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 exactly do you know this? what criteria did you use to determine the validity of this claim?
IOW how do you know stuff in your worldview?
peace
It’s all a vast simulation for my benefit, yes.
Yet pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.
My worldview has put robots on Mars. Your worldview only allows for subsistence farming, poverty and tales around the fire of the ‘great flood’ and talking bushes. As you can argue endlessly about what it all means you never seem to find time to do actual work. See that computer you are using? An atheist designed that.
Your lack of knowledge of history is showing! You think Christianity had any original ideas at all? Good luck with that….
I already told you – you won’t be alive for very long without having any knowledge of your surroundings. Do you disagree?
fG
I don’t think so, animals are not the same a people
God’s purpose with revelation is not to “get you to heaven”. It’s to glorify God. I find the thought of a infinite Triune God who would reveal stuff to lowly animals that are here today and gone tomorrow simply because he wants to do so to be profoundly awe inspiring .
Why is it that Atheists think that everything has to be for there own selfish personal gain ?
peace
Yes I disagree
A zombie could do just fine with no conscious knowledge at all. The same goes with bacteria and plant life.
peace
But why? You don’t have information about which scenario obtains, and in both instances believe you know something that has been revealed to you by God (there is milk in the fridge). Therefore, why In the one instance do you begin with “me” and in the other begin with God?
It’s possible we are speaking past each other here.
The first sentence was coming from your perspective in which no revelation takes place but instead I attempt to gain knowledge by my own efforts.
The second sentence was coming from the perspective of my worldview in which knowledge comes from revelation.
That is the difference between the two.
Were you meaning to explore something else?
peace
And how do plants thrive. I guess that they receive a revelation, whenever I water the garden.
It is neither logical nor illogical. It is outside of logic.
Since I presume you are not a zombie, nor a bacterium or a plant, I don’t see the relevance of your response.
You want to know what basis we (humans, extending to higher animals) have for assuming we know things. I pointed put that without knowing anything at all, we (humans, extending to higher animals) couldn’t exist in the first place. Since we exist (go on, ask me how I justify that statement), we must have knowledge. The fact of our existence is therefore the basis for assuming we have knowledge.
fG
You’ve misunderstood the entire point of this little thought experiment.
It begins with your affirmation that it is possible for you believe you know something by means of a revelation that was issued to you by God, yet be mistaken. There was no revelation.
It contrasts an instance in which YOU (operating from the perspective of your worldview) “know” something (there is milk) that proves to be correct, with a similar instance in which YOU (operating from the same perspective) “know” something (there is milk) that proves to be mistaken. In both instances you believe your knowledge to be revealed to you by God, although in the second what you thought you knew proved to be incorrect. That said:
You know with some confidence that there’s milk in the fridge. As you have stated repeatedly, you believe that is a revelation from God (you can’t know anything apart from revelation) 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 (Christian FMM) look in the fridge and see that there is no milk. 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.
Your cognitive process is identical in each case, deriving the same conclusion (there is milk) from the same information (the night before there was milk in the fridge), until the moment you open the fridge. What differs is the state of affairs in the refrigerator. Yet it is your belief that, in the instance of “milk present,” God also revealed to you that milk is present (you can’t know anything otherwise), while in the instance of “milk not present” there was no revelation.
Given that up until the moment you open the fridge your cognition arrives at the same conclusion from the same information (there is milk, which I know by means of revelation), what, exactly, does revelation contribute?
No that is only one of many ways to know.
I could receive direct revelation that bypassed the usual sensory method or my kid could simply clue me in that we need milk etc etc etc
no that is not my belief
I belief there was revelation in both cases I just misinterpreted the revelation in the second case but not in the first.
For one thing the knowledge that there actually is milk in the refrigerator or not instead of it only seeming to me to be there .
peace
How do you know that anyone else knows anything at all? This is a serious question, How do you know that everyone but you is not an animatronic meet puppet.
It seems to me that before you can say that knowledge confers fitness you need to establish that it actually exists in your worldview.
peace
Please do justify the statement that “we” as apposed to “me” exist given your worldview .
peace
FMM:
Can you be mistaken about a direct revelation that bypasses the usual sensory method? That is, can you mistakenly believe that something not from God that bypasses the usual sensory method is revelation?
It’s a thought experiment, Einstein. At any rate, that (or what else you dream up that discloses the contents of the fridge) wouldn’t change anything – the point is that you don’t know anything by virtue of the revelation. You have to check empirically somehow or other before you know which scenario obtains.
OK. In any event, you’re still unable to say which is the case until you open the door.
You don’t know which scenario obtains until you open the door (or whatever). What do you learn from revelation prior to and independent of looking? It can’t be knowledge that there actually is milk in the fridge – you don’ know that until you open the door.
God has the ability to reveal to me in such a way that I can’t be mistaken that goes for direct revelation and the “sensory method”. It’s up to him
Well if that is the point you need to support it with evidence.
So far Ive seen nothing that says I can know anything by any other way other than revelation or that I have to do anything at all to receive revelation. It’s up to God and not to me
That is incorrect
I can know it with out opening the door if God chooses to reveal it to me without my opening the door. It’s his prerogative
I think you are completely misunderstanding the nature of revelation.
Revelation does not in any depend on what I do but on what God chooses to do. The reason I open the door is because that is the usually the way that God reveals the contents of the refrigerator to me. It’s not some kind of constraint on God’s revelatory power. God is consistent and does not violate his law but he is not constrained by my limited understanding of his law.
By the way how do you know stuff in your worldview?
peace
FMM:
You’ve stated that about other forms of revelation, yet also affirmed that you nevertheless can mistakenly believe that something not from God is revelation.
So my question is, by the same token, can you mistakenly believe that something that bypasses the usual sensory method not from God is revelation?
Again, is it possible for you to mistakenly believe that has occurred, when it hasn’t?
God can choose to reveal with certainty or with out. It is up to him not me.
If he chooses to reveal with out certainty I can be mistaken if he chooses to reveal with certainty I can not
If God wants it that way……….
Can you get to demonstrating the point please? It will involve you showing me how I can know something with out revelation. So far you have not even attempted to do that.
peace
Still doesn’t address my question.
Granting arguendo that he can reveal with certainty, it would follow that if he does reveal with certainty you can’t be mistaken.
But that doesn’t exclude the possibility that you may come to mistakenly believe that he has revealed with certainty when he has not revealed anything at all. My question to you is, is that possible?
I don’t think so.
I could claim that I am certain when I’m not but I don’t think I could be actually certain and mistaken at the same time.
I could have a high degree of confidence and be mistaken but certainty I don’t think so.
An example would be helpful
Do you have one?
peace
This is revelation:
This is not:
Has God ever revealed anything, you know, interesting fmm?
Holy shit.
That is special revelation
That is general revelation. Two types of revelation one source of truth
quote:
“Nay, but let every good and true Christian understand that wherever truth may be found, it belongs to his Master…”
end quote: Augustine
and
quote:
Therefore, in reading profane authors, the admirable light of truth displayed in them should remind us, that the human mind, however much fallen and perverted from its original integrity, is still adorned and invested with admirable gifts from its Creator. If we reflect that the Spirit of God is the only fountain of truth, we will be careful, as we would avoid offering insult to him, not to reject or condemn truth wherever it appears…….
end quote: John Calvin
peace
I think so
peace
Said differently, you have the ability to be absolutely certain that you are right, even when you are obviously wrong.
And that’s what some of us find troubling about religion.
I think not. Or you’d be sure.
Ah, like general and special relativity?
Except, without, you know, the utility.
FMM:
Sounds tentative. Could you be wrong about that?
I want to give a word of thanks here, to fifth. I realize that we have been giving him a hard time. But he’s been a pretty good sport about it. And I think the discussion has been useful, perhaps even useful for both sides.
Seconded
The ability to presuppose something requires some knowledge about what you will presuppose. If you knew nothing about the Christian God, you could not presuppose His specific existence.
It seems to me ,you had knowledge before the presupposition and revelation, how did you know what to presuppose?
I don’t know that with absolute certainty, but I assume it for the sake of the world making sense.
My starting assumption, or presupposition, if you want to call it that, is that there exists a reality (whatever exactly it is) and that I (whatever exactly ‘I’ is) am part of it. This seems to me a very solid assumption because its negation leads to absurdity. Do you share this assumption?
I have knowledge of my existence, because negating that statement leads, again, to absurdity. Therefore, knowledge exists. Because I exist (and I know that I exist), knowledge exists, as I already said before.
The entities called ‘You’ (i.e. your ‘we’) are part of that reality that I assume to exist. What exactly ‘you’ are I cannot establish with absolute certainty. There are various possibilites, and I go by the ones that appear more likely given what I know. I observe others who by and large are similar to myself, and behave in ways not vastly different from how I behave. The simplest, and imo more likely explanation, is that those others are beings not unlike myself.
More convolute explanations are possible.
Consider a scenario where I am the only ‘real’ person in the particular reality I find myself in, and all others are merely virtual personae. If there exists a multiverse, each universe in it could then be a reality in which just one single person exists, whereas all other personae in there are virtual. In that scenario no bad things can happen to others, because there are no others. I find such a scenario far more compatible with the existence of an omnipotent, all-loving God than if there is only one single world populated by many real personae, many of whom suffer hardship and pain for no detectable reason. In this multiverse scenario the problem of evil is strongly diminished – evil exists only insofar as it affects the single real person in each universe. There could be a reason for that suffering (e.g. the reality is a test platform for the person’s character and behaviours, and they fail the test, therefore bad things happen to them).
If Christianity would propose such a world I would find it far easier to believe than if we live in a single universe populated by everybody, many of whom suffer intolerable hardship and pain without any apparent justification.
Anyway, that is just another scenario and not one I consider very likely. The simpler one is that you and I, and everyone else, are in essence very similar persons living in a single, shared reality. That is what I go with. Do you have a different view?
fG
Most theologians, apologists, and idealistic philosophers seem to forget that once upon a time they were children and – long before they were introduced to sophisticated arguments about truth, falsehood, reward and punishment – they received robust educations in those subjects.
The reason for the tentative response is that I have not explored the possibility of being mistaken and certain at the same time.
If you are mistaken you can’t be certain by definition. It’s sort of a paradox and I wanted to mull it over for a while.
Here is what I can say for certain 😉
I can’t be mistaken about something that I am certain about because if I’m incorrect about those particular things then knowing anything at all would be impossible.
For the record I’m certain about things like my own existence and the law of non contradiction.
peace
The point is not that you learn about God but that God reveals himself to you.
As I have been pointing out It’s not something that you can not know.
quote:
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
(Rom 1:19)
end quote:
peace
well,
It’s been a good excuse to put off working on putting my tool on a web page. 😉
I find it interesting that Keiths has apparently left the discussion and he is the one who asked the question that got the ball rolling.
I asked him if he was willing to go through the trouble of sticking with me as I layed out my presuppositions for him. Apparently he did not think it was useful
peace
How do you know the world is supposed to makes sense?
By the way that is why I assume the Christian God
peace
I think that depends upon which definition. For example, the relevant entries in my dictionary are:
“Having complete conviction about something.”
“Known for sure; established beyond doubt.”
I see no paradox vis the first. Surely it is possible to have complete conviction about something and be wrong. “Having complete conviction” is a psychological, not epistemic state.
“Known for sure” suggests an epistemic state which might collide with “mistaken.” But I think it ambiguous – there is no subject, yet many times when people say they know something for sure, they mean they have complete conviction. “Beyond doubt” also factors in the psychological state of doubt and is also ambiguous.
Ultimately it is the intention of the speaker that counts, so let me restate my question such that the sense of “certain” I intend is clear:
“But that doesn’t exclude the possibility that you may come to believe that God has revealed something in a way that ensured your complete conviction, as a result of which you have complete conviction, when he has not revealed anything at all. My question to you is, is that possible?”
ETA: edits for clarity
It may be your point, but it makes no sense. God has not revealed himself to me. But I’ve been taught that it’s wrong to lie, which assumes that I can tell truth from a lie nevertheless.
I’ve even taken oaths to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but. What’s up with that? Do the civil authorities mistakenly assume that God reveals himself to all witnesses?
Your certainty about tautologies like the law of non-contradiction and your own existence is irrelevant to empirical claims.
When you think you’re certain about an empirical claim, like whether there’s milk in the fridge, the certainty is only in your head, and is subject to revision by evidence, as Bill has been saying.
1) I can’t recall ever being certain about an “empirical” claim.
2) How exactly do you know that certainty about “empirical” claims are all in your head?
peace
I’m having trouble parsing that can you rephrase?
peace
I’m confused
What does being taught not to lie have to do with whether you know that God exists?
peace
I don’t know that the world is supposed to make sense. I don’t know that the world is ‘supposed’ to be anything at all. I think it just is.
Like most people I prefer to think of myself as sane, therefore I go with the simpler, more straightforward view of who and what other people are.
You are making all this far more complicated than it needs to be.
fG
So to you this is all just about personal preference. OK why should I care what you like?
I like barbecue ribs.
peace
No what I’m trying to do is get to your basis for knowledge. How you know stuff in your worldview. In order to do that you will have to think a little deeper about things than you are probably used to
You can’t just assume that truth exists and that the world is comprehensible to you because you like it that way.
You need to have an actual reason why this would be so.
What do you propose
peace
I thought God revealed certain truth to you. If you’re now saying that God reveals nothing to you about empirical claims, than how can you know if such a claim is true or not?
If certainty is not a thought in your head, where is it?
You have claimed that the only way anyone, not just FMM, can know truth is by revelation from God.
When a person swears in a court to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, where does God’s revelation come in?
If a person hasn’t had a revelation from God, is it impossible for her to swear such an oath?
By the same token, if revelation from God is necessary to know the truth, how can a person who has not received that revelation know a truth from a lie?
If God reveals it it is true. Since God does not lie. And God can if he chooses to reveal thins to me in such a way that I can not not know them
and
I’m not saying that God reveals nothing to me about empirical claims. Every thin I know I know as a result of revelation
I’m saying that I am not aware of being certain about any “empirical” claims.
Do you understand the difference?
peace
In the Mind of God
peace