Supernatural epistemology?

[Shike]

… my dear friend ,

… i only too well know the hopeless problem with all human communication , it does not work at all virtually with fallen humanity

Then you concede my point by inserting the word “virtually” within your response. I was only pointing out the absurdity of saying that human communication is categorically impossible while at the same time you were communicating with us.

You need to be precise in this sub-forum, otherwise some will take any little nitpicking loose-talking as an excuse to go off on a tangent. My post is not quite so out there because it deals with epistemology which has been an important aspect of this thread.

As for the rest of your post, I do not care to comment as I am still making up my mind concerning what terminology to use with regards to the foundations of knowledge.

And welcome to the thread.
ciao,
Michael

 

[Shike]

And sadly still no closure with regards to Aquinas’ 1st way… apparently a valid and sound metaphysical demonstration, that is, unless someone can prove to the contrary. Why go down the same road with a different metaphysical demonstration, this time about the human soul?

That should be enough method for anyone, however, even if they ultimately think Aquinas’ 1st way fails.

 

[tonyrey]

I walked away understanding that we can not know anything for sure.

Aren’t you sure you are thinking?

 

[Abba]

So is what you say true? And do we have knowledge of what you say?
My hunch is that some of the material you covered wasn’t so fine.

Hello Michael,

Perhaps it was or perhaps it wasn’t.

Here is a brief description:

Coherent Theory of Truth:

There are two distinct types of coherentism. One refers to the coherence theory of truth. The other refers to the coherence theory of justification. The coherentist theory of justification characterizes epistemic justification as a property of a belief only if that belief is a member of a coherent set. What distinguishes coherentism from other theories of justification is that the set is the primary bearer of justification.[1] As an epistemological theory, coherentism opposes foundationalism and infinitism and attempts to offer a solution to the regress argument. In this epistemological capacity, it is a theory about how belief can be justified.[citation needed] Coherentism is a view about the structure of justification or knowledge. The coherentist’s thesis is normally formulated in terms of a denial of its contrary foundationalism. Coherentism thus claims, minimally, that not all knowledge and justified belief rest ultimately on a foundation of noninferential knowledge or justified belief.
This negative construal of coherentism occurs because of the prominence of the regress problem in the history of epistemology, and the long-held assumption that only foundationalism provides an adequate, non-skeptical solution to that problem. After responding to the regress problem by denying foundationalism, coherentists normally characterize their view positively by replacing the foundationalism metaphor of a building as a model for the structure of knowledge with different metaphors, such as the metaphor which models our knowledge on a ship at sea whose seaworthiness must be ensured by repairs to any part in need of it. Coherentists typically hold that justification is solely a function of some relationship between beliefs, none of which are privileged beliefs in the way maintained by foundationalists, with different varieties of coherentism individuated by the specific relationship among beliefs identified as coherence.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherentism

Foundationalism is any theory in epistemology (typically, theories of justification, but also of knowledge) that holds that beliefs are justified (known, etc.) based on what are called basic beliefs (also commonly called foundational beliefs). This position is intended to resolve the infinite regress problem in epistemology. Basic beliefs are beliefs that give justificatory support to other beliefs, and more derivative beliefs are based on those more basic beliefs. The basic beliefs are said to be self-justifying or self-evident, that is, they enjoy a non-inferential warrant (or justification), i.e., they are not justified by other beliefs. Typically and historically, foundationalists have held either that basic beliefs are justified by mental events or states, such as experiences, that do not constitute beliefs (these are called non-doxastic mental states), or that they simply are not the type of thing that can be (or needs to be) justified.
Hence, generally, a foundationalist might offer the following theory of justification:
A belief is epistemically justified only if (1) it is justified by a basic belief or beliefs, or (2) it is justified by a chain of beliefs that is supported by a basic belief or beliefs, and on which all the others are ultimately based.
A basic belief, on the other hand, does not require justification because it is a different kind of belief than a non-foundational one.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism

Maybe you are convinced by one of these two theories, but, I have a limited appreciation for them.

I value the knowledge obtained by the soul more than the ones obtained by these methods and justified by these methods.

Peace,

Abba

 

[Abba]

Aren’t you sure you are thinking?

Hey, tonyrey, you are suppose to be my buddy. What are you doing attacking me? I am off to a hearing now, a most threadful thing. The hospital was euthanizing my father. I had to go to probate court to stop it and the judge went to the hospital and held an emergency hearing and ordered the procedure stopped. This will be the second hearing in my father’s hospital room. I am already having a difficult time. Please pray for us.

---

Yes, I know: I think therefore I am.

Then there was Chuang Tzu from the 5th century B.C. who wrote:

“I dreamed I was a butterfly, flitting around in the sky; then I awoke. Now I wonder: Am I a man who dreamt of being a butterfly, or am I a butterfly dreaming that I am a man?”

Tonyrey, I am not saying that these theories have no value but, that their value is limted and insufficient. The same for the scientific method, yet, we do get results - works, but, Aristotle did not convince me with this method.

Bottom line, I think that the knowledge we obtain with our spirit is more pure and true than that which we obtain through our intellect.

Peace,

Abba

 

[Abba]

Spock,

Actually, I was just thinking that maybe I am missing the boat because Paul was not referring to the ‘specifics’ - a beautiful flower, etc… but in the force/s, if you will that transcend nature - intelligence, etc…

 

[tonyrey]

Hey, tonyrey, you are suppose to be my buddy. What are you doing attacking me?

The last thing I intended was to attack you! I want to give you a source of certainty in the midst of your difficulties. We cannot doubt that we are thinking and that is enough to make us realise we are not just composed of dust…

I am off to a hearing now, a most threadful thing. The hospital was euthanizing my father. I had to go to probate court to stop it and the judge went to the hospital and held an emergency hearing and ordered the procedure stopped. This will be the second hearing in my father’s hospital room. I am already having a difficult time. Please pray for us.

---

I am praying for you, your father and all your family.

Yes, I know: I think therefore I am.

Then there was Chuang Tzu from the 5th century B.C. who wrote:

“I dreamed I was a butterfly, flitting around in the sky; then I awoke. Now I wonder: Am I a man who dreamt of being a butterfly, or am I a butterfly dreaming that I am a man?”

Thanks for that delightful quotation.

Tonyrey, I am not saying that these theories have no value but, that their value is limited and insufficient. The same for the scientific method, yet, we do get results - works, but, Aristotle did not convince me with this method.

Bottom line, I think that the knowledge we obtain with our spirit is more pure and true than that which we obtain through our intellect.

. I agree but Jesus appealed to our intellect as well as our conscience because we’re not expected to have blind faith…

 

[Abba]

I agree but Jesus appealed to our intellect as well as our conscience because we’re not expected to have blind faith…

Thanks for the prayers.

I am not denying the value of the intellect, my position is that spiritual knowledge is superior to the knowledge obtained through the intellect.

signing off for now,

Abba

 

[tonyrey]

I am not denying the value of the intellect, my position is that spiritual knowledge is superior to the knowledge obtained through the intellect.

Of that there is no doubt whatsoever because the highest form of all knowledge is love…

 

[Oreoracle]

According to you, none of these things are swords because they don’t fit your definition.

They aren’t swords by my definition, but they could be swords by the definitions used by others. So I repeat: What is your definition of “sword”?

I think you are missing my point. Your desire to verify is not the same thing as certain arguments requiring verification.

I have a desire to verify because if you don’t verify claims that aren’t logically necessary, then you run the risk of accepting certain arguments over others arbitrarily. For example, if I remember correctly, you’ve always staunchly supported the position that it would be impossible for no entities to exist (in other words, that the universe can’t be an empty set). Logic itself, however, doesn’t necessitate that this is true (think about “the empty set” that crops up in math), and so it would be just as reasonable to accept the contrary position unless you have evidence to support your claim. Of course, the very nature of that claim is indefensible; there’s no way you can substantiate the claim that entities must exist, unless those entities are logical laws or something (and even the existence of those are debatable). This is because you’ve never seen a state of affairs in which nothing exists. Similarly, I can argue that the universe doesn’t require a cause just as well as you can argue the contrary, or that if the universe does require a cause, then God would require a cause, and so forth.

And these are just a few examples among many. In general, you can always make two valid arguments that contradict each other, and without evidence, we would have no way to determine which we should believe. There are more mundane examples than the metaphysical arguments I cited above, of course. But I think they should be enough to show that validity alone is not enough to determine truth in many cases. You NEED sound arguments to be taken seriously, and you NEED to show that your premises are sound. If you don’t, myself and others will dismiss your rhetoric as speculation.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

They aren’t swords by my definition, but they could be swords by the definitions used by others. So I repeat: What is your definition of “sword”?

My definition of a sword does not matter any more than yours did. As I pointed out, the consequent did not follow from the ground.

…For example, if I remember correctly, you’ve always staunchly supported the position that it would be impossible for no entities to exist (in other words, that the universe can’t be an empty set)…

Close but not quite, the universe could be an empty set, but an empty set is a thing itself. I point out that it is a logical contradiction for nothing to exist.

…If you don’t, myself and others will dismiss your rhetoric as speculation.

You are just repeating the verification argument. A well known logical contradiction.

 

[Shike]

Similarly, I can argue that the universe doesn’t require a cause just as well as you can argue the contrary, or that if the universe does require a cause, then God would require a cause, and so forth.

Well, if you can argue such a thing satisfactorily, you haven’t done so with regards to Aquinas’ 1st way. Which means consequentially, that you don’t hold warpspeedpetey’s argumentation skills in very high regard, to say the least.

Aquinas’ 1st way is sound (any objections?). And such verification comes in part from experience of the natural world, something that doesn’t require the scientific method. I do not understand why you seem to think that evidence must be scientific in nature, especially with regards to metaphysics–which, if I guess rightly, is what you now wish to attack the legitimacy of in general.

ciao,
Michael

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, if you can argue such a thing satisfactorily, you haven’t done so with regards to Aquinas’ 1st way…

He cannot legitimately argue that the universe doesn’t need a cause, because that would mean it is logically necessary, yet no contradiction is formed if the universe does not exist. Nor can he legitimately argue that G-d requires a cause because G-d is defined as Actus Purus, the very act of existing, the negation of which would be the act of not existing, or equivalently “nothing exists”, which is a logical contradiction. Thus G-d is formally logically necessary and the universe is formally contingent.

…especially with regards to metaphysics–which, if I guess rightly, is what you now wish to attack the legitimacy of in general.

Exactly so. The problem is that the new atheists are generally unaware that empiricism/verificationism/falsificationism are considered long dead as theories of knowledge by the mainstream philosophy community. Because schools generally push much more science than philosophy, they have no idea that most of their reasoning in regards to religion is based on arguments long known to be logical contradictions. Cognitive dissonance prevents the easy acceptance of the truth. When you find out that a life long belief is false, it is very difficult to accept any other way of seeing the world as valid.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Here is the First way:

It is certain, and evident to our sense, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is moved is moved by another, for nothing can be moved except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is moved; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be moved from a state of potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality… it is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is moved must be moved by another. If that by which it is moved must itself be moved, then this also needs to be moved by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and consequently, no other mover, seeing as subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are moved by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is moved by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at the first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. (Aquinas)
…

Of course the initial move could be considered a consequence. A sort of spacial ocean
or even a God zone which always was, however non particular without the characteristics and consciousness we assume.

If a quantity required for multi-verse, universe… naturally spilled or was a consequence of the above infinite spacial zone, the chaos-order character we notice could easily be an organization of the consequence in an effort to return or comprise the initial mover status not the composition… That being the initial zone, and not neccesarily reflecting an attribute of its source
Since this is concievable , order-consciousness is not compelled to be a given attribute of the initial mover, but an attribute in “resultant quest” of the consequence only.
This is the first I saw of this claim shike, are there any others?

Its illogical to try and prove a God exists using a group of statements , man cannot corner God the creator of mans imperfect reason, with man reason

 

[FurtherSuntime]

edit

 

[inocente]

Aquinas’ 1st way is sound (any objections?).

Far from sound. Standard criticisms include:

A motion may not have a cause, as he assumes. Radioactive decay requires no interaction and the timing appears to be impossible to predict.

He argues that potentiality can only be converted to actuality by an actuality, using heat as an example, “Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it.” Fail, he forgot such things as friction.

He says the motion sequence can’t go on to infinity but does nothing to show it can’t - his first mover could be moved by an earlier mover and so on.

But the most glaring fault is he ends with “Therefore it is necessary to arrive at the first mover, moved by no other; and this all understand to be God”. That’s the first time he mentions God, and he may as well have written “and this all understand to be an invisible pink unicorn” since he’s done nothing to show his first mover is God.

It’s the same with all his Ways, you’d have to want to be in his choir to be convinced. But a man of his caliber would surely have known they weren’t proofs, and his purpose was instead to provide ways of defining God for those who already believe.

 

[Abba]

Good morning everyone,

Well, I am going to post my way. I can be accused of being a fool or not staying on topic but, I do not need a PhD to post and I will argue that I am on topic. I know that you are all being very analytically and all but, I have my own way of communicating.

I was just thinking that these discussions seems to me like the following:

There is a huge door some place on earth that leads to God and Wisdom. There are a bunch of intellectuals outside the door trying to figure out how to open it. Meanwhile, there are people of all ages, nationalities, economic situation etc… that daily walk in and out of the door. One of them decides to ask one of the stupid foolish people that enter the door how the person is entering. The person response that: you need to ask. That, of course, was determined to be ridiculous by the intellectuals. Other people who enter the door also said; faith, hope and love; humility; like a child etc… all found to be foolish by the intellectuals. The time has been passing by, decades, centuries and millennium and the intellectuals are still trying to figure out how to enter that door. If they explode all the armaments of the world - the door will not budge. They are obstinate and proud and they keep trying.

Yesterday, when I was driving home in a most difficult situation that I am suffering, I thought to listen to my Bible tape and it started on Paul’s letter to the Corinthians:

http://biblescripture.net/Athens.jpeg

19 “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.” 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, 29 so that no man may boast before God.

30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, 31 so that, just as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

1 Corinthians 3:18-20

Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,” and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.”

Luke 10:21
In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.

Peace,

Abba

 

[ThinkingSapien]

There is a huge door some place on earth that leads to God and Wisdom. There are a bunch of intellectuals outside the door trying to figure out how to open it. Meanwhile, there are people of all ages, nationalities, economic situation etc… that daily walk in and out of the door…

If there were only one door I could agree with this analogy. But there appear to be a multitude of them with each door labeled as the one true door. Once some one passes through to the other side of any one of these doors they never come back to say that the door was right or wrong. It makes me think of the situation with Moses from Animal Farm (not the bible).

TheraminTrees did an analogy that I think represents the scenario better. I don’t agree with his analogy completly (more specifically I don’t agree that the “game” is impossible) but his words before that conclusion paint a picture that I think matches this scenario pretty well. The entirety of his analogy is below from his abridged version.

You’re out in the middle of nowhere. You’re told the truth is out there. You just have to search for it. There’s a bewildering number of sign post around you each claiming to be the right way. You pick a direction; or more likely have it picked for you, and start walking. You walk for miles but there are no gods. Occasionally you meet people along the way that say you chose the right direction. Although they can never say how far you have to go. After many miles the truth finally dawns on you. There are people in every single direction that will tell you exactly the same thing. Their path is the right one, and you just have to keep walking. It now becomes clear the task is impossible. You have a limited number of years in your life. You could spend them all walking in the same futile direction. You could spend them all walking multiple futile directions. And obviously the length of time you spend on each journey is divided by the number of directions you try. It’s impossible to investigate every idea in any depth. So requiring any depth of investigation sets an impossible condition. What’s being proposed is a game of pure chance. You could say my atheism is a refuse to play a game of pure chance.

 

[Abba]

John 14:6

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

ThinkingSapien, people do come back to say that the door is right. This forum is full of them. I am one of them.



Abba

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…But there appear to be a multitude of them with each door labeled as the one true door. …

No other faith can claim to be mathematically verified by the fulfillment of Messianic Prophecy the way Christianity is. Christ fulfilled the prophecies written centuries prior to His birth, written by people who did not live at the same time, live in the same places, cultures or even speak the same languages. The people who witnessed this lived lives of suffering, fear and degradation only to die in the most tortuous of manners. Yet they only had to ignore what they had seemn and walk of into the sunset, leading average lives, they could have denied it in some cases and saved their lives. Even the sanest of men would deny it in order to save their lives. But they didn’t, They knew the truth from witnessing it up close and personal, they knew it in the miracles they saw performed and then performed for decades themselves. Any one can know that Christianity is the one true faith. They need only to investigate.