/lit/ - Literature

How do you justify the transcendental without God?

>>16037397
Whether it be the divinitization of the Logos or the Tao or the Path or the Way etc. It's all typologies describing the same fundamental and foundational Truth that underpins all realities.

>>14757412
in order to prove God, you'd need a presuppositon of God.
just like in order to prove numbers, you need to use numbers.
or in order to prove logic, you need to use logic.
else you just end up inductive reasoning trap that always provides a false negative irregardless of the quality or quantity of proof (absolute skepticism).
you can't really justify using logic if logic has no justification in your worldview; else you'd be arguing in bad faith on a foundational level.
meanwhile, you can't conveniently pin logic to material such as a neural construct as that would be paradigmatically incoherent as immaterial logic would presuppose material.

this was all covered in Godel's Incompleteness Theorems and other shit.

>>14675123
The only way to observe and measure material is to be material. Materialist epistemology is purely limited by our ontological ability i.e. the Material Universe only exists the extent that humanity can sense it.
Yet there is epistemology that exists and is true while not being material; particularly a priori truths. Mathematics will hold true in all realities irregardless of if were here to rationalize it or if the universe even materially exists. It's a transcendental truth.

One could even argue that the basic substrate of reality on which the Material Universe exists on, is built on a truthful and reliable metaphysics of mathematics; it's why 2+2 doesn't randomly change to equal 5 or 3.142, or why gravity doesn't arbitrary decide to function or not.
No one ever bothers to look down bellow their feet and ask what is the foundation holding up all this material in the first place. So it puts material empiricists in tough spot: admit that something exists that can never be measured and isn't matter, or just ignore that inconvenient truth and to just "Shut up and calculate".

>>13513634
And yet empirical science remains entirely conditional of philosophy.
Though I'm sure science can function just fine and reasonable under the belief that 2+2=5 and when you flip on a light switch, the bathtub turns on.