How does one find True Knowledge?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7089
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Karpel Tunnel wrote: May 28th, 2019, 6:26 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: May 28th, 2019, 1:03 pm

To return to the title of the thread.
One thing is for sure - you do not find true knowledge, ANY knowledge from this sort of banal faith. Belief is the death of reason and the antithesis of knowledge.
IN everyday speech 'belief' can mean things like religious belief. Though in every day speech one also uses belief to include things one considers true for all possible reasons and based on all possible epistemologies.
I realise this. However is it possible to live your life and never have to use the ambiguous term; belief.
I never say that about things I know or think about. There are numerous examples where other words say far more about how you have come to conclusions.
For example some might say "I believe in equality", when they know that it does not actually exist. What they really mean is that they aspire to a state where all are treated equally under the law, or they aspire to reduce social and financial inequality.
When people say I believe you left your shoes upstairs, they could more accurately say they think they know where the shoes are.
With this way of thinking faith is to belief, what evidence and reason is to knowledge. It makes for more clarity.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7089
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by Sculptor1 »

devans99 wrote: May 29th, 2019, 2:55 am
Sculptor1 wrote: May 28th, 2019, 4:02 pm False. Not only unverifiable but logically falseLogically falsenon sequiturempty headed conclusion. Even if the above were sound, your conclusion who still not be met
You don't have an argument
All you done is say I'm wrong without saying why I'm wrong. You have no counter arguments...
For me to have to make a counter argument, you have to say something that is reasonable.
What you have written is so far from logic and sense as to acquire the phrase "not even wrong". I simply have no idea how or why an intelligent brain could make the first statement. You might was well have said I have a banana therefore I have an apple.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7089
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by Sculptor1 »

devans99 wrote: May 28th, 2019, 1:27 pm1.Causality absolutely requires a first cause.
I replied
False. Not only unverifiable but logically false.

I think you might have to say why you think this.
Since there is no comparative universe in which there is no causality - you have nothing to base your statement on.

In any event the idea of a "first cause" is inherently false since causality requires all effects to have causes. What caused the first cause?
And NO you can't just say God.
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by Felix »

devans99: "Temporal/casual infinite regresses are impossible - matter cannot 'always' exist."

Energy can always exist, it is transmuted into matter, and various configurations of matter can come and go. That is, the infinite and the finite may coexist, you can have finite casual arrangements of matter within an infinite hyperdimensional energy field. But whether we will be capable of understanding the nature of unconventional energy formations (unlike our every day matter) is doubtful, since the logic of material reality may not apply beyond it, as we have seen with our explorations of subatomic particles.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
devans99
Posts: 341
Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by devans99 »

Sculptor1 wrote: May 30th, 2019, 5:38 am
devans99 wrote: May 28th, 2019, 1:27 pm1.Causality absolutely requires a first cause.
I replied
False. Not only unverifiable but logically false.

I think you might have to say why you think this.
Since there is no comparative universe in which there is no causality - you have nothing to base your statement on.
We know causality holds in this universe; so everything in this universe must have a cause. Hence there must be a first cause. It's obvious.
Sculptor1 wrote: May 30th, 2019, 5:38 am In any event the idea of a "first cause" is inherently false since causality requires all effects to have causes. What caused the first cause?
And NO you can't just say God.
Everything in our universe (in time/causality) must have a cause. The first cause is from beyond our universe (from beyond time/causality) so is a permanent fixture; does not need causing.
Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 948
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by Karpel Tunnel »

Sculptor1 wrote: May 30th, 2019, 5:30 am I realise this. However is it possible to live your life and never have to use the ambiguous term; belief.
Though it's unlikely you avoid the verb forms, believe, don't believe.
I never say that about things I know or think about. There are numerous examples where other words say far more about how you have come to conclusions.
Yes, people often use the word 'think' as in 'I think', and this narrows it down not at all.
When people say I believe you left your shoes upstairs, they could more accurately say they think they know where the shoes are.
1) that's two verbs for one thing. I think I know. And it's a pretty messy phrase. It carries no more information than 'I think'. But more importantly when we talk about other people, we often talk about what they believe, or what beliefs they have, or why they believe something. Generally one can substitute 'think' for the verbs, but this is no better. It can refer to things one has great justification for believing and things that one has little or no good reason to believe.
With this way of thinking faith is to belief, what evidence and reason is to knowledge. It makes for more clarity.
Right, but the problem one then has is that knowledge sometimes turns out to have been, all along, belief. It was something one believed to be true (or thought was true) because of all sorts of seemingly great evidence, and then it turned out not to be. Which is why I think it is a great advantage to consider knowledge a subset of thoughts or beliefs. Even in science we find out that things held to be knowledge, turn out to be mistaken beliefs. (note this is not a criticism of science, just noting what is the case).
Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 948
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by Karpel Tunnel »

devans99 wrote: May 29th, 2019, 12:58 pm Cut and pasted from elsewhere, my full argument is:

If we assume time is infinite, then there are only two possible models of the origin of the universe:

- ‘Can get something from nothing’, IE matter is created naturally (eg by quantum fluctuations or big bangs). With infinite time, matter density would become infinite. So this is impossible.
This seems to be missing steps. I am guessing you mean that more matter would be created. But perhaps it just happened once. And I am not sure why it would become infinitely dense, the universe could perhaps expand forever.
- ‘Can’t get something from nothing’, IE matter has ‘always’ existed. Meaning the matter had no temporal start. So this is impossible too*
This is missing steps also.

So that exhausts the possibility space; time must have a start so there must be a timeless first cause.
* A more detailed proof by contradiction:

1. Assume a particle does not have a (temporal) start point
2. If the particle does not have a start, then it cannot have a ‘next to start’ (because that would qualify as a start)
3. So particle does not have a next to start (by Modus Ponens on [1] and [2]).
4. And so on for next to, next to start, all the way to time start+∞ (IE now)
5. Implies particle does not have a (temporal) end
6. Implies particle never existed
Nope,all that demonstrates is there is not start point, with the attendant next to start point. You just proved we cannot label any point a next to start point, not that those points do not exist.


If there is a start of time, a timeless first cause must exist to create time. This is the same first cause as required by causality. It has to have permanent existence and cause everything else; so it is in itself uncaused.
Causality is a theory or the referent of a theory. We know that some laws change over time. We have no way of ruling out something just popping up. Just as I have no way of ruling out a timeless first cause. Even though both are beyond my experience and sound absurd, though something absurd is true, I can't rule them out.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: May 29th, 2019, 11:22 am Maybe the universe. The sun is pretty self driven. I wouldn't have used this example since they had a beginning but since you mention automatons below...
A good counter example; but the sun does not actually move under its own power,
How do we know that whatever created the universe moved? How do we know when sun goes black hole it doesn't create (without sentience) another universe somewhere? Where would a timeless first cause move to? Why would it need to move to create? Why does moving require intelligence. The sun is moving. the universe is moving. Why does moving require intelligence?

so I think the prime mover argument still points at intelligence. We also need something intelligent to account for all the signs of fine tuning in the universe.
The think the various anthropomorphic principles are interesting, but I don't think the necessary point to a timeless first cause. Perhaps everything has always been and tends towards order and wakes up and goes to sleep.
devans99
Posts: 341
Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by devans99 »

Karpel Tunnel wrote: May 30th, 2019, 7:13 am
devans99 wrote: May 29th, 2019, 12:58 pm Cut and pasted from elsewhere, my full argument is:

If we assume time is infinite, then there are only two possible models of the origin of the universe:

- ‘Can get something from nothing’, IE matter is created naturally (eg by quantum fluctuations or big bangs). With infinite time, matter density would become infinite. So this is impossible.
This seems to be missing steps. I am guessing you mean that more matter would be created. But perhaps it just happened once. And I am not sure why it would become infinitely dense, the universe could perhaps expand forever.
- ‘Can’t get something from nothing’, IE matter has ‘always’ existed. Meaning the matter had no temporal start. So this is impossible too*
This is missing steps also.

So that exhausts the possibility space; time must have a start so there must be a timeless first cause.
* A more detailed proof by contradiction:

1. Assume a particle does not have a (temporal) start point
2. If the particle does not have a start, then it cannot have a ‘next to start’ (because that would qualify as a start)
3. So particle does not have a next to start (by Modus Ponens on [1] and [2]).
4. And so on for next to, next to start, all the way to time start+∞ (IE now)
5. Implies particle does not have a (temporal) end
6. Implies particle never existed
Nope,all that demonstrates is there is not start point, with the attendant next to start point. You just proved we cannot label any point a next to start point, not that those points do not exist.
The universe can't of been expanding forever - expanding things have a start to expansion - so at best the infinite universe has been cycling. So as matter is created, infinite density would be reached.

As far as the particle proof is concerned, my proof is valid; if something does not have a temporal start point, then how can it have a temporal start point plus one? So by induction, the object does not exist. If you can't see that, try imagining a spacial object with no spacial start point - its impossible (a circle has a choice of infinite start points btw) - it works exactly the same way for the time dimension - something with no temporal start does not exist.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: May 30th, 2019, 7:13 am Causality is a theory or the referent of a theory. We know that some laws change over time. We have no way of ruling out something just popping up. Just as I have no way of ruling out a timeless first cause. Even though both are beyond my experience and sound absurd, though something absurd is true, I can't rule them out.
Causality is about as fundamental as it comes. I've already ruled out things popping up out of nothing with infinite time - infinite matter density. Anyway what you are suggesting here, matter from nothing, is in violation of the conservation of energy and sounds downright magical to me - stick to the science and logic.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: May 30th, 2019, 7:13 am How do we know that whatever created the universe moved? How do we know when sun goes black hole it doesn't create (without sentience) another universe somewhere? Where would a timeless first cause move to? Why would it need to move to create? Why does moving require intelligence. The sun is moving. the universe is moving. Why does moving require intelligence?
We have movement so movement must of been put in place by something moving initially. God probably triggered the Big Bang with the singularity being the first movement in the universe. Black holes do not explode and create universes - not even light can escape a black hole so they create nothing except Hawking radiation. God created spacetime so he is from beyond spacetime. So extra-dimensional or even non-material. He could move anywhere. The universe needed a lot of thought - to create live pertaining conditions is not straight forward - God would have required intelligence to solve these problem. The sun is moved by the galactic centre, the galaxy is moved by the galaxy cluster centre. All this movement we can trace back to an initial movement, the singularity - at that point we require intelligence. The initial setup of the universe must be just right so that life supporting conditions are just right.

And in additional, to move on your own accord requires intelligence and that is what is required from the prime mover.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: May 30th, 2019, 7:13 am The think the various anthropomorphic principles are interesting, but I don't think the necessary point to a timeless first cause. Perhaps everything has always been and tends towards order and wakes up and goes to sleep.
Neither the WAP or SAP hold.
Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 948
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by Karpel Tunnel »

devans99 wrote: May 30th, 2019, 10:16 am The universe can't of been expanding forever - expanding things have a start to expansion - so at best the infinite universe has been cycling. So as matter is created, infinite density would be reached.
I'd have to get the math guys to check, but I am pretty sure an infinite thing can expand and, well, continue to be infinite.
As far as the particle proof is concerned, my proof is valid; if something does not have a temporal start point, then how can it have a temporal start point plus one? So by induction, the object does not exist. If you can't see that, try imagining a spacial object with no spacial start point - its impossible (a circle has a choice of infinite start points btw) - it works exactly the same way for the time dimension - something with no temporal start does not exist.
Again, if we look at the spatial object, we are always thinking of a finite object. Of course it doesn't have temporal starting point, if it is infinite and
we
can't
label
any other point, the next one
because there are infinite points going back.

You present your argument as if you are eliminating possible points.

No.

You are eliminating the appropriateness of certain labels for point.

Causality is about as fundamental as it comes.
We don't know that.
I've already ruled out things popping up out of nothing with infinite time - infinite matter density. Anyway what you are suggesting here, matter from nothing, is in violation of the conservation of energy and sounds downright magical to me - stick to the science and logic.
Well, scientists with more knowledge than us have found ways to justifying matter coming from nothing. And a first cause is not something that scientists have found. They have also not found timeless things or things outside time. I think you will find if you restrict yourself to what you want to restrict me to, you have no argument.

Further, if there is a first cause, that first cause made a lot of matter and energy. There was no conservation there. It might be natural, but it is nature following laws we do not know. And in fact we know that laws change over time. In the early stages of the universe the laws were not what they are now.

We have movement so movement must of been put in place by something moving initially.
So, God, something outside of time, needed to move to make the universe?
God probably triggered the Big Bang with the singularity being the first movement in the universe. Black holes do not explode and create universes - not even light can escape a black hole so they create nothing except Hawking radiation.
Actually it is a hypothesis held by some physicists that black holes may create new universes.

https://www.outerplaces.com/science/ite ... d-universe
https://www.insidescience.org/news/ever ... w-universe

Beyond my skills to analyze, but again I think you are certain about things where you should not be.
God created spacetime so he is from beyond spacetime. So extra-dimensional or even non-material. He could move anywhere. The universe needed a lot of thought - to create live pertaining conditions is not straight forward - God would have required intelligence to solve these problem.[The sun is moved by the galactic centre, the galaxy is moved by the galaxy cluster centre. All this movement we can trace back to an initial movement, the singularity - at that point we require intelligence. The initial setup of the universe must be just right so that life supporting conditions are just right.
I have seen very good versions of the strong anthropic principle, but even these do not necessitate a God. And you presume God and base arguments on that.
And in additional, to move on your own accord requires intelligence and that is what is required from the prime mover.
Sure, that's tautological. To move on your own accord. That you chose to. But we don't know if the movement needed something that moved of its own accord. Perhaps the universe is panspsychic with a tendency to create life, with no transcendant part, external to time.
Neither the WAP or SAP hold.
Yours is a version of the SAP, a theist version, perhaps a deist one.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by RJG »

RJG wrote:Why must matter have a temporal start? Can you provide an answer without begging-the-question?
devans99 wrote:If you think about it in terms of a spacial object first; what does it mean to have no spacial start? It means the object cannot exist, all of its other dimensions are zero. Then think about an object in time that has no temporal start - if it has no temporal start, it has no presence in time at all - its time dimension (and all the spacial dimensions) are zero. So when you talk about an object 'always' existing, you are talking about an invalid object.
This still begs-the-question (i.e. you are pre-assuming the conclusion in your premise). You are, in essence saying, "stuff without a (spacial) start has no spacial dimensions (i.e. has no existence)" therefore "stuff without a start does not exist".

Look closely at your words, you are repeating your indoctrinated belief as your conclusion, ...which is begging-the-question.

devans99 wrote:A matter particle’s collision history (in infinite past time) can be regarded as an infinite regression in time which is impossible.
"Infinite regression" is a valid logical possibility. There is no logic that refutes "infinite regression" itself.

For example, is there always a number less than any other number? How far back can you regress to find a number that is not less than another number? ...does this regression continue infinitely?

devans99 wrote:Would the black ball go in if the cue did not hit the white? No - we remove the first element in a time ordered regress and find that the rest of the regress disappears.
If you remove the "middle element", does the black ball go in?
If you remove the "last element", does the black ball go in?
If you remove "ANY element" in a series/regression, does the series/regression disappear?

devans99 wrote:So the first element (in time order) is key - it defines the whole of the rest of a regress. If it is absent, as in the case of an infinite regress…
You forget, there are NO "first elements" in an infinite regress so there is 'nothing' to remove. Infinite regressions and "always existing" stuff DO NOT have starting points or "first elements". And be careful not to automatically beg-the-question, by retorting "but, but, without a start, it can't exist [while slamming foot on ground]", for this retort is only an indoctrinated belief, and is certainly not logically founded.
devans99
Posts: 341
Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by devans99 »

Karpel Tunnel wrote: May 30th, 2019, 11:30 am Again, if we look at the spatial object, we are always thinking of a finite object. Of course it doesn't have temporal starting point, if it is infinite and
we
can't
label
any other point, the next one
because there are infinite points going back.
Karpel Tunnel, you are just not getting, on purpose or not I am not sure.

I’ll give you one more example which might help. If you think about a particle always existing then the particle’s collision history can be regarded as an infinite regression in time which is impossible. To illustrate this with an example of a finite regress, imagine a pool table:

* The cue hits the white ball.
* The white ball hits the black ball.
* The black goes in the pocket.

Would the black ball go in if the cue did not hit the white? No - we remove the first element in a time ordered regress and find that the rest of the regress disappears. So the first element (in time order) is key - it defines the whole of the rest of a regress. If it is absent, as in the case of an infinite regress, then the regress does not exist - temporal/casual infinite regresses are impossible.

So the infinite existence of matter is impossible. So time has a start. Which implies something timeless. I don’t care that science have not found it - they will never find it - it lies beyond the singularity - but it is there and we need to use metaphysical approaches to analyse it.
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by Felix »

devans99, There was no causal chain right after the Big Bang, it did not exist until nucleosynthesis occurred and the material elements and isotopes were formed.

Also, cosmic inflation is just one possible scenario:
“Although many observed properties of the structures within our universe are consistent with the inflation scenario, there are so many models of inflation that it is difficult to falsify it. Inflation also led to the notion of the multiverse in which anything that can happen will happen an infinite number of times, and such a theory is impossible to falsify through experiments, which is the trademark of traditional physics. By now, there are competing scenarios that do not involve inflation, in which the universe first contracts and then bounces instead of starting at a Big Bang. These scenarios could match the current observables of inflation.” - Abraham Loeb, Astrophysicist

No offense but your position is an argument from ignorance.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7089
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by Sculptor1 »

devans99 wrote: May 30th, 2019, 6:23 am We know causality holds in this universe; so everything in this universe must have a cause. Hence there must be a first cause. It's obvious.
NO. You are contradicting yourself.
Everything has a cause. Therefore there is not first cause.
devans99 wrote: May 30th, 2019, 6:23 am
Sculptor1 wrote: May 30th, 2019, 5:38 am In any event the idea of a "first cause" is inherently false since causality requires all effects to have causes. What caused the first cause?
And NO you can't just say God.
Everything in our universe (in time/causality) must have a cause. The first cause is from beyond our universe (from beyond time/causality) so is a permanent fixture; does not need causing.
Now you have invented another universe. This is just absurd.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7089
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Karpel Tunnel wrote: May 30th, 2019, 7:02 amThough it's unlikely you avoid the verb forms, believe, don't believe.
Try it for a few days.
I believe nothing and NEVER use the verb.
devans99
Posts: 341
Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm

Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Post by devans99 »

Felix wrote: May 30th, 2019, 4:39 pm devans99, There was no causal chain right after the Big Bang, it did not exist until nucleosynthesis occurred and the material elements and isotopes were formed.
A causal chain should still exist prior to, during, and after the Big Bang. Just because there is a breakdown of matter does not lead to a breakdown in causality. The singularity breaks most of physics but not causality - something caused the singularity.
Felix wrote: May 30th, 2019, 4:39 pm Also, cosmic inflation is just one possible scenario:
“Although many observed properties of the structures within our universe are consistent with the inflation scenario, there are so many models of inflation that it is difficult to falsify it. Inflation also led to the notion of the multiverse in which anything that can happen will happen an infinite number of times, and such a theory is impossible to falsify through experiments, which is the trademark of traditional physics. By now, there are competing scenarios that do not involve inflation, in which the universe first contracts and then bounces instead of starting at a Big Bang. These scenarios could match the current observables of inflation.” - Abraham Loeb, Astrophysicist

No offense but your position is an argument from ignorance.
I am aware of models like CCC by Roger Penrose that are as described above. The problem with these cyclic models is that the cycle time naturally decreases on each cycle so they all end up as one big black hole with infinite past time. I know the physicists concerned claim that they don't; but I do not believe them; basic logic says such models are flawed. Eternal inflation is the most popular pre Big Bang cosmology and it has a definite start.
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021