will not run. The universe is this way. One day it will run out of energy. Like a flashlight loses its power if left on overnight. Since the universe is using energy that it has, it must have had a beginning, if not, it would have been eternal, but if it had been eternal, it would have run out of usable energy. The second law is tied to the first which states that the total amount of energy in the universe is constant. In other words it has only a finite amount of energy.

The Law of Entropy is associated with this as well. This law states that over time, nature tends to bring things to disorder, not order. Cars rust, trees rot, clothes tear and wear out, human bodies age etc. etc.
If a wound up clock is running down, then someone must have wound it up. Agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow likens the universe to such a wound up clock. (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, New York, Norton, 1978, 48)

Arthur Eddington understands all to well the implications of this and anyone who would attempt to refute the Second Law when he states:
"The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation." (Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World 1928, chapter 4)

2. The universe is expanding. The recent discoveries categorized in the "Big Bang" show us that the universe is expanding. Astronomer Edwin Hubble confirmed what astronomer Vesto Melvin Slipher had been researching in the early 1900's. That space itself is expanding is a scientifically proven fact confirmed by atheist British author Anthony Kenny. He wrote: " According to the Big Bang Theory, the whole matter of the universe began to exist at a particular time in the remote past. A proponent of such a theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the matter of the universe came from nothing and by nothing. (Anthony Kenny, The Five Ways: St. Thomas Aquinas' Proofs of God's Existence, New York: Shocken, 1969, 66)

3. Radiation from the afterglow of the explosion of the Big Bang was detected in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson of Bell Labs in New Jersey. This is technically called cosmic background radiation.
Agnostic Astronomer Robert Jastrow states: "No explanation other than the big bang has been found for the fireball radiation. The clincher, which has convinced almost the last Doubting Thomas, is that the radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson has exactly the pattern of wavelengths expected for the light and heat produced in a great explosion. Supporters of the steady state theory have tried desperately to find an alternative explanation, but they have failed."(Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 15-16)

4. Variations in the temperature of the cosmic background radiation which enable matter to come together by gravitational attraction into galaxies was discovered by COBE, a satellite that in 1992 startled the scientific world by showing that the explosion and expansion of the universe was precisely tweaked to cause just enough matter to congregate to allow galaxy formation, but not enough to cause the universe to collapse back on itself. Any slight variation one way or the other, and none of us would be here to tell about it. In fact, the ripples are so exact (down to one part in one hundred thousand) that astronomer George Smoot called them the "machining marks from the creation of the universe" and the "finger-prints of the maker."(Heeren,Show Me God, 168)

Stephen Hawking says of this discovery that it is: "the most important discovery of the century, if not all time."(See Fred Heeren, Show Me God, 163-168; and Ross, Creator and the Cosmos, 19)

George Smoot again states with regards to these findings: "If you're religious, it's like looking at God."(See Fred Heeren,Show Me God, 163-168; and Ross, Creator and the Cosmos, 19)

Astrophysicist Michael Turner claims: "The significance of this cannot be overstated. They have found the Holy Grail of Cosmology."(See Fred Heeren, Show Me God, 163-168; and Ross, Creator and the Cosmos, 19)

The infrared pictures taken by COBE point to the existence of matter from the very early universe that would ultimately form into the galaxies as they exist today. Smoot called this matter "seeds". Pictures of these Galaxy Seeds can be found at COBE's website: http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/

These "seeds" are the largest structures ever detected, with the biggest extending across 1/3 of the known universe. That is approximately 10,000,000,000 light years across!

5. Einstein's General Relativity has been verified to an accuracy of five decimal places. General Relativity demands an absolute beginning for time, space, and matter and shows that the three are co-relative.

Let us take a look at some of the views of scientists today on the beginning of the universe.

From atheistic physicist Stephen Hawking:

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted." (The Beginning of Time Lecture, Stephen Hawking British Theoretical Physicist and Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and in 2009 was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States. Hawking was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge between 1979 and 2009. Subsequently, he became research director at the university's Centre for Theoretical Cosmology.)


From agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow:

"Recent developments in astronomy have implications that may go beyond their contribution to science itself. In a nutshell, astronomers, studying the Universe through their telescopes, have been forced to the conclusion that the world began suddenly, in a moment of creation, as the product of unknown forces." ( Excerpt from Truth Journal by Professor Robert Jastrow-Ph.D. (1948), from Columbia University; Chief of the Theoretical Division of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (1958-61) and Founder/Director of NASA 's Goddard Institute; Professor of Geophysics at Columbia University; Professor of Space Studies-Earth Sciences at Dartmouth College)


"Scientists generally agree that "the Big Bang" birthed the universe about 15 billion years ago."( Tom Parisi, Northern Illinois University)


"As a result of the Big Bang (the tremendous explosion which marked the beginning of our Universe), the universe is expanding and most of the galaxies within it are moving away from each other." (CalTech)


"The Big Bang model of the universe's birth is the most widely accepted model that has ever been conceived for the scientific origin of everything." (Stuart Robbins, Case Western Reserve University)


"Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however, no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning." (Chris LaRocco and Blair Rothstein, University of Michigan)


"The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that the Universe began with a "Big Bang" ~15 billion (15,000,000,000 or 15E9) years ago." "The Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted theory of the creation of the Universe." (Dr. van der Pluijm, University of Michigan)


"Most scientists agree that the universe began some 12 to 20 billion years ago in what has come to be known as the Big Bang (a term coined by the English astrophysicist Fred Hoyle in 1950." (University of Illinois)


"The universe cannot be infinitely large or infinitely old (it evolves in time)." (Nilakshi Veerabathina, Georgia State University)


"The universe had a beginning. There was once nothing and now there is something." (Janna Levin, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University)


"Today scientists generally believe the universe was created in a violent explosion called the Big Bang." (Susan Terebey, Department of Physics and Astronomy, California State University Los Angeles)


"Evidence suggests that our universe began as an incredibly hot and dense region referred to as a singularity." (Stephen T. Abedon, Ohio State University)


"A large body of astrophysical observations now clearly points to a beginning for our universe about 15 billion years ago in a cataclysmic outpouring of elementary particles. There is, in fact, no evidence that any of the particles of matter with which we are now familiar existed before this great event." (Louis J. Clavelli, Ph.D., Professor of Physics, University of Alabama)


From the above, we see that there is ample evidence to maintain that premise 2 of the cosmological argument is true.


Wow... how many times do I have to say we are in agreement that the universe had a beginning? Why do you keep providing data for something that we are in agreement on?

We are in agreement on it. Stop bringing up stuff that we are in agreement on!

Got it? Good!


As I said in my previous posts to you, premise one is the contentious issue here. Off the top of my head that's what virtually all of the criticism of the Kalam on this thread is attacking.

Provide data for that.
 
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
40
✟75,394.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
And again, that doesn't mean it's correct.

You're right. A person's cognitive equipment could malfunction and cause a false belief to be formed which is false.

That is certainly possible. However, highlighting this does not take even the first step in providing a defeater for my properly basic beliefs anymore than me pointing out that your properly basic beliefs could be false serves as a defeater for yours.

You would need to provide some sort of evidence or arguments that something can come from nothing.




Wow... how many times do I have to say we are in agreement that the universe had a beginning? Why do you keep providing data for something that we are in agreement on?

We are in agreement on it. Stop bringing up stuff that we are in agreement on!

Got it? Good!


As I said in my previous posts to you, premise one is the contentious issue here. Off the top of my head that's what virtually all of the criticism of the Kalam on this thread is attacking.

Provide data for that.

Let me give three reasons in support of premise (1'):

1. Something cannot come from nothing. To claim that something can come into being from nothing is worse than magic. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, at least you’ve got the magician, not to mention the hat! But if you deny premise (1'), you’ve got to think that the whole universe just appeared at some point in the past for no reason whatsoever. But nobody sincerely believes that things, say, a horse or an Eskimo village, can just pop into being without a cause.

2. If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn’t come into being from nothing. Think about it: why don’t bicycles and Beethoven and root beer just pop into being from nothing? Why is it only universes that can come into being from nothing? What makes nothingness so discriminatory? There can’t be anything about nothingness that favors universes, for nothingness doesn’t have any properties. Nor can anything constrain nothingness, for there isn’t anything to be constrained!

3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1'. The science of cosmogeny is based on the assumption that there are causal conditions for the origin of the unuiverse. So it’s hard to understand how anyone committed to modern science could deny that (1') is more plausibly true than false.



Read more: The Kalam Cosmological Argument | Reasonable Faith
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟59,815.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
You're right. A person's cognitive equipment could malfunction and cause a false belief to be formed which is false.

That is certainly possible. However, highlighting this does not take even the first step in providing a defeater for my properly basic beliefs anymore than me pointing out that your properly basic beliefs could be false serves as a defeater for yours.

You would need to provide some sort of evidence or arguments that something can come from nothing.

Why would I have to argue, much less prove that something can come from nothing?

For one, that's not my position.

Secondly, even if it was and I couldn't defend it, that doesn't make your belief correct. To think that it would is a shifting of the burden of proof.

Let me give three reasons in support of premise (1'):

1. Something cannot come from nothing. To claim that something can come into being from nothing is worse than magic. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, at least you’ve got the magician, not to mention the hat! But if you deny premise (1'), you’ve got to think that the whole universe just appeared at some point in the past for no reason whatsoever. But nobody sincerely believes that things, say, a horse or an Eskimo village, can just pop into being without a cause.

2. If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn’t come into being from nothing. Think about it: why don’t bicycles and Beethoven and root beer just pop into being from nothing? Why is it only universes that can come into being from nothing? What makes nothingness so discriminatory? There can’t be anything about nothingness that favors universes, for nothingness doesn’t have any properties. Nor can anything constrain nothingness, for there isn’t anything to be constrained!

3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1'. The science of cosmogeny is based on the assumption that there are causal conditions for the origin of the unuiverse. So it’s hard to understand how anyone committed to modern science could deny that (1') is more plausibly true than false.



Read more: The Kalam Cosmological Argument | Reasonable Faith


You still haven't addressed my post which shows why this line of reasoning doesn't work. Please respond to post #814 as I've already written why the "something coming from nothing" line of argument makes no sense.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
My belief that something cannot come from nothing, is a properly basic belief. Therefore to ask how I support is to evince a cognitive malfunction you're having.

My belief that the universe came from God as an effect in which He was the efficient cause is also a properly basic belief and therefore the aforementioned applies here as well.

The belief that the nihilo in ex nihilo refers to what Aristotle distinguished as material cause was arrived at after having read works written which were relevant to the subject in question.

The belief that there was nothing material out of which God created was arrived at after having reviewed the scientific data for the absolute beginning of space-time and all matter and energy.

Back to square one; demonstrate a state of nothiness has ever existed, or your claim disinegrates.
 
Upvote 0

ToddNotTodd

Iconoclast
Feb 17, 2004
7,787
3,884
✟274,996.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Since my arguments don't "reduce to reformed epistemology" I can happily agree for the sake of being charitable.

They do if you’re reduced to admitting your premises are just “properly basic beliefs”. Because if they’re more than that, there wouldn’t be any reason to bring up a reformed epistemology term...

Apologetics to me, is not just about convincing someone that what I believe is true. It is about much more than that.

As in?
 
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
40
✟75,394.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
40
✟75,394.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Back to square one; demonstrate a state of nothiness has ever existed, or your claim disinegrates.

I think you mean "disintegrates".

Why does the metaphysical principle that being cannot come from non-being disintegrate in the absence of a demonstration of the existence of a state of nothingness?
 
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
40
✟75,394.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
They do if you’re reduced to admitting your premises are just “properly basic beliefs”. Because if they’re more than that, there wouldn’t be any reason to bring up a reformed epistemology term...

My premises are supported by evidence and arguments Todd.

I've never argued that the reason a person should accept the premises of an argument is because I hold them to be properly basic. Rather, I appeal to the proper basicality of certain beliefs I hold when asked why I hold them.

Please understand that there is a distinction between knowing something and showing something.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟59,815.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
In that post, you made some very strange claims.

I will let Dr. Craig comment on them:

Objections So Bad I Couldn’t Have Made Them Up

Check objection #6

Objection #6 isn't my objection, please read my post and actually address what I said.

To clarify, objection #6 is: "Nothing ever begins to exist! For the material of which a thing consists precedes it. So it is not true that the universe began to exist."

My objection is we've never witnessed anything begin to exist because every new thing we see in our every day lives is a rearrangement of matter which has existed since the big bang.

It's an equivocation fallacy to compare beginning to exist in the ultimate sense with beginning to exist in the everyday sense that we experience whenever we make something new.

To address objection #6 directly:

""Nothing ever begins to exist!" - We know the universe began to exist at the big bang.
"For the material of which a thing consists precedes it." - In the everyday sense, sure. In the ultimate sense, by definition it wouldn't be possible since we are discussing the creation of matter and energy.
"So it is not true that the universe began to exist." - Did you somehow not understand the part of my recent post which repeatedly and unequivocally stated that I agree the universe began to exist at the big bang?

As such, it should be obvious that this objection on Craig's site is not my argument.

Now, please stop lazily defaulting to Craig's website and address my actual argument in post #814.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟59,815.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
My premises are supported by evidence and arguments Todd.

I've never argued that the reason a person should accept the premises of an argument is because I hold them to be properly basic. Rather, I appeal to the proper basicality of certain beliefs I hold when asked why I hold them.

Please understand that there is a distinction between knowing something and showing something.

And oddly enough, you don't know and you can't show your beliefs are true.
 
Upvote 0

ToddNotTodd

Iconoclast
Feb 17, 2004
7,787
3,884
✟274,996.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
My premises are supported by evidence and arguments Todd.

And it's been shown that your evidence and arguments aren't sufficient to show they're true. So the truth value of the premises remains at best unknowable.

I've never argued that the reason a person should accept the premises of an argument is because I hold them to be properly basic. Rather, I appeal to the proper basicality of certain beliefs I hold when asked why I hold them.

So if someone says they have a properly basic belief that there's currently no way to know if the universe had a beginning, or if the idea is even coherent, that shuts down the conversation completely, correct?

Like I've said before, reformed epistemology is just a way for someone to carve out a hiding place where they can ultimately retreat to in order for them to avoid the nagging feeling that they may be wrong.

WLC is probably the most egregious example, with his "defeater defeater" that precludes any discussion at all...

Please understand that there is a distinction between knowing something and showing something.

I understand perfectly well. I also understand you haven't actually shown anything.
 
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
40
✟75,394.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Objection #6 isn't my objection, please read my post and actually address what I said.

To clarify, objection #6 is: "Nothing ever begins to exist! For the material of which a thing consists precedes it. So it is not true that the universe began to exist."

My objection is we've never witnessed anything begin to exist because every new thing we see in our every day lives is a rearrangement of matter which has existed since the big bang.

It's an equivocation fallacy to compare beginning to exist in the ultimate sense with beginning to exist in the everyday sense that we experience whenever we make something new.

To address objection #6 directly:

""Nothing ever begins to exist!" - We know the universe began to exist at the big bang.
"For the material of which a thing consists precedes it." - In the everyday sense, sure. In the ultimate sense, by definition it wouldn't be possible since we are discussing the creation of matter and energy.
"So it is not true that the universe began to exist." - Did you somehow not understand the part of my recent post which repeatedly and unequivocally stated that I agree the universe began to exist at the big bang?

As such, it should be obvious that this objection on Craig's site is not my argument.

Now, please stop lazily defaulting to Craig's website and address my actual argument in post #814.

To quote the part you must have missed:

"The serious point of this muddled objection, I think, is its presupposition that everything that begins to exist has a material cause. But that claim is irrelevant to the truth of the two premises of the kalam cosmological argument and requires proof in any case. It is true, I think, that in our experience material things do not begin to exist without material causes, so we do have the same sort of inductive evidence on behalf of material causation as we have for efficient causation. But if we have good arguments and evidence that the material realm had an absolute beginning preceded by nothing, this can override the inductive evidence. What we cannot reasonably say, I think, is that the universe sprang into being without either an efficient or a material cause, since being does not come from nonbeing. But there is no sort of metaphysical absurdity involved in somethings having an efficient cause but no material cause."

Read more: Objections So Bad I Couldn’t Have Made Them Up
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Uber Genius
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
40
✟75,394.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
And it's been shown that your evidence and arguments aren't sufficient to show they're true. So the truth value of the premises remains at best unknowable.



So if someone says they have a properly basic belief that there's currently no way to know if the universe had a beginning, or if the idea is even coherent, that shuts down the conversation completely, correct?

Like I've said before, reformed epistemology is just a way for someone to carve out a hiding place where they can ultimately retreat to in order for them to avoid the nagging feeling that they may be wrong.

WLC is probably the most egregious example, with his "defeater defeater" that precludes any discussion at all...



I understand perfectly well. I also understand you haven't actually shown anything.

Ok.

Thanks for your input nonetheless. It will help me in the future when presenting this argument to others. :oldthumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I think you mean "disintegrates".

Why does the metaphysical principle that being cannot come from non-being disintegrate in the absence of a demonstration of the existence of a state of nothingness?

Willie craig would be proud.

At the end of the day, you are nowhere, because your assumptions are just that, assumptions.
 
Upvote 0

ToddNotTodd

Iconoclast
Feb 17, 2004
7,787
3,884
✟274,996.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Willie craig would be proud.

I'm sure he would, since it's his argument, and mostly presented in his words...

I think perhaps from now on whenever a theist uses the phrase "properly basic belief" I'm just going to say that I have a properly basic belief their argument is wrong and shut the whole nonsense down. I'd suggest all the non theists do the same.

Fighting stupid fire with stupid fire as it were...
 
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,921
1,244
Kentucky
✟72,039.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Then why do you use the Kalam? The first premise isn't known to be true or valid.


Premises in arguments don't require certainty of a mathematical proof. Science doesn't certainly doesn't require that level of certainty and philosophy requires that premises be more plausibly true then their opposite.

If you required certainty of the type you describe all you would accomplish is rueucing what anyone could "know" to the smallest fraction of what we now know.

Premises that are accepted by theists and atheists alike:

1. Every contingent thing has an explanation of its existence.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation transcends the universe
3. The universe is a contingent thing.
4.The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
5.Intentional states of consciousness do exist.


Read more: Does God Exist? | Reasonable Faith

Read more: Does God Exist? | Reasonable Faith
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
40
✟75,394.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
I'm sure he would, since it's his argument, and mostly presented in his words...

I think perhaps from now on whenever a theist uses the phrase "properly basic belief" I'm just going to say that I have a properly basic belief their argument is wrong and shut the whole nonsense down. I'd suggest all the non theists do the same.

Fighting stupid fire with stupid fire as it were...
You could do that.
 
Upvote 0

ToddNotTodd

Iconoclast
Feb 17, 2004
7,787
3,884
✟274,996.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
You could do that.

And the really cool part is that if we all reject any idea that challenges our own, under the guise of “properly basic beliefs” and “defeater defeaters”, there would be a lot less arguing. No need for debates, no changing of minds. Logical fallacies suddenly mean nothing. We’re firmly grounded in believing anything without fear of successful contradictions.

It would almost be like using philosophy to destroy philosophy, in a sense.

And maybe that’s the ultimate goal of philosophy anyway...
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0