The standard of decidability in philosophy is excuse making (justificationism). The standard of decidability in law is malincentive, evidence, and warranty. (less well articulated as Means, motive, opportunity, and evidence)
Source: Original Site Post
-
The Standard of Decidability In Grammars Matters
The standard of decidability in philosophy is excuse making (justificationism). The standard of decidability in law is malincentive, evidence, and warranty. (less well articulated as Means, motive, opportunity, and evidence)
-
No More Lies.
NO MORE LIES: 1) SCIENCE = LAW, 2) PHILOSOPHY = SOPHISM, 3) THEOLOGY = FICTIONALISM Science consists of performing due diligence such that we can warranty our testimony in operational terms each of which is testable by the audience (jury). In other words, science (which emerged out of western customary law) In science we attempt to falsify until only truth existentially possible candidates remain. Philosophy as the term is used, and as the consists of justificationism. It is an attempt to bridge the legal(scientific), and Imaginary (fictional). Just as theology is an attempt to exit the legal(scientific). In other words, both philosophy and theology seek to circumvent the demand for testimony. Law/Science (falsification) > Philosophy (justification) > Theology justificationary fictionalism). In other words, you either practice law or your practice sophism (fraud) or you practice fictionalism (lying). The question is, if you can’t state your testimony in legal (scientific) language, then you either don’t know what you’re talking about or your lying for one reason or another, because you CAN’T DO OTHERWISE.
-
No More Lies.
NO MORE LIES: 1) SCIENCE = LAW, 2) PHILOSOPHY = SOPHISM, 3) THEOLOGY = FICTIONALISM Science consists of performing due diligence such that we can warranty our testimony in operational terms each of which is testable by the audience (jury). In other words, science (which emerged out of western customary law) In science we attempt to falsify until only truth existentially possible candidates remain. Philosophy as the term is used, and as the consists of justificationism. It is an attempt to bridge the legal(scientific), and Imaginary (fictional). Just as theology is an attempt to exit the legal(scientific). In other words, both philosophy and theology seek to circumvent the demand for testimony. Law/Science (falsification) > Philosophy (justification) > Theology justificationary fictionalism). In other words, you either practice law or your practice sophism (fraud) or you practice fictionalism (lying). The question is, if you can’t state your testimony in legal (scientific) language, then you either don’t know what you’re talking about or your lying for one reason or another, because you CAN’T DO OTHERWISE.
-
Babylonian Origins
The resurrection was added much later and copied from a babylonian source. There are no records of testimony from the period, nor records of his existence. We know the origin of the three days narrative, and we know the origin of the rising from the dead narrative. These were added later by other authors. Saul (Paul) made up most of it, from what was possibly a real person who was rebelling against the use of the temple to raise more money – the roman occupation and the introduction of roman gods meant that temple revenues had decreased rapidly, so the priests were ‘drumming up new business’ and it seems likely some zealot rebelled and was imprisoned and killed for it. But there are no ‘testimonies’ and every pretense of testimony we have appears to be a fabrication.
-
Babylonian Origins
The resurrection was added much later and copied from a babylonian source. There are no records of testimony from the period, nor records of his existence. We know the origin of the three days narrative, and we know the origin of the rising from the dead narrative. These were added later by other authors. Saul (Paul) made up most of it, from what was possibly a real person who was rebelling against the use of the temple to raise more money – the roman occupation and the introduction of roman gods meant that temple revenues had decreased rapidly, so the priests were ‘drumming up new business’ and it seems likely some zealot rebelled and was imprisoned and killed for it. But there are no ‘testimonies’ and every pretense of testimony we have appears to be a fabrication.
-
European Naturalism vs Semitic Supernaturalism
NATURALISM contains Science, Math, History, and LIterature, and Demonstrates Reciprocity, with man a risen beast making ‘deals’ with nature and the gods. SUPERNATURALISM contains Magic, and Demonstrations of submission, with man a fallen angel, begging forgiveness from a despot.
-
European Naturalism vs Semitic Supernaturalism
NATURALISM contains Science, Math, History, and LIterature, and Demonstrates Reciprocity, with man a risen beast making ‘deals’ with nature and the gods. SUPERNATURALISM contains Magic, and Demonstrations of submission, with man a fallen angel, begging forgiveness from a despot.
-
The Heathens(Naturalists) Were Vastly More Effective than the Abrahamics (Supernaturalists)
It is just clear that Heathens (non-abrahamics) in the ancient world and ‘pagans’ (post-Abrahamics) in the modern world were thousands of times more effective than Abrahamists, who by and large manufactured ignorance and superstition, causing the Abrahamic Dark Age of ignorance and dragging every civilization it touched into collapse.
-
The Heathens(Naturalists) Were Vastly More Effective than the Abrahamics (Supernaturalists)
It is just clear that Heathens (non-abrahamics) in the ancient world and ‘pagans’ (post-Abrahamics) in the modern world were thousands of times more effective than Abrahamists, who by and large manufactured ignorance and superstition, causing the Abrahamic Dark Age of ignorance and dragging every civilization it touched into collapse.