resolving god

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=503625 time=1616430404 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=503623 time=1616430062 user_id=15238]
If you refuse to accept a necessary and sufficient set of definitions, who's the clarity foe?
[/quote]
If you keep insisting that any definition is "necessary" or "sufficient" without explicitly stating the context in which they are sufficient/necessary then you are my foe.

There are no context-free/timeless truths. That's the religion of Philosophy - it's a religion that has outlived its usefulness.
[/quote]

Use those definitions and all the related problems will be comprehensively understandable and manageable. I can offer no greater proof than that.

[Skepdick]

Use those definitions and all the related problems will be comprehensively understandable and manageable. I can offer no greater proof than that.

Understandability and manageability are assertions - they are meaningless outside of a particular context.

What is "it" that you are understanding and managing?

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=503638 time=1616434891 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=503630 time=1616431856 user_id=15238]
Use those definitions and all the related problems will be comprehensively understandable and manageable. I can offer no greater proof than that.
[/quote]
Understandability and manageability are assertions - they are meaningless outside of a particular context.

What is "it" that you are understanding and managing?
[/quote]

"all the related problems" You really can't be serious. I literally just said that.

[Skepdick]

"all the related problems" You really can't be serious. I literally just said that.

Q.E.D Contextuality.

Related to what?

It doesn't sound like you even know what a "problem" is.

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=503644 time=1616436699 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=503642 time=1616436167 user_id=15238]
"all the related problems" You really can't be serious. I literally just said that.
[/quote]
Q.E.D Contextuality.

Related to what?

It doesn't sound like you even know what a "problem" is.
[/quote]

The problems in metaphysics are actually questions, as in what framework of understanding suits best. I've given the answer. If you don't want the answer, why are you here?

[DPMartin]

Truth is a human concept.

no, things like truth may be viewed as concepts by you but, its true that if you step in front of a speeding bus it will kill you.

A bus is part of the human world. Humans decide what is truth based on their own concepts. Human concepts and human truth are limited to the human world. Overlaying human concepts and supposed "truth" onto that which is beyond such limitations... is a fantasy.

you don't decide that the earth orbits the sun is true or not. it seems you are lying to yourself, to sustain a mind set that one is control of what is, or what ought to be true in your own view. which has nothing to do with philosophy. you will never find the truth if you are looking for what meets what you think it ought to be. because you are looking for what you think and what agrees to what you think and not what's is really there.

ok, I've had enough, have a nice day.

[Lacewing]

you don't decide that the earth orbits the sun is true or not. it seems you are lying to yourself, to sustain a mind set that one is control of what is, or what ought to be true in your own view. which has nothing to do with philosophy. you will never find the truth if you are looking for what meets what you think it ought to be. because you are looking for what you think and what agrees to what you think and not what's is really there.

How are you coming up with this? I honestly don't know who you're talking to. I didn't say anything about planetary orbits... maybe you're talking to someone else, or to your own imagination. Clearly, you're not getting what I'm saying. Humans know what is of the human realm and of their experience... WHICH IS LIMITED... obviously. The idea of "truth" is a human concept, used by humans, based on what they know... WHICH IS LIMITED. Of course the concept of truth has meaning for each human within their sphere of experience and awareness. However, ideas of truth are not only vast and varied across all of time and space for countless humans, but it does not make sense that any human ideas/concepts/judgments would somehow be able to encompass or extend to know/define some kind of ultimate static "truth".

[Age]

you don't decide that the earth orbits the sun is true or not. it seems you are lying to yourself, to sustain a mind set that one is control of what is, or what ought to be true in your own view. which has nothing to do with philosophy. you will never find the truth if you are looking for what meets what you think it ought to be. because you are looking for what you think and what agrees to what you think and not what's is really there.

How are you coming up with this? I honestly don't know who you're talking to. I didn't say anything about planetary orbits... maybe you're talking to someone else, or to your own imagination. Clearly, you're not getting what I'm saying. Humans know what is of the human realm and of their experience... WHICH IS LIMITED... obviously. The idea of "truth" is a human concept, used by humans, based on what they know... WHICH IS LIMITED. Of course the concept of truth has meaning for each human within their sphere of experience and awareness. However, ideas of truth are not only vast and varied across all of time and space for countless humans, but it does not make sense that any human ideas/concepts/judgments would somehow be able to encompass or extend to know/define some kind of ultimate static "truth".

And, just like the concept of truth has meaning for each human within their sphere of experience and awareness, so to does 'your own' concept here have meaning for 'you' within 'your' sphere of experience and awareness. Which, in relative terms, is so narrowed and short sighted, some wonder why 'you' express it, as though it has some ultimate static "truth", at all?

So, in other words, what does not make sense to 'you' could make perfect sense to "another".

By the way, the concepts of 'time' and 'space' are many and varied as well, just like all other concepts can be, with obviously each and all concepts being depended on one's own sphere of experience and awareness also. But, thee One and ONLY concepts, shared and agree with and by ALL, are the concepts that could be, and maybe even would be, thee One and ONLY Truth, which could be generally labeled and known as some 'ultimate static Truth'.

The idea/concept/judgment that there could NEVER be absolutely ANY human idea/concept/judgement, which is able to encompass nor extend to know/define some kind of ultimate static "truth" is, after all, just your OWN, human, idea/concept/judgement, which by your OWN "logic" could itself NEVER be able to encompass nor extend to know/define some, or even thee, ultimate static Truth, itself. Which MEANS that 'you' could be absolutely WRONG here, and in fact some ultimate Truth may, in fact, become known and/or defined by some of the ideas/concepts/judgments of 'you', human beings.

Just for your information, the ideas, concepts, and/or judgments, which are agreed with and by EVERY one, universally, are thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'. Or, in other words, 'some ultimate static Truth'.

[Terrapin Station]

"Is there a god?" may seem to be a metaphysical question but it can only be answered epistemologically. Whether there is a god is of little interest when the ability to prove it is non-existent.

Focus on reasons to believe one option over a competing option rather than proofs or certainty.

[Terrapin Station]

you don't decide that the earth orbits the sun is true or not. it seems you are lying to yourself, to sustain a mind set that one is control of what is, or what ought to be true in your own view. which has nothing to do with philosophy. you will never find the truth if you are looking for what meets what you think it ought to be. because you are looking for what you think and what agrees to what you think and not what's is really there.

How are you coming up with this? I honestly don't know who you're talking to. I didn't say anything about planetary orbits... maybe you're talking to someone else, or to your own imagination. Clearly, you're not getting what I'm saying. Humans know what is of the human realm and of their experience... WHICH IS LIMITED... obviously. The idea of "truth" is a human concept, used by humans, based on what they know... WHICH IS LIMITED. Of course the concept of truth has meaning for each human within their sphere of experience and awareness. However, ideas of truth are not only vast and varied across all of time and space for countless humans, but it does not make sense that any human ideas/concepts/judgments would somehow be able to encompass or extend to know/define some kind of ultimate static "truth".

We can only know things from the perspective of our "realm" or experience, but that doesn't amount to only knowing our "realm" or experience.

[Skepdick]

We can only know things from the perspective of our "realm" or experience, but that doesn't amount to only knowing our "realm" or experience.

Your knowledge transcends your experiences how?

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=503714 time=1616487473 user_id=17350]
[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=503700 time=1616485407 user_id=12582]
We can only know things from the perspective of our "realm" or experience, but that doesn't amount to only knowing our "realm" or experience.
[/quote]
Your knowledge transcends your experiences how?
[/quote]

The latter is direct verification, the former is indirect verification. Knowledge is justified belief either way.

[Skepdick]

The latter is direct verification, the former is indirect verification. Knowledge is justified belief either way.

Justification is impossible without prior ctiretia for "sufficiency", and you can't talk about "sufficiency" without contrasting it with "insufficiency". Is just intellectual honesty, you see - otherwise you are marking your own homework after the fact. Of course, Philosophy/philosophers know this - they run out of things to say so they just say "as long as it obtains".... obtains what?

In epistemology, the Münchhausen trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth, even in the fields of logic and mathematics. If it is asked how any given proposition is known to be true, proof may be provided. Yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof. The Münchhausen trilemma is that there are only three options when providing further proof in response to further questioning:

The circular argument, in which the proof of some proposition is supported only by that proposition.
The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum.
The dogmatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended.

[DPMartin]

you don't decide that the earth orbits the sun is true or not. it seems you are lying to yourself, to sustain a mind set that one is control of what is, or what ought to be true in your own view. which has nothing to do with philosophy. you will never find the truth if you are looking for what meets what you think it ought to be. because you are looking for what you think and what agrees to what you think and not what's is really there.

How are you coming up with this? I honestly don't know who you're talking to. I didn't say anything about planetary orbits... maybe you're talking to someone else, or to your own imagination. Clearly, you're not getting what I'm saying. Humans know what is of the human realm and of their experience... WHICH IS LIMITED... obviously. The idea of "truth" is a human concept, used by humans, based on what they know... WHICH IS LIMITED. Of course the concept of truth has meaning for each human within their sphere of experience and awareness. However, ideas of truth are not only vast and varied across all of time and space for countless humans, but it does not make sense that any human ideas/concepts/judgments would somehow be able to encompass or extend to know/define some kind of ultimate static "truth".

its an example, did you ever here of those? its true no matter if any person knows it or not. animals know if something is true or not, man is no judge of truth.

[Skepdick]

its an example, did you ever here of those? its true no matter if any person knows it or not. animals know if something is true or not, man is no judge of truth.

"It's true no matter if any person knows it or not" is one Philosophical ideal.

Another philosophical ideal is "Man is the measure of all things".

What we call truth is always relative and relevant to an observer/perspective. Truth (with a capital T) is not relevant or relative to anything. That's why we can't say anything about it.