Is there a name for this particular worldview/philosophy?
This isn't really an invitation to judge it, but feel free to, I guess.
>How can philosophy be legitimized? It is not science, there is little empiricism to it in general.
>One cannot cite studies.
Please just give up while you're ahead OP. I'm saying this for your own sake--every reply is digging you further into an embarrassing hole of underageb&
>Do you just feel safer with it?
No, I feel that if someone could prove to me beyond the shadow of a doubt that God doesn't exist, then I could accept that view.
I find that instead of lacking belief or faith, people who don't believe in a higher power instead place that belief elsewhere.
That wasn't even me.
>I find that instead of lacking belief or faith, people who don't believe in a higher power instead place that belief elsewhere.
Very much indeed, some people wrote books about that.
Philosophic burden of proof
In epistemology, the burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.
When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim.  An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition.
Meme all you want.
Either provide an answer to how philosophy can be legitimized, or admit that it is all baseless musing that only exists to fill the gaps until science illuminates them.
Christ. What are you, twelve? How about educating yourself a teeny tiny bit before clogging up a this board with your narcissistic shitposting? I'm embarrassed just reading you. Honestly.
I thought we were more forgiving than this, come on fellas, give the kid a chance? Am quite drunk but regardless at least enlighten him on his musings and give him encouragement. I know cunts brought up Descartes already but really, he's at least better than most mongs.
>I feel that if someone could prove to me beyond the shadow of a doubt that God doesn't exist, then I could accept that view.
See the arguments of the following link:
Congrats OP, you made me think I mistyped "9gag" in my address bar.
>Human laws are behests commanding you to behave a certain way, in which you may choose to behave, or you may choose not to behave; but natural laws are a description of how things do in fact behave, and being a mere description of what they in fact do, you cannot argue that there must be somebody who told them to do that, because even supposing that there were, you are then faced with the question "Why did God issue just those natural laws and no others?"
Who says he did? Who's to say that the natural order in our universe is but one of any number of universes? What I meant by the third line was that there is a transcendent God, not bound by the natural laws within his creation.
>When you come to look into this argument from design, it is a most astonishing thing that people can believe that this world, with all the things that are in it, with all its defects, should be the best that omnipotence and omniscience have been able to produce in millions of years.
I don't have that viewpoint. Nature isn't God, and thus is inherently flawed.
>Moreover, if you accept the ordinary laws of science, you have to suppose that human life and life in general on this planet will die out in due course: it is a stage in the decay of the solar system; at a certain stage of decay you get the sort of conditions of temperature and so forth which are suitable to protoplasm, and there is life for a short time in the life of the whole solar system. You see in the moon the sort of thing to which the earth is tending -- something dead, cold, and lifeless. I am told that that sort of view is depressing, and people will sometimes tell you that if they believed that, they would not be able to go on living.
I don't see a future without the human race as depressing. Everything that has a beginning has an end and there will come a time when life as we know it will cease to be. Plenty of species have gone extinct in the past and will in the future. Humanity is no exception. Even once the earth becomes a husk devoid of life, soon to be swallowed by the dying sun, it ultimately remains an insignificant mote of dust compared to just the size of this universe.
>The Moral Arguments for Deity
>The Argument for the Remedying of Injustice
I did not make the claim that God was good. He is transcendent, beyond the human concepts of good and evil.
>The Character of Christ
It is true that his words have been distorted by future generations of Christians, often to suit the needs of a particular person or the needs of different cultures, but this is more of a criticism of Christianity in particular, not of religion as a whole, or an argument against God's existance. If anything, it proves my point that ideologies are constantly changing and evolving with time.
>Fear, the Foundation of Religion
Fear, and respect, of authority is the foundation of social order. Fear is innate within us. The fear of death and other consequences is one of the major things that drive our actions in life. It is not unique to religion, nor is it a valid case against it.
>Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a better place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.
This is Humanism. I don't believe we'll ever transcend our nature as human beings; to do so would be to become something fundamentally different. We are fated to repeat history, and no matter what changes occur, or how we evolve, we are still bound to repeat the cycle.
>A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men.
If we weren't ignorant as a species of the universe around us, we wouldn't have the need to learn about it.
It is also ignorant to take the view that science and the pursuit of knowledge hasn't flourished because of, and not just despite, the social order present in religious societies. A simple analysis of history and the writings that people in pursuit of knowledge have left us, proves as much.
I know I skipped a lot, but 4chain really isn't the best format for producing pages of commentary.
Do you mean the watchmaker analogy? I've heard about it, but have not yet looked into it with detail. Will do.
LE MORAL RELATIVISM XDDDDDDD EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE EVEN MY SHIT TASTE XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD MY WRITING IS GREAT YOU JUST DON'T GET IT BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS USBJECTIVE XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD NO I NEVER READ ANY PHILOSOPHY BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE OUR OPINIONS ARE ALL EQUALLY VALID XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
You establish "facts," ie. my own consciousness exists. Logic is then your math, reason your formulas. You build philosophy upon this like abstract math, such that it is all substantiated, if not actually less than normative or actually correct.
Of value? No.
I would argue certain tenets could be created which are objective in the human context based off of suffering as an absolutely bad thing for a sentient creature.
Albeit only with respect to certain forms/causes of suffering which are universal, ie. physical damage.
not that guy, but it´s very frustrating see how everybody mocking at you and anybody give a straight and direct answer. i know it´s undergraduate and much people talk about it.
but all you act like questioning about the limits of philosophy is an absurd and surpass theme. and here anybody give a chance to answering without meehh, read this, meeeeh read that… meeeh, you are stupid, man.
what just reinforce the notion that there is not a "correct" philosophy.