'Knowledge' of Existence

[ananda]

So why doesn't the one true God at least reveal himself in a way which leaves no shred of doubt of such existence?

The only way I can imagine that an omniscient, etc. being can truly and fully reveal itself is for its observer to also possess omniscience. Nothing less will do to leave no shred of doubt - at least for me.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Can an omniscient being know that there is not something it doesn't know?

 

[cvanwey]

This must have been very traumatic for someone such as yourself, who is longing for the knowledge of God and His existence, who can't understand why He continues to hide Himself from you when you want so badly to know Him.

All of his observations, (plus dozens more of my own), are why the 'Christian conclusion' does not make sense, and is not consistent for reality.

And yes, seems peculiar that God, whom appears to have abilities to reveal to all whom request as such, actively chooses not to with some.

 

[cvanwey]

Do you pray then to Allah, Buddha or Brahman?



Have you studied other religions?



Reality.



You are right, I am not getting your point. Christian Theology at its foundation is Jesus Christ, who lived, died for the sins of mankind and rose again. If a denomination goes from the original gospel of this foundation they are not of the Church. Sin is cleansed not by the person or their works, nor by Mary, nothing but Jesus Christ. If that foundation is not in the denomination then we know that the denomination is not of the church.



You are not a neutral observer, you have a worldview that rests on your presuppositional biases. Just as I do. Your sense of reality is seen through this worldview and even though I believe that it is inconsistent and incoherent within your own view, you as well see mine as such. I feel that you are not open to any change in your worldview, because when I have provided some views that differ from yours you haven't bothered to even comment on them, or address them. That is what I am seeing anyway.



Its hard to find someone you hold up to ridicule. Just sayin



Well that is not what God says, if God is real and what I claim is true.

At this point, I'm just simply going to reference post #392. This response, plus many additional observations of my own, is why I no longer accept Christianity as a logical view for reality.

If you choose to state I'm not consistent, that's fine. But I feel you will have quite a bit of hoop jumping, and then some, to not only make sense of the many observations expressed within the video; but also along with the many additional ones I may further bring up.

Thank you for all of your time anyways.

 

[gaara4158]

What exactly is your definition of them?

The laws of logic are the set of axioms setting the rules for how we can coherently describe the world around us. These would include the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle. They don’t apply to the world itself, they apply to language in how things are to be coherently described.

Now, how do you define the laws of logic?

 

[Oncedeceived]

There's almost nothing here I haven't responded to multiple times, so I'll be jumping around a bit.



I don't think you understand your argument, frankly. No textbook on Earth describes logic the way you do in this thread. You should stop reading Matt Slick and read Copi & Cohen.

Your claim is that I have determined my position on Matt Slick and Copi & Cohen (whoever they are)? Are you unaware that this has been a problem in philosophy for hundreds of years. Here are a few current philosophers on the subject:

A priori in modern philosophy is a epistemological asset of judgements. Judgements a priori do not require experience (sense data, empirical data). Judgements in mathematics and logics do not require experience for their truth, so such judgements are indeed a priori and the science of logic is a priori too.
Ernst-Otto Onnasch, History of philosophy

It is my personal view that this final point is correct: the distinction between a priori and a posteriori is not completely fundamental, for it is built on the idea of experience. If it is possible to know the truth of a proposition only by consulting experience, then it is a posteriori, but if experience itself is only possible when a proposition is assumed to be true, then it must be a priori. To experience, we must at the very least be able to think, and logic is what describes the laws of thinking. Therefore no experience can contradict the laws of logic, which is to say that we can indeed know them a priori.
Toni Kannisto, Ph.D. Philosophy, University of Oslo

Yes. Philosophies will have differing ways of describing them, but typically they are broken down into conceptual (sometimes interchangeable with 'metaphysical') truth and empirical (sometimes 'evidential') truth, each of which may have subcategories.

Ok, I can go with that.

Because no one has ever put forward a reliable, workable epistemology for it. You are welcome to be the first.

No one has put forward a reliable, workable epistemology for the existence of life but we know that life exists.

That's a contradiction. In order to know the universe will stay the same, you would have to know the mind of Yahweh, to know he would never alter or destroy it. You said yourself that you can't know that.

No, it isn't a contradiction due to the fact that the Bible is considered to be God's revelation to us and in the Bible it states that God doesn't change. If in the Bible, God says that He will not destroy or change the way the universe works until the sequence of events and really even then the universe will still remain the same. It will be life on earth that things 'change'.

On the other hand, you have no reason in your worldview whatsoever to conclude that the universe will remain uniform and orderly.

I'm sure glad these aren't my problems.

You do, you just shrug it off.

Correct so far.

Haven't changed anything from what I've said before...

Wrong. I know the laws of (classical, Aristotelean) logic were invented by humans. It's right there in our history. The literature is available for anyone to see.

How did Aristotle 'invent' fundamental principles from which thought can even occur? Aristotle himself believed these laws were necessary CONDITIONS for thought. Which then begs the question, how is it wrong?

Which is not a problem for me, because my worldview distinguishes between reality and statements about reality.

Your worldview could not be conceived without the a priori fundamental principles of the Laws of Logic.

You've got it mostly right. Your problem is, you want to have it both ways.

The problem is that you don't understand my argument.

On one hand, you keep saying you agree with me that the universe would continue to operate exactly as it does, absent any mental activity. You said you agree that the entire wealth of human knowledge - including all forms of logic - could disappear tomorrow, and reality would carry on all the same.

On the other hand, your apologetics require you to argue the exact opposite hierarchy, with the universe necessarily following after mental activity. Namely, that of an all-powerful cosmic mind, from which all of reality derives.

I didn't say absence of any mental activity, but that is beside the point. What I claimed was that if humans didn't exist/disappeared tomorrow logic would still exist. I do believe that the universe and the laws that govern it are created by Yahweh.

So you are forced to jump back and forth, depending where the conversation is happening. Pick one. You can't have both.

Back and forth from what to what?

I know what your worldview says. You didn't task yourself with reiterating it.

You tasked yourself with proving that reality must necessarily derive from a mind. You have failed at doing so.

My argument in this tread is that the Laws of Logic are better explained by the Christian worldview as opposed to the atheistic worldview. I am claiming that the Laws of Logic must necessarily derive from an eternal, invariant, Logical Being (Yahweh). You claim I have failed but haven't provided how your worldview, (that these laws were invented by humans)could possibly explain abstract, invariant, necessary, immaterial, universal laws of Logic.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The laws of logic are the set of axioms setting the rules for how we can coherently describe the world around us. These would include the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle. They don’t apply to the world itself, they apply to language in how things are to be coherently described.

Now, how do you define the laws of logic?

First of all, how do we coherently describe the world around us if we are not in the world? If we were not in the world, the laws of logic would still be necessary truths. If they don't apply to the world, how could the world be described by language? Does one language aspire to different rules due to the differences in language? Is someone who doesn't know a certain language unable to think properly?

The Laws of Logic are the abstract, universal, and necessary truth which is the foundation upon which all thought occurs.

 

[Oncedeceived]

All of his observations, (plus dozens more of my own), are why the 'Christian conclusion' does not make sense, and is not consistent for reality.

And yes, seems peculiar that God, whom appears to have abilities to reveal to all whom request as such, actively chooses not to with some.

So why did you say that you thought the Christian worldview was reasonable?

 

[cvanwey]

So why did you say that you thought the Christian worldview was reasonable?

I never stated it was. I stated that I studied Christianity and is does NOT appear to align with my reality.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I never stated it was. I stated that I studied Christianity and is does NOT appear to align with my reality.

Hmm, really thought it was you. Sorry.

 

[cvanwey]

Hmm, really thought it was you. Sorry.

Post #374 "This is one of the many reasons why I am severely in the camp of major doubt to many claims from 'Genesis"

 

[Oncedeceived]

Post #374 "This is one of the many reasons why I am severely in the camp of major doubt to many claims from 'Genesis"

The Dawkins thing?
And what of my response?

 

[cvanwey]

The Dawkins thing?
And what of my response?

I no longer wish to go back and forth, back and forth, over semantics (or a blow by blow response recap).... It seems to further distract from the main point of the OP.

My point is that I studied Christianity to the point where there exists too many claims and assertions, which do not align with my reality. Now... If I had 'knowledge of existence' of His specific existence, I would then have NO choice but to instead reconcile truth in such Biblical assertions. I would then also have no choice but to either accept that my logic is flagrantly flawed on a multitude of levels, or reject/deny it to instead furnish my own 'cocooned/imaginary/self-diluted' reality.

At this point, moving forward, please reference #392, as his message, along with many of my own additional observations, is what has instead lead me to conclude that the specific 'world view' of asserted Christianity does not appear to jive with (my) reality.

Continuing to assert that there must be a 'driving force' to establish the origin to the laws of all consistency (LOL), even if it was true, no closer points to Yahweh specifically, verses alternative presuppositions. And again, I've studied the Bible, and one needs not to look much further than Genesis alone, to seemingly necessarily perform a severe series of 'mental gymnastics' to make all such claims fit with concluded educated discovery; which seems to lead us to the contrary, which demonstrates the antithesis to 'truth.'

As stated prior, you believe you 'know' Yahweh exists. So of course you are going to read the Bible, and find ways to make all scripture fit (articles on the internet, arguments, etc...), one way or another. So would I, If I 'knew" Yahweh specifically existed, (because I would have no choice but to accept such reality, whether I liked it, agreed with it, opposed it, or it still did not make sense).

So the basic question remains unanswered.....

Since God has the power and ability to reveal to all, and also apparently chooses to reveal to some and not others, why not just do so? Again, this does not obstruct free will or free choice under any logical circumstances. (Again, refer to the last 5 minutes of the video from #392 for clarification).

Too many coincidences leads me to conclude the Bible was written in a time to enforce laws, while requiring the 'necessity' for appealing to an 'objective force' at the time.

 

[gaara4158]

First of all, how do we coherently describe the world around us if we are not in the world? If we were not in the world, the laws of logic would still be necessary truths. If they don't apply to the world, how could the world be described by language? Does one language aspire to different rules due to the differences in language? Is someone who doesn't know a certain language unable to think properly?

The Laws of Logic are the abstract, universal, and necessary truth which is the foundation upon which all thought occurs.

I never said we weren't in the world. Only that aside from ourselves, no world is required for the laws of logic to underpin our way of thinking. Our capability to form ideas and concepts is not limited by what exists in the world.

Think of it this way. The universe is one huge mass that we're a part of. With the way our brains function, we find it easiest to understand this mass by splitting it up into smaller, more manageable sections. To do that, we have to form a concept of identity. This allows us to give names to sections of the universe, or "things," as we see fit, and it only works if we are consistent in what we call any given thing that we've named. This is the Law of Identity. As it happens, not everyone splits the universe up in exactly the same way, and this becomes evident when two people find they are using the same words to describe two different things, like you and I are doing right now with "laws of logic." Even so, anyone who has adopted the use of a language has already accepted the law of identity, whether they realize it or not.

It sounds like you're lumping the traditional laws of thought and the rational intelligibility of the universe into one pile and labeling it the Laws of Logic. That's not a definition that's widely used by philosophers outside of presuppositional apologetics. The rational intelligibility of the universe is difficult to account for, sure, but it's not immediately obvious that it could be any other way.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Your claim is that I have determined my position on Matt Slick and Copi & Cohen (whoever they are)?

Matt Slick is an apologist who invented the particularly crappy brand of presuppositional apologetics you are engaging in right now. You linked to his website earlier in this thread (CARM).

Copi & Cohen are authors of Introductory Logic, a standard textbook on the subject, currently in its 14th Edition (I think). You should read it.

Are you unaware that this has been a problem in philosophy for hundreds of years.

What 'problem'? Epistemology, in general? Try thousands. Not hundreds.

You have not tasked yourself with proving that a priori knowledge is a fundamental subject of philosophy. You have tasked yourself with proving is that reality must necessarily derive from a mind. You have failed to do so.

No one has put forward a reliable, workable epistemology for the existence of life but we know that life exists.

That's a crappy analogy.

You can distinguish life from non-life. You can glean, study, and replicate its mechanisms. You can make reliable predictions about it. We don't know everything about it, but we do know some things.

You can't distinguish revelation from non-revelation. You can't glean, study, or replicate its mechanisms, because it has none. You can't make reliable predictions about it. Nothing is known about it at all, in any meaningful sense.

No, it isn't a contradiction due to the fact that the Bible is considered to be God's revelation to us and in the Bible it states that God doesn't change.

Firstly, now you're contradicting yourself by saying you can know the mind of Yahweh.

Secondly...so what? How did you determine this revelation is true? Better yet, how did you determine that it is a revelation at all?

On the other hand, you have no reason in your worldview whatsoever to conclude that the universe will remain uniform and orderly.

I have exactly the same amount of reason you do. Our worldviews both take the axiom of a uniform and orderly universe.

Except yours includes an ineffable, all-powerful cosmic mind that can reorder or destroy the universe at any second. Mine doesn't, so it's better.

You do, you just shrug it off.

Nope, you're confused. You believe in an ineffable, all powerful cosmic mind. I don't. So the implications of that are yours, not mine.

How did Aristotle 'invent' fundamental principles from which thought can even occur?

He didn't. He invented the language to describe it.

You are really, really stuck fast on this extremely basic conflation between reality and the concepts that follow after it.

The problem is that you don't understand my argument.

I don't think you understand your argument. I mean this in the nicest way possible, but you really don't appear to have studied logic at all. I suspect you got everything you know from apologetic websites like CARM. That's not a good source.

I didn't say absence of any mental activity, but that is beside the point.

You said 'necessarily existent thoughts'. Thoughts are mental activity.

What I claimed was that if humans didn't exist/disappeared tomorrow logic would still exist.

The things logic is used to describe would exist. Logic would not. Logic is a discipline invented by humans, like science, mathematics, history etc. All those things would disappear if minds disappeared.

Which is not a problem for me, because I don't believe reality itself derives from a mind. You do.

Back and forth from what to what?

From ideas following after reality, to reality following after ideas.

You want to be able to agree with me that reality would continue to operate exactly as it does, absent any minds.

But you also want to be able to claim reality itself necessitates a mind, which is the exact opposite.

You cannot have both.

My argument in this tread is that the Laws of Logic are better explained by the Christian worldview as opposed to the atheistic worldview. I am claiming that the Laws of Logic must necessarily derive from an eternal, invariant, Logical Being (Yahweh). You claim I have failed but haven't provided how your worldview, (that these laws were invented by humans)could possibly explain abstract, invariant, necessary, immaterial, universal laws of Logic.

Annnnnnnd we're right back where we started.

My worldview: Reality is immutable and not predicated on anything.

Your worldview: Reality is predicated on the mind of Yahweh, Yahweh is immutable and not predicated on anything.

Your worldview adds an unwarranted and unnecessary step that does nothing but complicate the picture with epistemological hurdles and naked assertions about 'necessarily existent thoughts'. For this reason (among many others), I dismiss it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I never said we weren't in the world. Only that aside from ourselves, no world is required for the laws of logic to underpin our way of thinking. Our capability to form ideas and concepts is not limited by what exists in the world.

I never said you said we weren't in the world. What you said was: "The laws of logic are the set of axioms setting the rules for how we can coherently describe the world around us." From a naturalistic viewpoint, which I am taking the liberty of assuming (correct me if I am wrong) how would we exist if no world existed? If we are not limited by what exists in reality (which is true) how do you explain that?

Think of it this way. The universe is one huge mass that we're a part of. With the way our brains function, we find it easiest to understand this mass by splitting it up into smaller, more manageable sections. To do that, we have to form a concept of identity. This allows us to give names to sections of the universe, or "things," as we see fit, and it only works if we are consistent in what we call any given thing that we've named. This is the Law of Identity. As it happens, not everyone splits the universe up in exactly the same way, and this becomes evident when two people find they are using the same words to describe two different things, like you and I are doing right now with "laws of logic." Even so, anyone who has adopted the use of a language has already accepted the law of identity, whether they realize it or not

. That is exactly why the Laws of Logic are not invented by humans and language. The laws of logic can not change at our whim or a culture or group can not decide not to use the rules. They are necessary to thought.

It sounds like you're lumping the traditional laws of thought and the rational intelligibility of the universe into one pile and labeling it the Laws of Logic. That's not a definition that's widely used by philosophers outside of presuppositional apologetics. The rational intelligibility of the universe is difficult to account for, sure, but it's not immediately obvious that it could be any other way.

I think you are confused to what I am saying. The intelligibility of the universe is just one more element in support of an Intelligent Being, but that is not what I am doing.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Matt Slick is an apologist who invented the particularly crappy brand of presuppositional apologetics you are engaging in right now. You linked to his website earlier in this thread (CARM).

I know who Matt Slick is, but he didn't invent anything.

Copi & Cohen are authors of Introductory Logic, a standard textbook on the subject, currently in its 14th Edition (I think). You should read it.

I probably should.

What 'problem'? Epistemology, in general? Try thousands. Not hundreds.

The problem of a priori laws of logic.

You have not tasked yourself with proving that a priori knowledge is a fundamental subject of philosophy. You have tasked yourself with proving is that reality must necessarily derive from a mind. You have failed to do so.

No, that is true, I have not tasked myself with proving a priori knowledge at all. You are interchanging terms that can't be interchanged. Knowledge and reality can not be interchanged with the Laws of Logic. I have not tasked myself with proving that reality must derive from a mind but I have said that reality makes the most sense withing the Christian worldview. But again, you are interchanging reality with the Laws of Logic. They are not the same thing.

That's a crappy analogy.

Eh, most are. That is because a certain thing is a certain thing and not another thing.

You can distinguish life from non-life. You can glean, study, and replicate its mechanisms. You can make reliable predictions about it. We don't know everything about it, but we do know some things

. I agree.

You can't distinguish revelation from non-revelation. You can't glean, study, or replicate its mechanisms, because it has none. You can't make reliable predictions about it. Nothing is known about it at all, in any meaningful sense.

I guess that depends on what you call meaningful.

Firstly, now you're contradicting yourself by saying you can know the mind of Yahweh.

Again, that is not what I said.

Secondly...so what? How did you determine this revelation is true? Better yet, how did you determine that it is a revelation at all?

How do you determine anything in your life?

I have exactly the same amount of reason you do. Our worldviews both take the axiom of a uniform and orderly universe.

I don't take without reason to take. You do.

Except yours includes an ineffable, all-powerful cosmic mind that can reorder or destroy the universe at any second. Mine doesn't, so it's better.

Yours doesn't do it at all.

Nope, you're confused. You believe in an ineffable, all powerful cosmic mind. I don't. So the implications of that are yours, not mine.

No, you simply just except a uniformed and orderly universe with no reason to believe it would be.

He didn't. He invented the language to describe it.

So you would agree that he discovered them?

You are really, really stuck fast on this extremely basic conflation between reality and the concepts that follow after it.

And you are really not getting the fact that to understand reality one must FIRST use the laws of logic.

I don't think you understand your argument. I mean this in the nicest way possible, but you really don't appear to have studied logic at all. I suspect you got everything you know from apologetic websites like CARM. That's not a good source.

You haven't even come to an understanding of my argument to conclude that I don't. You may suspect many things and assume many things but you seem to do it badly. CARM is just presenting the argument, just as I am. The subject has been controversial by famous Philosophers for centuries. I have studied those who have studied logic.

You said 'necessarily existent thoughts'. Thoughts are mental activity.

Yes, and to have the ability of correct mental activity we MUST a priori use logic.

The things logic is used to describe would exist. Logic would not. Logic is a discipline invented by humans, like science, mathematics, history etc. All those things would disappear if minds disappeared.

You are simply wrong. I don't know how to get that through to you. It can't be invented by humans because to even invent anything one would NEED the laws of logic to do so.

Which is not a problem for me, because I don't believe reality itself derives from a mind. You do.

Forget reality deriving from a mind. Think laws of logic they are not the same.

From ideas following after reality, to reality following after ideas.

You see, you don't understand. Reality and logic are linked, yes. However, to know anything about reality we NEED the laws of logic to have the ability to know it.

You want to be able to agree with me that reality would continue to operate exactly as it does, absent any minds.

But you also want to be able to claim reality itself necessitates a mind, which is the exact opposite.

You are equating reality to the laws of logic, they are not the same thing! Good grief.

You cannot have both.

I'm not trying, it is your confusion that is making you think that.

Annnnnnnd we're right back where we started.

My worldview: Reality is immutable and not predicated on anything.

Why is it immutable? Why is it uniform and orderly? You don't have anything in your worldview to support why that would be.

Your worldview: Reality is predicated on the mind of Yahweh, Yahweh is immutable and not predicated on anything.

I hate to say yes, because it is true but not what I am arguing about here. I am saying that the Laws of Logic (which are not the same as reality) depend on the existence of an eternal, invariant, immaterial, necessary transcendent mind. The laws of logic transcend man's mind, they exist even if we don't exist. They exist in any possible world, at any time.

Your worldview adds an unwarranted and unnecessary step that does nothing but complicate the picture with epistemological hurdles and naked assertions about 'necessarily existent thoughts'. For this reason (among many others), I dismiss it.

You haven't even from what I can tell understood it yet.[/Quote][/Quote]

 

[gaara4158]

I never said you said we weren't in the world. What you said was: "The laws of logic are the set of axioms setting the rules for how we can coherently describe the world around us." From a naturalistic viewpoint, which I am taking the liberty of assuming (correct me if I am wrong) how would we exist if no world existed? If we are not limited by what exists in reality (which is true) how do you explain that?

It was an implausible hypothetical meant to illustrate my point that our minds do not dictate reality and reality does not limit what a mind can come up with.

That is exactly why the Laws of Logic are not invented by humans and language. The laws of logic can not change at our whim or a culture or group can not decide not to use the rules. They are necessary to thought.

That’s like saying we need legs to walk, therefore legs are a universal truth. No, it’s just part of the definition of walking.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It was an implausible hypothetical meant to illustrate my point that our minds do not dictate reality and reality does not limit what a mind can come up with.

Our minds do not dictate reality, our minds conceptualize reality and to conceptualize reality we must use the necessary truths of the abstract, immaterial, invariant, universal, and a priori Laws of Logic. What you are saying is true, reality doesn't limit what a mind can come up with which shoots down the premise that the Laws of Logic are just descriptions of reality.

That’s like saying we need legs to walk, therefore legs are a universal truth. No, it’s just part of the definition of walking.

It isn't anything like that. Absolute truth is necessary, absolute truth is a priori to thinking. Universal truth is necessary for sentient beings to think correctly.

 

[gaara4158]

Our minds do not dictate reality, our minds conceptualize reality and to conceptualize reality we must use the necessary truths of the abstract, immaterial, invariant, universal, and a priori Laws of Logic. What you are saying is true, reality doesn't limit what a mind can come up with which shoots down the premise that the Laws of Logic are just descriptions of reality.

I never said the laws of logic were descriptions of reality. They are the rules that prescribe what is required, by definition, for the formation of coherent thoughts which can include descriptions of reality but is not limited to them. You are imbuing them with all these traits like “universal” and “absolute” without justifying them. I would like to see you do that.

It isn't anything like that. Absolute truth is necessary, absolute truth is a priori to thinking. Universal truth is necessary for sentient beings to think correctly.

Actually, it’s exactly like that. Using your legs to walk is the same concept as using the laws of logic to reason. When you use your legs to traverse the area around you, that’s called walking. When you use the laws of logic to form ideas, that’s called thinking. So of course thinking beings are all going to share the same laws of logic. They’re embedded in the very definition of thinking!
What is “absolute truth” and how is it different from “universal truth?” How can anyone be sure they’re thinking “correctly?”