In order to dismiss an argument you need to know something about it (in order to formulate a rebuttal), and if you can rebut it on first principles then any peripheral details become irrelevant.
You clearly don't understand the Courtier's Reply
Dear Gordon, Good Morning ( see that is politeness, some thing that was slapped into me from a very early age, and I do think it has something to do with what old Vlad and Blue are chuntering on about )
Well thank you but no thank you.
So where was I, oh yes hanging from my finger nails shouting yes Blue I have aaaarrrrggghh
and then shouting yes Vlad I have aaaaaaarrrgh
Right to begin ( fuck sake Gonnagle I thought you were finished )
Blue, Foundational arguments
Foundational arguments, in the context of epistemology, are arguments that propose a solution to the regress problem of justification, suggesting that some beliefs are foundational and don't require further justification, serving as the basis for all other beliefs.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
The Regress Problem:
In epistemology (the study of knowledge), the regress problem arises from the idea that every belief needs justification, and that justification itself needs further justification, leading to an infinite chain.
Foundationalism as a Solution:
Foundationalism attempts to resolve this problem by proposing that some beliefs are "basic" or "foundational" and do not require justification from other beliefs.
Foundational Beliefs:
These foundational beliefs are believed to be self-evident or justified through direct intuition or experience.
Justification of Other Beliefs:
Other beliefs are then justified by being based on these foundational beliefs.
Examples of Foundational Beliefs:
In legal systems, foundational beliefs can be found in constitutional principles or fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech, equality before the law, or the right to a fair trial.
Criticisms of Foundationalism:
Foundationalism has faced criticism, with some arguing that it's difficult to identify truly foundational beliefs and that it can lead to skepticism.
Alternatives to Foundationalism:
Some philosophers propose alternative theories of justification, such as coherentism, which argues that beliefs are justified by their coherence with each other, rather than by a foundation.
Well I have read that and I can't disagree with any of it, my foundational belief, God, well actually I do disagree, I do think it needs justification but I have justification, my life, everytime I have fell he has picked me up dusted me off and told me to get on with it, nobody likes a know it all✝️
So then Vlad comes along ( excuse me ladies and gentlemen but if I put this down in black and white it helps me )
Evolution is stupid, have you read Darwin, for years I took the theory as done and dusted, I love the science, but when I started to read about it, find out about it, really study it, it then became more clearer, it had justification, of course it has holes, not hole holes, spaces as in DNA, DNA has filled another hole.
So anyway, this debate ( I am calling it a debate ) I do think that to argue for or against you really need to know your subject.
To end, Confirmation bias, trying to get my head around that one, it seems to me that we are all victims of this, Atheist/Theist and all points in between.
Blue/Vlad, who love ya baby, I do, anyman who increases my knowledge I will gladly shake their hand.
Gonnagle.
