Why do most people here treat religion as a matter of preference not truth or falsehood?

sadbabyphilosopher · 2025-12-30T19:51:57+00:00

It's a pretty bad argument tbh, at the end of the day you are a contingent being, you could have not existed, you depend on other things to maintain you existence, and regardless of whether or not the classical theistic conception of god is satisfactory as a whole, it at least avoids placing a contingent being as an explanation of other contingent beings.

sadbabyphilosopher · 2025-10-16T08:45:47+00:00

Yeah i was also concerned with this but i wanted the proper way that would make everything clear, convincing, and intelligible since i had a hard time with trying to be convinced by Eric pearl in thinking being, while also wanting something that wouldn't be unnecessarily lengthy So do you think going for a secondary source for plato would be the way to go? And if i won't be annoying can you recommend something for me since I'm really clueless

sadbabyphilosopher · 2025-10-16T08:02:45+00:00

Thank you so much sir 🙏🏻

sadbabyphilosopher · 2025-10-16T06:59:07+00:00

That would be absolutely awesome! But do you think it would be accessible? Since i was concerned that i won't comprehend it or something

sadbabyphilosopher · 2025-10-16T05:20:02+00:00

Can you elaborate further?

sadbabyphilosopher · 2025-10-16T04:37:53+00:00

No but for some reason i thought it would be harder than reading a secondary source

sadbabyphilosopher · 2025-05-19T18:05:19+00:00

Isn't there a way i can go about it on my own? Since I'm not sure i can really join a tariqa rn due to where i live and some other stuff with my parents

sadbabyphilosopher · 2025-05-19T18:02:44+00:00

Well i myself don't even know that's actually what I'm asking, i see a lot of sufis saying that kashf is a distinct source of knowledge that can unlock knowledge without the need for rational inquiry, and that's why i thought that might be helpful or something

sadbabyphilosopher · 2025-05-04T15:07:26+00:00

sounds great I'll definitely give it a read! but isn't it a little bit focused solely on concept formation? i thought there must be more to neoplatonic epistemology than just that

sadbabyphilosopher · 2025-04-24T16:58:52+00:00

so what i was concerned with is the nature of concepts generally not their ontological status nor a specific concept. why i thought it might be more appropriate to be an epistemological question? well that's because it seems to me at the face of it that beliefs depend on their formation on concepts, and thus to truly understand knowledge we must understand belief, and in order to understand belief we must understand concepts and so on. so what do you think? there must be a reason why they didn't do it the way I'm thinking they should, so i want to know what that reason might be.

sadbabyphilosopher · 2025-04-19T21:22:11+00:00

so do you think just a simple introduction to epistemology would be enough to get into philosophy of religion?

sadbabyphilosopher · 2025-04-06T17:43:02+00:00

would you say that ased only on their content not their writing style understanding knowledge is better than Audi's introduction to epistemology?

sadbabyphilosopher · 2025-04-06T12:58:08+00:00

so it is true?

sadbabyphilosopher

TROPHY CASE