Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.
I’ve opened a new “Sandbox” thread as a post as the new “ignore commenter” plug-in only works on threads started as posts.
That sounds basically like saying, “I know stuff because my invisible magical friend tells me, but you can’t know anything because you don’t believe in my invisible magical friend.”
Astounding.
I have never described God as ” My invisible magical friend” so I can’t imagine why you would use that phrase unless you have a very different understanding of God than I do.
I try to avoid misunderstandings like that by constantly specifying that by God I mean the Christian God of Scripture. I don’t think that anyone could confuse that being with ” My invisible magical friend”
Peace
Sorry, but the Christian God of Scripture is your invisible magical friend.
And those are the folks that share your worldview.
The context in this case knowledge in general and what counts as justification for it. It’s much broader than something like mathematics or biology or civil law because it encompasses all of them and anything else where you have knowledge.
We are talking very big picture here. Why are you justified in claiming to know anything whatsoever about anything whatsoever?
peace
You say that like you know it to be true.
How do you know that? 😉
How can you possibly know that?
And since you deny that the law of non-contridiction is universal does your statement actually mean that the Christian God of Scripture is not my invisible magical friend?
peace
But you don’t know you know stuff or even if you can know stuff.
How could you given your worldview?
If you don’t know that you can know stuff you are not justified in claiming that you do know stuff.
It’s pretty simple, you don’t need to do much epistemology to see that.
peace
Not simply but because God choose to reveal that He could reveal stuff if He choose,and He choose.
Exactly,but it is possible you are mistaken, correct?
You do not act as if you are not mistaken?
here is a syllogism in case for some reason it’s still not clear.
Premise one: in order for KN to have knowledge it must be possible for KN to have knowledge
Premise two: KN has no reason to assume it’s possible for him to have knowledge
Conclusion: KN is not justified in claiming to have knowledge
I can be mistaken about almost everything.
I’m not mistaken about that……………..
Therefore there are things where it’s not possible for me to be mistaken.
on the other hand, in a world with out truth it’s impossible to be mistaken about anything..
Get it???
peace
True.
False, he has clearly stated his criteria.
If justifying of belief requires an assumption, then all knowledge is provisional on that assumption.
There is no doubt you can and do hold the position, the question for those who do not hold that position is whether even an omnipotent Being can construct a logically valid argument which can remove the possibility of the unknown for a finite mind without presupposing it first.
And it does seem strange that if such an argument existed and lacking the possibility of doubt why faith would be held in high esteem.
Now if it is not necessary to freely accept then we have evidence that less than omnipotent beings can accomplish that task with humans.
As long there is an unknown, there is the possibility of being mistaken.
I am not mistaken
Therefore, I am not mistaken
Is that the argument the deity uses ?
If you know that without a presupposition why presuppose anything? If that knowledge requires a presupposition, it is possible you are mistaken unless your presupposition is not a presupposition.
Sure. Difference is I think the truth comes from many places, within the game of baseball what is true comes from the rules devised, errors are accessed. Atheist or theist.
That is what KN and walto have been telling you.
peace
newton,
You should know that I’m very tired of this topic the only reason that we are discussing it now is because walto chastised me for claiming to know something while not doing the same to faded Glory.
No he has not. It’s this sort of comment that makes the repetition necessary
In this very conversation walto has granted that he does not have justification for knowledge in general and KN has said justification depends on the type of knowledge thereby implying that he also has no justification for knowledge in general.
Justifying belief does not require an assumption.
In my worldview for instance knowledge is justified because God reveals. I don’t assume God reveals stuff God has actually revealed stuff in reality.
If any knowledge is at all possible God can do it because he is omnipotent.
If it’s not possible for God to make it so that I can know then all knowledge is impossible.
By the way I see no reason for knowledge to be restricted to logically valid arguments. For example some knowledge is basic and some knowledge is self evident.
And I don’t need to presuppose things before I can know them. We know things that we don’t even realize that we know.
Godel showed that there are things in any system that are unknowable from inside the system.
We all presuppose stuff we can’t help it. My presupposition is different than yours in several ways one of those being that the axiom is not just presupposed it’s veracity is revealed to me.
Is it always and everywhere true that truth comes from many places?
If so how would you know it given your world view?
There is a huge difference between knowledge in general and specific knowledge. You can’t have specific knowledge unless knowledge in general is possible.
I want to know how you justify knowledge in general given your worldview. Telling me how you might justify specific knowledge is nothing but a red herring.
peace
A lot of missing premises there. You need
1.5. In order to have a reason for believing it’s possible to have knowledge, one must have a reason to assume that it’s possible to have knowledge. (This seems false, incidentally.)
1.6. No non Christian can have a reason to assume that it’s possible for them to have knowedge. (Dunno about this, because you likely pack a lot into ‘assume’. Most people would say he can know it’s possible for him to have knowledge because he does have knowedge. I.e. you’ve got the ‘assumption’ biz backwards.)
1.7. Unless one can have a reason to assume that it’s possible that one has knowledge, one cannot be justified in claiming to have knowledge. (Again, seems false.)
With those three added I think you can get to 3 using 1 and 2. Good luck.
I honestly can’t remember, but if I was claiming that you were making a logical error, based on a ton of your history here, I was probably right.
If p, then possibly p. Wowee zowee! Stop the presses!
Oops, I forgot
1.8. KN is a non-Christian.
Sorry. That one is pretty easy though. I doubt anybody would deny it.
From another viewpoint ,since it seems we can have specific knowledge , therefore general knowledge is possible.
Exactly.
If p, then possibly p is just an axiom of modal logic. FMM is very excited about it, though.
here we go again
I suppose I would be interested to know how you can have reason to believe you have specific knowledge when you have no reason to believe it’s even possible to have any knowledge whatsoever.
I can fix that one with the implied AFAIK in the second premise. I’m not making a positive claim.
I genuinely don’t know if anyone has a justification for knowledge given their worldview or not till they tell me. That is why I ask the question.
That is simply a restatement of 1.5. so I would just point you again to that response.
To say that something must be possible in order to be actual seems to be self evident. Unless you are positing the actual existence of impossible things.
Surely you don’t deny they law of non-contradiction. Do you?
KN admits to being a Non-Christian in this very thread a few comments back when he says that the Christian God is imaginary so this one is not necessary.
All and all It seems that you are granting my position (if logic holds and impossible things can’t be actual things)
peace
If not possibly P, then not p.
This is not rocket science. If you have specific knowledge of X you should be able to answer the “How do you know that X is true?” question.
If you can’t then it seems to me that your belief in the truth of X is not justified.
On the other hand if you can answer the “How do you know that X is true?” question with out further regress then you will have demonstrated that knowledge is possible
peace
Sadly, it might as well be.
How can you know if not possibly p without knowing something about p and what is possible , first.
All I’m asking for is justification for your belief that knowledge is possible. How you get there is really up to you.
I’m sure that mileage will vary acouriding to worldview.
What you can’t do is simply presume that knowledge is possible with out some way to justify that presumption or simply presume that you know something specific and use that presumption as justification knowledge in general.
That is because given things like BBs or Alvin Plantinga’s (EAAN) or Descarte’s brain in a vat or mental illness or etc etc etc…… it’s much much more likely that knowledge is impossible rather than possible in a universe with out God.
You can of course simply put your head in the sand and continue to act as if you have justification for knowledge when you don’t. Just don’t expect me to play along.
peace
As I have been following, admittedly not too closely, it is rather that everyone else fails to recognise your specialness. They put you in the same boat as everyone else as having no superior ability in truth or back-channel to your god.
My suggestion would be to agree to disagree on this point. As far as I can see, you fail to convince anyone on this and endless repetition does not improve your assertions.
That is not correct, everyone AFAIK grants that God can reveal stuff so that I can know.
Newton wavers on this from time to time but as soon as he is reminded that if knowledge is possible then God can do it he acquiesces.
That God can reveal does not make me special but it does make Christianity special.
I agreed to disagree long long ago and offered to do so once again in my last comment.
That does not mean that I will grant the position that knowledge is possible with out God. It just means that I will move on until someone once again claims to know something that they could not possibly know.
My suggestion is just don’t claim to know stuff unless you offer justification for knowledge.
It’s really simple just learn to use the prefix “I think” or “I believe” before any controversial assertion you make.
peace
That is not agreeing to disagree. The point is that your claim that someone claiming “to know something that they could not possibly know” is unsupported and can be interpreted as an accusation of lying. I’m fine with whatever claim you wish to make about what you know or believe so long as you avoid telling us that other people cannot possibly know what they are claiming to know. You have to keep that to yourself and assume others are posting in good faith. It’s also quite insulting to the integrity of others.
Ah, he’s just really confused. Not understanding how modal logic works (rules involving necessity and possibility operators) isn’t really the same thing as intending to insult. It’s incredibly annoying, certainly. And dopily robotic, but whatever. Just put him on ignore. He can’t learn this, and doesn’t have anything else to do or say but repeat his errors, but those aren’t crimes.
Seconded in all respects.
What do you mean my “claim” is unsupported?
Every single claim made by you all relies on the unspoken assumption that knowledge is possible in your worldview.
I don’t claim anything in these situations I just ask you to justify your claims.
If asking how that you know something is interpreted as an accusation of lying here. Then we truly have went through the looking glass.
I’m not telling anyone anything I’m just asking for justification when you claim to know something.
There is a huge difference between assuming others are posting in good faith and assuming that they have justification for knowledge given their worldview.
I can do the former but not the later until I’m offered some justification.
peace
I think I understand modal logic pretty well perhaps not as well as you but enough to get by.
This is not about model logic.
I can easily demonstrate that obvious fact by simply asking you
How do you know that modal logic is applicable here?
Or
How do you know that you are doing modal logic correctly?
Or
How do you know that I’m confused about modal logic?
etc etc etc.
Any of those questions should be sufficient to illustrate that offering justification for knowledge is more foundational than simply arranging symbols according to rules.
I’m really amazed that you don’t yet realize that.
peace
He means that his claim that your claim is unsupported is unsupported. It’s something J-Mac put in the water.
fifthmonarchyman,
Oy. You still think your stuff gets better on repetition obviously. Just older, still wrong, confused.
Not guilty your honor! 😉
fifthmonarchyman,
How do you know that God can reveal things to you so that you know them?
faded_Glory, to fifth:
If experience is any indication, fifth will say, with a straight face, “because God revealed that to me.” He is notorious for his inability to see the problem.
revelation 😉
AFAIK everyone grants that if knowledge is possible at all an omnipotent God can reveal stuff so that I can know it.
peace
I don’t think it gets “better” it’s pretty effective from the get go if people just take the time to think deeply about where knowledge comes from. Sometimes folks get it on the very first hearing. I know I did.
Repetition is necessary in this life though because people are quick to forget.
For instance some folks here have already forgot that in this thread you granted that you had no justification for knowledge in general.
peace
This is God calling you to pray for fifth, that the problem might be revealed.
keiths:
Mung:
So I have to reveal the problem to God, who will then reveal it to fifth? If God needs to be spoon-fed, good luck to him when he tries to convey it to fifth.
Hey, I didn’t make the rules!
Doesn’t your question presuppose that revelation can be a source of knowledge? Would you care to rephrase it?
keiths:
Mung:
No. I’m trying to figure out why you think my intervention is required. Isn’t your God godly enough to see that fifth needs help?
I didn’t ask who agreed with you on this, I asked how you can know, and justify, that it is true.
I can know because God can reveal.
revelation is justification because see above.
This is pretty simple because the Christian God exists and reveals, knowledge is possible.
What is unclear is exactly how knowledge would be possible if the Christian God did not exist.
No one seems to be able to answer that question.
That is what the fuss is about.
The closest we have gotten to an answer is when Walto said in effect “It’s a profound mystery that folks like KN spend their entire careers working on.” 😉
I have no problem with mystery, I do have a problem when folks treat their worldview as the default neutral position and starting point for argument before they have even justified knowledge.
Peace
fifthmonarchyman,
So you know that God can reveal things to you because you know that God can reveal things to you. I see.
You left out the word ‘if’ between ‘because’ and ‘the’.
No, I know that God can reveal because God has revealed.
There is no implied “If”. God exists full stop.
God’s existence is not at issue. God is not “in the dock” here.
It’s only when you try and pretend that God’s existence is somehow optional or unknown that you run into difficulty with things like justifying knowledge.
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Thanks for the repies. I’ll stop here, I just wanted to check for myself what others have said about you. They are right, your reasoning is hopelessly circular and you seem to be incapable of understanding that.
My reasoning is circular in that it begins and ends with God. That is fitting of course because God has revealed that he is the Alpha and Omega (the beginning and the end.)
On the other hand the atheist begins with presupposing that God is not necessary and eventually concludes that God is not necessary.
The difference with the two circles is that only mine can offer justification for knowledge.
peace
Thank you,
Bye the way just because we disagree about this does not mean we can’t interact about things like detecting design. I really appreciate your insight about detecting intention surrounding oilfield forecasts .
I hope you will participate when I post on my little “design detection” project
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
I don’t read TSZ every day, or even every week. I sometimes dip in to see if there are discussions that interest me. You are one of the few ID’ers here who actually try to do some technical ID thinking (from time to time), instead of just bashing ‘Darwinism’, and some of the stuff you talk about relates to things I have been involved with in my work. When I spot that I sometimes dip in.
I don’t care if you think that you can justify knowledge and I can’t. I generally find such discussions sophomoric and of little practical value. As I said, I only asked you to check for myself on what others have said about your views on this issue. It makes no difference to me when it comes to your design detection projects (although I am still puzzled why you try to detect design, if you believe that everything is designed).
Thank you for that.
I also get tired of what I see as bashing “Darwinism” from my side and bashing God from your side.
One of the reasons I like science is that it need not to be so political. It’s a shame when both sides use it as just another weapon in ever present ideological conflict.
Perhaps this is just a misunderstanding of terms. I think that everything is designed but not all design is equally easy to spot or equally important to our impressions of the object.
When you saw signs of intentional bias in oil production forecasts you took for granted that the forecasts were designed but thought you were detecting particular instances of design in the bias that you discovered.
That is the sort of thing I find interesting
Does that make sense?
Also when looking at this sort of design we can hope to discover something about the designer. Just as the lower forecasts you saw said something about the oil workers (and their bosses).
peace