Humans are not self-aware

[timewerx]

OTOH, perhaps we're using different definitions of those terms and talking at cross-purposes.

Yeah, it seems. It can be both ways.

It seems to me that infallibility means not needing an open mind - if you know with absolute certainty, there's nothing to keep an open mind about.

The only thing I'm absolutely certain of is that nothing is certain. You probably heard that from somewhere but figured it out the hard way.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

The only thing I'm absolutely certain of is that nothing is certain.

"Nothing is certain." is a statement of unbelief. You said that Jesus is your Messiah. Are you certain?

 

[timewerx]

"Nothing is certain." is a statement of unbelief. You said that Jesus is your Messiah. Are you certain?

Because of the supernatural experiences I had

But everything to me now is by percentage. My certainty of who really Christ is may be around 98%

In essence, nothing is 100% to me.

Ironically, it is some of these supernatural experiences that casted huge doubts and re-evaluation of my previous perception of reality.

Some of these are disturbingly massive and have worldwide effect, affecting the whole planet.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

Because of the supernatural experiences I had

But everything to me now is by percentage. My certainty of who really Christ is may be around 98%

In essence, nothing is 100% to me.

Ironically, it is some of these supernatural experiences that casted huge doubts and re-evaluation of my previous perception of reality.

Some of these are disturbingly massive and have worldwide effect, affecting the whole planet.

So you are saying you are 98% sure that Lord Jesus is your Messiah?
Listen to this song. Hopefully you will re-evaluate and clarify your position.

 

[Kaon]

Yeah, it seems. It can be both ways.



The only thing I'm absolutely certain of is that nothing is certain. You probably heard that from somewhere but figured it out the hard way.

This is especially true for man-made schools of thought (like physics or math) - at best, it is a crude substitute for real knowledge. We take for granted how incredibly short-sighted we are, which makes us stuck in the cares of this world (including its alleged laws of nature). Clearly there are entities that break the laws of nature as we know it (for those of us who have experienced those entities) which is why those who are learned but agnostic find it so hard to believe in myths (despite nurturing their own). They lack the experience to recognize their own folly.

If you are right about something, however, don't let others tell you you have to compromise the truth to appease other parties (e.g. to remain "humble") - no matter how acceptable the truth is, or how agreed upon it is. We have to boldly speak the truth, and wipe the dust off of our shoes when people show us first they want nothing to do with us.

There is no such thing as "his truth, her truth, my truth," there is only the truth.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

There is no such thing as "his truth, her truth, my truth," there is only the truth.

Certainly!

 

[timewerx]

So you are saying you are 98% sure that Lord Jesus is your Messiah?
Listen to this song. Hopefully you will re-evaluate and clarify your position.

I'm not trying to say He isn't real but He might be related to me differently than with anyone else.

From supernatural experiences that were on a personal level.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

I'm not trying to say He isn't real but He might be related to me differently than with anyone else.

From supernatural experiences that were on a personal level.

Well, He is your brother. He is our brother.We all experience Him supernaturally and personally.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I'm not trying to say He isn't real but He might be related to me differently than with anyone else.

From supernatural experiences that were on a personal level.

He never says in His Word or Purpose or Plan that He would be related to someone in any way different from what He Says in His Word and Purpose and Plan.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Think again about Peter walking on water.

It's a nice story; no doubt it was appreciated by those it was aimed at.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yeah, it seems. It can be both ways.

So what do you mean by 'infallible'?

The only thing I'm absolutely certain of is that nothing is certain.

If nothing is certain infallibility is impossible (or meaningless).

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

It's a nice story; no doubt it was appreciated by those it was aimed at.

Perhaps more than a 'nice' story, it is like a glass of water for someone who is thirsty.
If they drink it (loving truth), they are satisfied.

Most 'nice' things though, nice stories too, don't seem to be truthful in the world.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

It's a nice story; no doubt it was appreciated by those it was aimed at.

It is 100% true.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It is 100% true.

Because the book in which it appears says so?

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

Because the book in which it appears says so?

Yes!

 

[timewerx]

So what do you mean by 'infallible'?

No future discovery will ever make your beliefs or knowledge false.

A good example of this is that people many centuries ago thought the Earth is the center of the Universe. Subsequent discoveries in astronomy eventually rendered that knowledge false.

Because we can't always predict what we will discover in the future, then we really have no certainty that the knowledge we possess now would still hold true tomorrow.

These sounds all too familiar with the "Uncertainty Principle" in Quantum Mechanics. The more you know about the particle's position, the more uncertain the momentum becomes (and vice versa)

The more knowledge / awareness you come to posses, the more uncertain they become in terms of accuracy / infallibility.

I really hate to settle for what we know currently. It's never good to live on unreliable knowledge. If you know you're going to live on inaccurate knowlege, you might as well extrapolate the possibilities, find correlations with reality, and weed out the weakest theories.

 

[timewerx]

If nothing is certain infallibility is impossible (or meaningless).

Exactly. And that's the world we live in.

What we really have are only fragments of the truth.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

Exactly. And that's the world we live in.

What we really have are only fragments of the truth.

What is your plumb line for truth?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes!

Believing a claim because the claimant also claims it's true is logically redundant, no different from simply believing the claim. Presumably, you don't just believe all claims made in books, so there must be something more to it - perhaps it's an appealing claim, you want it to be true; and/or it's a deeply familiar claim (perhaps you've always believed it); and/or a lot of people believe it; and/or people you respect believe it; and/or it fills a need, you'd feel lost without it; and/or it makes you feel good...

I'm curious to know which of those, if any, you accept as contributors to your belief, and if you can suggest any others - because the idea that you believe something in a book, solely because the book says it's true, is hard to credit.

My reason for probing this way is because I'm interested in why people believe the things they do, and whether they have the self-awareness to have thought about the reasons (as Plato/Socrates said, "An unexamined life is not worth living"). Of course, not everyone wants to understand why they do what they do, and not everyone wants to describe it to others...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No future discovery will ever make your beliefs or knowledge false.

A good example of this is that people many centuries ago thought the Earth is the center of the Universe. Subsequent discoveries in astronomy eventually rendered that knowledge false.

Because we can't always predict what we will discover in the future, then we really have no certainty that the knowledge we possess now would still hold true tomorrow.

So infallibility is a hypothetical; relevant only to thought experiments involving Laplace's Demon.

These sounds all too familiar with the "Uncertainty Principle" in Quantum Mechanics. The more you know about the particle's position, the more uncertain the momentum becomes (and vice versa)

It's not a very good analogy because position and momentum are Fourier transforms of each other, conjugate variables, so the 'uncertainty' is, ironically, well-defined; which is not the case with uncertainty about the future, which is a function of incomplete knowledge, complexity, non-linear dynamics, and so-on.

I really hate to settle for what we know currently. It's never good to live on unreliable knowledge. If you know you're going to live on inaccurate knowlege, you might as well extrapolate the possibilities, find correlations with reality, and weed out the weakest theories.

Be a scientist, in other words.