Ragtime wrote:
With all those uncertainties, how can you be comfortable in any philisophical position? I mean, you said you can't even trust your own senses. Wouldn't the next logical step be rampant paranoia? (Meaning, are you on course toward paranoia, or are you illogical? It's one of the two.)
thats quite exactly where that famous descartes quote fits in: "i think, therefore i am", which is a rather bad translation of "cogitans sum" - basically stating that even if everything that you think may fool you, you can be sure that you
are by the fact that you are thinking.
actually, that thought was expressed earlier by augustinus in a more elegant way: when questioned whether i might err in my thinking, i respond that "only who
is can err."
beyond that, i find the discussion culture in this thread to be incredibly bad.
so many mere points of view are stated as facts, so many assumptions are stated as facts, and to top it all of, people start talking about "scientific facts". people... get a grip on what you are talking and get some preciseness in your language. get to know what scientific statements state before you start selling them as objective facts.
proclaiming scientific findings as true fact is the same as proclamiming bible verses as true fact. no difference. (before you start complaining: get a grip on your science theory)
and that is said not by some hardcore believer but an agnostic (who really couldnt care less about the existence of a god that doesnt play a role in this life) who -if pressed for a guess- rather tends to not thinking that there is a god.
ragtime: i, for one, do think you made your point of view clear enough. you accept the bible as source, others dont. as long as they arent conscious of that, there just is no common ground to argue.