Since we are not infallible, does that mean we can never be absolutely assured of anything we believe to be true?

[EZweber]

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.

But if the principle of noncontradiction is false, a plurality is possible and at the same time impossible if everything is one. It just doesn’t make sense.

 

[EZweber]

The problem is, how do you prove your first premise? I agree that you have to assume it, but say your impression is mistaken?

 

[John_Martin]

Since we are not infallible, does that mean we cant ever know any of our beliefs to be absolutely true?

Those of us who are Catholic do not have to worry about this because our Apostolic teachers have been sent with only truth to give to us as to faith and morals, or doctrine, that they deliver to us, and the Holy Spirit confirms this in our intellect in our souls.

 

[fisherman_carl]

It seems to me that God’s existence is more certain than my existence. Since my existence is contingent. But there must be something non-contingent in order for my existence to be possible in the first place. And this is what we call God. In other words if I exist there must be something else that caused my existence since I could not cause my own existence. So the idea that I can only know that I exist doesn’t really make sense. Because if you exist, so does your Maker. Something doesn’t come from nothing.

In addition, from a practical perspective you could not exist if you did not have this world which provides you with food, water, shelter, parents to concieve and raise you, and many other things. And this world would not exist if it did not orbit the sun. And so forth.

So just from knowing that I exist one can come to know practically speaking that a whole lot of other things and people must exist as well in order just to enable my existence.

One could argue that it is all a simulation. But even in that scenario you would exist but so would the simulation as well as the person who designed the simulation. Upon which you have to question if that person was God, the ultimate cause, or if he had a cause as well. Also, if there is a simulation or virtual world then there must be a ‘real’ world as well, from which the simulation came. And in this scenario God which represents the ultimate cause of reality must be in the most ‘real’ reality of all as he would be the cause of all other realities. Of course this is well expressed in classical philosophy by describing God as being itself.

 

[meltzerboy2]

How far do we want to take this? Do we doubt our own existence, the existence of others, the universe, Gd? According to Descartes, the only thing he could not doubt was that he doubted, and since doubting means thinking, he concluded that because he thinks, he exists, for thinking requires a thinker. Not full-proof, of course, but a start. Perhaps one thing we cannot or should not doubt is that we are not infallible, based on your premise. Other than that, who knows for sure?

 

[fisherman_carl]

One thing about the idea that one can only know that one doubts is that it is self contradictory. Absolute scepticism is self contradictory. Because, do you doubt your own doubts? Absolute scepticism says nothing can be known. But that is self contradictory. How do you know that nothing can be known? To be consistent you have to be sceptical about that which would mean you are contradicting yourself. Does absolute scepticism give you a privileged view of the world? No it really means you end up with nothing but self contradiction. One has to take some kind of leap of faith in order to make any progress in knowledge. You can’t start anything from complete scepticism. You could not even cross the street.

But what one can do is believe in that which seems to be reasonably true. For instance, unless there are most convincing reasons otherwise, it is much more reasonable to believe that I live in a real world than in a simulation.

In the same way one can be reasonably certain of God’s existence, or have good grounds to believe in God, unless there was some defeater argument against his existence. But so far no one has been able to disprove his existence. And there seems to be plenty of evidence for his existence if you are looking for it.

 

[IWantGod]

But what one can do is believe in that which seems to be reasonably true. For instance, unless there are most convincing reasons otherwise, it is much more reasonable to believe that I live in a real world than in a simulation.

In the same way one can be reasonably certain of God’s existence, or have good grounds to believe in God, unless there was some defeater argument against his existence. But so far no one has been able to disprove his existence. And there seems to be plenty of evidence for his existence if you are looking for it.

I would go further and say that a physical explanation of existence is ontologically impossible. It’s more than reasonably certain, it’s impossible to doubt without undermining the principles of reason itself.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Imagine a world full of only sceptics who believe that only they exist and every other sceptic there is a figment of their imagination. Consider the absurdity and meaninglessness of such a world. Each person’s belief contradicting the other. All of them foolish.