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.
While that may be a definition of "revelation" in a technical sense, in practical terms and especially on a site such as this, that is a pretty non-standard use of the term. Having read through the thread including your discussion with Obliquinaut, I can understand why someone would think that you are speaking of revelation in religious terms.
I've read the entire thread and I didn't ask a question. I just pointed out that your use of the term "revelation" is very different than what anyone who visits a site like Christian Forums would logically expect. Or anywhere else for that matter.Keep reading. Then if you still have questions we can talk.
When I was a schoolkid there was this math teacher, or someone posing as a math teacher (how could it be proven?), who teached me that there are such things as axioms; things that can't be proved but which are simply accepted as true by the human mind. It begged the question "What's so special about the human mind? Who made it judge, jury and executioner of the cosmos?"
Theology answers the begged question.
If you leave theology out of it, the question remains unanswered, and additionally, the question makes no sense, and even the asking of the question makes no sense.
I hope that clarifies the point.
Why aren't you answering my question? You want precision in terms that everyone else uses but you don't seem to bother with precision.
But it really doesn't matter, your position, such as it is, is rendered relatively trivially since you don't have any actual technical precision to the terms you use. I don't see why I need to have such technical precision when answering your questions.
I've read the entire thread and I didn't ask a question. I just pointed out that your use of the term "revelation" is very different than what anyone who visits a site like Christian Forums would logically expect. Or anywhere else for that matter.
I don't understand the question.Judge, jury, and executioner?
First of all, so what? That doesn't address what I said.I'm not certain that question is actually begged. I saw a dog capable of reason from inference today.
I don't understand the question.
First of all, so what? That doesn't address what I said.
Second of all, are you sure it was inference and not mere association?
Third of all, are you sure the dog's not just a deterministic machine doing what mindless math programs it to do?
We can't. I never meant to imply we can know such a thing.
Indirect verification would be something like the financial state of the friend who recommended this company.
If he were a successful stock broker who had acquired substantial wealth of his own, that would be indirect verification that his suggestion is trustworthy.
So let me try asking again. When you say you must have verification for any important actions in your life, do you mean exclusively direct verification?
What question did I not answer?
Just because I used it differently than you expected does not make my statement imprecise.
It's just different than you expected. Are you opposed to discussing a view that is new to you?
As for the words I chose, I thought them the best explanation of the position I wished to communicate.
But I'm not trying to seize ownership of any particular word. The words I chose are of no use if you don't understand them.
It won't do much good for me to try to guess what exactly you think is imprecise about what I said, so please tell me why you think it is imprecise - or what question it is I missed.
So then your claim that "nothing can be known absolutely unless it is revealed by an omniscient source" is something you can't know absolutely, is it?
There is no reason to make any decisions based simply on that metric. I wouldn't it.
That would lend to validation of the data, but still insufficient. Even a close friend can be mistaken, even if he or she is a good broker.
NOW, they could trust me (something I DEARLY HOPE THEY DID NOT, considering I am not a doctor of medicine...as I said I don't want anyone to simply take my word for something), or they could trust the work that was put into the assessment: my summary based on this work and the core materials can be found here and here.
Why do you insist on others be precise with their terms when you are anything but precise?
The fact that YOU were unable to see how your own posts pointed to a specific definition which you clearly don't necessarily wish to limit it makes it imprecise.
I'm the one who went to the technical and precise definition based on your direction (theology and belief).
If you didn't wish it to be limited to a religious interpretation of "revelation" why did you introduce theology in discussing revelation?
As I said, if there is evidence available, I'm not suggesting people ignore it. Rather, I was trying to head toward a case where verification isn't possible. But we may be hopelessly sidetracked.
The bluster is unnecessary. For you to insist my phrasing is clumsy, imprecise, and improper, yet you understand me
But, honestly, the amount of harping has reached a point where it seems more an attempt to derail the conversation than salvage it.
If you understand me so well, we should be able to move on rather than keep returning to this.
I don't think we have to go that far. While I, as a finite being, can never prove some other being knows all that can be known, I can imagine the possibility of such a being. Further, I can imagine that absolute truth would require such a being.
You DO realize you are sounding a LOT like St. Anselm here in the Ontological Argument, right?
Trust me, it isn't unsalvageable from my point of view.
If you're serious about getting past this, you need to answer this question: Is there more than one Christian theological tradition?
I don't think we have to go that far. While I, as a finite being, can never prove some other being knows all that can be known, I can imagine the possibility of such a being. Further, I can imagine that absolute truth would require such a being.
In fact, I can't think of how it would be any other way. But, if you have another possibility, and want to explain it to me, I'm willing to consider it.
But let's say that some being comes down and reveals some information to you. You can conclude that this is an omniscient being, and thus conclude that the information it reveals is true, but how do you eliminate the possibility that it's merely a non-omniscient being that is just more "scient" than you? You can't. So you can never be sure that this being is really omniscient, and if there's a chance that it isn't omniscient, then there's a chance that the information it gave you is wrong.
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?