If someone has never experienced love or observed love in action, then yes, they would certainly be justified in being skeptical about the existence of love.
Try it like this:
If someone never experienced flobort, and never observed flobort, are they justified in being skeptical about whether flobort exists?
If flobort is defined in such a way as to never, in principle, produce any observable phenomenon, then someone who has never experienced flobort firsthand damn well should be skeptical about it's purported existence.
Skepticism is OK when applied to the right things.
Please explain either:
a) if you agree that applying skepticism towards flobort
is valid then please, as specifically as you can, explain why
that is so.
b) if you disagree that applying skepticism towards flobort
is valid then please either:
1) acknowledge that you believe that flobort
2) explain why you do not believe flobort
exists but do
c) If you cannot do either a or b, then it will suffice if you provide a method or process for discern whether some claim does or does not deserve skepticism.
However, do you know who only believes in things they can see and touch? Animals.
We are not animals. We are spiritual creatures. We have to be better than relying on the simple senses. That's what monkeys do.
First of all, you, I and every other human are animals. Get over it.
Secondly, yes I do acknowledge that we have to be better than relying on the simple senses. That doesn't mean you can just pick any old bulls**t willy-nilly as a 'true' claim regarding objective reality
- refusing to have any sort of sanity check or process to serve as a 'truth filter' is downright bonkers
. You need to have some way to evaluate
claims for truth-value; you need to have some reason
to accept that some claims are true
and other claims are false
. Rules of logic, coherence and consistency with observations and predictions from objective reality...these are tools that we use to extend
our knowledge about reality beyond
what we can get from our simple senses.
Accepting as true claims arbitrarily
, that is, without any skepticism towards the truth-value of that claim
, is abhorrent
to doing better
than our simple senses.