That is quite a silly response.LOL... Well, it's nice that you were amused. I must say that I found your reply to my response to by quite silly as well. Indeed, a philosophical treatise was the last thing I expected from my little banter. But, I should have expected that. People who take philosophy seriously are the types to obsess over meaningless minutia.
All questions are "unanswerable" in that sense...Not really. Some questions are unanswerable and some are not. I can't answer the question "is there a God?" but I can answer the question, "what did I eat for breakfast today?" (Oatmeal, fruit and eggs.)
The validation of your own existence and that of the cosmos is "unanswerable." Yet you merrily go along accepting both on FAITH, every day.Nope. I experience both my existence and the existence of the cosmos through sense data every day. Until such time that those sense data are proved to be unreliable on the scale necessary to make questions of my existence and that of the universe tenable, there is no element of faith involved.
Indeed, your participation in this thread assumes you accept several unverifiable assertions: Your existence, the existence of the persons to whom you respond, meaningfulness and knowability of propositional truth. None of these things can be "answerable" in the sense you post above.As I've explained, I can verify my own existence. As for the existence of the person to whom I am responding, in a strict sense I do not know if they are a person or an intelligent machine. But I can rationally conclude, given my knowledge of human behavior, the way in which the Internet and FR functions, coupled with the lack of any awareness that a machine capable of intelligent thought exists, I can be reasonably sure that there is, in fact, a person on the other end of the Internet line. Can I be certain? Not certain, but reasonably sure; close enough that it doesn't make any functional difference. Finally, meaningfulness and knowability of propositional truth are knowable to the extent that language gives us the ability to express and understand each others thoughts. So long as I can discern the meaning of that which you assert, I find that these things are at least as certain as I need them functionally to be.
Are you asserting that you never worry about ANYTHING? Unless you are a poster child for zoloft, I think not.I don't worry about things, like the existence or non-existence of God, that I know cannot be proved or disproved.
You are concerned about many things. Probably the same bag of crap that confronts all of us, including money, career, relationships, and your place in the web of those things. You have as little means of independent verification of those things as one does of the existence or non-existence of God, yet you assume they exist and predicate much of your activities on the idea that they do exist and have meaning.Not really. I can't look in my wallet or open my paycheck and see God, but I can see money and the things that it can bring, such as health, home, property, etc. I experience my career every day in an immediate, objective, tangible way. Not so with God. I've spent time with people with whom I've had relationships, had them express things to me, had me react to them, had them react to me; we've learned from each other, loved and lived with each other. I've seen, heard, and felt all that which a human being does to indicate depth of feelings. Not so with God.
These things are knowable in a way God is not.
If you want to question the existence of anything, that is your prerogative and I firmly support your right to do so, whether it be God, the Bible, the validity of dialectic materialism, or some vagaries of string theory.That's nice. But it's not that I'm "questioning the existence" of anything. I was saying that the question of whether God exists is unknowable.
However, if you spout out some silly nonsense implying some issues are "answerable" while others are not, and you just don't worry about those which are not, then be prepared to have someone call that asinine yawlp the rubbish that it is.LOL... I'm sure I'll survive your silly opinions.
And that is all we need to read to know that either 1) you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about, or 2) you have the greatest mind since DesCartes, who upon whose axioms of "self" awareness rest most of modern thought. He could not "verify" his own existence, but posited that denial of self was an absurdity, since there had to be a "self" to issue a denial. The rest of the ball of wax (the world and his interaction with it), rested on the supposition of a merciful God who would not "trick" us by creating senses that did not correspoond with "reality." Modern rationalism has simply substituted the evolutionary process for the creation of a merciful God. Both grow out of a Cartesian mindset which ASSUMES the validity of self and its interaction with the cosmos, but can VERIFY neither.
Dolts who proclaim otherwise are simply too stupid to see they are arguing in a circle. Theists have their faith planted on one bastion, you have yours in another, but don't come up with some idiotic crap about being able to "verify" anything while others are hopelessly mired in "faith." You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.