I have read it but I have still a question in mind. Okay god doesn’t provide moral reasons to act the way it wants so what? It is god, it says us to do something and if we don’t it punishes, if we do it rewards.

This is a different way to look at the situation we are in but it doesn’t change anything about the situation. If one believes in god, one should still have to act the way god says. That does just mean they don’t do what they do for moral reasons, they do what they do for the sake of award given by god.

Thanks for the resource

Sorry about the confusion. I just have a lot in my mind about our capacity of understanding, so I just messed up a bit with asking right questions.

I will do further research on mutual perception of concepts.

And I will certainly be going to check out “Quine’s criticism” since it seems to suit my mindset and I like it just by doing preliminary research.

Thanks

Would you like to talk

Holy shit, I should warn my cousins

I appreciate your effort to answer, but I couldn’t find the relevance of this with my question.

Religion part is just how I ended up posting this. My question is:

One of the great starting points in many fields, like science or philosophy is “I am probably wrong about many things — because I am unable to know everything, let’s see what I don’t know and put it to the test”

Can I do this to analytical truths because when I do, I couldn’t find any claim to support them. I am clueless about, does our logic and reasoning correct?

I know “regress problem of justification” but checking it out again on stanford encyclopedia really widen my view, but still clueless whats the answer since there is also a conflict about the topic among academia.

Thanks for book recommendation, it touches on many topics, but I certainly will check out.

Analytic truths are true by virtue of the meaning of their words

Expressing this like seem to me as “They are true because we say so”. It is supported with how we define it, so there is no external claim to support it, so how can we be sure they are correct.

Without wishing to lay down the law, I think “Euthyphro dilemma” is easy to answer, depending on your definition of god. My definition being: God is the creator of everything. There was nothing before it. It can alter or destroy everything, also it can create anything. So pious things defined by god. It didn’t love something and defined it as “good”, it willed everything to happen and named things “good”.

Socrates says:

Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?

Pious didn’t exist before god, so “it is pious because god willed”.

And may I ask why does god need justification; assuming god(my definition) exists, reasoning, logic and other things can not exist without its will, so they were not there when god was. Doesn’t that make god free from logicality?

I hope it is not annoying to answer a clueless like me, thanks for help.

Forget about the religion part, it is just how i ended up post this.

So first things first, I am not saying take something random as premise, what i am saying is you can take a related premise like god to base your actions(praise, not lying etc.). And someone else can question that premise, which is god.

From here i want to question something else, premises that are more foundational like analytical truths. For example: A is B B is C C is A

Here I just want to ask a one simple question: How?

What does “A is equivalent to B” mean here. That’s what I say. Me, myself couldn’t find an answer to this question. It is just obvious, intuitional but I just can’t answer “How?”.

Yeah, comfort probably effects me

I guess we will see

but it seems to me that most sustainable and only living(dont bs me with china, cuba, iran and others many of them are problamatic except china which many people still suffer) system is capitalism, if you consider more than 8 billion people and each one of them only care about their own local communities(familt, friends etc.)(I ignore small percantage of people who are charity workers etc.) it will make sense I hope

It is not easy to explain this with in a thread but if you learn the rise of our modern world it will make sense why there are starving people. Yes there are solutions but you can’t just make everyone that happy, don’t forget that humans are greedy and don’t trust and cooperate with each other for no reason.