Originally posted by ajdaha
But if we were to change the definition of proof, maybe then the word could carry more weight.
If I were to have a jelly donut, maybe then I\'d eat it :>
I don\'t like pointless threads, as they tend to be cleaned thoroughly if not deleted by the time the pointlessness rears its troll-like head, so I\'m going to attempt some sort of discussion, before serpentjoe takes the bait... Which I really hope he won\'t :/
Nothing can ever be proven. All life could be a perception.
I think you were trying to say, Ajdaha, that the existence of a world external to one\'s consciousness cannot be established through reason? Transcendental/Universal skepticism is a big mess. If one states that man can know nothing, he or she then will find themselves immersed in hopeless absurdities, for in asserting that there is no knowledge, the skeptic is asserting a knowledge claim - which according to his or her own theory is impossible.
If you meant that man can never attain
certainty, you fare no better. Are you certain that we cannot attain certainty, or is it open to doubt as well? If it is known with certainty, at least one thing is beyond doubt, which makes the principle false. If, however, the principle is open to doubt, then on what grounds can one make the original claim?
;)
