Presuppositional apologetics

[The happy Objectivist]

Who's consciousness?

In the context of my statement above, it's my consciousness. But consciousness is a concept which subsumes all consciousnesses whether they be Human, Giraffe, frog, Bear or my dog's.

 

[Tone]

The English word 'faith' is one of those words that descend from the Church concept, but has changed quite a bit - akin to the word religion in a way, which originally referred to being bound to Orders.

You should not look to English prescriptive definitions, but to the concept and usage it is supposed to represent. This is the concept of Christian Faith, which translates the Greek Pistes of the NT. This is a very different animal indeed. For Greek Pistis does mean 'faith', or trust, or what is reliable. It has been translated as guarantee. It is essentially a surety.

Pistes is related to the principle of the Logos, or the innervating principle of the Cosmos (or in Christian terms, God the Son in the manner how God acts in creation or how God is 'knowable' or incarnated therein). Logos is where we get logical from, meaning there is Reason to it. In a greater sense, Pistes, or more notably in Roman Fides, it has a sense obligation, or staying true - hence English Fidelity. So we could have faith in the sun rising, as the gods or the logos had set its course.

In fact, pistis was often used to describe something you were convinced of, that you hold to be true therefore, and in that way it entered the realm of the epistemological. Based thereon, it came to be this modern form which means both what you accept as axiomatically true, as well as often what argument you think is stronger - and also disparaged, as if held in spite of evidence. It was also a mechanism of oratory, to convince.

The latter is not a good fit for the Christian concept though. CS Lewis called Faith the art of holding on to what you believe in spite of changing moods. It is related to your reasoning faculty, as a conduit whereby your reason controls your passions. Thomas Merton said that you only reach faith through reason, and then faith takes over, but you must first struggle there. In Dante, Virgil represents human Reason leading Dante to Beatrice/Grace - he cannot enter paradise, does not become Faith as well, but hands over at its gates. Faith is a surety, a guarantee in Jesus to those who embody Him; it is becoming a Christ, allowing the Logos to work through you, to control the passions or spirit in line with the Reason/Will. It still has that sense of obligation, of keeping the Faith in spite of the attempts of the World.

Christian Faith is assent to, or acceptance of, Christ. Faith in Jesus means to trust in Him. The concept is only very loosely connected to the quotidian usage of the term, I feel. It can mean that you were sufficiently convinced, or it can be axiomatically taken 'on faith', but that is a circumferential idea around it that gets confused with the concept itself. You must acquiesce to follow Jesus and then keep faith, both an obligation on you and a guarantee or promise from God, but the primary sense here is certainly not an epistemological one - except perhaps in Jesus as the way, the Truth, and the life.

Nice. We can take it even further back to the Hebrew roots.

Grace is "To pitch a tent with" and faith is those tent pegs, that hold it down.

I think a lot of the misunderstanding is, as you said about words changing quite a bit and not looking to English prescriptives.

We know, historically, philosophy has influenced theology, specifically, Greek ideals and concepts and this is where the philosophers here are attempting to squeeze biblical thought into their frameworks.

*Maybe they lost their faith in the Greek Jesus, not seeking out the Hebrew Yahshua...

 

[Tone]

Of course, I perceive it directly.

So, whatever you perceive exists?

*What about what I perceive?

 

[Tone]

In the context of my statement above, it's my consciousness. But consciousness is a concept which subsumes all consciousnesses whether they be Human, Giraffe, frog, Bear or my dog's.

So, the subjective (consciousness) perceives the objective (existence)?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

So, the subjective (consciousness) perceives the objective (existence)?

Yes and your own consciousness can also be an object, albeit a secondary object.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

So, whatever you perceive exists?

*What about what I perceive?

You are unable to perceive something that doesn't exist. I'm unable to perceive a 100 dollar bill in my wallet if there's only a one dollar bill there. I can misidentify a one dollar bill as a 100 bill but I can't perceive it. Yes Tone, what you perceive exists. If you perceive a tree, there's no evidence of the tree's existence above an beyond the fact that you are perceiving it. You don't need to then prove that the tree you perceive exists.

Now I think I know what you are going to say next. If you are going to say you perceive God, I will ask you by what means you perceive it.

 

[Tone]

consciousness is a concept which subsumes all consciousnesses

So, does this go back to my point about relationships being axiomatic too?

 

[Tone]

You are unable to percieve something that doesn't exist. I'm unable to perceive a 100 dollar bill in my wallet if there's only a one dollar bill there. I can misidentify a one dollar bill as a 100 bill but I can't perceive it.

Okay, so how do you know who is correctly perceiving...is this where convention comes in?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Okay, so how do you know who is correctly perceiving...is this where convention comes in?

There's no such thing as an incorrect perception. The senses work automatically and by causal laws. And yes I'm including mirages and optical illusions. These are not incorrect perceptions. Your senses give you all of the available data according to the way in which they work. They have limitations but this in no way means that they are working incorrectly. Have you ever seen someone from accross the room and thought it was your wife or a friend and run up to hug them only to find out it isn't them. This is not the result of a misperception, but a misidentification of what one perceives. You have to be careful here. Perception has a very specific definition. Often people use the word perception when what they mean is a persons perspective or point of view or even something they've inferred. When there is a dispute about what two people perceive they way to tell who's right is by means of reason and by appealing to the facts of reality.

 

[Tone]

If you are going to say you perceive God, I will ask you by what means you perceive it.

Oh, you added this last part.

By every means available to me as a person.

 

[essentialsaltes]

There's no such thing as an incorrect perception. The senses work automatically and by causal laws. And yes I'm including mirages and optical illusions. These are not incorrect perceptions.

So one line really is longer than the other?

 

[Tone]

When there is a dispute about what two people perceive they way to tell who's right is by means of reason and by appealing to the facts of reality.

How can you even argue that what a person perceives is incorrect?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

How can you even argue that what a person perceives is incorrect?

I don't think you can but you can argue that they have misidentified what they perceive. It would be like saying they had incorrectly digested their food.

 

[Tone]

I don't think you can but you can argue that they have misidentified what they perceive. It would be like saying they had incorrectly digested their food.

So, in the case of a believer, you wouldn't doubt that they perceived God, but that they have misidentified Him?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

So one line really is longer than the other?

No, and if you identified them as different lengths then that would not be a mistaken perception but a mistaken identification. How do you know that they are actually the same length if not by means of perception? Blank out. Our senses don't filter things for us. They just show us what's there in the form in which they work. Also, one is not limited to one's first impression. One can investigate further. I remember when I was seven I used to go with my Grandmother on trips. I would look ahead and see what appeared to be puddles ahead of us on the road. They would always disappear as we got closer. I thought that it must have rained up ahead and the puddles were just drying up. But it kept happening and there weren't any rainclouds, so I realized that something else was going on. So I asked and that's when I learned that heated air close to the tarmac can reflect light rays just like water can. It's the same with a stick appearing bent as it stands in a glass of water. How did you know that there is a stick and that it's in water? How did you determine that the stick was actually straight? Blank out. It's just in this way that you learn something about how your senses work and something about their limitations by means of your senses.

It was not a misperception on my part but a misidentification. My senses were working just fine, bringing me all the available data that was there including the fact that sometimes hot air can reflect light rays. And so I learned about mirages. that day and I did so by means of my senses and my reasoning ability. That was the first time in my life that I can remember really using my reasoning faculty and it gave me confidence in my ability to reason. I had help from my Grandmother but the original determination that what I saw was not puddles but something else was all me.

Since consciousness is an axiomatic concept and the senses are our means of awareness, their validity is also axiomatic. To say that we are conscious but our senses are invalid would be to commit the fallacy of the stolen concept.

On a side note, where I live we have some really spectacular mirages. Early in the morning when it's below zero, the dense layer of air near the ground acts like a lens and magnifies stuff. Trees and buildings that are ten miles away can look like a mile away.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

So, in the case of a believer, you wouldn't doubt that they perceived God, but that they have misidentified Him?

I would assume that they had perceived something and that they have misidentified it as God. I've been told countless times that God is imperceptible so I'd want to know how they perceived it, by what sense modality. Usually what I'm told is that it's some sixth sense or some kind of spiritual eye or sense. Since I don't have this sense, I'd want to know how I could reliably distinguish this sixth or spiritual sense from something they are just imagining. I mean if I tell you that trees exist and I've perceived them then if you'd never perceived a tree I could take you and show you one. Once I saw a UFO at night and it was bright and glowing orange and my first thought was that the sun was rising and it was a weird time for that since it was 8:30 PM. That was a momentary misidentification. In actuality it was a space ship full of little green men. Just kidding. I don't know what it was except that it was big, bright, and shaped like one of those paper crowns from Burger King that we used to get with our kid's meals. Since then I've seen 18 UFOs. I live in a hotspot for them. I'm sure I perceived something but what it was, I can't say.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Oh, you added this last part.

By every means available to me as a person.

OK, so you smelled God? What did it smell like? Did you touch god? What did it feel like. Did you taste God? What did it taste like? What did it look like and sound like? And how can anyone else distinguish what you perceived from something that you may have imagined?

 

[Tone]

I would assume that they had perceived something and that they have misidentified it as God.

So what if I assume that you had perceived something and that you have misidentified it as existence?

 

[Tone]

OK, so you smelled God? What did it smell like? Did you touch god? What did it feel like. Did you taste God? What did it taste like? What did it look like and sound like? And how can anyone else distinguish what you perceived from something that you may have imagined?

How does existence smell, taste, feel, etc...?

 

[Tone]

Oh yeah, I found this video that I believe conveys what I tried to--a whole lot better!:

Just give this last one a chance. If you watch this entire one, I'll watch one of your choice!