Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 9:45 pm
1. The credibility of the FSK is dependent upon the sane/ill and the sane/ill are defined by an FSK that determines there sanity and illness. It is circular.
2. Credibility is dependent upon reliability, reliability is dependent upon repetition, repetition is memory.
3. Definitions are inseparable from FSKs as the FSK is the definition of how to interpret reality with this interpretation being a further definition resulting from the FSK. Reality is definition.
4. Existence is a predicate as "Existence results in existence" equivocates to "Existence is". The repetition of forms necessitates the existence of God as an underlying order permeates all of being. God exists as relative.
5. "justified empirically, tested and confirmed repeatedly within a credible FSK" is a definition.
6. In discussing God we are pointing to existence as only existence exists. Considering only existence exists then God is reducible to all that there is.
7. But you can never justify "credibility" empirically or scientifically as it is an abstraction, yet "credibility" is necessary for empirical/scientific claims. As such your stance is formulated on preconcieved definitions that are relative to your perspective and that of other groups. "Credibility" is group agreement.
8. Repeatability is subject to conditions, when the conditions expand or contract the repeatability of a phenomenon changes and as such repeatability is not the most reliable notion for truth. Rather it, the phenomenon, existing just once in x,y,z condition is justifiable for truth; truth occurs through singularness.
Scientific facts from the scientific FSK [also mathematical] are the most credible at present which should be the Standard bearer of truths, facts and knowledge.
What other FSK, ground or model do you have which is more credible than the scientific FSK.
As I had stated you are merely relying on the Framework of a crude Pure Reason to arrive at your conclusion of existence or thing-in-itself.
I'll repeat again, you have been deceived by your pure reason to arrive at a reasoned-illusion, as stated by Kant;
Kant in CPR wrote:
1. There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know* to something else of which we have no Concept,
and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
2. These conclusions {thing-in-itself} are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational,
although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title {rational},
since they {conclusions} are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very nature of Reason.
3.They {conclusions} are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
4. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
5. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. B397
His rationality is pure reason as it his interpretation of reality and an interpretation is not empirical, he contradicts himself.