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.
That does rule out religion, for the most part.Well, truth is the characteristic of a statement, that it comports with reality.
Accuracy in descriptions of reality.If you are not looking for truth, then what "accuracy" are you seeking?
Unless that 'divine revelation' was simply imagined.Nonsense.
Divine revelation would be a revelation, regardless of who has received it: it either meets the definition or does not, and either stands the same justification process as other revelation or it does not.
Not if by "truth", in this context, you mean "religion".Well, by your own words you are not concerned with knowing truth, so I guess for you that would be true. (no pun intended)
And you haven't for your claims. Does that slow you down?Not unless you know something about them we do not.
but for that to be a justified belief one would have to believe the claimant had fulfilled their espistmic responsibilities in order to lend appropriate authority to their claim. I do not.
What do you not like about it?Then you might want to do a little critical thinking regarding that statement.
.That does rule out religion, for the most part
Accuracy in descriptions of reality.
Unless that 'divine revelation' was simply imagined.
Not if by "truth", in this context, you mean "religion".
And you haven't for your claims. Does that slow you down?
What do you not like about it?
The unwarranted presumptions and Strawman misrepresentation of my statement;Abandoning "critical thinking" that allows for belief in things imaginary
The unwarranted conclusion and unsubstantiated assertion; just for a start..."epistemic duties" that boil down to confirmation bias and self-deception
Indeed, which is why I said "for the most part." There may be some religions that claim water is wet, for instance. That claim would comport with reality.[Well, truth is the characteristic of a statement, that it comports with reality."
.
Only if it is false; untrue.
While related, they are not synomonous, and it is certainly not how others in this thread have used the word."If you are not looking for truth, then what "accuracy" are you seeking?"
Which, of course, is exactly equal to the definition of truth.
The burden of evidence is not on me, but I would say that the absence of evidence to show that they are not simply products of the imagination *is* the evidence for them being just that. These forums are filled with that evidence."Divine revelation would be a revelation, regardless of who has received it: it either meets the definition or does not, and either stands the same justification process as other revelation or it does not."
And of course, if someone had a claim of divine revelation, and you had any actual evidence it was 'simply imagined' then that would provoke an investigation to determine if your evidence was valid.
Are you asserting your religion as truth? Or is it not true?"Well, by your own words you are not concerned with knowing truth, so I guess for you that would be true. (no pun intended)"
What I meant is simply truth, as defined, wherever it is found.
lol. "Justify" is not "substantiate".Actually I don't think I've made any claims that I cannot justify.
What would those be?"Then you might want to do a little critical thinking regarding that statement."
Oh, goodness: where to start?
The unwarranted presumptions
How so?and Strawman misrepresentation of my statement;
Tentative conclusions, based on the evidence (or lack thereof) at hand. If someone were to demonstrate that gods like those in the bible were more than simply characters in books, I will change my position accordingly.The unwarranted conclusion
What did I assert that was unsubstantiated?and unsubstantiated assertion; just for a start...
Simple.
I have experienced God. He has revealed himself to me. I don't just believe the Bible just because mommy and daddy told me. I have had experience that proof to me that God is the source of reality.
Indeed, which is why I said "for the most part." There may be some religions that claim water is wet, for instance. That claim would comport with reality.
While related, they are not synomonous, and it is certainly not how others in this thread have used the word.
The burden of evidence is not on me, but I would say that the absence of evidence to show that they are not simply products of the imagination *is* the evidence for them being just that. These forums are filled with that evidence.
Are you asserting your religion as truth? Or is it not true?
lol. "Justify" is not "substantiate".
What would those be?
How so?
Tentative conclusions, based on the evidence (or lack thereof) at hand. If someone were to demonstrate that gods like those in the bible were more than simply characters in books, I will change my position accordingly.
What did I assert that was unsubstantiated?
While related, they are not synomonous, and it is certainly not how others in this thread have used the word
The burden of evidence is not on me, but I would say that the absence of evidence to show that they are not simply products of the imagination *is* the evidence for them being just that.
Are you asserting your religion as truth?
lol. "Justify" is not "substantiate".
What epistemic duty are you are talking about here specifically?
If an expression (an assertion, a truth claim) is properly formed (comports with proper epistemic responsibilities); and if that belief is not contradicted by other evidence or in conflict with known facts, then it is intellectually appropriate to accept the expression as true, even if tentatively. To refuse to accept a justified assertion, with no justification for rejecting it, is intellectually irresponsible. Since your only reason for rejecting the assertion that divine revelation is a reality seems to be circular reasoning, then you've failed your intellectual duty to be objective.
Plantinga discusses this in some detail, if you can stand to wade through his rhetoric. I like him, but he's not 'light reading'.
We all know it is quite difficult to prove a negative and the burden is on the person making a claim to produce a justification for their position, correct?
Now, lets say I told you I had a personal experience and I was abducted by aliens last night, brought onboard their space ship and then returned to my home. If my belief is not contradicted by other evidence that it is true, would it be incumbent on you to accept what I say indeed happened?
I could tell you of how real the experience was, give great detail of what the alien creatures looked like and details on the inside of their spacecraft etc. and you would be unable to produce any evidence, to show my claim was wrong.
(sigh...) Please read what I said.
An assertion must be properly justified, must be consistent with other known facts, and must be internally and externally coherent. Also, since we're talking about an essentially unsubstantiated claim (which I presume we are), then in order to be appropriately warranted, the authority and veracity of the provider must be considered before acceptance is appropriate.
You might want to look into the idea of knowledge, proper knowledge, and epistemic (or intellectual) responsibility (or duty). And you might want to acknowledge the distinction between totally unjustified and unproven. They are not the same.
I was using an extreme example, which I believe many Christians do when they make their claims, which are just as un evidenced.
Well, since we've been talking about the general notion of a claim to divine revelation, I'd say your extreme use is both irrelevant and unwarranted.
The issue was whether a claim of divine revelation meets the same criteria (and of course requires the same justification) as any other claim to revelation. It does.
You know, I would be curious of the world population was polled on this question:
What do you think is more likely to be a possibility; an alien space craft abducting a human, or a human rising from the dead after three days?
I would be curious of the world population was polled on this question:
What do you think is more likely to be a possibility ...
My interest in the human psyche, which is also the main reason I frequent these boards.
Ah, well, perfectly legitimate.
No need to poll the world, I'd be interested in responses to those questions in poll format here on these forums if you posted itYou know, I would be curious of the world population was polled on this question:
What do you think is more likely to be a possibility; an alien space craft abducting a human, or a human rising from the dead after three days?
What do you believe to be the source of the universe and why? If you respond that you do not know, please provide an intelligent reason as to why you do not know.
Thank you.
In the context that they use it, it would seem that they consider "truth" synonymous with their religion, or their opinion, such as at the bottom of post #56 of this thread, where the poster has a "truth" that does not appear to comport with reality.I'm using the word the way it is used in most professional literature: how do others use it?
Noted.Truth is the characteristic of a statement that it comports with reality. If it states what actually is, then it is true.
Then I am not wrong, as that is not what I have done. I have reached tentative conclusions, based on the evidence (or lack thereof) at hand. If someone were to demonstrate that "divine revelation" was more than simply a product of the imagination, I will change my position accordingly.Then both rationally and epistemically you would be wrong. Only if one engages circular reasoning is there a justification to presume that any claim of divine revelation is ispo facto imaginary.
In what way do the teachings of Christianity comport with realty?Well, while I do indeed assert that the teachings of Christianity are true, what has that to do with our topic?
Who gets to decide what is meant by "properly warrant"? You?"Actually I don't think I've made any claims that I cannot justify."
But to properly warrant a claim to knowledge, I merely have to properly warrant the belief.
I have no idea what you mean by "justified" true belief. If it is true what would it need to be justified?Knowledge is justified true belief.
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?