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?
How did you learn it? Oh that’s right I revealed it.
Is it knowledge? Well that depends on whether it is true.
In my worldview truth exists necessarily so knowledge is possible.
What about you how do you know stuff in your worldview?
peace
peace
Saying it ain’t showing it.
But the point is if I’d asked you what it was before we knew about 616 you would have been absolutely sure it was 666. Right?
You are not god. Things other then god can reveal knowledge, as you have demonstrated. Therefore god is not required for knowledge.
Glad we sorted that out.
Please explain why you’re equivocating.
No, your presupposition is nothing more than a prejudice.
Yes, but you’ve never justified inserting a meaningless prejudice into epistemology.
I use no more presuppositions than you, I just leave the meaningless “Logos” out of it. And my presuppositions are not considered to be infallible.
Glen Davidson
FMM:
Has anyone claimed that people can’t reveal things to one another?
Same way you do. By observing, reasoning, hypothesizing, predicting, testing, replicating, sharing, challenging, revising, modeling, and onward.
We try to keep resort to circular fictions and fallible experiences of divine revelation out of it, however.
There is no equivocating the Logos is precisely Logic and reason and truth.
The Logos became flesh.
No it’s a valid grounds for knowledge. Truth exists because the Logos exists.
Since truth exists I can know stuff
How do you know stuff in your worldview?
Presuppositions are not insertions they are axioms
Please detail your presuppositions here so we can compare.
I only have one…….. The Christian God exists
peace
That is a merely method I’m looking for a grounds
What is your grounds for knowledge?
IOW
How do you know stuff in your worldview?
Cool
So if I was to ask you how you know that FMM believes Jesus is Lord you would say something like “FMM revealed it to me”.
If you were to say
By observing, reasoning, hypothesizing, predicting, testing, replicating, sharing, challenging, revising, modeling, and onward.
That would be completely beside the point. And I would respond with “How do you know those things will help you discover what FMM believes”
Now do you understand what I’m asking?
peace
FMM:
People frequently make false and/or mistaken claims about themselves. If there is doubt about such a claim, I can gather much more reliable and dispositive information about their claim by observing, reasoning, hypothesizing, predicting, testing etc. their behavior than I can by listening to more of their testimony.
Correct, But unlike people God is not mistaken and does not lie
quote:
God is not man, that he should lie,
(Num 23:19a)
end quote:
You don’t have to speak to reveal something people often reveal stuff with their behavior. The point is you can never know what I actually believe unless I truthfully reveal it to you whether I reveal it verbally or through my behavior is beside the point
Surely you would agree with this
quote:
these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.
(1Co 2:10-12)
and
At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
(Mat 11:25-27)
end quote:
peace
FMM:
Now you’ve returned to the circular application of your presuppositions to support the claim of revelation.
Earlier you cited revelation (about which you may be mistaken) in support of your presuppositions.
Round and round it goes!
Yep the Father loves the Logos from eternity and the Logos reflects that love back to the Father……………….. world with out end.
amen
not quite
I might mistakenly believe something not from God is revelation. But if God chooses to reveal something to me I can’t be mistaken
Do you understand the difference?
peace
Not really, why don’t you illustrate with some examples?
Praise de lard!
ffm,
The reason you seem to be doing well is that if you are making it up as you go along, it’s impossible to be wrong.
According to you the number of the beast is both 616 and 666. How convenient. Yet before the 616 was discovered, you’d have sworn it was revealed knowledge and true.
Ok here you go.
Just recently I thought I knew that it would really easy for me to embed my tool in a website so that I could start some hypotheses testing but the process is turning out to be harder that I thought it would, That would be an example of something I thought I knew but really did not. The error as always was mine and not Gods I made a wrong hasty assumption based on incomplete information.
On the other hand I know for sure that I exist right now. This is actual revelation and not a unwarranted assumption on my part.
Does that help you to understand?
peace
No.
And when and where was that revealed to you?
Post your code here: http://pastebin.com/ and perhaps someone will do it for you.
1) It was “discovered” long before Irenaeus discussed it c. 175-185 CE..
2) Ive already pointed out that I can me mistaken and think something is revelation when it’s not but God will not reveal something that is false. There is a huge difference between the two statements
The first one is about me the second one is about my grounds for knowledge
surely you can see the difference.
By the way what’s your grounds for knowledge? IOW how do you know stuff in your worldview?
peace
It’s continually revealed every instant that I am conscious of my existence.
peace
RB:
FMM:
Of course I understand the difference. But “If God chooses to reveal something to me I can’t be mistaken” doesn’t help you.
Accepting arguendo “If God chooses to reveal something to me I can’t be mistaken,” here is your dilemma:
You have a set of propositions you believe God revealed to you. Because you can mistakenly believe something not from God is revelation, some of those propositions may be mistaken, and you can’t know which or how many. It is possible that God has never actually revealed anything to you at all. But even if God has chosen to reveal some things to you in a way that you can’t be mistaken, you nevertheless can’t know which of your beliefs are from God and can’t be mistaken and which are not, and may be mistaken.
Among the things not from God you believe to be revelation may be those revelations you take to support your presuppositions.
Given that, and given (as you have already acknowledged) your presuppositions are circular, neither your presuppositions nor stuff you believe you know due to revelation are grounds for ultimate truth at all.
Welcome to the human predicament.
ETA: Minor edits for clarity.
incorrect
I begin with one presupposition (the Christian God). I accept it a priori because without it knowledge is impossible.
Only later does God reveal that it is actually true
The Logos became flesh but I needed the Logos to reason long before I knew that
peace
1) we are not “given that”
2) it’s broadly and not narrowly circular there is a difference
3) How exactly do you know that circular is bad
IOW what criteria did you use to determine that circular is bad and how do you know that determination is correct?
peace
RB:
FMM:
None of which addresses the point you state is incorrect. So I’ll repeat it:
You have a set of propositions you believe God revealed to you. Because you can mistakenly believe something not from God is revelation, some of those propositions may be mistaken.
How is that incorrect?
FMM:
It follows from your prior statement “I might mistakenly believe something not from God is revelation” that “revelations” you cite in support your presuppositions may be mistaken. If you disagree, you’ll have to show us where that reasoning is mistaken.
“Knowledge is impossible without the Christian God” is a tenet of your brand of Christianity. Therefore this too is circular.
ETA: removed “argument” from last sentence.
Ok I’ll answer point for point
no I have one presupposition that I assume a priori. Before I even begin to reason
Because it is not at this point a revelation. It is a presupposition.
It is only much later from my perspective that it becomes a revelation
hope that helps
peace
Right that is why I treat the “impossible” part as a hypothesis and not a presupposition.
My presupposition is simply that the Christian God exists. That presupposition says nothing directly about the impossibility of knowledge in other worldviews. That is why I am so interested in what your basis for knowledge is.
How do you know stuff in your worldview?
peace
RB:
FMM:
Please note that I said “propositions,” not “presuppositions.”
You don’t hold a set of propositions you take to be true because God revealed them to you?
If you do, some of those propositions may be mistaken, because you can “mistakenly believe something not from God is revelation.”
I gave the example of my own existence. This is true because God revealed it to me. There is no way I personally can be mistaken about it.
don’t you agree
All that God reveals is true
Some of what I believe to be revelation might not be.
Notice the difference in the two sentences is the subject and the object. One is about me the other is about the grounds of knowledge.
What is at issue in this discussion is not my certainty but the ground for knowledge.
can you understand that?
By the way what is your ground for knowledge? IOW how do you know stuff in your worldview
peace
Presuppositionalism: For when the simple-minded want to feel profound.
Glen Davidson
FMM:
The worst possible example you could have selected – as the cogito works independently of whether or not it has been “revealed.”
How about an example of something you believe to be revelation that might not be?
A “ground for knowledge” that provides no certainty about anything you “know,” whether you believe it to be revealed or not, well, that’s a fail.
Can you adjust the ‘bot so it refrains from mindlessly appending the same question at the end of each of your posts? Seems like an awful waste of bits.
ETA: “you believe it to be”
RB, to fifth:
And turn on the spelling and punctuation options, while you’re at it?
fifth:
In fact, all of what you believe to be revelation might not be.
Ponder the implications of that.
Nice to find someone here who believes in reason as a means to certainty.
Do you mean to say that you now know things you did not know before? Were these things revealed to you?
That would be real progress.
You mean like from an eyewitness?
Mung:
Still stings, eh?
Actually no, If truth does not exist then I can’t even know I exist.
here are a few
1) I believe that Christ will not return until after the Millennium
2) I believe that the world is more than a couple thousand years old
3) I believe that there is a connection between vocal atheism and the autism spectrum
4) I believe that my tool is a way to make the Design inference more objective
All of these are things that I think I know to varying levels of certainty. Since the only way to know stuff in my worldview is through revelation they would each be revelation
It is possible however that in each case I may be mistaken.
Why is it a fail? Certainty is not a prerequisite for knowledge. Surely you agree with this
The way to make the questions stop is to simply answer them or to acknowledge that you have no answer. You have the power to do that with just a few words
This is simply not the case.
That I exist right now is one piece of revelation that can’t not be the case. There are others we could discuss as well as soon as you tell me how you know anything at all
peace
Without the presupposition that you exist there is no one to make the presupposition that the Christian God exists , you seem to be saying that you presuppose your presuppositions are true therefore your presuppositions are proved true
Actually you presuppose that only later that your presupposition reveals it is true, since possibility does not prove actuality.
FFM:
Fifth! This is a family blog!
Inbred. Obviously.
Ah, yes, of course. Those who disagree with you must be mentally ill. And we must keep ourselves safe from those people, by force if necessary. And we don’t have to listen or give value to what those people might say, after all they are mentally ill.
What color badge would you like those you have identified as “other” to wear? I believe yellow has already been taken.
Funny how you are still hanging around. It says plenty about you that you hang somewhere full of inbred, atheist idiots.
You’ve been told. But no doubt you can’t accept what you’ve been told, despite being told the same thing many times.
Your behaviour seems to lie somewhere on the autism spectrum.
Yep, case closed!
I doubt that fifth is autistic. However, he does seem obsessive-compulsive about his religion.
ABE: I am not a psychologist nor a psychiatrist. The above comment was not intended as a diagnosis, only as a description.
I don’t think that the autism spectrum as a mental illness except maybe at the most extreme end of the spectrum. Mostly it just describes a set of related characteristics and behaviors.
I would think that most “nerdy” folks including probably myself are somewhere on the spectrum.
As far as the association between atheism and autism Check it out
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psyched/201205/does-autism-lead-atheism
peace
This is not correct. I can presuppose that God exists without assuming anything about my own existence. In fact that is exactly what I do. I simply start with God and not with me.
for instance In order for me to know anything at all unchanging truth has to exist and there has to be a way for me to access that truth.
Later I discover that the God who reveals himself to me just happens to meet those requirements.
hope that helps
peace
No Ive been given methods for acquiring knowledge when I’m looking for a basis for knowledge
Do you understand the difference?
It’s like me asking you how you afforded the nice car you just bought and you responding “with money”.
What I’m looking for is where the money came from.
peace
FMM:
I have to admit that it had not quite sunk in how bizarre your sense of “revelation” is. But your list makes that more clear.
So, you know with some confidence that there’s milk in the fridge. That’s a revelation from God, although you could be wrong (maybe there is no milk and it’s not a revelation from God). The only way you can determine whether it is actually a revelation is to look for yourself. You look in the fridge and the milk is gone. Turns out it wasn’t a revelation from God after all. Nor did God reveal to you that your kid brought laundry over in the middle of the night and polished off the milk.
Interesting to consider your view of “knowledge” in each instance (milk present, milk not present). The cognitive process is identical in each case, deriving the same conclusion from the same information (the night before there was milk in the fridge). What differs is the state of affairs in the refrigerator. Yet it is your claim that In the instance of “milk present” God also reveals to you that milk is present (you can’t know anything otherwise). In the instance of “milk not present” there is no revelation. Given that the underlying process and resulting belief is identical in each case, what, exactly, does revelation contribute?
No, I don’t seem to have that power.
Reciprocating Bill:
By the way, it is my presupposition that a method for acquiring knowledge is also a basis for knowledge.
We know you like my answer because you poached it for yourself. So please adjust the ‘bot.
Hallelujah
Now we are finally getting some where.
So just to be sure we are understanding each other, You simply assume with no prior evidence whatsoever that your chosen method is a valid way to get to the truth.
IOW your method is established a priori. It’s a nonnegotiable axiom
Is this correct?
peace
I would not agree that the resulting belief is identical without revelation my belief would be
“It seems to me that there is milk in the fridge.”
With revelation my belief would be
“There is milk in the fridge unless I’m mistaken.”
The first sentence is about me the second is about actual reality outside my mind
Revelation provides an actual basis for knowledge it replaces my subjective impressions with objective concrete reality.
peace
Who can presuppose?