Godlessness and choice

[anonymous person]

No, we are discussing knowledge claims, and your definition makes it clear how knowledge claims are different from mere beliefs.

That's right.

Beliefs aren't necessarily true. One can believe the earth is flat but they would be wrong.

Knowledge however, if we use the JTB theory, is necessarily true.

What you need to understand is that knowledge, while necessarily true, isn't necessarily demonstrable.

IOW, you may know some proposition is true and yet be unable to show it to be true to someone else.

So while I can know for example, that Jesus is the Messiah, or that God exist, I may not necessarily be able to show you that they are true. Why? Well as mentioned earlier, many factors are involved.

The other option would be to simply ignore your claims as unsupported and unsubstantiated.

Or you could accept other types of evidence like you do when assessing other claims not subject to empirical verification. For example, when assesing any historical claim, you wouldn't demand empirical evidence, for such evidence does not exist for claims like, Julius Caesar was betrayed by his close friend and killed in the Roman Senate.

Or the claim that George Washington was the first president of the United States. This claim is not subject to being empirically verified but we can still say we know George Washington was the first president of the United States.

So don't think you're forced into this dichotomy of either having empirical evidence for something or if not, having to conclude that it is unevidenced.

There are different types of evidence. Not just empirical.

Holding a belief is one thing, making a knowledge claim is another.

That's correct. What people would prefer Christians do is just keep their beliefs to themselves. But that is not something we can do, for we are persuaded that the gospel is mankind's greatest need above all others.

 

[bhsmte]

That's right.

Beliefs aren't necessarily true. One can believe the earth is flat but they would be wrong.

Knowledge however, if we use the JTB theory, is necessarily true.

What you need to understand is that knowledge, while necessarily true, isn't necessarily demonstrable.

IOW, you may know some proposition is true and yet be unable to show it to be true to someone else.

So while I can know for example, that Jesus is the Messiah, or that God exist, I may not necessarily be able to show you that they are true. Why? Well as mentioned earlier, many factors





Or you could accept other types of evidence like you do when assessing other claims not subject to empirical verification. For example, when assesing any historical claim, you wouldn't demand empirical evidence, for such evidence does not exist for claims like, Julius Caesar was betrayed by his close friend and killed in the Roman Senate.

Or the claim that George Washington was the first president of the United States. This claim is not subject to being empirically verified but we can still say we know George Washington was the first president of the United States.

So don't think you're forced into this dichotomy of either having empirical evidence for something or if not, having to conclude that it is unevidenced.

There are different types of evidence. Not just empirical.



That's correct. What people would prefer Christians do is just keep their beliefs to themselves. But that is not something we can do, for we are persuaded that the gospel is mankind's greatest need above all others.

Why dont you believe the earth is flat?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Everything that has happened to me as a result of being born again, is evidence for me, not you.

How do you verify your evidence? How do you know you're not mistaken?

You asked me how I know God exists and that Jesus is the Messiah, and I told you.

You've told me what you believe to be the case, but you haven't told me how you know it's true.

In addition, Jesus said that the world would know people were His disciples by the love they have for one another. He no where stated that this would serve as some sort of argument for God's existence, or for the validity of the central tenets of the faith.

You said your decisions have eternal ramifications, that doesn't only deal with Jesus, but with god as well.

Just because I know something to be true, does not mean that I will be able to show you it is true. You would have to be open to the notion that God exists, that Jesus has shown us what He is like, and most importantly, God would have to do a work in you before you can accept these things.

Don't think this is simply an intellectual issue. There are numerous factors that play a part in a person's being open to divine things. Existential and emotional factors, psychological factors, presuppositions and biases about reality, and many other things other than just one's intellect play a role here.

Except you don't know it to be true, you only have a belief. I'm open to any possibility, however I am unjustified in believing anything until evidence is shown to support the belief.

You don't have any supporting evidence it would seem.

 

[Dave Ellis]

.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Ok well would you consider it a fact that he died at the hands of the Roman Senate?

I consider that a fact.

Sure, I accept that's what happened as well. However that's still not relevant to the topic.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Not all of the mind, as I have shown. Some of the lower mind activities may be but not the higher mind activities, such as abstract thinking.

No, you haven't shown that. You've simply asserted it, and shown no possible way in which it could be true.

It is one more confirmation of the Christian worldview. The Christian worldview teaches that one important part of our essence is non-material.

So does Scientology, and almost any other religious views for that matter. That doesn't make it true, or provide evidence for Christianity.

Provide an example of where I used an irrational argument and then prove it is irrational.

Providing a bunch of non sequiturs and red herrings then declaring your argument valid is not using rational thought. It's completely fallacious.

 

[Dave Ellis]

No I am not, the links show that chemical reactions produce products that are determined by the ratio of their reagents, ie the first one, the second link shows that Naturalists believe that the mind operates by brain chemistry. It is plain as the nose on your face.

Then why would no neurobiologist accept your argument as stated?

 

[anonymous person]

Why dont you believe the earth is flat?

Because I know it is an oblate spheroid.

 

[anonymous person]

Sure, I accept that's what happened as well. However that's still not relevant to the topic.

But you can't prove that by giving empirical evidence for it.

You would appeal to things like historical documents.

This means that there are other ways to establish facts than just by empirical verification.

 

[Dave Ellis]

But you can't prove that by giving empirical evidence for it.

You would appeal to things like historical documents.

This means that there are other ways to establish facts than just by empirical verification.

Refer to my post previously in this thread where I acknowledged that historical facts always have some degree of uncertainty. This is taken on a case by cases basis depending on the reliability of the evidence we have.

However you're making claims about the present and future (your decisions will have eternal ramifications), and claiming you know what you know for certain. As such, bringing up Caesar is irrelevant to the topic as we aren't talking about history.

 

[anonymous person]

How do you verify your evidence? How do you know you're not mistaken?

I know who I was before I was born again and I know who I am now. I am a new creation. The effects, the fruit of the Holy Spirit, all of these things are evidences to me of a divine regeneration.

How do I know I'm not mistaken? I guess the answer would be that I have no reason to think I am mistaken and every reason to think God is faitful and true and is producing in me virtues I could not produce myself.

You told me what you believe to be the case, but you haven't told me how you know it's true.

I have, you just don't understand it.

You said your decisions have eternal ramifications, that doesn't only deal with Jesus, but with god as well.

Jesus is God

Except you don't know it to be true, you only have a belief. I'm open to any possibility, however I am unjustified in believing anything until evidence is shown to support the belief.

I'm not expecting you to believe something for which there is no evidence. There is evidence. It just does not fit the criteria you require.

You don't have any supporting evidence it would seem.

I don't have anything that can't be dismissed by one who is not open to accepting it.

 

[bhsmte]

Because I know it is an oblate spheroid.

And, how do you know this?

 

[Dave Ellis]

I know who I was before I was born again and I know who I am now. I am a new creation. The effects, the fruit of the Holy Spirit, all of these things are evidences to me of a divine regeneration.

How do I know I'm not mistaken? I guess the answer would be that I have no reason to think I am mistaken and every reason to think God is faitful and true and is producing in me virtues I could not produce myself.

You know you're not mistaken because you have no reason to believe you might be mistaken?

That alone shows you have no justifiable reason to believe.

I have, you just don't understand it.

I understand what you've said, you don't seem to understand why that isn't evidence.

Jesus is God

Even if that's the case, my point still stands.

I'm not expecting you to believe something for which there is no evidence. There is evidence. It just does not fit the criteria you require

I don't have anything that can't be dismissed by one who is not open to accepting it.

I'm open to accepting something which will demonstrate the veracity of a claim. You aren't offering that. If you just want to offer up bald assertions and other unsupported claims then I have no basis on which to accept your claims.

If your worldview depends on people lowering their standards of evidence from a reasonable level, that should give you reason to think your worldview may not be correct.

 

[anonymous person]

Refer to my post previously in this thread where I acknowledged that historical facts always have some degree of uncertainty. This is taken on a case by cases basis depending on the reliability of the evidence we have.

However you're making claims about the present and future (your decisions will have eternal ramifications), and claiming you know what you know for certain. As such, bringing up Caesar is irrelevant to the topic as we aren't talking about history.

I don't equate knowledge with certainty. Neither should you.

When you think about it, certainty in most cases is simply an unattainable and unrealistic requirement for knowing something. Even in courts of law where lives literally hang in the balance, nothing close to certainty is ever seen as being a requirement for demonstrating guilt or innocence. It is usually beyond reasonable doubt that is what is aimed for.

Likewise, when you put Christianity on trial so to speak, demanding that you be given evidence that removes all doubt while not demanding that kind of evidence in other matters is simply evidence of having a double standard.

 

[quatona]

That's right.

Beliefs aren't necessarily true. One can believe the earth is flat but they would be wrong.

Knowledge however, if we use the JTB theory, is necessarily true.

Yes, if. But that´s completely besides the point anyway.

What you need to understand is that knowledge, while necessarily true, isn't necessarily demonstrable.

I do understand that.
You, however, need to understand that undemonstrable knowledge claims are ignored by everyone else, except for the extremely gullible.

So while I can know for example, that Jesus is the Messiah, or that God exist, I may not necessarily be able to show you that they are true.

Which means you are coming to the table empty-handed.
I understand that this must be a painful situation for you, but I am not going to accept your knowledge claims out of sympathy.

Or you could accept other types of evidence like you do when assessing other claims not subject to empirical verification. For example, when assesing any historical claim, you wouldn't demand empirical evidence, for such evidence does not exist for claims like, Julius Caesar was betrayed by his close friend and killed in the Roman Senate.

Or the claim that George Washington was the first president of the United States. This claim is not subject to being empirically verified but we can still say we know George Washington was the first president of the United States.

Go ahead and present this evidence.

There are different types of evidence. Not just empirical.

Most definitely - that´s why "empirical evidence" hasn´t been the criteria, until you just smuggled it in as though we had been talking about it all the time.
Unsupported knowledge claims, however, aren´t evidence.

That's correct.

Good - so why did you try to play that stupid semantics game with me?

What people would prefer Christians do is just keep their beliefs to themselves.

As far as I am concerned, everybody is welcome to be vocal about their beliefs.
I´m just not going to accept unsupported knowledge claims for anything but beliefs. Or else I would have to buy a lot of bridges.

But that is not something we can do, for we are persuaded that the gospel is mankind's greatest need above all others.

I have no doubt that you are persuaded.
For a moment, however, it almost looked like you wanted to persuade others of it.

 

[quatona]

I don't have anything that can't be dismissed by one who is not open to accepting it.

Sounds like taken from the handbook for charlatanry.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I don't equate knowledge with certainty. Neither should you.

When you think about it, certainty in most cases is simply an unattainable and unrealistic requirement for knowing something. Even in courts of law where lives literally hang in the balance, nothing close to certainty is ever seen as being a requirement for demonstrating guilt or innocence. It is usually beyond reasonable doubt that is what is aimed for.

Likewise, when you put Christianity on trial so to speak, demanding that you be given evidence that removes all doubt while not demanding that kind of evidence in other matters is simply evidence of having a double standard.

Fair enough, I wasn't referring to absolute certainty, I was referring to certainty that we use in day to day language though. For example, I'm certain the sky is blue, I'm certain that electricity powers electric lights, etc. Is there some astronomically small chance I'm wrong? Sure, however I can claim certainty that I know those facts.

What double standard am I employing though?

 

[anonymous person]

Yes, if. But that´s completely besides the point anyway.


I do understand that.
You, however, need to understand that undemonstrable knowledge claims are ignored by everyone else, except for the extremely gullible.




Which means you are coming to the table empty-handed.
I understand that this must be a painful situation for you, but I am not going to accept your knowledge claims out of sympathy.






Go ahead and present this evidence.




Most definitely - that´s why "empirical evidence" hasn´t been the criteria, until you just smuggled it in as though we had been talking about it all the time.
Unsupported knowledge claims, however, aren´t evidence.




Good - so why did you try to play that stupid semantics game with me?

As far as I am concerned, everybody is welcome to be vocal about their beliefs.
I´m just not going to accept unsupported knowledge claims for anything but beliefs. Or else I would have to buy a lot of bridges.

I have no doubt that you are persuaded.
For a moment, however, it almost looked like you wanted to persuade others of it.

I do.

Jesus' resurrection is the evidence that I always appeal to when asked to support my claims.

Evidence for the resurrection is found in the New Testament ancient biographies or what are commonly called the gospels.

 

[quatona]

I do.

Jesus' resurrection is the evidence that I always appeal to when asked to support my claims.

Evidence for the resurrection is found in the New Testament ancient biographies or what are commonly called the gospels.

Thanks for laying out what you consider evidence for the accuracy of your beliefs.

 

[anonymous person]

Fair enough, I wasn't referring to absolute certainty, I was referring to certainty that we use in day to day language though. For example, I'm certain the sky is blue, I'm certain that electricity powers electric lights, etc. Is there some astronomically small chance I'm wrong? Sure, however I can claim certainty that I know those facts.

What double standard am I employing though?

I would encourage you as I have quatona, to look into the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. That is the evidence I believe is central to Christianity.