View Single Post
  #2335  
Old Feb 25, '12, 8:13 am
grannymh grannymh is offline
Forum Master
Forum Supporter
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 14,593
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Evidence for Design?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sair View Post
The either/or reasoning squares with logic itself - things cannot be simultaneously what they are and what they're not. According to logic, something is either true or false - it cannot be both at the same time and in the same circumstances.
Yes, something cannot exist and exist simultaneously. Nonetheless, in addition, the "either-or" view can pertain to two existing possibilities. One can choose to either wear the red dress or the blue dress, both of which are hanging in the closet. Which is true or false, the blue dress or the red dress? What happens when one focuses on only the two dress possibilities and fails to take into consideration the temperature outdoors?


Quote:
For the record, I don't consider myself the only source of truth - but I do consider myself the only one capable of perceiving truth for myself.
When I wrote about the "source" of truth, I gave the example of limiting truth to one's own experiences (plural intended) of material/physical surroundings. Humans have five senses which can be used to experience their material/physical surroundings such as what happens when one wears a light weight dress because blue is a favorite color out into a snow storm.

Of course you do not consider yourself as the only source of truth. You have the gift of common sense. And it is reasonable for you to consider yourself the only one capable of perceiving truth for yourself if I understand you correctly in terms of human nature. Human nature is rational because it has the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought. And of course you consider others' explanations of reality. For example, the weather man's explanation of the temperature in a snow storm.

To return to the initial sentence in post 2319 which refers to the fallacy of considering oneself as the only source of truth, the operative phrase is "considering oneself" in the sense that one weighs explanations of reality --

"I weigh them against my own experience and then consider whether their explanation squares with what I perceive to be the case." is your comment from post 2323. Because I see both subjective and objective reasoning as being two method's of evaluating a belief, I do go along with your comment. Especially since I often rely on my own subjective thinking based on experiences, memories, learnings, emotions, capabilities, and so on.

In addition, I do go outside of my subjective self and study the belief objectively. i.e., evaluating the independent existence of what the belief is based on. I try not to limit my knowledge to subjective choice.

When it comes to the existence of God, my suggestion is to go beyond the idea of "no supernatural entity has ever impressed its existence upon me." because that indicates that only personal subjective reasoning is taking place. The nothing in either it is my experience in the material/physical world or nothing excludes the spiritual, non-material, supernatural realm flat out. However, it is possible for both non-theists and theists to recognize the possibility of a non-material realm.

Quote:
I certainly don't doubt that subjective reasoning has an objective basis - we can only perceive the world as subjects of our own sensory experience.
In my humble opinion, you would be better off doubting that subjective reasoning has an objective basis. That would free you to explore life, natural and supernatural, objectively. Note: just because one is able to use objective skills does not automatically mean that one has to believe what is learned. The freedom to deny is part of human nature.

Last edited by grannymh; Feb 25, '12 at 8:28 am.