CADRE Comments

Argument: (1) we trust perceptions that work for us in navigating the world (2) we juge by criteria RCS (3) RE fits this criteria (4 )enables navigation (5) :. we are warranted to trust RE as indicative *We assume reality by means of a Jugement *we make such jugements based upon criteria *Because RE fits the same criteria we are justfied in making the same assumption; ie that these experinces are idicative of a reality. The criteria: If our experiences are: *Regular *consistant *inter=subjective *navigational Then we assume our eperience3s reflect reality. VIII. The Thomas Reid Argument. A. How do we Know the external world exists? Philosophers have often expressed skepticism about the external world, the existence of other minds, and even one's own existence. Rene Descartes went so far as to build an elaborate system of rationalism to demonstrate the existence of the external world, beginning with his famous cogito, "I think, therefore, I am....

  The good folk over at the Secular Web have published a short blog in its Kiosk section entitled “ The Pandemic Disproves God .” The article, written by a someone named James A. Haught, makes unsupported assertions that the God’s cannot actually exist because the coronavirus exists. While I expect most Christian apologists would see through this charade quite quickly, I wondered why he is choosing such a non-event as the coronavirus to prove his proposition.  After some introductory questions that the author, James A Haught, apparently believes would create problems for Christians, he writes:  The pandemic gripping the world raises the age-old philosophical dilemma called "the problem of evil"—which asks why a supposedly all-loving God does nothing to stop horrors like diseases, tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, and the like. If there's an all-merciful father-creator, why did he make breast cancer, childhood leukemia, cerebral palsy, natural disasters, and predator ...

Pixie has a major misconception about the version if thenirakargunet tahtI use. due to the nature of certain arguments this became important in several ways in discussision with Pixie. The Major point is he doens't understand which is my moral argument. He has the wrong one conquenctly he has not disproved mine. Joe: you must answer his idea of morality as just one example, science cannot tell us that, Pix: If he can prove his idea of morality is true, then I will concede the point. But not until then. Direct experience and Truth By Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) - September 14, 2020 Dialouge betwe comments: https://www.blogger.com/comment.gblogID=6363362&postID=2330342897145644583&isPopup=true Pixie says: Of course the reality is that what you have is a circular argument. 1. There are objective moral truths 2. Therefore God exists 3. Therefore there are objective moral truths You moral argument is sets 1 and 2. Your argument here is 2 an...

Dialouge between Pixie and myselfon Metacrock's blog, the comment section of the threat: "Counterimg Scoentism" (Sept. 6, 2020) https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2020/09/countering-scientism.html anonymous said... Joe: That confirms exactly the criticism I made of your approach, you make everything into a little version of science, as tough science is the only way to think. Pix: I have never said "science is the only way to think", that is just your usual tired straw man. Joe:you basically have. You clearly assert that the only reliable knowledge is scientifically verifiable. Pix What I have said is that besides direct experience, science is the only methodology that gives us reliable knowledge. Joe:I have direct experience of God Do you not understand the difference? that is just bull shit. you are arbitrarily deciding what makes something reliable. Joe: I disproved that, as does Jim. That is just delusional! Here i what i said it to:...

What follows is one of the most challenging subjects you will ever hear about. It is the best way to get a head ache, but I think it proves the existence of God. The problem is it requires a very specialized background to understand it. First you have to understand modal logic. Modal Logic is so called because it turns upon the use of so called "modal operators." It's called "modal" because it is the logic of modes of being. "modes" as in what type of existence something exits in, weather it is dependent upon other things, weather it can cease or fail to exist and so forth. The modal operators are "necessity," "contingency" "impossibly," "possibility." Necessity and contingency lie at the base of our modern understanding of cause and effect. They come from scholastic notions of logic, but the distinction between the notion our modern notions of c/e and the scholastic ones in the middle ages is not that gr...