Proof, evidence, credibility, belief, faith

10 posts

Flag Post

I’ve been skim reading through some topics here at the serious discussion forum, and you all seem to talk a lot about whether this or that is proven or can only be believed in.

Well, I feel that from a somewhat unbiased point of view I must unfortunately say that there is no evidence, there is no certainty, there is no proof, there is nothing you can be absolutely sure of, you can put “maybe” or “perhaps” behind every claim. There are many ways to put it, but in the end, everything you think you know is just everything you believe in.

Sorry.

 
Flag Post

I’m afraid I know gravity pretty well, actually. Is that just my belief?

 
Flag Post

We’ve had that argument presented before, Risbolla. Beleiving in nothing other than yourself is the only truly provable theory, but considering things are always (seemingly) acting the same way, our arguments are based on axioms, or accepted truths.

 
Flag Post

“Cogito ergo sum.” -Descartes. That’s as far as anyone’s gotten in all our years of existence… I don’t think we’re good at this whole certainty thing.

 
Flag Post

Here’s a protip: almost every deep and profound revelation you come up with before you’re 60 has been thoroughly discussed, rehashed, deconstructed and reconstructed by philosophers who died before you were a glimmer in your father’s eye.

 
Flag Post

Oh but to Balance out Einars comment, every persons brain thinks in a slightly different way, so maybe you’ve thought of something of a slightly new idea or theory :P

 
Flag Post

Even the cogito isn’t certain.

 
Flag Post

Living in an entirely unknowable world must suck. “Boxers or briefs? I cannot know which is better.”

Here’s a curve ball: How do you know you can’t know anything if you can’t know anything? If you are certain you can’t know anything, then you can be certain you know that, breaking the original statement. If you say “Some things can be known, but most things are unknowable” you leave yourself open to what can be knowable, and then Religious people get right in there with knowing it in their heart. Then you’re right back where you started.

 
Flag Post

Really Navarre? I have a friend who is a nihilist to the extreme and still hadn’t found a way to refute Descartes. I’d be curious to see what you think the flaw is. :)

 
Flag Post

It makes one assumption, that the ‘thinking’ is indeed ‘thinking’ and not just ‘thought’ which is the only certainty. Thought is occurring, to extend that to ‘thinking’ is to assume and suppose the very self that you are trying to prove. It’s not certain that you are thinking, it’s just certain that there is thought. Whether or not you extend the ‘self’ to possibly being a temporary collision of thought is the uncertainty.