fkusumot on 25 December 2008
| appolose said: What I'm talking about is more along the lines of taking positions on "reality", as it were (if that distinguishes it from what you're saying). It's in response to the idea that something must be proven before it can be taken as a position. My point is nothing can be proven about reality (external world, if that works (not saying the internal world is "I", either)), so to take the Bible as truth is no less an assumption than to, say, taking empiricism alone as truth... |
Well, here, what do you mean that "nothing can be proven about reality"? Nothing can be proven at all? How do you prove that? What do you mean by prove? What constitutes proof?
