Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Why is it that every time genetic "information" is brought up to argue in favor of design...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="variant" data-source="post: 71594099" data-attributes="member: 114463"><p>There is no getting around the idea that you have to be able to fundamentally trust your brain and your experiences to be genuine, or able to be cross check them in some way if you want to claim knoledge.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Truths can NOT be self evident to an untrustworthy brain, as it must occur to you that the idea is self evident through your brain which is the subject the self evident truth, so this doesn't remove you from the circle. The idea that you can trust your brain comes from your brain and your experience, and this will always be circular no matter how self evident. The evidence that you can trust your experiences must come from experience itself, and if that is ultimately untrustworthy you have no recourse.</p><p></p><p>You have chosen to trust your brain due to the necessity and experience of trusting in it (a full requirement for any epistemological claims) just as I and everyone else have, and then cast aspersions on others who do the same.</p><p></p><p>So, if your argument can be equally applied to statement A as ~A it makes no distinction. So your argument is both circular and a non sequitur, and can not support your conclusion.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="variant, post: 71594099, member: 114463"] There is no getting around the idea that you have to be able to fundamentally trust your brain and your experiences to be genuine, or able to be cross check them in some way if you want to claim knoledge. Truths can NOT be self evident to an untrustworthy brain, as it must occur to you that the idea is self evident through your brain which is the subject the self evident truth, so this doesn't remove you from the circle. The idea that you can trust your brain comes from your brain and your experience, and this will always be circular no matter how self evident. The evidence that you can trust your experiences must come from experience itself, and if that is ultimately untrustworthy you have no recourse. You have chosen to trust your brain due to the necessity and experience of trusting in it (a full requirement for any epistemological claims) just as I and everyone else have, and then cast aspersions on others who do the same. So, if your argument can be equally applied to statement A as ~A it makes no distinction. So your argument is both circular and a non sequitur, and can not support your conclusion. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Why is it that every time genetic "information" is brought up to argue in favor of design...
Top
Bottom