Knowledge! What is it?

[Gorgias]

Spirit, soul, ghost are all meaningless words meaning that they don’t have referents in reality.

That depends on your definition of “reality.” You’re defining it as “physical reality”. So, you’re literally defining the spiritual realm out of existence. You can do that, if you wish, but don’t expect everyone to agree that you’re making sense.

Before anything else it is your job to explain just what that non-physical entities might be and how can we experience them without our senses.

Nice attempt, but you’ve just tilted the playing field again. Why is “experience with our senses” the relevant requirement? Yet again, you’ve unilaterally and arbitrarily created a definition which excludes anything but the physical.

It’s a nice attempt… but quite obvious what you’re doing.

And I gave you two methods, one is to provide a “time viewing” apparatus, the other one could be by praying to God to provide current, unambiguous miracles.

And both of these are unhelpful: a “time viewing apparatus” is contrary to current science, and a prayer to God does not guarantee (nor does it require) the result you wish.

Sure I can. And every test comes back with “no such address, no such zone” as in the Elvis Presley song (“Return to sender”).

You can sit at the top of Mt Everest all you want and attempt empirically measure the existence of whales. The fact that each of these tests fails to find whales does not prove that whales do not exist.

You could not be more mistaken. God hides above the clouds (maybe in shame???") and you are totally clueless.

Nice talking with you, Abrosz.

I did not FORGET, I neglected it on purpose. There is no rule that everything someone says MUST be answered.

“Pot, meet kettle”…?

 

[Abrosz]

That depends on your definition of “reality.” You’re defining it as “physical reality”. So, you’re literally defining the spiritual realm out of existence. You can do that, if you wish, but don’t expect everyone to agree that you’re making sense.

As always, I leave the window open. You are the one who talks about “spiritual reality”, and I merely ask you, what the heck does that mean? How does it differ from talking about fairies, demons and other imaginary things?

Why is “experience with our senses” the relevant requirement? Yet again, you’ve unilaterally and arbitrarily created a definition which excludes anything but the physical.

You are not just welcome, but strongly urged to show how can anyone gain information about the external reality without using the senses. Do you believe in extra-sensory perception? And other “New-Age” ideas? Telekinesis, perhaps? And these questions are not attempts to derail the topic. What other method is available to gain information about the external “non-physical” reality - whatever that might be? It would be nice to get a direct answer to such questions. Not that I will hold my breath… I am already accustomed to see “answers” like: “red herring” and other attempts to avoid an actual reply.

And both of these are unhelpful: a “time viewing apparatus” is contrary to current science, and a prayer to God does not guarantee (nor does it require) the result you wish.

Baloney. The current science is not the final answer. In a thought experiment everything is permitted, EXCEPT logical contradictions. God is not limited by our current science, but very much limited by logical contradictions. So my answer was on target, and as such very much helpful. A time-viewing apparatus would allow us to directly verify the propositions about the past, without the need for testimonials. And that was your question.

As for praying, it is the assertion of the believers that God is not a vending machine… and yet you treat God as if he would be one. I suggest to check the “Prayer intentions” sub-forum. Not to mention that Jesus himself said: "WHATEVER you ask in my name, it will be fulfilled, because I will go the Father. " (Not a verbatim quote.) Funny that you declare Jesus to be untrustworthy when it suits your needs. A little honesty, perhaps?

You can sit at the top of Mt Everest all you want and attempt empirically measure the existence of whales.

But I am not sitting on the top of a mountain. I am asking about the ever-present, almighty God. Not just a “whale”. I wish I would meet with an honest apologist, who would answer: “sorry, I have no idea, but i have strong faith…”

 

[EndTimes]

That depends on your definition of “reality.” You’re defining it as “physical reality”. So, you’re literally defining the spiritual realm out of existence.

Bingo, Gorgias!

To some… the Spiritual Realm is unknown - incomprehensible

 

[Abrosz]

To some… the Spiritual Realm is unknown - incomprehensible

Why don’t you help “those” to learn and know about that “spiritual realm”? First, what is it? Second, how can we know it? Give us the algorithm which we must follow to discover it. Can you do that?

I already asked this question and @Gorgias pretends that the question was never asked. Well, it is being asked, and if you don’t know the answer, at the very least have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

 

[EndTimes]

Why don’t you help “those” to learn and know about that “spiritual realm”? First, what is it? Second, how can we know it?

There’s one route to the Spiritual Realm - and it connects with having Faith in Jesus who is the DOOR to God. . this can occur in varying manners.

IF one demands PROOF? One can never come to Know the Spiritual Realm

For starters.

LOVE ITSELF… The Quality Itself - Is part of the spiritual realm.

LOve Exists and depends naught upon Maths… or Proofs…

 

[Abrosz]

IF one demands PROOF? One can never come to Know the Spiritual Realm

Fine. So the answer to both questions is negative. I thought so. Cannot even explain WHAT it is. Much less , how do we know it.

LOVE ITSELF… The Quality Itself - Is part of the spiritual realm.

Love is just an emotion, not an ontological entity. Of course it must be expressed in actions.

Anything else?

 

[EndTimes]

Fine

Yep… The Spiritual Realm is open to those with Faith.

 

[Abrosz]

Yep… The Spiritual Realm is open to those with Faith.

And “closed” to those without faith. I get it. We, skeptics are “out of luck”.

 

[EndTimes]

EndTimes:

Yep… The Spiritual Realm is open to those with Faith.

And “closed” to those without faith. I get it. We, skeptics are “out of luck

You have to have Faith to understand it and use it in a sentence

You weren’t born Skeptic … You chose to be that way

There either is or is not God and His Command to Love One Another

Skeptics are in my view - fence sitters.

Problem there is - the Fence can never be the Answer

Don’t be Fraid - Take a Leap…

)_

 

[Gorgias]

How does it differ from talking about fairies, demons and other imaginary things?

From the very definition of “imaginary.” You’ve alluded to it, yourself, IIRC. We’re not claiming God is “imaginary”; we’re claiming He’s “not physical.” (NB: there’s a critical difference there – have you noticed it? ‘Fairies’ and ‘other imaginary things’ are asserted to be physical; since there is no physical evidence of their existence, we conclude that they’re imaginary. God isn’t asserted to be physical, and therefore, the lack of empirical evidence doesn’t lead to the conclusion “imaginary.”)

You are not just welcome, but strongly urged to show how can anyone gain information about the external reality without using the senses.

Better yet: we’ve been demonstrating that you’re barking up the wrong tree when you’re asking that your physical senses are the appropriate tool to gain information about non-physical entities…! I don’t know how much more clear it can be stated than that!

Do you believe in extra-sensory perception? And other “New-Age” ideas? Telekinesis, perhaps? And these questions are not attempts to derail the topic

Fair enough. No, I don’t. And, keep in mind why these fail: they attempt to use physical senses to ‘sense’ non-physical phenomena!

Not that I will hold my breath… I am already accustomed to see “answers” like: “red herring” and other attempts to avoid an actual reply.

More to the point… you’ve been ignoring or not seeing the answers to your questions when they’ve been given to you.

Baloney. The current science is not the final answer. In a thought experiment everything is permitted, EXCEPT logical contradictions.

Baloney back at’cha! “Thought experiments” don’t provide ‘evidence’, which is what you’re searching for… right?

and yet you treat God as if he would be one.

I don’t. The Catholic Church doesn’t (I would recommend you read the catechism’s section on ‘prayer’ to verify that it doesn’t teach this.)

Do some individuals do so? I’m sure they do. Are they mistaken when they presume that God is a big slot machine in the sky? Yep.

 

[Gorgias]

Not to mention that Jesus himself said: "WHATEVER you ask in my name, it will be fulfilled, because I will go the Father. " … Funny that you declare Jesus to be untrustworthy when it suits your needs.

So predictable. So sad.

I’d have presumed that you’d have done your research in advance, but since you haven’t, let’s talk a little about your assertion here. What you’ve just done is created a personal interpretation of Jesus’ words, and are attempting to make me (and the Catholic Church!) abide by your personal interpretation. Is your personal interpretation reasonable? By no means. Let’s engage in our own little ‘thought experiment’:

Suppose you’re unhappy with my answers to you, and you pray to Jesus, “Christ, if you’re real, please smite Gorgias into little bitty smoking smitey bits. And, while you’re at it, please let me be successful when I go to rob a bank this afternoon.”

By your personal interpretation of the Scriptures, Jesus must kill me and must let you get away with a crime, right? 'Cause, after all, He promised it, right? And yet, that would be unjust, wouldn’t it? So: by your interpretation, Jesus must sin, when you ask Him to do something sinful.

That doesn’t stand to reason: Jesus will not sin, at your request or anyone else’s. Therefore, your interpretation of Scripture doesn’t hold up.

I wish I would meet with an honest apologist, who would answer: “sorry, I have no idea, but i have strong faith…”

You are talking to honest apologists – and our answer is “sorry, God isn’t obligated to accede to your every request, just because you’ve asked for it.” Now that’s honesty!

 

[Gorgias]

I already asked this question and @Gorgias pretends that the question was never asked.

It’s been asked and answered, friend.

 

[Abrosz]

So predictable. So sad.

Correctly: So true!

Suppose you’re unhappy with my answers to you

Don’t suppose. I am not asking Jesus to do anything. But if I would, I would ask for peace of Earth; health for the sick; food for the hungry and comfort for the grieving, and other outrageous, clearly “unchristian” things. Of course you must twist and try to put words into my mouth, instead of engaging with what I actually said. Is that “honesty”?

By your personal interpretation of the Scriptures

I don’t interpret, I simply quote. It is not my fault that Jesus did not qualify his words.

Now, it is also typical that you did not even acknowledge the important part of my post: namely: “what is that ‘spiritual reality’?” And how do we gain information about it without having sensory (name removed by moderator)ut? And not just in general, but also in particular about the external reality, be it physical or ‘spiritual’?

It was you, who challenged me to provide some method about the “past”. I gave you answers, and you tried to counter it by saying that our current technology would not make that solution possible. As if God would be limited by our current technology!? Actually traveling into the past is impossible due to the contradictions ensued by such a trip. But viewing it does not have that problem.

Come to think of it, getting information about the future has the same problem. If you knew that the future “will be”, you could deliberately act against that knowledge. (so much for omniscience).

And finally, even contemplating testimonial evidence, you must engage your senses to have access to that testimony. No matter how you twist it, any information about the external reality MUST rely on the senses.

 

[Gorgias]

Of course you must twist and try to put words into my mouth, instead of engaging with what I actually said.

If you say so. I’m merely addressing your personal interpretation of Scripture – namely, that Jesus is obligated to give us everything that we ask for in prayer.

I don’t interpret, I simply quote. It is not my fault that Jesus did not qualify his words.

It is your fault, though, that you presume that you have the correct and authoritative interpretation of these verses. (You don’t, BTW. Please read the catechism to learn the Church’s authoritative interpretation.)

Now, it is also typical that you did not even acknowledge the important part of my post: namely: “what is that ‘spiritual reality’?” And how do we gain information about it without having sensory (name removed by moderator)ut?

God, the souls of all humans, angels, satan, and demons. There’s “spiritual reality” for you.

We gain information about it via God’s revelation to us.

There. Now you can’t say you’ve been left unanswered.

It was you, who challenged me to provide some method about the “past”. I gave you answers

No – by your own admission, you gave a “thought experiment” about things that aren’t scientific realities. Talk about “imaginary beings”!

No matter how you twist it, any information about the external reality MUST rely on the senses.

We’ve already demonstrated that the mind reaches conclusions on its own powers of ratiocination, which is not “reliant on senses” per se.

 

[Abrosz]

If you say so. I’m merely addressing your personal interpretation of Scripture – namely, that Jesus is obligated to give us everything that we ask for in prayer.

Not obligated. Promised. And promises made, promises broken are not a good foundation for trust or being worshiped.

It is your fault, though, that you presume that you have the correct and authoritative interpretation of these verses. (You don’t, BTW. Please read the catechism to learn the Church’s authoritative interpretation.)

Again, not “interpretation”, quotation. And it is STILL not my fault that Jesus did not include the qualifiers. Whatever == whatever. Not “maybe something”. By the way, the only authority of the church is self-proclaimed. Also has no evidence.

God, the souls of all humans, angels, satan, and demons. There’s “spiritual reality” for you.

In other words, mere speculation. Since they are not physical entities, we cannot experience them directly. None of us. So, all we have is speculation. Not to mention that you left out the “ghosts” and “poltergeists” and other assorted figments of imagination. Are they not part of this spiritual “reality”?. And you don’t have the epistemological “right” to call figments of imagination to be “reality”. Your error is called “the fallacy of the stolen concept”.

We gain information about it via God’s revelation to us.

And how did that revelation “reach us”? Via our senses? Not to mention that this “revelation” is not available to us. Allegedly it was given to a selected few people. And there is no evidence of that, even though we are not dealing with “spiritual reality” any more. So, all you have is speculation.

No – by your own admission, you gave a “thought experiment” about things that aren’t scientific realities.

Of course. We do not have the wherewithal to experience the past, since the past does not exist any more. But the point was to present some alternative method, not an alternative method available here and now. If you would insist on having “scientific realities” then all your speculation about gods, demons, angels, “souls” are out of consideration. You just managed to throw out the “baby” with the bath water. Good job!

 

[Abrosz]

We’ve already demonstrated that the mind reaches conclusions on its own powers of ratiocination, which is not “reliant on senses” per se.

Of course they are. Reasoning (ratiocination) must be founded on reality. We know if your reasoning is sound, when it conforms to the external reality. And since the only reality available to us is the physical reality, “reasoning” is founded on the observation of physical reality. Even the most abstract of all the endeavors - mathematics - is ultimately based upon observation.

Of course the abstractions, concepts and the axiomatic systems are not directly based upon observation, but they are not part of the physical reality either. But logic and reasoning must be based on reality. Unfortunately your alleged “spiritual” reality cannot be distinguished from mere fantasizing. You could base your worldview on “Santa Claus”, the “Easter Bunny”, “Jack and Jill”, the “iron nosed witch”, the Pegasus and the Bigfoot. The only difference is that the only people who believe this entities are young children.

You keep committing the “fallacy of the stolen concept” every time you abuse reality by adding the word “spiritual” to it.

 

[o_mlly]

Our five physical senses provide information to our mind. That is all the physical senses do.

Our common sense, the mind’s ability to integrated diverse sensations, organizes that information and produces knowledge. Knowledge is information organized.

Reason elevates knowledge to become wisdom. Wisdom is knowledge understood.

 

[Abrosz]

Our five physical senses provide information to our mind. That is all the physical senses do.

Correct. Physical signals, neural receptors, neural pathways transmit the raw data. Then comes the processing of that raw data, by the “mind”.

And our mind is the activity of our brain. Before anyone interjects: “prove it!”, it is more than amply proven by neuroscience and innumerable experiments. Every physical signal modifies our neural structure, it opens new pathways, and makes new connections. Reinforces old connections. Also amply proven.

Our common sense, the mind’s ability to integrated diverse sensations, organizes that information and produces knowledge. Knowledge is information organized.

Common sense is not an arbiter. It can be extremely misleading. But your proposition “Knowledge is information organized” is correct. We observe correlation between data, and we can discover that in specific instances this correlation involves causation.

Reason elevates knowledge to become wisdom. Wisdom is knowledge understood.

Wisdom is just another loosely defined term. but we can run with it. “Reason” is well defined. It is more than just “logic”. It starts with physical signals, their interactions, then correlations, then discovering interactions, then setting up hypotheses, then performing experiments to verify / falsify those hypotheses… and finally, when the hypothesis gets sufficient support from the reality, it becomes knowledge - tentatively, of course. This is what is sometimes called the “scientific method”, and sometimes it is used in a derogatory fashion.

I am not going to venture out into the exact, axiomatic sciences, because they are a different “ballgame”.

In this circle of information gathering and processing there is no place for that “spiritual reality” that Gorgias like to bring up.

 

[o_mlly]

Common sense is not an arbiter. It can be extremely misleading.

Of course, common sense can be misleading. In categorizing knowledge there is one more step: distinguish two types of knowledge, i.e., true and false knowledge. Knowledge that is true is knowledge that conforms to reality.

In this circle of information gathering and processing there is no place for that “spiritual reality” that Gorgias like to bring up.

No, the process is not circular but linear.

Senses → Information → Knowledge → Understanding → Truth

The Truth of our knowledge, especially scientific knowledge, will always be in the realm of doubt but that’s another thread.

The transformation of information to knowledge and knowledge to understanding are operations of the mind, not brain. As these operations cannot be assigned to a physical location then they are spiritual, i.e., non-material.

 

[Abrosz]

Knowledge that is true is knowledge that conforms to reality.

Yes, correct. The question is: “how do you know that conformity without sensory (name removed by moderator)ut”?

Senses → Information → Knowledge → Understanding → Truth

Close, but no cigar.

Senses → Information → processing → verification → knowledge. It is the verification which allows one to affix the “true” or “false” label to the processed information. Oh, and “truth” is a concept, not an ontological entity… despite the “Quid est veritas…”

The transformation of information to knowledge and knowledge to understanding are operations of the mind, not brain. As these operations cannot be assigned to a physical location then they are spiritual, i.e., non-material.

Oh yes, they can. Of course the brain is a distributed and parallel processing organ, but some of the new information can be assigned a physical location. The pleasure / pain centers are very well established. Inserting electrodes into the pleasure center and giving the control to stimulate it will make the subject to constantly stimulating it, until they are unable to do it, due to extreme exhaustion.

And you abuse the word “spiritual”. Just because something cannot be assigned a precise physical location, it is not “spiritual”. “Spiritual” would be something that is independent of the physical reality… Of course the word “physical” is redundant. There is only one kind of reality, the “physical one”, everything else is fantasy.