The Logical Premise?

[Queller]

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.

Probably 75% of the English-speaking world views the word "revelation" in conjunction with religious belief (and probably 95% of Christians of all languages).

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

No one is asking you to apologize for it. You just seem to be in a snit that anyone could think you meant something other than revelation in a religious especially, and this is a point you seem to be ignoring, you explicitly tied the word revelation to theology here:

As I said, truth in theology comes from revelation.

 

[Resha Caner]

... a point you seem to be ignoring, you explicitly tied the word revelation to theology here:

I'm not ignoring that because I'm not denying what I said. I was trying to address all the baggage that was heaped upon the statement thereby confusing the meaning of what I said. But I guess baggage is baggage.

 

[Queller]

I'm not ignoring that because I'm not denying what I said. I was trying to address all the baggage that was heaped upon the statement thereby confusing the meaning of what I said. But I guess baggage is baggage.

Yes, it is and you started the heaping. The fact that you cannot seem to understand how people could think you were talking about religious revelation after that comment is mind-boggling.

 

[Resha Caner]

Yes, it is and you started the heaping. The fact that you cannot seem to understand how people could think you were talking about religious revelation after that comment is mind-boggling.

This is what I mean. I was talking about religious revelation. What I was arguing against was defining it in a way that is contrary to Lutheran belief. But some people couldn't seem to grasp that - and still can't - and can't let go of an issue that should never have been an issue in the first place. Can we please move on?

 

[Kylie]

I realize all of that.

So why do you choose to not accept it?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The same way one knows that any perception is not imagination.

The only way I know of to know that a perception is not imagined, is by verifying it in testable reality. Without that ability, how could I know that my perception was actually correct?

When I read the Bible it's not hard to know that I'm not hallucinating just as I know that when I read your post. Do you think you're hallucinating when you read the Bible?

The reader of the story is not the one that claimed revealed knowledge.

One doesn't "verify" it in the sense you're thinking of. I either trust or distrust their words. If someone says they met and had a conversation with Jennifer Lawrence, I might not believe them if they claimed it happened in Gary, Indiana and JLaw was in LA that day. I'd be more likely to believe it if they showed me a picture of them with her. Even then I don't expect they can transfer that experience to me such that I can also experience a conversation with JLaw via their experience. It's not like gravity where I can explain to someone an experience that they can duplicate.

As such, I'm not expecting you to "verify" or believe my experiences. Either you trust my words or you don't. At this point I'm sure you don't.

The event of talking to Jen itself, is not the same as the subjective experience of having a conversation with her.

Experiencing gravity is not a scientific test of gravity. Few have tested gravity to any degree beyond what Galileo did. As such (unless you're a physicist who works on such things) I doubt you have any personal confirmation of gravity beyond Galileo's simple W = mg formulation. Few have actually taken observations of planetary motions and analyzed the data to confirm Newton's more accurate formulation. They simply trust that somebody did it. Even fewer have taken observations on Mercury's precession to confirm Einstein's even more accurate formulation. They simply trust that somebody did it.

Science is very results based. You don't need to repeat all the experiments, or even understand them, when you can simply point at the working practical applications of those theories.

If Newton's (or Einstein's) explanations of gravity, laws of motion, etc idd were wrong... I don't think we'ld be succesfull in using the gravity of celestial bodies in the solar system, to slingshot robots like Curiosity to Mars...

In fact, we wouldn't even be succesfull in calculating exactly how much fuel would be need to achieve escape velocity. We wouldn't even know what escape velocity is.

Clearly.

I'ld consider that a problem....

That's an unfounded leap. Clearly everyone who has viewed a Jennifer Lawrence film experienced it in a different way, but that in no way justifies claiming she doesn't exist.

Jen demonstrably exists. That's the difference.

And no, I don't discount the spiritual experiences of others the way you do.

I don't discount any experiences, and I doubt Obliquinaut does...
What I discount though, or rather: am skeptical of, is people's interpretation/explanation of their experiences. Especially when their explanations end up in rather fantastical claims that have not one piece of positive evidence to support it.

I have no doubt many non-Christians have had spiritual experiences. What I dispute is their conclusions.

On what grounds?

 

[Resha Caner]

So why do you choose to not accept it?

I really appreciate your approach here, so I don't want anything I say to be perceived as flippant, irritable, argumentative, preachy ... all the things that typically happen. We just have to appreciate that, for some reason, the religious paradigm I espouse seems to be incredibly difficult for people to accept. For all their statements that they leave it to me to express my experiences with God, they continue to apply all kinds of stuff based on what they think God is supposed to be or how other people have attempted to define God.

So, it's as simple as this - omniscience is not a word in my religious vocabulary. I did use the word in this thread, and maybe I should repent what many seem to think was a horrible transgression, but I still think it was appropriate to the context in which I said it. Just because I don't use "omniscience" to express my experiences with God doesn't mean I'm banned from using the word when the circumstances call for it.

The word is not in my religious vocabulary for the very reason that it causes threads like this one. So, I've been forced to say, "God knows all that can be known." Even then, for the purposes of this conversation, I should say something like, "God knows all that I know and my experiences indicate he knows more than I know" ... but I get tired of typing that out over and over.

When you entered your first science class, you assumed your science teacher knew more than you do about science. There was no way for you to prove it, but it was a pretty darned reasonable thing to assume. @Chesterton even made a quip about this earlier in the thread - the silliness of people arguing over omniscience when they assume all the time without proof that people know more than them.

Now, once the science teacher said, "water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen," you had verification that in the past the teacher knew more than you. But now you also know water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen, so does the teacher still know more than you? And so on and so on and so on. You never know, but at some point it just becomes silly to constantly debate it, and the pragmatic approach is to say the teacher know more than you.

God knows more than me. Use whatever word makes you happy to describe that. Does that make sense?

 

[Resha Caner]

The only way I know of to know that a perception is not imagined, is by verifying it in testable reality. Without that ability, how could I know that my perception was actually correct?

So when you perceive the results of the test, you then test that your perception of the test is valid? et cetera, et cetera.

I'ld consider that a problem....

That would explain many people's struggle to understand Christianity.

 

[Loudmouth]

From a very basic logic rule:
If A, so B, is true,
then B, so A, is not necessary true.
In this case, the induction process would not work.
If the rule is not there, then the A -> B remains as a hypothesis.

It's a bit more Bayesian than that. If we have multiple and independent lines of evidence that all lead to the same conclusion then the chances of that theory being right are high, but not absolute.

 

[Loudmouth]

So when you perceive the results of the test, you then test that your perception of the test is valid? et cetera, et cetera.

That's what controls are for. For example, if you think that you are receiving a narrowband radio signal from a distant star you check your equipment for radio leaks. You push your radio telescope away from the star to see if the signal goes away. You have other radio astronomers across the globe point to the same star to see if it is the source. You do your darnedest to prove yourself wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

God knows more than me. Use whatever word makes you happy to describe that. Does that make sense?

Of course, teachers have been known to be wrong. I had to correct my science teachers a few times in high school and at university.

The healthiest approach is if you think a teacher is wrong then double check your own knowledge. Open your references before you open your mouth.

How does that apply to God? I don't want to define your beliefs for you, so I will speak to what I see as the general consensus among believers. Most people think God is absolutely right about everything and can never be questioned. At least to me, that is a discussion stopper.

 

[Resha Caner]

How does that apply to God? I don't want to define your beliefs for you, so I will speak to what I see as the general consensus among believers. Most people think God is absolutely right about everything and can never be questioned. At least to me, that is a discussion stopper.

It depends. Maybe you have never had a discussion with someone who is not only more knowledgeable about the topic, but very intellectually nimble. I've been there. The result is that even if you remain firmly convinced you are right and they are wrong, they can argue you into a corner where you have no options left. God would be able to do that should he choose. So, really, the only result you'll ever reach in trying to argue that you are right and God is wrong is to learn that you are wrong.

However, with that said, there is no moral dictate that you can't argue with God. There are Biblical examples of people arguing with God: Abraham, Jacob, Moses. There are also cases where God remained silent and let the person do it their way: Abraham, Judah, Saul.

 

[Loudmouth]

It depends. Maybe you have never had a discussion with someone who is not only more knowledgeable about the topic, but very intellectually nimble. I've been there. The result is that even if you remain firmly convinced you are right and they are wrong, they can argue you into a corner where you have no options left.

Facts are always an option.

God would be able to do that should he choose. So, really, the only result you'll ever reach in trying to argue that you are right and God is wrong is to learn that you are wrong.

If God said that there was a 10,000 foot mountain range going down the middle of modern day Kansas, are you saying that I couldn't prove God wrong?

 

[Resha Caner]

Facts are always an option.

Maybe you've never been in the situation I described.

If God said that there was a 10,000 foot mountain range going down the middle of modern day Kansas, are you saying that I couldn't prove God wrong?

If God tells you that, and you don't see it, please try to prove him wrong. I would encourage you to do that. It's better than the alternative where, for example, Saul stopped listening.

 

[Loudmouth]

Maybe you've never been in the situation I described.

I don't see how intimidation makes someone right.

If God tells you that, and you don't see it, please try to prove him wrong. I would encourage you to do that. It's better than the alternative where, for example, Saul stopped listening.

The observation of a nearly flat plane is not enough to prove God wrong in this scenario?

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't see how intimidation makes someone right.

I wasn't referring to intimidation.

The observation of a nearly flat plane is not enough to prove God wrong in this scenario?

Well, God hasn't said what occurred in your hypothetical situation, so that makes this difficult to answer. If God hypothetically said that, you might hypothetically see a mountain. Who's to know?

You question was whether it is OK to debate God, and I'm saying that as far as I'm concerned, you can go for it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, God hasn't said what occurred in your hypothetical situation, so that makes this difficult to answer. If God hypothetically said that, you might hypothetically see a mountain. Who's to know?

In the hypothetical I see a plain instead of mountains. In this hypothetical, have I shown God to be wrong, or should I dogmatically assume I am wrong no matter what the facts are?

 

[AV1611VET]

In the hypothetical I see a plain instead of mountains.

Then maybe you need a new map.

If God said that there was a 10,000 foot mountain range going down the middle of modern day Kansas, perhaps He knows something you don't?

And given you educatees problem with New Jersey in Noah's time, I can see where the problem lies.

 

[Resha Caner]

In the hypothetical I see a plain instead of mountains. In this hypothetical, have I shown God to be wrong, or should I dogmatically assume I am wrong no matter what the facts are?

I'm sorry, I really can't answer that. For me it becomes an absurd question. It's like saying, "I see a circle that is a square, so what is it? A circle or a square?" You're trying to appeal to a standard that is apart from God, but we've never agreed on such a thing.

This quickly reaches the point where it would have to be something I actually experience. I would be asking all kinds of questions: Was it really God who told me? Am I sure what I see isn't an optical illusion? Am I really in Kansas or is this Oz? We can go on all day with hypotheticals, and I'm not interested in pursuing that.

It seems your question is different than I first perceived. At first it seemed your question was: Can God be questioned? My answer would be: Yes, and I have. But now it seems your question is actually: Can God be wrong? For that you'll have to be satisfied with me saying: I don't know, but He's not been wrong yet.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm sorry, I really can't answer that. For me it becomes an absurd question. It's like saying, "I see a circle that is a square, so what is it? A circle or a square?"

This quickly reaches the point where it would have to be something I actually experience. I would be asking all kinds of questions: Was it really God who told me? Am I sure what I see isn't an optical illusion? Am I really in Kansas or is this Oz? We can go on all day with hypotheticals, and I'm not interested in pursuing that.

It seems your question is different than I first perceived. At first it seemed your question was: Can God be questioned? My answer would be: Yes, and I have. But now it seems your question is actually: Can God be wrong? For that you'll have to be satisfied with me saying: I don't know, but He's not been wrong yet.

My question is "Can God be proven wrong?". If we aren't allowed to use facts to disprove things God claims, then we are in the realm of dogmatism which is kind of a dead end for discussion.