@lilymc Post #93
Thank you as well. I will try to clarify my argument more. I'll also respond to your key points in my clarification.
Perhaps I could have worded things better, I was going off at the very beginning on epistemology. I could never state to know an absolute truth, only truth under presuppositions. I was trying to avoid from just posting a vid and instead using my own words and reasoning but perhaps this can at least clarify what I actually do believe. It's a calm soothing voice that actually references what AED quoted. But how do I know the universe exists, how do I know I exist, ect. Haha I did go there
That is where the question begins and then it goes into using what we have to perceive the world around us.
I was trying to argue that absolute truth and the concept of immaterial are quandaries that often allows one to argue against the insistence of perceivable evidence to be presented. Respectively they would require perfect or inhuman unnatural understanding. I think it would serve us to define these terms.
Absolute Truth - permanent fact in all instances including the unknown. There are things I assume to be absolute truth as I have evidence to back them up to show at least in the known instances they work out as such.
Immaterial - incorporeal; something that does not take physical form. Logic exists in that we hold the presuppositions as true. We determine which presuppositions have stronger value over one another through the strength of its evidence. Logic can be derived if we hold that the world is deterministic.
Science has become the preferred method of determining truth as it allows a process that is repeatable by others, can be falsified and verified, and shows results in the physical world rather than simply language. I do believe the world is deterministic otherwise we could not make sense of it with our perceptions. But I was ultimately referencing the very beginning of how can I truly claim to know truth. This is indeed difficult trying to state it simply and shortly on forums when its been a topic of philosophers through the ages. Side note: I hope i'm not sounding terse, I try to remove all emotional language before I submit, let me know if I fail to do so.
Here's the vid I mentioned, by one of the most cordial people i have ever seen on youtube lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9x_oa--KAc&feature=BFa&list=PLA0C3C1D163BE880A&lf=plpp_video
I also would argue there is a spectrum of belief as he had done. I had forgotten about that idea until I re-watched it. Whether or not the belief has evidence backing it up and how strong of evidence. So if I was to operate more concisely I would claim statements and statements with evidence are beliefs. I would define Faith as a belief where there is absence of evidence or no longer substantial evidence in light of new evidence.
I often have a hard time separating belief from faith and use truths as absolute truths as they are workable in the physical world; however, I try to correct that when speaking philosophically. I do believe my first post did not exhibit that, I hope this one has clarified.
