- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
A song I wrote about my parents.
I am not a professional musician, I am a broken human being.
A song I wrote about my parents.
I am not a professional musician, I am a broken human being.
Denying the principle of sufficient reason would mean that you do not have a sufficient reason to know whether your knowledge is defunct or not. Thus, if we deny the principle of sufficient reason, knowledge and truth cannot exist
No, we use evidence. Observable evidence. “I think gravity exists.” We experiment. We demonstrate it. We can use it to make predictions. It goes from hypothesis to knowledge even if we don’t completely understand the underlying mechanics of it.
What a stupid thing to claim. I reject the PSR because there is no evidence for it. None of my other knowledge magically disappears as a result. If there was no truth, we would not be conversing right now.
You cannot hold the belief that your knowledge is valid or invalid as you lack sufficient reason to hold it.
If you deny the principle of sufficient reason, you fall into absurdism and contradiction. There’s no truth as there’s no sufficient reason deeming something true or false
And yes, thats the point, truth exists and thus we are conversing.
Wrong, I have evidence I have sensed with my senses and processed with my brain.
Can you demonstrate that?
Wrong, there is evidence and we can repeatedly test it.
Right. I believe you exist because you’re here. I don’t believe god exists because he’s never been here.
Another good question.
How do you know YOUR senses are valid?
The ones telling you there is a god?
The principle of sufficient reason
We can repeatedly test them and get consistent results.
that’s a sufficient reason, isn’t it?
No, that’s empirical evidence. Not magic.
it, is a reason though, right?