why are there still so many rationalists despite being utterly refuted and debased by the works of Gödel or Van Til?
 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
why are there still so many rationalists despite being utterly refuted and debased by the works of Gdel or Van Til?
They were long refuted by Berkeley, Ockham, etc. They'll always be here just like schizos and gnostics. They're part of the world.
schizos and gnostics are rationalists
you can't prove anything. there are only relative probabilities and knowledge is always shifting.
and yes, this statement itself is not certain, it's just my best guess.
Convenient cop out. How can you even prove it’s a guess? You can’t. If your suppositions are correct, everything would be totally incoherent and unintelligible. Even the sentences you use suppose meaning meaning value, which demand proof or else it’s just begging the question and you’re stuck in incoherency again.
>If your suppositions are correct, everything would be totally incoherent and unintelligible.
wrong, everything would be not quite totally coherent and not quite intelligible, which is what you observe. There is no single authoritative interpretation of any given mountain of evidence, no matter what you do, new evidence can always come in later and knock out your foundations. That's life.
Epistemolet detected. Brainlet materialists never have an adequate understanding of philosophy.
Why would they want that when their worldview perfectly reflects reality and has done more for humanity in the past 300 years than philosophygays ever could since ancient greeks
Cringe quote
1. They don’t realize they’ve been refuted.
2. They lack reasoning faculties and/or the courage to up-end their worldview.
From Robert Bucke's Cosmic Conciousness: A Study in the Evolution of the Human Mind (1901):
In contact with the flux of cosmic consciousness all religions known and named to-day will be melted down. The human soul will be revolutionized. Religion will absolutely dominate the race. It will not depend on tradition. It will not be believed and disbelieved. It will not be a part of life, belonging to certain hours, times, occasions. It will not be in sacred books nor in the mouths of priests. It will not dwell in churches and meetings and forms and days. Its life will not be in prayers, hymns nor discourses. It will not depend on special revelations, on the words of gods who came down to teach, nor on any bible or bibles. It will have no mission to save men from their sins or to secure them entrance to heaven. It will not teach a future immortality nor future glories, for immortality and all glory will exist in the here and now.
The book intimates that certain personages -- among them Francis Bacon, Walt Whitman, Edward Carpenter, Balzac, Plotinus -- attained to higher conciousness around the third and fourth decades of their existence. Each purported case includes ample citations and commentary. Thoughts?
Give me an argument for Van Til's claim.
gahd is just a language game acted out by authoritarians, to show others how they should simp for them
Is it christcucks coping hours again already?
XD
>without God you can't prove anything
How does that prove god exists? This is just another example of "god existing would be nice", not an actual proof for god's existence.
Its really a terrible shame too because realizing we can't understand base reality could be such a robust talking point, but immediately someone inserts god and the air leaves the room.
>realizing we can't understand base reality could be such a robust talking point
Ancient Sceptics talked about that shit two thousand years ago. And, interestingly, so did Jains, out of all people:
>Jains contrast all attempts to proclaim absolute truth with adhgajanyāyah, which can be illustrated through the parable of the "blind men and an elephant". This principle is more formally stated by observing that objects are infinite in their qualities and modes of existence, so they cannot be completely grasped in all aspects and manifestations by finite human perception. [...] Consequently, no single, specific, human view can claim to represent absolute truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_epistemology#Anek%C4%81ntav%C4%81da
>How does that prove god exists? This is just another example of "god existing would be nice", not an actual proof for god's existence.
Only anon with a functioning brain ITT
I don't understand how religiontards fall for the grift
All the smart theists take the fideist position. There are not a lot of them here for obvious reasons.
>Presuppositionalism and transcendental arguments
Shamelessly derivative of the pagan Epictetus. Read "Against the Epicureans and Academics".
> "The Trinity is the solution to Universals!"
It appears to be the other way around. Universals/one-and-many is the solution to the 'problem of how to make the Trinity sound mysterious'. You would have it believed that Euclid had the Trinity on his mind while he was practising his Elements, the first recorded instance of "proof", long before the 66 book Bible.
everyone has been refuted by everyone in a number of epic gamer girl moments.
>atheists = rationalists
Kys
are you trying to imply not all atheists are rationalists or that not all rationalists are atheists?
You have convinced me, I am joining Islam.
>Van Til
Imagine spending your life begging the question and calling it philosophy.