How do we KNOW knowledge?

[Oncedeceived]

If people were critiqued based on repeating things on this board, no one would be left.

Brainwashing on an internet site? Hilarious!

Which includes you.

 

[bhsmte]

You will find this poster is a wannabe Psychologist and has friends that are psychologists that like to give their "assessments" on the Christians here and pronounce their behavior as comfort seeking, evidence denying, fuzzy thinking humans which have a basic need to believe. This poster rarely produces dialog but rather comes in to make remarks about other posters.

I appreciate the compliments.

Now, I have asked you this a few times now and have yet to get an answer and since it has been you that has claimed; you use innate logic to determine, the Christian world view is logical and have repeated that numerous times, it would be nice to get an answer:

You stated this in a previous post:

Originally Posted by Loudmouth View Post
The claim is that if humans were created by a deity that we would necessarily have innate logic. Where is your evidence for this claim?

Your response:

"We have logic."

Ok, so if innate logic is used to conclude the Christian worldview is logical and we all have this innate logic, why do other people use this logic to not believe the Christian world view?

You wanted dialogue, there you go.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I appreciate the compliments.

Interesting.

Now, I have asked you this a few times now and have yet to get an answer and since it has been you that has claimed; you use innate logic to determine, the Christian world view is logical and have repeated that numerous times, it would be nice to get an answer:

You stated this in a previous post:

Originally Posted by Loudmouth View Post
The claim is that if humans were created by a deity that we would necessarily have innate logic. Where is your evidence for this claim?

Your response:

"We have logic."

What I actually said was that the Christian worldview best explains Logic. When I bring in "a deity" I argue for the Christian God.

If you want me to provide an answer for my claims it is best to get them accurately. If the Christian God is a reasonable and logic Being and created us in His image we should have an innate ability for logic. We have an innate ability for logic, thus, innate logic is evidence for my claim.

Ok, so if innate logic is used to conclude the Christian worldview is logical and we all have this innate logic, why do other people use this logic to not believe the Christian world view?

Innate logic is used to determine all experiences a human has, including the ability to determine what seems logical based on the innate logic we are equipped with. We have innate logic in terms of the Laws of Logic. WE all use the same laws of logic to come to conclusions. We may come to different conclusions and do all the time but the innate rules or principles that are the foundation of logic are universal to us all.

You wanted dialogue, there you go.

Very good. Now do you think you will follow this course or will you come back with some derogatory assessment of my position at a personal level?

 

[bhsmte]

If you want me to provide an answer for my claims it is best to get them accurately. If the Christian God is a reasonable and logic Being and created us in His image we should have an innate ability for logic. We have an innate ability for logic, thus, innate logic is evidence for my claim.

Please demonstrate how innate logic is evidence the Christian God is real?

Innate logic is used to determine all experiences a human has, including the ability to determine what seems logical based on the innate logic we are equipped with. We have innate logic in terms of the Laws of Logic. WE all use the same laws of logic to come to conclusions. We may come to different conclusions and do all the time but the innate rules or principles that are the foundation of logic are universal to us all.

We are then equipped with same innate logic or are we equipped with different types of innate logic?

If we all use the same laws of logic to come to our conclusions, why do people come to so many differing conclusions regarding, religion, a God, etc.?

Would this not mean, that our innate logic, can indeed produce the wrong results, since differing views can not all be correct?

 

[essentialsaltes]

If the Christian God is a reasonable and logic Being and created us in His image we should have an innate ability for logic. We have an innate ability for logic, thus, innate logic is evidence for my claim.

If the Christian God is omnipotent and created us in His image, we should be omnipotent. We are not omnipotent. Therefore, it is not true that the Christian God is omnipotent and created us in His image.

We have innate logic in terms of the Laws of Logic. WE all use the same laws of logic to come to conclusions. ... the foundation of logic are universal to us all.

As I've already pointed out, the laws of logic are not universal. They are adopted by choice, and there is no single universal choice; there are many possible choices.

 

[bhsmte]

As I've already pointed out, the laws of logic are not universal. They are adopted by choice, and there is no single universal choice; there are many possible choices.

According to the poster, we all use the same logic to reach our conclusions.

With this being the case, why so many different conclusions then?

Seems to me, some other factor is involved in bringing about these different conclusions, that may have nothing to do with logic.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Please demonstrate how innate logic is evidence the Christian God is real?

Remember what I said earlier, that the Christian worldview best explains logic. The Christian worldview presupposes the Christian God existing.

We are then equipped with same innate logic or are we equipped with different types of innate logic?

We are all equipped with it. A is A, a statement is either true or false. There is no instance (in reality of having a boundary value of truth) that something can both be true and false.

If we all use the same laws of logic to come to our conclusions, why do people come to so many differing conclusions regarding, religion, a God, etc.?

We may have differing conclusions, but the principles by which we reason are not different. We all recognize that a book is a book and not a hog. We know that a rock is not a tree. We know that it is true or false that it is raining. We know it can't be both raining in the same place at the same time.

Would this not mean, that our innate logic, can indeed produce the wrong results, since differing views can not all be correct?

No. The principles of logic do not inhibit the conclusions we make of the universe around us but it allows us to understand the principles of the universe around us, such as a book is a book and not a lamp...etc.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If the Christian God is omnipotent and created us in His image, we should be omnipotent. We are not omnipotent. Therefore, it is not true that the Christian God is omnipotent and created us in His image.

There are no claims of humans having omnipotent abilities. We can create an image of a dog and it will not be exactly the same in all attributes of a dog.

As I've already pointed out, the laws of logic are not universal. They are adopted by choice, and there is no single universal choice; there are many possible choices.

Choice of whom? Who decides that A is not A?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

If people were critiqued based on repeating things on this board, no one would be left.

Repeatedly repeating particular pressuring catch words and phrases, is what I am referring to -- clearly I am not the only one to notice how often you do this with the word : ((( evidence )))

Brainwashing on an internet site? Hilarious!

It may be something you gain certain masochistic pleasure from, but it might be wise to ease up on the caffeine. 19 822 posts since April 2013, is no laughing matter, or is it? One might wonder if you are losing your grip?

 

[bhsmte]

Remember what I said earlier, that the Christian worldview best explains logic. The Christian worldview presupposes the Christian God existing.

Please give details, on why the Christian worldview, best explains logic and be specific.

We may have differing conclusions, but the principles by which we reason are not different. We all recognize that a book is a book and not a hog. We know that a rock is not a tree. We know that it is true or false that it is raining. We know it can't be both raining in the same place at the same time.

You claim the principles of logic are the same, yet so many reach different conclusions in regards to God's religion etc.. It would appear, these principles you claim are not as useful when going beyond; a book is a book and A is always A. How then, are these principles useful, in reaching proper conclusions on religion and Gods, if they are always in play and we reach different conclusions?

No. The principles of logic do not inhibit the conclusions we make of the universe around us but it allows us to understand the principles of the universe around us, such as a book is a book and not a lamp...etc.

Ok, but if was use the same logic as you state, these principles still bring up different conclusions in regards to Gods and religion. With this being the obvious case, it would seem this "same logic" you claim we all use, is overridden by some other factor, for some people to reach different conclusions. What factor do believe that is?

 

[bhsmte]

Repeatedly repeating particular pressuring catch words and phrases, is what I am referring to -- clearly I am not the only one to notice how often you do this with the word : ((( evidence )))



It may be something you gain certain masochistic pleasure from, but it might be wise to ease up on the caffeine. 19 822 posts since April 2013, is no laughing matter, or is it? One might wonder if you are losing your grip?

Report me if you feel I am breaking forum rules.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

You will find this poster is a wannabe Psychologist

Well for what it's worth, the discipline has much to offer. Though some Christians reject it as nothing more than psycho-babble ( refer: Dr. Richard Ganz ) -- and for a number of reasons.

The pioneering work of one the truly original mind, Dr. Freud as too Dr. Jung have given much to aid us in understanding our dark sides. ( and good sides )

and has friends that are psychologists that like to give their "assessments" on the Christians here and pronounce their behavior as comfort seeking, evidence denying, fuzzy thinking humans which have a basic need to believe. This poster rarely produces dialog but rather comes in to make remarks about other posters.

Maybe they will make God invisible? I've tried to avoid being too reductionist, but sometimes there are very strong arguments from Neuro-Science. Time pray for the Doctor to come.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Report me if you feel I am breaking forum rules.

You are breaking my heart.

 

[bhsmte]

You are breaking my heart.

Read a little Freud and you should be fine.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Read a little Freud and you should be fine.

He is fun, but I prefer Young.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well for what it's worth, the discipline has much to offer. Though some Christians reject it as nothing more than psycho-babble ( refer: Dr. Richard Ganz ) -- and for a number of reasons.

I can agree, but when you have no training or degree, making grandiose pronouncements about other people's motivations and mindsets to belittle or marginalize their Christian position is not the same thing.

Maybe they will make God invisible? I've tried to avoid being too reductionist, but sometimes there are very strong arguments from Neuro-Science. Time pray for the Doctor to come.

I don't know what you mean.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I can agree, but when you have no training or degree, making grandiose pronouncements about other people's motivations and mindsets to belittle or marginalize their Christian position is not the same thing.

'I guess you can't stop birds from flying overhead....'

I don't know what you mean.

'The reductionism / holism debate is a controversy that raises questions about the very nature of “explanation” itself. At first sight such questions can seem difficult and abstract but in essence the two positions in this debate can be summed up in single phrases.

For the reductionist “the simple is the source of the complex”. In other words to explain a complex phenomenon (like human behavior) one needs to “reduce” it to its constituent elements. For the holist “the whole is more than the sum of the parts”.

In other words human behavior has its own properties that are not explicable in terms of the properties of the elements from which it is derived. Here we will deal with the reductionist case first. ....' *

* Reductionism and Holism in Psychology | Simply Psychology

 

[Oncedeceived]

So since we obviously are not on the same page and since I am obviously trying to understand what you are talking about, why didn't you take this opportunity to clarify your position and tell me what you are talking about?

Or do you just want me to keep guessing?

I do not think using logical fallacies can support my case. I don't think that they "support" anyone's case but everyone uses them at some time.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The fact that it works is very strong evidence that it is right.

That my statement is right?

We couldn't.

I am not disputing the facts that 1. we have the ability to use reason and logic and 2. the universe operates on predictable laws.

I agree that:

1. We have the ability to use reason and logic.
2. The universe operates on predictable principles.
3. Science is based on the application of reason and logic (and a few other things) on the predictable operation of the universe.

Ok. So you agree that Science rests on those two facts. It is a metaphysical assumption that Science rests upon. That the universe operates on predictable laws (Science can't tell us that these laws will be the same tomorrow as they are today). We rest on two conceptual elements to do Science, the concepts of mind being rational and logical and the universe being comprehensible and predictable.

No idea. It may be an emergent property of the universe. There could be an infinite number of universe, all with different properties, and we are in a universe with properties that happen to be predictable and within the range required for human life because if they were different, humans couldn't exist to observe it.

So do I understand that you haven't given this a lot of thought?

Don't change the subject. We are talking about how we can verify knowledge as true. If you want to talk about why the universe has the properties it does, that's a different discussion, and you can start your own thread for it. (If you do, you can take your response to my previous point there as well.)

Universal laws and universal logic go rather hand in hand in the discussion of how we know knowledge, don't you think?

Such tools are the best tools we have to perform the investigation of the universe.

Ok.

Not in this thread I don't. That's a discussion for a different thread. Don't derail this one.

Do you think knowledge would be gained if we could not predict how the universe behaved?

No it isn't. It's pointing out that if we have an idea which accurately describes the way the universe works, then the idea's ability to provide accurate descriptions is evidence that it is correct.

Ok.

Do you think that an incorrect idea is capable of providing accurate descriptions?

We know it can. IF it couldn't we wouldn't find upon new information that it was not accurate now could we? Knowledge is an ongoing process that develops as information grows.

Now do incorrect ideas give accurate descriptions very often? Luckily it doesn't happen to frequently and when it does we usually find the inaccuracies with more info. I think an accurate depiction of scientific correct ideas are those that hold up as more information is added. I would assume you agree.

Yes, but that is irrelevant.

Do you know of any time in the history of Science that something has been shown to be false and afterwards is still accepted to be true?

My point was that only a fool would believe something that is false IF HE KNOWS IT HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE FALSE AND YET HE STILL BELIEVES IT ANYWAY.

Forgive me for not going back to determine what you were discussing when you made the point. What was that something that was shown false and yet someone believes it anyway?

You missed my point.

A statement that is true - says, stars are roughly spherical because of the effects of gravity, although other factors like the rate of spin can alter the spherical shape to a degree - is going to be true, no matter if there are beings capable of recognising this or not.

Exactly, something is true whether or not we observe them or not.

Because we are not so arrogant as to think that we are required for things to be the way they are.

Interesting.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Now let's be careful here. All logical systems are based on axioms. The Law of the Excluded Middle is an axiom. It is not 'based on reality'. There is nothing that tells us which axioms to choose. One logic may be better than another for a particular problem.

Just as choosing the axioms on Lobachevskian geometry may be better than choosing the axioms of Euclidean geometry. Both are valid choices. And yet they give contradictory results.

There is no 'innate' geometry. There is no 'innate' logic. They are systems based on axioms, chosen for particular purposes.

How can an axiom be contradictory if it is a universal truth without proof?