Drew vomited out:
I did study philosophy - at Princeton University as a matter of fact. Where did you study philosophy, my friend? Now, do you see how silly it is to play the game of "credentials". Credentials do not matter - good arguments do.
For those of you who have not studied logic, the above is an example of a man--who studied philosophy at Princeton--committing the fallacy of ad hominem, while accusing another person of doing the same.
The reason you don't know where I studied philosophy and logic at is because I never appealed to my credentials in the first place. You're too much! I want to thank you for making my evening so much fun.
For those of you who don't know, Princeton was started by Calvinists. That's right, poor Drew owes Calvinism more than he realizes. John Harvard started Harvard, and you guessed it, he was a Calvinist too. Brown University was started by Calvinistic Baptists like John Gill. Lou Dobbs is right, education has fallen to an all time low today. We need to get back to our Calvinist roots!
It might indeed be tricky to "prove" that men learn through their senses, and I do not pretend to be prepared to "prove" this.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who has noticed that this guy isn't prepared to do much more than talk trash.
It certainly seems obvious that we do.
Are we now appealing to "common
sense?"
Don't you have to demonstrate empiricism before you claim it is just common
sense to believe in it?
Information about the world enters our eyes and ears and we gain new knowledge - the sky is blue, liver tastes awful etc.
I thought it was light that entered through the eyes?
I thought it was vibrations that entered into our ears?
Can I taste the novel
The Brothers Karamazov? Or would I just be tasting the paper it was printed on?
Can I smell the number two?
Do you think that pie would smell better? Wait, isn't
pi a number? Maybe some numbers do smell better than others!
I was going to say Pi was a Greek letter we could taste, but I hate Greek food.
Usually, an empiricist will attempt to prove that light is somehow transformed into a sensation. From here, he needs to explain how a sensation is changed into a perception. From here, he needs to explain how a perception is changed into a conception.
One of the most famous empiricists, George Berkeley--I think I mentioned that he was a Calvinist on a previous post--refused to believe that sensations were to be found at all in the brain. He claimed that the brain itself is sensible. Anything that is sensible must exist inside, and not outside of the mind. For, if a sensation of the brain was outside the mind, then no one could ever know it existed! Contrary to modern science, which claims that the mind exists in the brain, Berkeley demonstrated that the brain must exist in the mind. Berkeley knew that no one could prove that the sensations in the mind actually represent independent things outside the mind. After all, how could you prove it? By showing me? That is just another sensation, one that must be in the mind before it can be known. Kant believed that there was an actual world outside the human mind, though we could never know if our senses accurately represented it, he called it the noumenal realm (doesn't that sound cool!). Kant, however, had to admit that the noumenal realm is unknowable.
:
Here is a philosophy joke:
There was a lost transcript found on Kant's epistemology.
It is titled:
"Trying To Prove That One Can Know The Noumenal World"
by
I. Kant
Amazing and Thank You!
I'm here all week.
At the end of the day, I am not sure this really matters.
I thought your interpretation of Scripture depended upon learning through your senses. Can't you SEE that you now have no ground to claim the world was not finished in 6 days.
On a serious note, let me recommend some books that may lead you to rethink your epistemic position. Here are the links:
1
http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_ ... cts_id=127
2
http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_ ... cts_id=101
3
http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_ ... ucts_id=63
Sola Scriptura
Red Beetle
: