Jews are religious believers too. At least the ones who are not atheists.
Rumor has it that there are more atheist Jews in Israel than religious Jews.
And thank G-d Jews in the US aren’t allowed to vote.
“The Skeptical Zone” is decidedly anti-Christ.
Is it equally anti-Jewish?
If not, why not?
So you chose empiricism to evaluate the truth of a proposition for no reason?
What criteria did you use to determine that “it works” equals it’s true?
Are you saying that there is no such thing as a noble lie?
If a myth “works” for a society does that make it true by definition?
peace
keiths:
fifth:
I can never be absolutely certain that my truck is in the driveway, and neither can you — not even if you’re looking right at it. You might be hallucinating it, or it might be a similar-looking but different truck, or an alien might be creating a sophisticated hologram of a truck right there in my driveway. We judge the probabilities of these errors to be very small, however.
When we say we know something, we just mean that we are justified in believing it and that it has a high probability of being true. “My truck is in the driveway” qualifies, which is why I don’t hesitate to say that I know that my truck is in the driveway, even though I am not absolutely certain of it.
I realize that this stuff is difficult for you, fifth, so take some time and really think it over.
correct,
So do you agree folks can have different “perceptive faculties”?
If you perceive something I do not does that make it true for you and false for me?
peace
no that is not the definition of knowledge. Knowledge is justified true belief. Do you agree that in your worldview you can never know if truth actually exists?
It appears given what we can observe about the physical universe there is a high probability that you are a Boltzmann Brain if that is the case we know your truck is definitely not in the driveway . 😉
peace
No, I chose to answer a blithering ninny when I knew better.
I explained it, you ignored it, and revert to your mindless “Why?” BS all over again.
Never encountered one.
What did I write about perceptions? Either keep up or shut up, your monotonous drone is tedious.
Glen Davidson
Once again
I can know stuff if God reveals it in such a way that I know it and I know I know it.
Revelation is not beyond the capacity of an omnipotent God.
peace
No, you’re clearly conflating the sharpening of perceptions with the basic ability of people to make concurrent observations in a reliable manner. If it’s about pitch, you’re going to have to bring in people with great pitch perception, while for most of science we’re really talking about basic perceptions of bird bones, acceleration, or the like, that most people can do either without training or with just a little.
That’s why we have juries, most people can understand what you cannot in your attempts to pretend that some great differences in perception occur in “normal folk.”
Glen Davidson
you said
quote:
we just gain knowledge in the usual ways, by perception, example, and by being told something.
end quote:
It seems you are saying that perception is the way to gain knowledge. Knowledge requires truth so in your worldview perception must equal truth
If this is not the case please clarify
peace
Since when?
Do you agree that in your worldview you don’t even begin to found your truth in a manner that makes sense to others who nevertheless manage quite well without your presuppositionalism? That you would be considered delusional (possibly harmlessly, though) if this was simply your own belief, rather than a shared delusion?
Glen Davidson
So you are saying that if a jury believes it it is true? What if the the jury is tone deaf and you are the only one who can hear the difference in pitch?
peace
Oh, was it that simple?
Hint: No.
Why don’t you show that knowledge requires truth, then tell us what “truth” is to you (or vice versa), and then try your best to justify the nonsense that in my “worldview” perception equals truth.
You won’t.
Maybe you need to give up on simple-minded reinterpretations of what others write.
Please learn the difference between perception and judgment of that perception. It’s not that hard, actually.
Glen Davidson
no I disagree
It appears to me that what you call “managing” is actually just stealing truth from my worldview and then pretending to be innocent of the crime.
This conclusion is just a hypothesis on my part and would be falsified as soon as some one can tell me how you know stuff in your worldview.
I’m waiting
peace
So you are saying that you don’t understand simple English?
They call in experts, maximum density, and today can also utilize machines. If I’m truly the only person on earth that can hear the difference in pitch, and the corresponding signature isn’t apparent in an appropriate audiograph, then the claim I make about pitch is doubted.
See, there are answers, you’re just not good at getting to them, yet quite good at repeating your ill-founded tripe.
Glen Davidson
You can’t know something that is not true.
truth is what God believes.
I’m not claiming this is the case I’m trying to understand what truth is in your worldview.
If you disagree that for you perception equals true then tell me exactly how you know stuff in your worldview
peace
Oh, OK, you just tell us how this is done, and how “stealing truth” really makes a difference to science, and you might finally have something other than repetitious fantasy.
OK, your claptrap is falsified, since you’ve been told–never mind your obtuseness, not our problem.
And incompetent at dealing with views other than your own dogma.
Glen Davidson
can experts and machines be wrong?
sure it’s doubted but what if it’s true? Are you saying that things that are doubted are never true?
peace
Back up that claim, meaningfully.
Back up that claim, meaningfully.
Learn to read properly, for once.
Have done it in a cursory manner, and am not interested in jumping the hoops that incompetence and dogma insist that I leap. Or in teaching a course to someone not even willing to consider what others say about the matter.
Glen Davidson
Non sequitur.
How are you dimwitted enough to get such a dumb idea from anything I wrote?
Glen Davidson
It’s simple you rely on truth but you say you don’t.
1) Does making “a difference to science” equal true in your worldview. and not making a difference to science equal fantasy?
2) Science is about knowledge or should be. Knowledge requires truth (among other things).
peace
because we are talking about knowledge and you brought up machines and experts and juries as if that is how you know stuff in your worldview.
If it’s not about machines and experts and juries and perception how do you know stuff in your worldview?
peace
You didn’t back up that claim. And I didn’t say that I don’t rely on truth. Quit making up stuff.
Did I say that it does?
I told you to back up your claims, and you didn’t. You’re a waste of time.
Back up that claim, meaningfully. Oh right, you can’t back up any of your dull, plodding assertions.
Glen Davidson
LoL!
Why don’t you ever respond properly? It’s very stupid and wrong to suggest that I even hinted that something that is doubted can’t be right. You really ought not to make up armies of strawman to fit your dull and ill-informed expectations of those making sense, against your nonsense.
I didn’t say that it’s not about machines and experts, you just jumped to an improper “question” that didn’t follow from what I wrote, then did so again above. You don’t have the courtesy to actually deal with what people write.
You could try for once to have some sort of capacity for thought beyond your pathetic dogmas.
Glen Davidson
keiths:
fifth:
To know something, you merely have to know it.
You are asking for something different, which is to know that you know something. But like other forms of knowledge, that also doesn’t require certainty.
I know that my truck is in the driveway, though I’m not absolute certain of it. Likewise, I know that I know that my truck is in the driveway, but I’m not absolutely certain of that, either.
Get it through your head, fifth. Knowledge does not require absolute certainty, and that includes knowledge of knowledge.
Finally, you are invoking God as a magical solution to your desire for absolute certainty.
You can assume that you have the ability to fly by flapping your arms, but that doesn’t make it so. Iif you jump off the roof and flap, you’ll end up hitting the ground with an ignominious thud.
You’re assuming that God can magically grant you absolute certainty, but there’s no reason to think that your assumption is true.
In fact, the opposite is true. Any “revelation” you receive might be a hallucination or a deception. The fact that you think it’s emanating infallibly from God doesn’t prove that it is, any more than your “I can flap and fly” assumption means that you really can fly.
This shouldn’t be that hard to understand, fifth. Why not take some time to think about it before shooting off another ill-considered response?
So how do you know if something is right in your worldview?
What is the proper response in your opinion? I honestly want to understand what your presuppositions are. You seem to be dancing around the question without actually answering it.
Why don’t you just tell me how you know stuff. It should be easy.
I’m not particularly interested in a process but in your grounds for knowledge.
If you don’t have any grounds that’s ok just say so. If you think the process is your grounds for knowledge that is ok as well you just need to explain how that process can discover truth.
peace
Yet, as you agreed above, you could believe that God revealed stuff to you in a way that you know it and know you know it and yet be mistaken.
Perhaps that is the case for all of the “revelations” you have experienced, and therefore all of the stuff you believe you know due to revelation.
No that is not what I’m asking
I agree I never said it did. It however does require truth (among other things)
No that is not what I’m assuming, I’m only assuming that God can reveal stuff. There is reason to think that assumption is true. It is part of the definition of God after all
No a revelation can not ever be a hallucination or a deception by definition.
I might be mistaken and think a hallucination or a deception is a revelation but that is a problem with me not with God
Do you see the difference between the two sentences?
Judging from your complete inability to address my question or even fathom what I’m asking I would say it is difficult for you to understand.
If you have questions just ask and I’ll try to help
peace
Not through a made-up bunch of nonsense like you claim to do. And do try to keep up with the answers you’ve been given. If you ever intelligently deal with those, we can move on. Until then, your mindless demands are unworthy of consideration.
Look, you’re older than 12, aren’t you?
Then you don’t have any excuse to play the schoolkid game of asking “what’s the proper response?” Man up, and quit making up stuff.
I’ve mentioned some, so try to keep up, dolt.
You seem to be unable to understand anything not comporting with your preconceptions.
Did, quit making up stuff to hide your inability to answer a damned thing about how you supposedly know things via God.
Well that’s another amazingly stupid claim. It isn’t even slightly easy to really cover how we know things, although, like I wrote, I have given cursory answers to your uncomprehending mental powers.
Well it is a process, so keep up or shut up.
If you’re too dense to understand how it happens, just say so. Even better, I’ll note that you’re too dense to understand how it happens.
Oh, right, when are you going to explain how God supposedly revealing something to you explains knowing truth? I have answered your question, you just asked non sequiturs in response, in your usual churlish, plodding, and unwitting fashion.
Glen Davidson
Bill, you’re up!
It’s beyond simple
The Logos is truth by definition
If the Christian God reveals it it’s true by definition.
By definition God has the ability to reveal something in such a way that I can know it .
If the Christian God reveals it to me I know it by definition.
see,
No big philosophical production. No long chain of difficult logic no obscure inferences just simple straightforward definitional statements.
peace
FFM:
Problem is, as you admit above, you can be mistaken about whether you’ve experienced a revelation – believing that you have, when you haven’t.
I wonder if that doesn’t describe you.
This must be the reasoning in tight circles to which you earlier referred.
keiths:
fifth:
Did you miss the quote marks around “revelation”? You can think that something is a revelation and be wrong about it.
Yes! You’re very close to (finally) getting it, fifth.
You, being fallible, can mistakenly identify something as a revelation when it isn’t one. This applies to all of the things that God has supposedly revealed to you. You can’t be absolutely certain of a single one.
You’re in the same boat as the rest of us. Absolute certainty is impossible for you, and you can only know things to the same extent that we do.
FMM has admitted exactly that:
RB:
FMM:
I wonder if that doesn’t describe FMM.
He even confirmed it here:
He just doesn’t see the implications, apparently.
Yes, it’s all the way to ridiculous.
The Logos cannot exist by definition. Enormous hole in your “logic.”
So what if you (or your authority) make up that definition? Doesn’t mean there’s a speck of truth in it.
And nothing shows that this actually obtains.
Not if you use a different baseless definition.
I see that you have a fiction and nothing else.
Right, you could never reason from sound premises to anything that simplistic, you just have to make up your definitions and pretend that they have something to do with reality.
Right, it’s one prime example of how a person can reason without a single sound premise, hence end up at a conclusion that isn’t worthy of consideration in the slightest.
So you’ve shown that you reason without reference to reality. Sort of the problem, actually.
Glen Davidson
ffm,
Can you describe this process of “revelation” whereby new information is revealed to you?
What actually happens? Do you ask for specific knowledge, or do you just get what you are given?
mostly by observing, reasoning, hypothesizing, predicting, testing, replicating, sharing, challenging, revising, modeling, and onward.
I suppose it can work both ways. However asking is no guarantee sometimes it must be accompanied by seeking and the answer might be delayed and elusive
peace
The Greek word logos can be translated logic. Please explain (using logic) how logic can not exist by definition
Presuppositions are not the result of reason they are the basis by which you reason.
Presuppositions are not conclusions to consider they are the basis by which you consider conclusions.
We have already covered this.
The Logos is my presupposition what is yours?
peace
So, the same as everyone else then. What a surprise.
What is the number of the beast? It’s a simple question with a simple answer that can be found in the bible.
This is not about certainty so your comment is way beside the point. But I would not necessarily grant that absolute certainty is impossible. Maybe we can discuss that at some point.
However right now you need to demonstrate that any knowledge at all is possible in your worldview.
Keep in mind that knowledge is justified true belief. So you can’t have knowledge with out truth.
peace
I already answered this please keep up
peace
It’s the same as you
Nothing there involves God does it?
Well, I missed that. Linky? It would have been quicker just to type the number 😛
Yes in my worldview everyone knows stuff the same way by revelation. It’s the only way you can know anything. You however deny that revelation occurs so you need to explain how you can know anything
peace
I did not see the word revelation in your list of how you know things. If I need to explain how I can know anything then so do you!
peace
You asked how things were revealed to me.
If I said they were revealed by revelation my response would be non responsive and vacuous. My list was what I do, my side of the equation God’s side of the process is to reveal
I can know stuff if God reveals it to me.,,,,,,,,,,,
Your turn
peace
You forgot “poaching.”
We are making progress. In this discussion we have learned a great deal directly from FMM:
– We’ve learned that the application of his presuppositions is circular.
– We’ve learned that it is possible for him to be mistaken about whether he has experienced revelation – believing that he has, when he hasn’t. Perhaps he has never experienced revelation.
– And now we’ve learned that the methods I suggest enable me to know things in my worldview (observing, reasoning, hypothesizing, predicting, testing, replicating, sharing, challenging, revising, modeling, and onward) do, in fact, yield knowledge, even as FMM defines it.
I think I have been pretty consistent in saying that your worldview is a parasite to mine
Again it’s not about the methods it’s about the grounds for knowledge. Mine is revelation from God what is yours?
peace