Or, stating that there is a God who created this universe on one hand, and advancing the scientific theory of the Big Bang and the random chaotic creation of this world on the other hand. So after showing the different kinds of oppositions and antitheses the skeptics advance in their search for the truth, we come to analyze their main reasoning attitude: they don’t deny nor affirm anything, they therefore suspend judgment.
Elaborating, to deny something is to assert its falsity, just as to affirm it is to assert its truth. And since the skeptics point out and recognize the mere conflicts and opposition between two equally plausible or implausible claims, they suspend the two arguments against each other. This is why their
…show more content…
(Chater VII, Does the sceptic dogmatize? P36) The skeptic doesn’t even dogmatize when he is uttering the Sceptic formulae in regard to non evident things. The formulae, like “No more”, “I determine nothing”, virtually cancel themselves. When using the formula “all things are false” for example, the two arguments (the first one being all things are false, and the second one being that statement itself is false) are equally forceful and opposing arguments that cancel each other. Hence, when enunciating these formulas, the skeptics report what appears to them, and assent and acknowledge the feelings which derive from sense-impressions, refraining however from making any judgments or positive statements about the reality outside themselves. As mentioned earlier, the skeptics “don’t question appearances, but that which is predicated of them.” (Chapter X, Does the skeptics deny appearances? P38 ) When seeing a red apple, for instance, they don’t deny or question its color, but whether it is in reality as it appears to