03 Oct 23
1 edit
@kmax87 saidIs that a real star?
So possibly they also named Alderan?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arabic_star_names
03 Oct 23
@mott-the-hoople saidIf that’s the standard of proof you mean then to prove the existence of someone historically there should be a wide variety of contemporary nonbiased sources that discuss or refer to the person.
maybe you should ask ATY.
"his statement...“Nobody can even prove Jesus existed”
04 Oct 23
1 edit
@mott-the-hoople saidIf you are referring to the Bible. I have read it. Stories. Proves nothing.no more so than Homer’s Iliad proves anything.
I can and did prove it just as much as you can prove any ancient history. There is a book with it ALL in it...read it
04 Oct 23
@mott-the-hoople saidOh well that’s Grimm’s Fairy tales proven to be true then.
I can and did prove it just as much as you can prove any ancient history. There is a book with it ALL in it...read it
I wonder whatever happened to those kids who escaped the gingerbread house 🤔 I hope they’re ok
@wildgrass saidNegative. The I which thinks is not identical with the I which is. This obvious from the fact that we can still read Descartes’ thoughts although he no longer exists.
This thread is amazing.
I think therefore I am. That is all we can be 100% certain about.
There is thinking going on — that is all we can say with certainty, but we cannot conclude from this that there is a thing which thinks.
04 Oct 23
@moonbus saidYou can read Descartes’ writings but you cannot read/directly perceive anybody’s thoughts. That’s why Descartes does not assume he knows anybody else exists; only himself.
Negative. The I which thinks is not identical with the I which is. This obvious from the fact that we can still read Descartes’ thoughts although he no longer exists.
There is thinking going on — that is all we can say with certainty, but we cannot conclude from this that there is a thing which thinks.
@moonbus saidIt's an introspective, personal reflection, so 'we' are not involved.
Negative. The I which thinks is not identical with the I which is. This obvious from the fact that we can still read Descartes’ thoughts although he no longer exists.
There is thinking going on — that is all we can say with certainty, but we cannot conclude from this that there is a thing which thinks.
In the context of this conversation, only Jesus can be absolutely sure that he exists.
04 Oct 23
@athousandyoung saidDid he cease to exist when he was unconscious?
You can read Descartes’ writings but you cannot read/directly perceive anybody’s thoughts. That’s why Descartes does not assume he knows anybody else exists; only himself.
04 Oct 23
@wildgrass saidSolipsists don’t interest me. They prove nothing, not even that they exist.
It's an introspective, personal reflection, so 'we' are not involved.
In the context of this conversation, only Jesus can be absolutely sure that he exists.
04 Oct 23
@moonbus saidI don’t know if Descartes is or ever was in existence based on these absolute criteria.
Did he cease to exist when he was unconscious?
I know I exist. Maybe I didn’t exist when I was unconscious. I don’t even know that I ever was unconscious because I cannot absolutely trust my memory or other people. Descartesian knowledge of one’s own existence exists only for the present moment
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147483
05 Oct 23
@athousandyoung said“That’s what happens when you demand absolute proof of anything. It cannot be done.”
That’s what happens when you demand absolute proof of anything. It cannot be done. Normally this isn’t what people mean by “proof”.
probably the most ridiculous statement I have ever read.