W
WannabeSaint
Guest
Since we are not infallible, does that mean we cant ever know any of our beliefs to be absolutely true?
Since we are not infallible, does that mean we can never be absolutely assured of anything we believe to be true?
- Status
D
Dugtrio1
Guest
I think that is correct. The most we can do is read, study, experiment, and come to a consensus. Something is more likely to be true when it stands up to skepticism, doubt, and testing, and it still works. For many things, however, we can never be fully sure.
S
StJoseph8
Guest
Not by reason solely. But, in terms of belief in God, God can give an experience to you in your heart or soul that eliminates all doubt for you and in that case your belief can be “absolutely true”.
M
Magnanimity
Guest
Certitude obtains on a sliding scale, so yes, at the tip-top of that scale would be those truths which are actually undeniable. They cannot not be true.
So far, I’ve only discovered two truths that are actually undeniable (in no particular order):
- Thinking is occurring
- Something exists
Last edited:
E
EZweber
Guest
I exist is also just a little important because you can’t exactly make a syllogism if you don’t exist. Also the basic tenets of logic such as the principle of noncontradiction. It is also possible with necessary premises to deduce the existence of God and His basic attributes.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Yes, that is true. Although we can’t have certain knowledge of that fact, of course.
E
EZweber
Guest
I believe that St. Augustine came up with an argument that there are things you can know for certain, but I had a difficult time following it the one time it was explained to me. Maybe it would be easier in writing.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Jesus is infallible, because he is God. He said that He is the truth (Also the Way and the Life). We can rely on that as it did not come from our own fallible selves.
Last edited:
E
EZweber
Guest
The problem I see with that is how do we know that Jesus even existed, ect. ect. ect. We can know beyond reasonable doubt, but for certain is another matter entirely.
M
Magnanimity
Guest
I’ve never seen an argument that proves with undeniable certainty that I (singularly, separably from others) exist. Descartes didn’t accomplish that. I’ve seen probabilistic arguments to that effect, but you can’t move from probability to undeniability, can you?
I think this fundamental law of logic presupposes a plurality of being, as does the principle of identity. Does it not? If Parmenides is correct and all reality is One, then there is just ‘p’ right? Such that ~(p & ~p) is resolved as inapplicable. There is just ‘p.’
Maybe I’ve not thought it all through
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Whenever God enters the picture, faith will have to take over at some point.
E
EZweber
Guest
You cannot prove that you exist to my knowledge, but you must assume that you exist to reason.
I
IWantGod
Guest
It is my position that God’s existence can be reasoned to, and that some arguments for God’s existence cannot possibly be wrong without abandoning reason altogether. In other-words reality would have to be fundamentally irrational if there were no God. That is to say a rational view of the world inescapably leads to a being that is consistent with our idea of God. That’s as close to infallible as we can possibly get.
Religion is something else however. You have to have faith that Jesus loves you and will save you.
We have good reasons to believe in the things that we do, but at some point faith is the only way forward.
Last edited:
E
EZweber
Guest
The principle of noncontradiction says that something cannot be true and not true at the same time and in the same respect. Anyone disagree? Note: if you do you also have to assume that it could be right.
Last edited:
M
Magnanimity
Guest
Purely in terms of logic, the law of non-contradiction applies to propositions. But propositions are true only inasmuch as they correspond to being. If being is all one (undifferentiated), then there is just ‘p.’ So this would not seem to be an example of an actually undeniable truth but rather a “law” that obtains, only given a certain reality (a plurality of being).
But hey, if you disagree, then…well nothing. It’s totally fine with me if folks disagree with my reasoning here.
E
EZweber
Guest
Even if all reality is one, all reality cannot be both one and not one at the same time and in the same respect.
D
Dsivanish
Guest
The philosopher, Rene DeCartes thought along those lines too. You may know him from “I think therefore I am”, going on along those lines he says that almost everything he learned is from fallible people, and therefore cannot be trusted. The only things that he knows that can be trusted is from God. Been a while since I read that whole thing, I may have to study it again.
po18guy
Well-known member
If one suffers from anxiety or OCD, no they can never be certain. And, 1 in 5 today (64 million Americans) do suffer from some form of anxiety. I think it is the impetus behind much of “philosophy” these days.
God is a God of simplicity and of peace. In our rotten culture (of which we are products), we see nothing but complication, confusion and the doubt it produces.
What was it, written so very long ago?
Know.
God is a God of simplicity and of peace. In our rotten culture (of which we are products), we see nothing but complication, confusion and the doubt it produces.
What was it, written so very long ago?
Still.
Know.
E
EZweber
Guest
Frankly I can’t see why anyone would bother trying to prove that they might not have exist. I honestly don’t care if I might not exist. It’s much more important that I probably exist. I’ll “act” the same wether I exist or not.
M
Magnanimity
Guest
Laws of logic (like laws of physics and mathematics) are derived from our interaction with reality. We only know ~(p & ~p) because our experience of reality has presented this to us as a “law.” But it still presupposes plurality–your very example of “cannot be both one and not one” is a plurality. At the very least, it’s a plurality (two) states of affairs.
- Status