If knowledge is ultimately derived from a set of basic axioms

>>2812415
We pull it out of our ass.

File: That's heresy!.png (283KB, 625x941px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 625x941px

>>2812421
*we have faith

Its all physiological. The furthest-down root to why we believe something will be biological/physiological

>>2812424
Then anyone can put together whatever set of axioms they wish and can make whatever system they like and they are all equally valid.

>>2812436
>Its all physiological.

another axiom...

File: 1445229323861.png (1MB, 1300x860px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1300x860px

>>2812438
No because God decided which are valid.

>>2812441
The limits of our perceptual faculties, i.e. that which we observe which can not readily be observed any way (like biological processes), are fundamental axioms that exist necessarily from our own existence.

Human beings come with a set of physiological/biological axioms, so to say.

>>2812448
*readily observed any OTHER way

>>2812444
Then how do we find out what God decided was valid and what he didn't?

File: Bible Study.png (207KB, 443x523px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 443x523px

>>2812454
You study His Word.

>>2812457
And how do you distinguish what is his word from what isn't hist word in the first place?

>>2812448
then how do you account for axioms that cause people to sacrifice their biological existence?

File: 1446346022367.png (150KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 500x500px

>>2812462
His sheep know His voice.

>>2812467
For example? If you're talking about suicide, the axiom necessary to justify nihilism and self-destruction is that there is no "good order" or meaning in the world that would qualify living. This can actually change brain architecture, as can fundamentalism. These can override or bypass self-preservation instincts

>>2812469
So according to you, a believer can rationally come to know the truth, but an unbeliever cannot ever rationally come to it?

>>2812488
no i mean like someone who chooses martyrdom rather than renounce an axiom

File: 1436977565207.png (210KB, 871x900px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 871x900px

>>2812495
No because all believers were once unbelievers.

>>2812513
But in any case, those who are not called have no rational reason to accept the truth when they are presented with it, so how can they be held morally culpable for rejecting something irrational?

File: 1442676675292.jpg (75KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 500x333px

>>2812522
Because rationality is not the standard by which human beings are judged.

>>2812505
As I said, radicalism changes brain architecture. Threat response + pleasure response stuff - I'm oversimplifying bc its late for me but theres good literature out there if you're interested.

The thing is, once they've ingrained those thought patterns into themselves and created a strict worldview, they would literally rather die than have it questioned or blown apart

>>2812534
So it is morally acceptable to punish someone for correctly rejecting something irrational presented to them?

>>2812534
Are you talking to yourself? Like, are you asking yourself questions but just trying to make it seem like two people by only giving one side of the convo a sort of face-picture?

>>2812544
OP here. No, the person who posts the pictures is someone different from me.

>>2812536
then my question is if the human brain is supposed to preserve itself why would 'radical' axioms even get developed in the first place?

File: He does.jpg (59KB, 521x509px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 521x509px

>>2812539
Yes because a rational response is not always correct; mercy is a good example of this.

>>2812581
So god can punish people for doing what is right (i.e. correctly rejecting something given without a good reason to accept)?

File: BANZAI.png (12KB, 402x537px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 402x537px

>>2812584
God decides what is right.

>>2812581
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei

>>2812599
How is that any different from a simple 'might makes right' ethical system where whoever has the most power gets to make all the rules?

File: 1435331803577.jpg (75KB, 540x732px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 540x732px

>>2812602
>>2812581
>a rational response is not always correct
>not always correct

Sometimes a rational response is correct.

File: 1464049388556.png (249KB, 1168x925px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 1168x925px

>>2812612
Because God is perfect and humans are not.

>>2812599
your god sounds like a thug

>>2812614
>God is perfect
>we know this because he says so

>>2812613
But it's not just a case of something that isn't rational, but something that flat out contradicts reason.

File: ^_^.jpg (2MB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x2000px

>>2812618
He's not.

>>2812622
>>2812424

>>2812623
Just because reason isn't infallible doesn't mean it isn't useful.

>>2812637
If you believe that something which is demonstrably proven to be true can in fact be false, then it is impossible to know anything at all, including the existence of god in the first place, because even if reason shows he exists, reason can still be wrong.

>>2812637
>He's not.
he's a powerful being that uses that power to enforce his will upon the less powerful. seems like if we applied this criteria to anything else you could reasonably use the word "thug".

>>2812565
Self-preservation is a central goal but it is negotiated. Maybe the best way to phrase it is this: the human brain is an axiom-maker, and we come pre-packaged with a self-preservation axiom, but that axiom can be negotiated and even overwritten by new axioms.

File: Christ-chan in the wilderness.jpg (495KB, 1134x1001px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 1134x1001px

>>2812645
Which is why we live by faith.

>>2812650
God is unlike anything else.

>>2812664
>God is unlike anything else.
not an argument. if he can be described in those terms, he is a thug.

>>2812656
why did our brains develop the ability to be 'negotiated' when it goes against the axiom of self preservation?

>>2812415
Using big words does not equate intelligence. In fact using simpler words to convey your thoughts is more meaningful.

That said. Shut your idiot mouth you dumb cunt.

File: †.jpg (58KB, 601x439px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 601x439px

>>2812670
I'm not arguing, I'm just letting you know.

>>2812677
Yeah, we're approaching the point where we look at nature and have to ask "why in the fuck would you do this"

I have some research that slightly aligns with my theory, but I think what happened is that the TYPE of evolution we experienced enhanced cerebral capacity over robust instinct. This allowed us to do things AGAINST our natural inclinations / immediate desires (good for instances like rule of law or rigorous self-cleaning in face of disease). The downside is that we became beings which operate on ideas moreso than material reality. The upside is that ideas have a much more rapid evolutionary process than biology. But again, I'm still looking into this stuff.

>>2812703
that is an interesting theory anon and i agree that we definitely operate on a more than material reality

>>2812664
Why should I accept that I should accept things on faith?

>>2812712
Ye, def not saying we're separate from material reality (as I contend its all biologically manifested and we definitely have a functional idea of real things) but we're more concerned with the IDEAS we have about those materials. Thus if you have a society thats like "god wants you to die on an alter for the spring crops" and you've been raised to find that reasonable your whole life, u bes believe u gonna march up to that altar

Cultures which pampered their human sacrifices are a good example of combating the death drive

>>2812678
This is an important epistemological question that any serious philosopher has to grapple with. It's not a pseudo-intellectual question.

File: 1447048913303.jpg (66KB, 251x257px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 251x257px

>>2812727
That's up to you.

>>2812728
but if youre contrasting ideas and materials then doesnt that mean ideas arent material?

>>2812746
You know you'd piss me off less if your rhetoric wasn't so fucking mediocre
Go find someone who's a little better spoken. You're dragging down the quality of this board and you sure as fuck aren't convincing anyone

>>2812731
You're like that guy in the Walking Dead. Eugene. You use big words your ass can't cash the checks tho.

>>2812746
So there's really no particular reason why I should accept the truth? It's purely a matter of whim and personal preference?

Presuppositional theism is the new relativism by the sound of it.

>>2812767
You haven't addressed the question. By what criteria do we decide on one set of axioms over another?

File: -.png (147KB, 745x814px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 745x814px

>>2812755
Ok we don't have to keep going if it upsets you.

>>2812773
Thank you. If there really was a God he'd probably strike you down for being such a lazy, shitty excuse for an apologist

>>2812772
Just shut the fuck up dude.

Want criteria? I'd beat the fuck out of you but you're online.

>>2812780
In other words, you're just interested in raving and making threats instead of actually talking about the topic at hand.

>>2812581
>rational=utilitarian
Kill yourself

>>2812424
>>2812444
>>2812457
>>2812469
>>2812513
>>2812534
>>2812581
>>2812599
>>2812613
>>2812614
>>2812637
>>2812664
>>2812681
>>2812746
>>2812773
Stop LARPing as a Christian

>>2812415
Well the solution to that problem in the West is consequentialism OP.

E.g you decide the best axioms by the effects they produce in the world.

always a pleasure to have you on board, wolfo

Refer the incompleteness theorem by godel.

>>2812415
Aren't those self-evident?

>>2813404
You're not deciding "best axioms" as if they're wholly subjective. You're governing your life on the basis of said basic principles. OP is wondering by what basis do we come to grasp that said principles are known.
>>2812415
Reason. We don't have much else to go on.

File: 1453561500514.jpg (31KB, 450x599px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 450x599px

>>2812415
Its kind of interesting
I was talking with a friend yesterday about these online MMO's and how they apply to the academic concept of complexity.

If you arent aware, complexity is when rules and axioms can be derived from the rules and axioms contained within the system.
Like if you are familiar with magic the gathering and how many rules and card interactions that make interesting combos.

So the point about knowledge and complexity im trying to make, is that if all knowledge is based of a set of axioms and rules, how do we know if these rules arent derived from an even more basic or deeper foundation.

In that respect i like to look at knowledge as a contextual web, even possibly a giant sphere, rather than something that has a beginning and end.

I mean in te relm of ideas. Do you believe they are discovered or are they created?

>>2812415
>If knowledge is ultimately derived from a set of basic axioms and postulates

Knowledge is experience. The only axiom needed is to assume reality is more or less consistent over time.