The Logical Premise?

[Resha Caner]

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.

Keep reading. Then if you still have questions we can talk.

 

[Queller]

Keep reading. Then if you still have questions we can talk.

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.

Especially after you explicitly tied the word "revelation" to theology in one of your posts.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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?"

Judge, jury, and executioner?

Theology answers the begged question.

I'm not certain that question is actually begged. I saw a dog capable of reason from inference today.

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.

Indeed lol.

 

[Resha Caner]

I hope that clarifies the point.

Thank you for your comments, but no, that doesn't address what I was asking. I'm not asking you to ignore evidence when it's available. I see no reason why you wouldn't check up on a company in which you intend to invest. Neither did I mean "direct verification" in such a narrow sense. In this instance, checking public filings by the company would constitute direct verification because it speaks directly to the issue at hand - the financial state of the company you are considering for investment.

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? Or do you include the indirect verification related to trust that have I mentioned? I get the sense you mean it must be direct verification, but I want to be clear.

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.

What question did I not answer? I don't know what it would be. You've been doggedly repeating your instance that I'm imprecise, but I interpreted that as a statement, not a question.

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.

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. I didn't realize it was improper for a Lutheran to speak about revelation in the ways that Lutherans understand revelation. 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.

 

[Resha Caner]

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.

Then let me reemphasize the point you seem to have missed. It might be how someone used to the evangelical American Christian tradition expects the word to be used, but there seems to be some ignorance of the fact that such is not the only Christian tradition nor the only understanding of revelation.

I'm not going to apologize for expressing how a different Christian tradition (my church) views revelation.

 

[Chesterton]

Judge, jury, and executioner?

I don't understand the question.

I'm not certain that question is actually begged. I saw a dog capable of reason from inference today.

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?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't understand the question.

It was a reference to your question...

"Who made the human mind judge, jury, and executioner of the cosmos?"

I have no idea what that means.

First of all, so what? That doesn't address what I said.

What's the "special" part of the human mind you're talking about then?

Second of all, are you sure it was inference and not mere association?

No...but the professor of psychology running the experiment seemed pretty sure.

Third of all, are you sure the dog's not just a deterministic machine doing what mindless math programs it to do?

I don't see how that's even relevant.

 

[Kylie]

We can't. I never meant to imply we can know such a thing.

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?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Indirect verification would be something like the financial state of the friend who recommended this company.

There is no reason to make any decisions based simply on that metric. I wouldn't it.

If it were simply something unimportant I might shift the burden of verification down. If my friend says this is the best sandwich he's ever gotten, I may buy one as well.

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.

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.

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?

Apparently so. Your definition of indirect verification sounds completely indifferentiable from mere trust. That's fine but insufficient for sufficiently important decisions.

Here's a modest example: my mom had some friends (all in their 70's) who wanted to buy a homeopathic medicine that everyone was talking about. I noted that, as a chemist, I wouldn't trust homeopathic cures for all the standard scientific reasons. I didn't, however know about this particular medicine, so I went and dug up peer reviewed literature and looked at it. I presented this to my mom's friends (moderated to allow for 70 year old ladies with limited technical expertise), and suggested not only that they talk with their doctors who could explain the issues that may arise from this material, but to also note that there is data available which has been vetted through peer review (ie preponderance of the judgement of many independent scientists). If they would like the references can be found here and here.

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.

You could if you so desired decree that "indirect evidence" (in that the women did not run the experiments of efficacy of the drug themselves) or you could call it direct evidence in that it is supportable by reviewed and adjudicated data.

I guess it depends on how imprecise you wish to be with regards to your "indirect evidence" metric.

What question did I not answer?

Why do you insist on others be precise with their terms when you are anything but precise?

Just because I used it differently than you expected does not make my statement imprecise.

Yes it does. YOU introduced the theology and revelation (as was noted by both myself as well another poster a few posts back), and since you like to point out how "precise" you are, it was obviously assumed you were using the precise, technical definition as it applies thusly defined.

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.

It's just different than you expected. Are you opposed to discussing a view that is new to you?

I'll let this amateurish attempt to make a point slide. You should know better than that.

As for the words I chose, I thought them the best explanation of the position I wished to communicate.

If you didn't wish it to be limited to a religious interpretation of "revelation" why did you introduce theology in discussing revelation?

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.

I appear to understand them quite well. I'm the one who went to the technical and precise definition based on your direction (theology and belief). The fact that you didn't quite catch what you had stepped into in regards to the technical meaning within theology and belief is not my problem.

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.

How many times do I have to explain it to you in different words????

Wow! C'mon.

YOU introduced theology and belief into the discussion meaning YOU made it into a religious discussion. AT THAT POINT I deferred to the RELIGIOUS DEFINITION of your words.

YOU further noted how precise you are with language.

So you were using a lose, common definition that was NOT THE USUAL PRECISE TECHNICAL DEFINITION as it relates to theology and belief (which, again, YOU introduced).

Wow. I'm not gaining a lot of confidence if I have to repeat and repeat and repeat a relatively simple and straightforward concept.

 

[Resha Caner]

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?

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.

 

[Resha Caner]

There is no reason to make any decisions based simply on that metric. I wouldn't it.

OK. Thanks for answering. I would have continued from here to ask if you can imagine a situation where you can't obtain verification, but you've given your answer.

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.

Shrug. You could be mistaken. The public filing could be mistaken. We can play that game ad nauseum. This response gives me the impression that what you're really saying is that you don't trust anyone but yourself.

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.

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.

Why do you insist on others be precise with their terms when you are anything but precise?

Ah, well, that's a loaded question, so I'm not going to answer. If you think my terms are imprecise, I'm fine with that. I'm willing to clarify or use different words. The bluster is unnecessary. For you to insist my phrasing is clumsy, imprecise, and improper, yet you understand me ... but won't help to clarify the situation. It's odd.

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.

Need I point you back to post #43 where I stated that I understand why you interpreted it that way? When did I ignore your explanation for why you interpreted my statement as you did? It seems, rather, that you're ignoring my replies.

I'm the one who went to the technical and precise definition based on your direction (theology and belief).

As it seems you ignored my reply to this. That is not the direction I was going. You misinterpreted - apparently due to an unfamiliarity with my position. That's not some flaw you need to be ashamed of. It happens all the time and it's easy to correct.

If you didn't wish it to be limited to a religious interpretation of "revelation" why did you introduce theology in discussing revelation?

My, my, my. I've already answered this question. If you're going to ignore my answers, I don't see the point of answering again. If you're serious about getting past this, you need to answer this question: Is there more than one Christian theological tradition?

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. Yet for some reason you won't move on. Just satisfy yourself with the fact that everything is perfectly clear to you and I'm an illiterate fool who needs to be educated and let's move on.

 

[Obliquinaut]

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.

I'm not as easily side tracked as you are perhaps. Give me an example of this.

The bluster is unnecessary. For you to insist my phrasing is clumsy, imprecise, and improper, yet you understand me

Because I actually attempt to listen to people closely and heed what they say. You wish to claim you are precise yet you are not precise on the key term in this discussion. I have now clearly explained my point on this and provided evidence in support of my claim.

But, honestly, the amount of harping has reached a point where it seems more an attempt to derail the conversation than salvage it.

LOL. Trust me, it isn't unsalvageable from my point of view. Perhaps yours. But you will need to be more precise and consistent with your terminology. (I tend to be less hindered by side-tracks than some people who are unable to follow the conversation).

If you understand me so well, we should be able to move on rather than keep returning to this.

Yet YOU were the one who was confused requiring me to repeatedly explain the point.

So do tell, what kind of claim would one make that is unverifiable (and please define the limits of verifiability) and explain to me why you would accept it, especially if it mattered how you move forward.

 

[Obliquinaut]

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?

 

[Resha Caner]

You DO realize you are sounding a LOT like St. Anselm here in the Ontological Argument, right?

I didn't use the statement as an attempt to prove God's existence. I meant merely that if absolute truth is to be known, it would require a being that knows all possible things. If that being doesn't exist, then absolute truth is impossible.

I think Anselm's argument clever, but if I were an atheist it wouldn't convince me of God's existence.

 

[Resha Caner]

Trust me, it isn't unsalvageable from my point of view.

Then why did you clip out the question I said was necessary to moving on? You'll have to humor me with an explanation of that, being the complete idiot that I am.

 

[Obliquinaut]

...

 

[Obliquinaut]

If you're serious about getting past this, you need to answer this question: Is there more than one Christian theological tradition?

The answer is "Yes".

Hope that helps! (I feel I must remind you that previously, I explicitly explained why I chose the reference I did. So I would think that would have already answered your question.)

 

[Kylie]

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.

 

[Resha Caner]

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.

I realize all of that.

 

[Resha Caner]

The answer is "Yes".

OK.