/lit/ - Literature

>breaks epistemology

>>20502913
Why?

But why?

>>20383732
>>20383745

>>20323493
Summoned by it's own bootstraps

>>20271996
It fucks over all philosophy. Only thing to do is just ignore it.

>>20268683
>the onus seems to be on you to provide an instance of knowledge which does not cohere with our general rules of inference.
I fucking hate epistemology.

>>20267501
No getting around it.

>>20256814
This is not especially profound. Just a consequence of deductive reasoning that people get tied in knots about

>>20236072
>actual objective evidence
What is this? How do you define this? This is what I was saying about how rationality cannot prove anything.
>If I claim that a force called 'gravity' exists, anyone on the planet can take a ball, drop it, and verify indepedently that this is indeed the case.
At best, the hypothetic-deductive method outlined by Popper (that is the most widely accepted scientific method) can only say that based on the data, the ball dropping is only LIKELY to happen. Your "evidence" can never say that it IS going to happen.
This is fine for purely mechanistic or physical matters, but personally I find this inadequate for determining how I should live my life.

>>20218283
Just part of deductive reasoning. Otherwise you're left with goofy mystic shit about what you feel is real.

>>20205855
Nothing has changed.

>>20175469
There is no way to justify cause and effect through any means. Deductive reasoning relies on starting from unprovable axioms to go anywhere

>>20123185
All reasoning is done from axioms. The Bible itself IS evidence on the basis it is an axiom and so Christianity IS rational if it openly admits it is biblically rational. Biblical Christianity isn't irrational as such, it is merely "acausal" in both Aristotelian and Humean senses. Ex-nihilo is biconditional with miracle. To suspend material cause, to say cause resides outside space and time is the acausality of Biblical inerrancy, the essence of both ex-nihilo and miraculous thinking. This is no problem in itself, but it shows an aversion to causality outside of the Biblical framework.

At the top of the reply chain, to say of Muslims "their beliefs have no evidential foundation", to negate that both text-believing Muslim and Christian, is merely to negate the Qur'an out of hand. The Qur'an is in the category "text". That the Christian selectively negates texts is the essence of Biblical belief.

Why the Christian then makes metaphysical claims from such negationism rather than merely epistemic becomes less substantial as every second passes. And so Christianity isn't "irrational", it's just Biblical, Biblically nihilistic.

But what is to differentiate us living in a simulation of the Bible, rather than actually being really creature alongside Creator?

>>20114270
This isn't what Godel was talking about and is instead simply a basic understanding of how math starts with unprovable axioms. That's how deductive reasoning works.

>>20043583

>>19960984
It is a recursive spiral between the repose of the eternal and unshakeable difficult to fathom World Spirit (TM) versus the ephemeral and apparent. Tautologies are heckin serious and valid.

>>19909542
>I was just offering an alternative example of another way of understanding things besides your dogma that "ultimately it is all groundless", giving a hypothetical description of another model is not the same as trying to demonstrate that this alternative model is true and hence me doing so isn't circular.
Alright YOU specifically may not be giving a circular argument but the hypothetical that YOU presented is circular.

>>19789447
Dogmatic

>>19744633

is this the endgame?

>>18399815
Also called Munchhausen trilemma. Beating a dead horse.

>>18375829
Like I said that is just the Munchhausen trilemma. If you don't accept my moral axioms why should I accept yours? They're axioms they have no justification and can't be wrong. What we're calling subjective morality is just putting forth the moral axioms that you want people to follow like you with God.

Anything that is not in the arts.