Philosophy Now Forum

If it is 'real' then it can be deal with scientifically, either speculated or theorized based in the principle of empirical possibility. Historical facts are empirical but cannot be tested either. They are justified by witness depositions. Science is not the only method, even when it is about the p...

Once again, notice the contradiction. You agree that humans 'play' language games; you say that human intersubjectivity is the basis of what we call objectivity; and you say that humans have 'FSRCs'. But these are all fundamentally realist claims - about features of reality, including humans: 'thes...

That is your problem. Denying morality has an emotional element is why everything you say about morality is shit Morality is off topic to the original point. What you pointed out to PH is the existence of language games and intersubjectivity which is the basis of objectivity within a FSRC. It has t...

You state, "We are subjects yes, but also subjects of." Please explain subjects of, to what are we subjects? We are subjects of in the sense that we can't extricate ourselves from our perceptions and experiences to stand outside of them entirely independent of them. To say that biology is...

To insist perfect circles [illusory] exists as real is delusional. Mathematical realism is not delusional at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics Mathematical realism, like realism in general, holds that mathematical entities exist independently of the human mind. Thus, huma...

That the Earth was round was not computed but earlier speculated and inferred based on empirical evidences and at present based directly in empirical evidences. Eratosthenes' approach was not scientific, simply because a scientific approach was not possible in his time. He did not have the option t...

Notes: KIV

Notes: KIV

The advantages Moral Objectivity has over moral subjectivity [relativity] moral skepticism, moral nihilism are as follows; Note: There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity' https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326 1. The human-based-FSRC sense of objectivity 2. The absolute independen...

To exists as real, your God has to be physical at least in the physics sense which is not restricted to directly observable things but also the indirectly observable, e.g. gravity and other forces and powers. If the multiverse exists, it is real. However, how are you going to observe that from with...

To be exists as real, your God has to be physical at least in the physics sense which is not restricted to directly observable things but also the indirectly observable, e.g. gravity and other forces and powers. Science works like that, but mathematics does not. I will give you an example that scie...

I think the obvious difference is that if you claim that "abortion is wrong"; or "killing is wrong", there is little you can do to show that to be demonstrably right. However given the edifice of chemical theory "water is H2O" is demonstrably correct, and involves no e...

You don't answer my questions, so here they are again: If to construct a model of reality (an 'FSRC') is to construct reality, then of what is the model a model? And if all we can know about reality are the models we construct, how can we construct them in the first place? And how can we assess and...

Religion is about an abstract Platonic being of which we can only see the subtle Platonic shadows. Can you produce evidences that your God said so. God is limitatively: (1) a collection of positive attributes; (2) the creator of the heavens and the earth. Every other description is rejected in Isla...

It is an insult & blasphemous to identity your God as merely a Platonic abstract being. Not true. God has no physical body. This is a similar situation as with numbers or sets. They do not have physical bodies either. Your God has Face, Eyes, Hands, Fingers, Leg, Foot although they would be dif...