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?
This is not a claim it is a hypothesis that I am testing. If you can provide a basis by which you can know things the hypothesis will by falsified, To do so you just need to answer a simple question.
How do you know stuff in your worldview?
God’s revelation is how you know the truth. In fact God’s revelation is how you know anything at all
If you mean physically impossible then the answer is no? people can lie or be deceived
If you are asking whether in my worldview it is logically impossible to swear that oath truthfully with out revelation the answer is yes. In my worldview all knowledge is the result of revelation,
He can’t that is the point.
Truth is necessary for knowledge the Logos is truth
peace
Thanks. I find your recent responses very comforting and I’ll leave you alone for now.
Please don’t ask me how I know that I find your responses very comforting. I just find….
All axioms are arbitrary. Your presupposition of the Christian God is likewise purely personal preference. After all, you cannot reason towards it.
It doesn’t actually matter what axioms each of us adopt, as long as the consequences of those choices don’t result in harm done. So I will leave you with yours, as you will leave me with mine.
fG
Satan whispers truth in my ears at the stroke of midnight.
The Christian worldview is unique in that the Logos is not only a presupposition for knowledge it is also a revealed truth.
The Logos became flesh.
Sort of like with anthropic principle we can think about the sort of precise preexisting “conditions” that would be necessary for actual knowledge to occur and low and behold those are exactly the attributes that God has as revealed in Christianity.
quote:
The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world.
(Joh 1:9)
end quote:
The weak version of the principle simply holds that the Christian God meets all the necessary requirements so that if he exists actual knowledge is possible.
The strong version holds that only if the Christin God exists is knowledge possible.
The inability of anyone here to provide a basis for knowledge other than the Christian God apparently means that I am justified in holding to the strong version.
peace
I hadn’t realized that this thread too is now about revelation. It’s, like omnipresent.
Anyhow.
Suppose for the sake of argument the truth of the proposition Fifth puts above that knowledge is only possible via revelation. If so, not only when Fifth knows that God is listening to his prayers by his bedside, but when I know that I’m typing in my underwear, this knowledge is made possible (for both the theist and the atheist) only by God’s grace.
The important thing to note here is that this supposition is actually inconsistent with Fifth’s entire picture, which requires (I think confusedly) that one can know something only if one knows that one knows it. Because if that were the case, the atheist–not believing and hence not knowing of the existence of “revelation”–could NOT know that s/he is typing (whatever s/he may be wearing).
So the revelation backer who says that people can know what they know only through revelation must hold not only that atheists are wrong in their lack of belief in God, but that they don’t know anything at all. Not that they are typing, not that they are thinking, not that they are alive. Again, that follows from the premises (or “presuppositions”) of Fifth’s that (i) one can know something only if one knows that one knows it; and (ii) one can know something only through revelation.
And, again, the premise that one can know something only if one knows that one knows it, is essential to the argument for the necessity of revelation. Why? As has been repeated countless times on this board, without it, the answer to Fifth’s (perennial) question of How do you know anything at all? is, simply, “I believe it, it’s warranted, and it’s true.” The further questions of how I can know that I know it, are irrelevant.
I put this again here so it will be clear to everyone that what follows from Fifth’s “presuppositions” taken all together is that those who disagree with him live in utter, absolute ignorance. They don’t, they CAN’T know one single thing. Only those who agree with Fifth about revelation can know anything at all.
Of course anyone how has been keeping up knows that this is not my position.
We all know lots of things that we do not know that we know.
It’s easy to knock down a straw man but not very useful.
My position is not that you need to know that you know in order to know. It’s that truth needs to exist in order to know.
peace
this is not true folks who disagree with me can and do know lots of things it’s just that they are apparently unable to provide a basis for that knowledge.
IOW they are unable to tell us how they know stuff in their worldview
peace
I’m sorry if I’ve misrepresented you, Fifth.
The “presupposition” of revelation is entirely unnecessary if one need not know that one knows P in order to know P. Revelation is not necessary for “truth to exist”: in fact, it adds nothing. For revelation to be possible, truth must exist. Truth does not require God, revelation, or anything else. That sounds mystical maybe, but it just means only that some things are so and some aren’t.
You can’t get God or revelation or anything exciting from that.
The concept of truth “existing” puzzles me. KN too, apparently.
Well, it doesn’t mean much. Just that, in effect, “p” is true iff p.
ETA: And, I guess, that there is at least one sentence “p” such that “p” is true.
You are mistaken then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
walto,
That’s a sensible explanation, but it seems to translate more to “It is possible to make true statements.” rather than “Truth exists.” I also have no idea what the latter might mean.
That’s false on a couple of levels, and I really wish you’d stop repeating it.
First of all, you’ve said above that you’re not claiming that we need to know that we know something in order to know it. If so, the basis for knowledge–without revelation–is simply JTB.
Secondly, even if nobody you disagree with COULD provide a satisfactory basis for knowledge, that wouldn’t mean that your own was any good. For you to be “justified” in holding some proposition, you must actually have justification for it, and your claim that revelation is your justification is contentious: basically, denied by everyone but you. So you THINK you are justified in believing that your Christian beliefs provide a satisfactory foundation for knowledge. Most others here think they don’t.
If you were to go back (I really believe you’ve suggested this in some past posts) to the claim that knowledge that p requires knowledge that knowledge that p, you might be able to argue sensibly that nobody but you can provide a satisfactory basis for knowledge. Without that, you have no argument for any such statement. With it–while you’d be claiming something I think is pretty clearly false–you could at least make some sort of cogent argument. However, even then, it would be contentious to claim (in fact it would be even MORE contentious) that your religion can provide a satisfactory basis for knowledge.
Anyhow, I’d appreciate if you’d stop making (in fact repetitiously braying) that absurd and presumptuous claim.
That’s a sensible explanation, but it seems to translate more to “It is possible to make true statements.” rather than “Truth exists.”I also have no idea what the latter might mean.
I don’t think it means anything more than that it is possible to make true statements.
RB said to FMM:
FMM:
“General” rather than “special” revelations. I’m interested in those, as they are similar to the things I claim to be able to know without revelation. So I posed the following scenario:
Take note of the following: Even when you reach the mistaken belief that there is milk in the fridge, that’s not really the “wrong” conclusion given what you know at the time you form that belief. It is a factor of which you are unaware (kid polished off the milk, drinking straight from the jug) that changes the state of affairs in the fridge such that you are wrong. It is the conclusion you should reach, given what you know.
In the “milk absent” scenario that conclusion is incorrect and therefore NOT informed by revelation. Ergo, you attained that belief with no help from revelation (or while misinterpreting revelation). Given the facts known to you, in that instance you formed the justified (although mistaken) belief that there is milk in the fridge without any help from revelation. In the “milk present” scenario you use exactly the same information to arrive at exactly the same conclusion, with the same justification and degree of confidence. Yet in that instance you are claiming* that revelation was necessary.
Why? If I can reach the justified (but mistaken) conclusion in the “milk absent” condition without any help from revelation, what does revelation contribute in the “milk present” condition? Seems to me that without revelation the same belief would be formed as with – as illustrated by your belief formation in the “milk absent, no revelation/misinterpreted revelation” scenario.
*Don’t go there.
If there’s no requirement that one know that one knows that P whenever one knows that P (as Fifth says there is not), then revelation adds nothing to knowledge. As RB says, if the milk is in the fridge, one believes it and one’s warrant is good (not “defeated”), one knows it. Revelation adds nothing here.
OTOH, revelation WOULD provide certainty, something that other sorts of knowledge generally can’t give. But now, it seems, according to Fifth, there are revelations that don’t guarantee that either. Revelation is thus the epistemic equivalent of the appendix.
Thank god my revelation has been safely removed from my body.
Glen Davidson
I agree that revelation is not necessary for truth to exist but. But I think it necessary for a finite being to know truth exists. If you think there is another way please present it now.
I’ve been asking your compatriots for a while now and no one has offered a way for this to happen.
I keep getting pointed to methods that in themselves have no means to yield unless truth is already present.
IOW I’m asking how you KNOW stuff in your worldview when you have no way of knowing if truth even exists.
peace
Correct,
How do you know truth even exists in your worldview?
Again
1) I’m not trying to justify anything. I’m merely stating my presuppositions.
2) you have already granted that God could reveal stuff in such a way so that I could know it so there is no contention on this point between me and you
I’m not making that argument
I have shared presuppositions and am asking for the atheist to share his that is all.
You have already acknowledged that it is possible in your worldview that you don’t know anything at all so the question is not directed toward you.
I have not made any claim and have repeatedly corrected others who said I have. You must have missed it.
I have only shared my presuppositions and asked for reciprocation. So far none has been offered and you have if I understand you correctly as much as stated that you have none to offer.
peace
I can grant for the sake of argument that you have the justified part down but you have completely forgotten the other necessary part of knowledge “Truth”.
Revelation is necessary not for justification itself but because it is the only means that truth can be communicated to finite beings.
quote:
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak,
(Joh 16:13a)
and
The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.
(Psa 119:160)
and
Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
(Pro 30:5)
and
“From where, then, does wisdom come? And where is the place of understanding? It is hidden from the eyes of all living and concealed from the birds of the air. Abaddon and Death say, ‘We have heard a rumor of it with our ears.’ “God understands the way to it, and he knows its place. For he looks to the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens. When he gave to the wind its weight and apportioned the waters by measure, when he made a decree for the rain and a way for the lightning of the thunder, then he saw it and declared it; he established it, and searched it out.
(Job 28:20-27)
and
For the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding;
(Pro 2:6)
etc etc etc
end quote:
peace
One last time, Fifth, because you obviously are not getting this. For ANY P, I know P just in case I have justified true belief that P. So I don’t need to know that truth exists to know that, e.g. I’m typing. It needs to exist, but I don’t need to KNOW that it does.
Well, what about the proposition that truth exists itself? I can know that the same way. But what would be my justification for my belief that truth exists? That proposition (as I’ve defined it above) is not subject to justification IMO. It’s axiomatic–just as I believe it is for you. It doesn’t actually make sense to deny it, because any such denial seems to presuppose it. This isn’t revelatory, it’s trivial (as I think even Barry Arrington would agree). It’s necessary for communication–but God isn’t.
So you haven’t received anything as stupid as your presupposition in response.
Maybe the answer just isn’t as stupid as you presuppose.
Glen Davidson
We are in complete agreement here.
Truth needs to exist for knowledge
finally someone from your side offers an axiom.
Thank God.
The interesting thing is that you have just presupposed whether you realize it or not the existence of the Christian God. Who is after all truth.
peace
How about providing a list of your other presuppositions so we can compare.
It will save time. You already know mine
peace
Not sure I know them all really. Non-contradiction, Identity, epistemic, metaphysical and axiological realism, Tarskian truth schema, other people, dunno what all else. Same as most people in the world, probably, although I’m iffy on excluded middle.
Not as I define either ‘truth’ or ‘God,’ he ain’t.
Whether you realize it or not all of those are subsumed under the heading of the Christian God. Same epistemic value but less complicated ad hoc and arbitrary.
Please elaborate. This will be interesting to explore.
For me truth is what God believes and the Logos is the exact image of God ie his his thought and beliefs.
How exactly do you define truth and God?
peace
FMM:
I choose to presuppose that a method to knowledge is also a basis for knowledge. Then I offer the method (no need to repeat it yet again). It is patent that the method is effective. (cf: Curiosity)
Your response:
In so doing you contradict your repeated defense of your own presuppositions:
Please inform your ‘bot of that before it asks how I know that a method to knowledge is also a basis for knowledge.
Not at all I just want to see if your method is indeed a presupposition for you. If I remember our conversation correctly you then said you did not presuppose your method.
If it is a presupposition own it and the bot will move to the next question.
peace
Actually, you don’t. You asked if my presupposition is a non-negotiable axiom. I characterized it as a negotiable working assumption. The ‘bot then activated.
Right a working assumption is not an axiom. I’m looking for your axioms. the bot is not satisfied till he hits the bottom of your foundation.
peace
Naturally, I believe in natural revelation.
FMM:
But it can be a presupposition, and a basis for further inquiry. That is what you’ve requested, times many. Moreover, axioms may be treated as working assumptions.
But don’t let me interrupt. Get moving with those goalposts.
As I said above, to me the existence of truth is no more than there being at least one sentence “p” such that “p” is true, where “p” is true iff p.
I take “God” to mean something like “Any entity worthy of worship.” Those aren’t anything like the same, IMHO.
Ok but what does “true” mean to you exactly?
OK but what exactly is “worship” to you?
For me worship means something like adore and honor
I would say that I worship truth and truth is worthy of worship. Wouldn’t you agree?
I don’t follow, Please explain
For me a basis for further inquiry is something like “there is milk in the fridge”. And an axiom is something like “parallel lines don’t intersect”.
I can’t do Euclidean geometry if it’s possible that in the middle of my work the parallel lines might touch each other.
peace
Roughly what I said above. The meaning of truth is given by Tarski’s schema.
Something like prayer, reverence, adoration. What everybody means by it. I’m pretty sure you know what it means.
Yes, that’s about right. Although there’s also petitionary prayer–which I think those might miss.
No. For one thing, I’d make it a requirement of anything worship-worthy to be sentient. Also, the thing would have to be extremely good/kind.
Frankly, worshiping the fact that somethings are the case and some aren’t seems basically nuts to me. I don’t think it makes sense to adore the fact that there are facts at all–even if I do admit liking that there are facts at all. 🙂
Well I would argue that in order for us to know truth the source of truth must be sentient. Otherwise how could it communicate with us?
peace
Why is it that folks think that in order to be worthy of worship God has to give them goodies they ask for?
I note you’ve sidled here from truth (which is what we were talking about and what you claimed God is identical to) to ‘the source of truth.” I don’t know what the latter expression is intended to express, unless it’s some kind of ‘Creator’ of the Universe” thing, and I don’t think we have good reasons for believing in any such thing. (See any of the 812 threads on design and intelligent design here for discussions.)
And the idea that ‘truth communicates with us’ obviously plays on an ambiguity in the term ‘communicate.’ When one isn’t playing silly games of that sort, rocks don’t ‘communicate’ with gravity and people don’t ‘communicate’ with truths in any sense that requires the sentience of gravity or truth.
Well, petitionary prayer is normally included as a common type of worship. But I don’t have a problem myself with agreeing with you and Spinoza that something that doesn’t grant wishes could be worthy of worship.
Probably because people like you with a claim of a hotline to god made lots of money selling indulgences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence
You’ve trained the world well – you can simply pay for forgiveness. And now you ask why people expect things in return for worship? Did you see that “with the permission of the church” line? So it’s not as if this was unsanctioned.
But then again, were an amputee to ask for limb-regrowth they are guaranteed to not get that. But cancer? Yeah, sometimes cancer is magicked away. Yet limbs never return.
Truth is necessary for knowledge but it is not all that necessary. Truth could exist but it would be no benefit to us unless we had some access to it. I just don’t presuppose truth I presuppose the Christian God.
The Christian God is truth but that is not all he is.
I think we have more in common than you realize.
It seems to me that for some reason atheists have a simplistic picture in their heads of what we fundies believe and they can’t get past it.
I think if nothing else this sort of forum is good way for folks in your worldview to see that committed Christians are people to.
peace
If you learn nothing else from this thread you need to learn that people like me were the ones being persecuted by the folks selling indulgences. To associate me with indulgences is not just incorrect it’s a little offensive.
peace
A couple of things that are clear are that this stuff is very important to you and that you’ve spent a lot of time thinking about it.
Yes. Truth is not sufficient for knowledge. Belief and justification are also necessary (IMO). But no deity seems to me to be necessary for any of those. That’s the defect of your presuppositionism in a nutshell, I believe.
agreed
Do you honestly feel justified in believing you have access to objective truth given your finite limited subjective perspective?
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Yep.
Perhaps you should ask people who believe in God
Perhaps it feels truth must be earned rather than revealed