Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
To equivocate belief in elves, big foot, loch ness, etc. with belief in God is to suggest a worldview can be, indeed should be centered around that belief. Hence it is an equivocation fallacy
It is not for people who don't believe in God for specified reasons that are equivalent.
Divine hiddennes is a viable problem.
Divine hiddennes is an assumption of your worldview, not the Christian worldview.
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man–and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things."
According to the Christian worldview, the evidence from creation is sufficient to leave men without excuse.
This is rather unsophisticated question, nevertheless, which came first, the chicken or the egg? It's really a question of causality involving two genders, male and female. Without both, there cannot be one.
According to the Christian worldview, the evidence from creation is sufficient to leave men without excuse.
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man–and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things."
This is rather unsophisticated question, nevertheless, which came first, the chicken or the egg? It's really a question of causality involving two genders, male and female. Without both, there cannot be one.
So you assume a supernatural God that communicates, and then assume natural methodology
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man–and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things."
According to the Christian worldview, the evidence from creation is sufficient to leave men without excuse.
This is rather unsophisticated question, nevertheless, which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Not at all. The Big Bang is an event and it was the creation of our universe. The ex nihilo creation was an event that was the creation of our universe.
It seems that now you are backing off your first claim that knowledge is true belief. If there is any uncertainty, it would logically be lacking the ability to know for certain it was true. Science itself began with the presuppositions that objective truth was attainable, that there was an order to the universe and the ability of mankind to comprehend that order. In fact, it still does. Without any of those presuppositions Science could never have developed. Modern Science was founded on this bedrock of Christian thought. Man created in the image of God had the intelligence and logic to comprehend the universe which was designed with an order and regularity of reality, with unity and uniformity of the physical universe by an Intelligent Mind.In epistemology, justification is a process of removeing doubt.
We don't have to remove all doubt to claim knowledge. We can provisionally grant certain claims the "knowledge" status, given that these are more certain than uncertain.
That's what science is in certain context of examination and systematic approach to unknown. Sciencia literally means knowledge.
It is this self-evident nature which we are considering here. Without the laws of logic we could not being to 'know' what an apple is let alone that it is fruit. We could not be having this conversation.Well some things we nominally define so these are nominally axiomatic. For example, I can say that apple is a fruit based on how we define fruit and based on how we define apple.
Some thing we know procedurally. I know how to change breaks on my car, and I can demonstrate that knowledge. I know how to walk, and I know how to type and use this forum. If you have doubts about that... We should not be having this conversation.
I agree.Some knowledge is provisional based on context in which it is defined. We know that water boils at 100 celcius in context that we consistently repeat the experiment. Thus we can say that in the same context we know that boiling point will not be a 1000 celcius for water.
We don't have to know everything about water to know that fact.
It seems a bit unclear from what you said previously.I hope you get the point.
Laws of Logic transcend our brains, although our brains are necessary to process thought.Likewise, knowledge is not a semantically standalone concept. It's a network of coherent concepts that resides in your brain or some memetic form. For you to know what an apple is there are a web of prerequisites to make that concept coherent.
How is the creation of our universe in anyway colloquial?Firstly, you are equivocating between two meanings of 'creation' here. 'Creation' in the colloquial sense, and 'creation' in the literal, religious sense.
Secondly, apples and tomatoes are both fruit. They are still distinct things.
I continue to fail at seeing any point in what you're arguing here.
How is the creation of our universe in anyway colloquial?
Never said it was.
You said: Firstly, you are equivocating between two meanings of 'creation' here. 'Creation' in the colloquial sense, and 'creation' in the literal, religious sense.
Is that not what you are saying here?
I am failing to see what difference you are making in a literal meaning of creation and a colloquial.Yes, that is word for word what I said. You are equivocating between two different meanings of 'creation'. With relation to the big bang, it is a colloquial meaning. With relation to your apologetics, it is a literal, religious meaning.
I still fail to see the point in any of this. What exactly are you setting out to demonstrate?
I would like to know from devolved, but you are welcome to as well. How is knowledge demonstrable in your estimation.
Knowledge is belief that can be justified...how? How does knowledge get justified?
Given this definition, all the knowledge we have of a cell is just a belief because can't cure cancer for instance? If knowledge can't be false, why is it that we have all kinds of 'knowledge' but we can't be sure we have all knowledge of anything? If we can't be sure we attain all of the knowledge of something how could we know if it were 'true knowledge' rather than just a belief?
Sure downplay the integrity of knowledge
But actually, every human being that assumes meaningful communication with another human being, assumes laws of logic which are necessarily objective truth with a capital "T".
Blow it off as a non-issue, but apathy towards truth does not make it any less relevant to reality.
That "knowledge is tentative" not a problem is a matter of convenience.[/quote
No, it is a matter of honesty and open mindedness. It is a matter of being open to learn new things. It is a matter of realising that what you consider to be true, might be wrong (how unlikely it even might seem at this moment).
For when a Christian who happens to be a Scientist or knowledgeable in the Sciences, does not agree with mainstream Science, "knowledge is tentative" and no atheist claims to have knowledge that can be qualified as objective truth, suddenly the apathy goes missing in action, as does the rest of what you claim.
You're not making sense here. It sounds like you are accusing me of something, but I can't put my finger on it.
In any case: when someone disagrees with mainstream science, it doesn't matter at all if (s)he is a christian, muslim, atheist,....
Scientists try to disprove mainstream science every day. It's their job. Every scientist's wet dream is to prove all his peers wrong. That's how you achieve fame and glory. That's how you get universities, streets, statues, buildings, even entire towns, named after you. That's how you win Nobel prizes.
Those who's work merely uphold the status quo, are the gray mice who's names resonate with nobody. Because yey: their experiment / paper showed that that which everybody already knew, is true. Greeeaaat.
Now, if the person who doesn't agree with mainstream science, disagrees in the way like a Ken Ham does ... now that's a different issue. "You're all wrong, because I have this book" and "i don't need to show that you are all wrong, because I have this book".
Disagreeing with the mainstream is one thing. The question is, what do you do with that disagreement? If you go on and work towards better explanation and more and better science: awesome! If you go the way of Ken Ham and alike: yes, you can expect ridicule.
So you assume a supernatural God that communicates, and then assume natural methodology in receiving revelation and inscribing it to natural materials.
That's not how it works
, assuming a Christian worldview and bringing elements from a non-Christian worldview into it to argue against it.
I recommend reading about the different Christian "theories" of inspiration and illumination, because a sovereign God that wants to communicate His message to people, can surely ensure that His intended message is inscribed as He intends, as He wills.
In other words, the God of Christianity, far surpasses the flaws of humans, flaws in reasoning and senses of His creatures are a non-issue for Him. So yes, it does matter.
Ok, so demonstrate how knowledge is demonstrable.As in when I say "I know X is true", you don't need to take my word on it. You don't need to accept it at face value.
I can demonstrate it to you and show you that X is true.
So knowledge, is demonstrable.
It is that we can comprehend a cell, cancer, facts and reality which are all grounded in the Laws of Logic. It would be impossible to demonstrate any finding without those a priori laws of Laws of Logic.Having knowledge of a thing, doesn't mean you have ALL knowledge of that thing.
Also, it's in fact because we have knowledge of the cell, that we can even know what cancer is.
Not being able to cure it (not completely true, actually, but I'll roll with it), does not mean our knowledge of the cell is false.
It is that we can comprehend a cell, cancer, facts and reality which are all grounded in the Laws of Logic. It would be impossible to demonstrate any finding without those a priori laws of Laws of Logic.
The laws of Logic are the fundamental laws of reality and truth, the principles that make rational thought possible.So, what are the "Laws of Logic"? I'm not sure what you mean when you say that anything is "grounded" in them. Logic doesn't have to hide inside of anything, any more than "peddling" hides inside of a bicycle. Reality simply has to be amenable to logic, much like the bicycle's mechanical structure does something interesting when moved in a certain way. You seem to think that logic hides "inside" of things. That doesn't have to be the case.
eudaimonia,
Mark
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?