MoreCoffee
Repentance works.
- Jan 8, 2011
- 29,860
- 2,841
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
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.
You are conceding then, that your belief can not be substantiated?
Yes. But that is true of all foundation beliefs.
Including ones that are incompatible with yours.
How can one "substantiate" a foundation belief? It's contrary to the definition!
Not really. Foundational beliefs can't be proven by reference to any more basic beliefs, but that doesn't mean that they can't be substantiated.
For instance, the belief that "something exists" is substantiated simply by awareness of the issue. If it is possible to wonder about whether something exists or not, then wondering exists, meaning that something exists.
eudaimonia,
Mark
But foundation beliefs are the most basic and hence cannot be derived from other foundation beliefs. Check the philosophical definition of foundationism.
I do not think a complete accounting of God's reasoning is possible. Jesus was asked about spiritual and religious matters and he gave answers in parables to specific situations. Nontheless, generalities can be drawn across the parables.
I merely suggested studying the parables because the accusation was that God has given no explanation at all in regards to his ethic, and I pointed out that this is simply not true, from the Christian perspective.
I understand that, but there is an error in the premise that God "chose" what is good as if goodness exists apart from God. Hence my comment that what is of God is good.
But foundation beliefs are the most basic and hence cannot be derived from other foundation beliefs. Check the philosophical definition of foundationism.
You have not shown that the belief in question is foundational. You've merely asserted it. It seems that you think simply declaring something "foundational" means it is somehow rendered true. More to the point, I think you're just looking for a way to avoid having to defend your claims.
One of the nice things about foundationism is that one can pick one's foundations and build from there. As long as the foundations are more or less orthogonal and independent one is more or less set
One of the nice things about foundationism is that one can pick one's foundations and build from there. As long as the foundations are more or less orthogonal and independent one is more or less set
You seem to thing this sort of approach is a good thing, but I can't understand why. A system of belief where one of the features is you get to pick anything you want as unquestionably true doesn't seem to be all that useful in actually understanding reality. Or for that matter even acknowledging that reality exists.
One of the nice things about foundationism is that one can pick one's foundations and build from there. As long as the foundations are more or less orthogonal and independent one is more or less set
Sure. Pick until your heart is content.
It sounds like one of the "nice things" about foundationism is that one can pretend to know things one does not know. I suppose that is "nice" if you don't care about intellectual honesty.
You seem to think this sort of approach is a good thing, but I can't understand why. A system of belief where one of the features is you get to pick anything you want as unquestionably true doesn't seem to be all that useful in actually understanding reality. Or for that matter even acknowledging that reality exists.
What will happen if science someday runs across definitive proof of a God?, or a force that they find has a mind and a will, and is exerting that will in our world in measurable quantum ways? or something like that...
How would our world change if something like this happened?
God Bless!
You mean more people would acknowledge the existence of a God, or more people would believe in (as in trust in) that being ?More people would believe in God.
In epistemology one need not represent reality; with one's fundamental beliefs one need only produce a set of beliefs that are either coherent or consistent with a set of foundation beliefs that are non-contradictory. Theories of justified true belief depend on one's definition of true. There's nothing incoherent or untrue about accounting belief in God as foundational.
Evidently it annoys some folk, but hey! What can one say but "hard cheddar to you"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?