Back to the SSX Fan Site Gravitude Bar Index
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 1:13 amBoard indexFAQSearchArcadeUser Control PanelPrivate MessagesLoginRegister
 



Post new topic Reply to topic
Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2011 1:59 pm  Post subject: Skepticism and the impossibility of Knowledge  
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 11:14 am
Rank: Master
Location: Canada
As I approach my last semester of university, with the completion of my philosophy degree imminent, I have realized, that on the basis of the culmination of everything that I have learned, that there are no conclusive arguments (that I know of anyway) for the existence of such a thing as knowledge. No I'm not saying that there is no knowledge, as that is a self-defeating proposition (because such a proposition must be known). I'm merely saying that anything that we consider knowledge, cannot be known conclusively, but can only be known provisionally (which means we cannot be certain that that knowledge is true). That statement is also provisionally known. Perhaps we can have knowledge, and I (or any philosopher) haven't come across the right argument yet.

So, I challenge someone, to make a case for being able to know something (anything) conclusively.
I want to believe that knowledge is possible. I'm not just being a sophist. But I am a rigorous philosopher, even the tiniest detail makes the biggest problem in epistemology (the study of knowing).

Good luck. Don't worry, we can still be rational.

_________________
transientb.bandcamp.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:48 pm  Post subject: Re: Skepticism and the impossibility of Knowledge  
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:05 pm
Rank: Master
Location: United States
Hi doyle:

I concur with you up to a point. If everyone were omnipotent, then increasing their knowledge of the world--either through self-study, or via courses taught by teachers and professors at public institutions--would be a moot point. So, can humans know everything? No. An example of the following would be the ongoing scientific debate over whether black holes really exist, or if they are merely a component of science fiction. A scientist, for example, cannot send a probe into a black hole's event horizon (i.e., the radius which demarcates "the point of no return for objects which fall into a black hole") and unveil the "truth" about the aforementioned astronomical phenomenon simply because the probe will fail to escape the black hole's gravitational pull if it gets too close to it. However, there are other "signs" that a black hole exists. I am no scientist, so perhaps this link may provide good arguments for the validity of black holes: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast12jan_1/. Others say that black holes cannot exist since they are foundationed upon principles which "stretches" the laws of physics: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v371/n6498/abs/371589a0.html. Still others are skeptical about whether black holes are real or fictitious: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseudoscience/cosmic-x-ray-and-black-holes-t20882.html. Although all three of the camps outlined above disagree with each other, in order to present their case, they need a fundamental understanding of mathematics, and physics, the two constants which can prove or disprove their opinions. (Science, in fact, is derived the Latin word "scio," meaning to know.) Hence, I think knowledge is possible, even if we can only possess a limited appreciation of our cosmos.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:43 pm  Post subject: Re: Skepticism and the impossibility of Knowledge  
User avatar
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 7:47 pm
Rank: Master
Location: Back in Oz
PSN: crispncrunchy
I know conclusively that I will die. Do I need to build a case for that? Or are you going to say that there is a possibility that I'm an omnipotent and omnipresent god.

_________________
Image
Some of my Architectural renders :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2011 6:25 pm  Post subject: Re: Skepticism and the impossibility of Knowledge  
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:05 pm
Rank: Master
Location: United States
Hi crispncrunchy:

I believe that humans are limited in what they can know (see my first post); hence, knowledge exists. I also believe this knowledge can be subdivided into two categories: empirical and deductive. The "truth" acquired through observation and inference can sometimes contradict each other. One of my professors, for example, shared with our class how one might perceive a piece of wood from a Kantian perspective. When one looks at a wooden slat, for instance, it is what it is: a bar of wood. Yet, on a more profound level, the wooden strip is not really composed of wood, but, instead, a series a pattern of molecules which give the wood its shape! Another pofessor I took a class with said that a rock, when evaluated from a Kantian view, is a solid object. Nevertheless, when placed under a microscope, a rock is not a solid object, but mainly air! The professor explained that a plethora of molecules which vibrate rapidly against each other give the rock its solid structure. In both cases, one cannot see the molecular structure which belies a piece of wood, or a rock, but know, based on experiments in which scientists placed both solid objects under a microscope, the truth about how both items function on a microscopic level. And, in the case of the study of the rock and the slat of wood (i.e., by analogy), both possess a paradox reality whereby their empirical nature is diametrically opposed to their inferential nature.

Nevertheless, I still believe that God exists--I happen to be deeply religious.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2011 1:39 pm  Post subject: Re: Skepticism and the impossibility of Knowledge  
Gravitude MVP
User avatar
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 7:43 pm
Scoreboard Honors: 1
  • SSX 3: Showoff: #3
Rank: Gravitude MVP
We all hold abstract beliefs and unfounded opinions to an extent, but to postulate that we may not really "know" anything seems like another unnecessary philosophical paradox. According to the commonly understood definition (no OED) of "knowledge", we do know things at a basic level, from instinctive truths to everyday matters. And I "know" this without appealing to epistemologists or other authorities. I accept the argument that we each only know less than 0.00000001% of everything, but that is still "infinitely" more than all other known lifeforms. Which is another thing we "know" (lifeforms), but implicitly acknowledge (that word again!) is incomplete knowledge.

Quote:
Nevertheless, when placed under a microscope, a rock is not a solid object, but mainly air! The professor explained that a plethora of molecules which vibrate rapidly against each other give the rock its solid structure. In both cases, one cannot see the molecular structure which belies a piece of wood, or a rock, but know, based on experiments in which scientists placed both solid objects under a microscope, the truth about how both items function on a microscopic level. And, in the case of the study of the rock and the slat of wood (i.e., by analogy), both possess a paradox reality whereby their empirical nature is diametrically opposed to their inferential nature.

And beyond that, the atoms that form the molecules are themselves more than 99% "empty"! So the non-solid rock is made out of even less-solid molecules, the atoms of which are not solid either but almost entirely empty!

_________________
Image
Are you a patriot? Then spend 1 hour reading this site.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2011 2:39 pm  Post subject: Re: Skepticism and the impossibility of Knowledge  
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:05 pm
Rank: Master
Location: United States
Hi RE Virus:

You make an interesting statement--that it to say, that different species, based on their ability to process information, are capable of knowing more (or less) about their environment. I also agree with your assertions that humans, while knowing considerably more than other species, still know barely anything at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 9:08 am  Post subject: Re: Skepticism and the impossibility of Knowledge  
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 11:14 am
Rank: Master
Location: Canada
crispncrunchy wrote:
I know conclusively that I will die. Do I need to build a case for that? Or are you going to say that there is a possibility that I'm an omnipotent and omnipresent god.


It's a logically possible scenario yes. However, the more important thing is that...
If you have evidence you are going to die, you have to back that evidence up with some other evidence, and that evidence with some further evidence, until you get to the point where you have no evidence to back up your evidence. Maybe at that point you just "know". But that isn't enough, just to "know" something, it needs to have some form of justification. So, your knowledge is then unjustified.

_________________
transientb.bandcamp.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 12:12 pm  Post subject: Re: Skepticism and the impossibility of Knowledge  
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:05 pm
Rank: Master
Location: United States
Hi doyle:

We know, for example, that if we put water in an ice cube tray, then store it in the freezer, it will probably become an ice cube. (I use the term probably because there is always a chance that the freezer can suffer a mechanical breakdown, and its temperature will not be cold enough to freeze the water in the ice cube tray.) How do we know these things? Basically, from experiments. We know that water freezes at 32 Degrees Farenheit (or 0 Degrees Celcius), and, at these temperatures, water metamorphoses from a liquid to a solid state. We also know that water is amorphous, and takes the shape of anything which it is poured into. In the case presented above, it assumes the shape of the boxes which it is poured into. Hence, after setting up an experiment to discover what happens to water when poured into an ice cube tray, we know what we can expect next time we do it (i.e., have conclusive proof). Hence, while humankind may not possess absolute knowledge about EVERYTHING, they can at least they can possess absolute knowledge about SOME THINGS.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 2:32 pm  Post subject: Re: Skepticism and the impossibility of Knowledge  
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 11:14 am
Rank: Master
Location: Canada
QuotidianPerfection wrote:
Hi doyle:

We know, for example, that if we put water in an ice cube tray, then store it in the freezer, it will probably become an ice cube. (I use the term probably because there is always a chance that the freezer can suffer a mechanical breakdown, and its temperature will not be cold enough to freeze the water in the ice cube tray.) How do we know these things? Basically, from experiments. We know that water freezes at 32 Degrees Farenheit (or 0 Degrees Celcius), and, at these temperatures, water metamorphoses from a liquid to a solid state. We also know that water is amorphous, and takes the shape of anything which it is poured into. In the case presented above, it assumes the shape of the boxes which it is poured into. Hence, after setting up an experiment to discover what happens to water when poured into an ice cube tray, we know what we can expect next time we do it (i.e., have conclusive proof). Hence, while humankind may not possess absolute knowledge about EVERYTHING, they can at least they can possess absolute knowledge about SOME THINGS.


There is an infinite amount of logical possibilities that could be true about the above case, that do not involve ice freezing at 32 degrees farenheit. Yes, it is absolutely rational to hold the belief that water freezes at 32 degrees F. But I must ask you, to say that ice freezes at 32 degrees celsius, is basically an inductive argument. However, the only way we can show the validity of inductive arguments is to say something along the lines of, "what is the case now, will also be the case in the future" which is another inductive argument. But by attempting to prove that inductive arguments lead to truth by another inductive argument, you are essentially begging the question. That is to say, assuming your conclusion in your premises. There is no justified (no non-question begging) reason for thinking that things now will be the same as they are tomorrow. So, yes I would not blame any epistemic agent for making use of induction, because it is something quite unavoidable in humans, however, inductive arguments cannot be shown to lead to truth.
Sucks eh.

What's even worse is the fact that the only way to prove deductive logic leads to truth is through deductive arguments, meaning that deductive logic is all based on circular reasoning as well. So, while it may seem that you "know" that ice cubes freeze at 32 degrees farenheit, it follows from an unjustified assumption.

And yes, even if we could have knowledge, it would be impossible to know everything, because you would need to know that you know everything. But then for every set of knowledge A, then we'd have to know a further fact F, that we know everything from set of knowledge A, making set of knowledge B. But then for that set of knowledge we'd need a further fact F', to know that we know everything in the set of knowledge B, making set of knowledge C. And this continues until infinity.

_________________
transientb.bandcamp.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 3:04 pm  Post subject: Re: Skepticism and the impossibility of Knowledge  
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 11:14 am
Rank: Master
Location: Canada
RE Virus wrote:
We all hold abstract beliefs and unfounded opinions to an extent, but to postulate that we may not really "know" anything seems like another unnecessary philosophical paradox. According to the commonly understood definition (no OED) of "knowledge", we do know things at a basic level, from instinctive truths to everyday matters. And I "know" this without appealing to epistemologists or other authorities. I accept the argument that we each only know less than 0.00000001% of everything, but that is still "infinitely" more than all other known lifeforms. Which is another thing we "know" (lifeforms), but implicitly acknowledge (that word again!) is incomplete knowledge.
!


What would you consider to be an instinctive truth?

_________________
transientb.bandcamp.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 3:15 pm  Post subject: Re: Skepticism and the impossibility of Knowledge  
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:05 pm
Rank: Master
Location: United States
Hi doyle:

Let's eliminate numbers from the equation momentarily. For argument's sake, we shall also forget about past assumptions and predictions regarding an experiment. Suppose it were possible to pour water into an ice cube tray in Arctic temperatures, then OBSERVE the process of the WATER freezing OVER TIME. Eventually, the liquid poured into the ice cube boxes (i.e., water) solidifies into the form of little ice cubes. The observer can therefore know, with certainty, that water, at a certain period in time, became a solid. In the case presented above, there is no circular resasoning nor deduction involved. Rather, the aforementioned scenario demonstrates the following: "at this time, and under these conditions, I witnessed this transpire." This leads me to believe that humans can know SOME THINGS with certainty, even if causal reasoning regarding the previously alluded to test (i.e., how and why water become a solid at a given time and place) is tainted by variability.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 3:39 pm  Post subject: Re: Skepticism and the impossibility of Knowledge  
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 11:14 am
Rank: Master
Location: Canada
Ok, so, what you want to say is that you know the following proposition conclusively

<At time t, I witnessed water turn to ice>

So, if I ask the question, how do you know that you witnessed water turn to ice? You might say, I just know. But you don't have that option, because knowledge requires justification, we need a reason for knowing something is true. So maybe you could say, well perception is reliable for arriving at truth. But then I can ask a further question. How do you know perception is reliable for arriving at truth? How do you know you aren't a brain in a vat, how do you know you aren't dreaming, how do you know that your body's inner wiring works properly. How can you rule out the infinite amount of alternate logical possibilities for your witnessing water turn to ice. So there are three possibilities. You and I will talk from now until the end of the universe, you giving me an answer for every "How do you know that X is true". In this case, we will never arrive at the justification for your first claim. But, chances are that won't happen. Chances are you will say. Listen, I just know. But you can't have knowledge without justification. You need to give me some reason for thinking the belief you have right now is knowledge. If you give a reason, the cycle of justification continues, and if you don't the cycle of justification ends, and your knowledge relies on an unjustified claim. So, you can't say that you conclusively know that <At time t, I witnessed water turn to ice>.

I think it's entirely silly to think that I'm a brain in a vat and the like, but the fact that it is a logical possibility means we have to be able to answer questions like that.

_________________
transientb.bandcamp.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 4:04 pm  Post subject: Re: Skepticism and the impossibility of Knowledge  
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:05 pm
Rank: Master
Location: United States
Hi doyle:

Let me clarify my former statement. In the situation I presented above, I did not say when and where the experiment transpired, or of it occured in real life or in a deam. What I was trying to portray is the observer sensed (i.e., knew) that something happened in a specific environment. This perception is the subject's truth, or knowledge, irrespective if there is a chance that it can be proven inaccurate at a later date.

1. Hence, one might not be able to say the following: I have just witnessed water turning into ice.

2. However, one can say the following: I thought that I have just witnessed water turning into ice.

By the way, I enjoy this debate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 4:52 pm  Post subject: Re: Skepticism and the impossibility of Knowledge  
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 11:14 am
Rank: Master
Location: Canada
Ok, If I am to agree with you, and the debate stops here. Then you are agreeing to the claim that the only knowledge we can have is of our own mental states, and we have no way of knowing whether they correspond to reality beyond the mind. So all empirical questions, all theological questions, and all questions that have to do with anything outside of the mind are unknowable.

But... I don't agree with you.
Claiming that you can conclusively know <I thought that I have just witnessed water turning to ice> is very intuitively appealing. Of course, who better to know what goes on inside my head than me. Such a possibility was put forth by Chisholm. He argued that one can know that <I think that I have just witnessed water turning into ice> is true because one knows, how could I not know about my internal states? It's true because it is. But remember, every claim of knowledge needs some sort of justification. What reason do you have for thinking that you conclusively know your mental states. Well, maybe there is some sort of quality that these propositions have that separate from mental states that you didn't have, like <I think that I have just witnessed water turning to ice>. If you say such a property exists, then the process of justification continues once again. To know that mental states have some sort of property that allow it to be known immediately, we need a further justification for why that property allows mental states to be known immediately. If we say there is no quality that separates propositions you do believe and don't believe, then our decision for choosing to believe one proposition for another appear completely arbitrary. Back to Plato's Cave we go.

_________________
transientb.bandcamp.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:26 pm  Post subject: Re: Skepticism and the impossibility of Knowledge  
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:05 pm
Rank: Master
Location: United States
Hi doyle:

It is a quite difficult task to prove that any sort of knowledge can be conclusively understood. Nevertheless, I believe it can. For instance, let ub borrow an example from Norweigian Mythology. In Norwegian Mythology, individials equated thunder with their god's wrath. They believed that, whenever they roused the ire of their god, Thor, he would smash his hammer against the sky, and create the sound of thunder as a consequence. Years later, scientists explained that the movement of clouds against one another are what create the sound of thunder. Now, ancient Norwegians have a drastically different explanation for how and why the sound of thunder occurs than do contemporary scientists. While both parties' provide different opinions on the CAUSE of the sound of thunder, their explanations are BOTH IN AGREEMENT WITH ONE ANOTHER concerning the EFFECT created, which is the SOUND OF THUNDER. By concurring on the outcome, they are illustrating that they know something about their environment.

You might diagree with the opinion that I put forth in the previous alluded to paragraph. However, that is okay. I want the debate to continue. The purpose of this debate, as I construe it, is not just to argue with one another, but also to learn from each other as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:24 pm  Post subject: Re: Skepticism and the impossibility of Knowledge  
User avatar
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 10:56 pm
Rank: Master
Location: SLC, UT
PSN: CHROMANAUT_
i feel like this is a dead end argument. why would we question something that in itself isn't provable. prove to me that the question is as valid as the answer. why argue the existence of something when the argument for existence at all is equally arguable?

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImageImage
Click to reveal hidden content: show
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 2:29 pm  Post subject: Re: Skepticism and the impossibility of Knowledge  
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:05 pm
Rank: Master
Location: United States
Hi Tunes:

The argument is not necessarily a "dead end" one if we differentiate knowledge from fact. Knowledge is what we experience during a given moment of time. For instance, one culture can argue that they are witnessing the formation of bitter wind conditions while another can claim that they are in the presence of bellicose spirits. Which culture "knows" more? The answer is that they "know" pretty much the same thing about the event which they witnessed--only the explanations differ. Facts, on the other hand, are "right or wrong" assertions. Based on Doyle's logic, it is difficult to prove that what we call "facts" are absolute verities. After all, how do we know that our senses are not misguiding us? Nevertheless, what we know can be considered an absolute, which is ironic, due to the reason that human knowledge continuously changes. (I am operationally defining knowledge as a method--or perceived technique--of gathering information, in contrast to fact, which I will operationally define as data which is proven true or false.)

I hope this helps.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 10:58 am  Post subject: Re: Skepticism and the impossibility of Knowledge  
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 1:16 am
Rank: Master
Location: York, United Kingdom
PSN: Kubi-ssx
Prove to me that I am not alive while writing this post.
You never know, I might die in a second.

_________________
This post was sponsored by my parents.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:43 am  Post subject: Re: Skepticism and the impossibility of Knowledge  
User avatar
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:43 am
Rank: Rookie
Location: Somewhere in Canada
XBL: deora2dude
Like Schroder's cat?

if you put a cat in a box with poision, it's perceptably either dead or alive until you can confirm it.

the idea of an idea is subjective, as what you think and do is your own interpertation and is therfore never uniform for everyone.

What this entire thread is debating, is everyone's unique interpertation of something that doesn't exist outside of that person.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:31 am  Post subject: Re: Skepticism and the impossibility of Knowledge  
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:05 pm
Rank: Master
Location: United States
Hi patriotic canadian:

In my post above, I have argued that it is possible to know about some facets of life with absolute certainty. This is because knowledge is based on perception, and fluctuates from one moment to the next.

Nevertheless, even scientists admit that conclusions on experiments (i.e., facts) can never be proven, only disproven.

Now, if doyle's thread was titled "Skepticism and the impossibility of Fact," rather than "Skepticism and the impossibility of Knowledge," debating with doyle's postulation, for the reason highlighted above, would be extremely difficult.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:23 pm  Post subject: Re: Skepticism and the impossibility of Knowledge  
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2003 5:21 pm
Rank: Master
Where did you obtain the knowledge that everything requires justification? From university?

Did they require you to justify your own existence?




(Stop chasing your tail, and look up)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 15, 2011 11:06 am  Post subject: Re: Skepticism and the impossibility of Knowledge  
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:05 pm
Rank: Master
Location: United States
Hi Lord Elevation:

There is nothing that I would like more than to say that we can conclusively know some things, and leave it at that. Unfortunately, sooner or later, someone will formulate the following query: "Why can we conclusively know some things?" At that point, I better have an answer ready, or I will suffer the insult of being labeled as an uniformed individual with merely an opinion. It should be duly noted that the following method of study is not heavily influenced by my university study. (I hold an M.A. in Literature, not Philosophy.) It has everything to do, though, with my propensity to question the world around me, and chisel those inquisitive tools to perfection by reading a variety of philosophical texts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 9:12 am  Post subject: Re: Skepticism and the impossibility of Knowledge  
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 11:14 am
Rank: Master
Location: Canada
Lord Elevation wrote:
Where did you obtain the knowledge that everything requires justification? From university?

Did they require you to justify your own existence?

(Stop chasing your tail, and look up)


Propositions require justification.

"I know I exist" as self-evident as it may seem needs some form of justification to be known. You can't say, I exist because I exist. No amount of wishful thinking or circular reasoning can justify even the most self-evident piece of knowledge. Even Hume argued that there was a possibility we don't exist, and there is merely a string of disconnected perceptions forming something that appears to be existence. But really, what it is I believe is that knowledge isn't anything that we have access to because it's something inherently artificial. I would agree that lots of our experience requires no justification, questions of perception, existence, etc. But I wouldn't call it knowledge. At least not in a sense that can be argued or established. The ridiculousness of the fact that we can't get to this capital K knowledge or capital T truth is completely the reason why I've decided to discontinue philosophy when I graduate and go into music production.

_________________
transientb.bandcamp.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 9:54 am  Post subject: Re: Skepticism and the impossibility of Knowledge  
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:05 pm
Rank: Master
Location: United States
Hi doyle:

I read an article written by a Filipino philosophy student. In that article, the author points out to some philosophers make distinctions between the following two terms: morality and ethics. I am trying to delineate along similar lines by explaining how the following etymons--knowledge and fact--differ from one another.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:00 am  Post subject: Re: Skepticism and the impossibility of Knowledge  
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2003 5:21 pm
Rank: Master
When you construct an abstracted model of truth that is completely separated from the reality you experience, naturally, you'll find it impossible to ever discover knowledge. Even you admit that your idea of knowledge is "inherently artificial." Your concept itself is based on circular reasoning - a proposition requires a justification, which requires further justification, and so on. Don't you see that you've reasoned yourself into a hole, by relying entirely too much upon reason?

If you want knowledge, it is something you will find inside yourself. It is divine principle, and you are the embodiment of it.

Intuition does not yell at you. It whispers just above the silence what you know in your heart to be true.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic
Go to page 1, 2  Next


Jump to:  



Information
Page 1 of 2 [ 48 posts ]  1, 2

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests

Show or Hide Information
cron


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group