The external world cannot be known for certain

[Rhubarb]

To know something certainly it must be that, for it to be incorrect, is necessarily impossible.

Again, I’m sympathetic to the infallibilist position. But let’s consider if this is, in fact, true. This means we go through our lives with barely any knowledge - if any knowledge at all. And yet consider all the things that humans do with what they report to be knowledge. If we don’t know what we say we know, how is it that we’re able to go about with the business of life?

We must then conclude that (1) (epistemically) infallible knowledge isn’t necessary for what we use “knowledge” for. Put another way, epistemic claims can have a truth value of false, while their content is still applicable. (And with it, we need to bite the bullet that there seems to be things, such as our own two hands, that are so strongly evident that it seems bizzare to deny their truth)

Or

(2)that the infalliblist position isn’t right.

Is there more options? There might be. I’m going to think about it tonight. If you have any ideas I’d love to hear it.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Wisdom not tempered by humility serves no man but himself.

Oouch!!

 

[blase6]

Again, I’m sympathetic to the infallibilist position. But let’s consider if this is, in fact, true. This means we go through our lives with barely any knowledge - if any knowledge at all. And yet consider all the things that humans do with what they report to be knowledge. If we don’t know what we say we know, how is it that we’re able to go about with the business of life?

We must then conclude that (1) (epistemically) infallible knowledge isn’t necessary for what we use “knowledge” for. Put another way, epistemic claims can have a truth value of false, while their content is still applicable. (And with it, we need to bite the bullet that there seems to be things, such as our own two hands, that are so strongly evident that it seems bizzare to deny their truth)

Or

(2)that the infalliblist position isn’t right.

Is there more options? There might be. I’m going to think about it tonight. If you have any ideas I’d love to hear it.

Our lives are filled with taking falsehoods as “knowledge” and not questioning them. For example, many news reportings, mathematical computations which are incorrect, and of course everyone’s opinions. (Which maybe cannot be considered falsehoods, but they usually obscure what is seen to be an objective truth.)

Human lives seem to go on without certain knowledge of the truth. And that is where chaos comes from.

No matter how much evidence there is for one’s hands to exist in the external world, no matter how absurd it seems to say that they do not exist, the perception of one’s hands cannot reveal certain knowledge that they exist in an external world. The information we do have about our hands is not at the level of certain knowledge.

 

[OmegaPoint]

Did not we go over all of this with Descarte, then Kant, and now the modern version, the “Brain in a Vat.” Ultimately you are indeed correct, there is absolutely no way to absolutely prove that anything exist outside of your consciousness. However for practical purposes, one must assume that the external has at least a phenomenological existence.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

To know something certainly it must be that, for it to be incorrect, is necessarily impossible. You have not made any sufficient argument against this.

So far I am certain of existence. That cannot be denied. Maybe since God is existence, then that is why his existence is certain. But the nature of this God is uncertain, and believing in divine revelation does not change this.

It is not relevant to my argument what someone else thinks is certain. Since “someone else” is part of an external world.

I think you should read the Catechism. The Church teaches many things about God about which we can be certain. What we believe through faith is certain, it is the highest certitude we can have about anything.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Rhubarb]

Our lives are filled with taking falsehoods as “knowledge” and not questioning them. For example, many news reportings, mathematical computations which are incorrect, and of course everyone’s opinions. (Which maybe cannot be considered falsehoods, but they usually obscure what is seen to be an objective truth.)

Human lives seem to go on without certain knowledge of the truth. And that is where chaos comes from.

No matter how much evidence there is for one’s hands to exist in the external world, no matter how absurd it seems to say that they do not exist, the perception of one’s hands cannot reveal certain knowledge that they exist in an external world. The information we do have about our hands is not at the level of certain knowledge.

Well, it’s not at the level of what you claim certain knowledge is. This is my ultimate thought on the matter. A heart surgeon possesses something about what seems to be an external world such that she can do surgery on a heart and their patient lives. Now, this thing that the surgeon has about the human heart you might not want to call knowledge. But it gets the job done.

 

[blase6]

I think you should read the Catechism. The Church teaches many things about God about which we can be certain. What we believe through faith is certain, it is the highest certitude we can have about anything.

Pax
Linus2nd

I have read the Catechism exhaustively on certainty of the existence of God and revelation. The catechism only defends that they can be known for certain by convincing suggestions from the world. Since this clearly contradicts what I consider to be complete certainty, the Catechism is simply wrong.

 

[OmegaPoint]

I have read the Catechism exhaustively on certainty of the existence of God and revelation. The catechism only defends that they can be known for certain by convincing suggestions from the world. Since this clearly contradicts what I consider to be complete certainty, the Catechism is simply wrong.

I found the Cathechism less than convincing as well.

 

[blase6]

I found the Cathechism less than convincing as well.

It says that we can attain certain truth from “converging and convincing arguments”. (verbatim) This is completely wrong if they really mean completely certain.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I have read the Catechism exhaustively on certainty of the existence of God and revelation. The catechism only defends that they can be known for certain by convincing suggestions from the world. Since this clearly contradicts what I consider to be complete certainty, the Catechism is simply wrong.

II. Ways of Coming to Know God

31 Created in God’s image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of “converging and convincing arguments”, which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These “ways” of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person.

32 The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world’s order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.

As St. Paul says of the Gentiles: For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.7

And St. Augustine issues this challenge: Question the beauty of the earth, question the beauty of the sea, question the beauty of the air distending and diffusing itself, question the beauty of the sky. . . question all these realities. All respond: “See, we are beautiful.” Their beauty is a profession [confessio]. These beauties are subject to change. Who made them if not the Beautiful One [Pulcher] who is not subject to change?8

33 The human person: with his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about God’s existence. In all this he discerns signs of his spiritual soul. the soul, the “seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material”,9 can have its origin only in God.

34 The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality “that everyone calls God”.10

35 Man’s faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man, and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith.(so) the proofs of God’s existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.

III. The Knowledge of God According to the Church

36 "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.12

Paragraph 36 is Dogma. You, yourself may not be able to see the existence of God in his creation. But that does not mean that the teaching is invalid. It simply means that it doesn’t work for you. And that is why the Church teaches Dogmatically that God does indeed exist. She has likewise defined a large number of his attributes. See Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

So don’t run around telling everyone that the Church’s teaching isn’t certain, just say it doesn’t work for you. Perhaps you need to spend more time at prayer instead of arguing.

Until you are convinced of your faith better not try to do any evangelizing, your witness will be less than convincing.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I found the Cathechism less than convincing as well.

II. Ways of Coming to Know God

31 Created in God’s image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of “converging and convincing arguments”, which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These “ways” of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person.

32 The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world’s order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.

As St. Paul says of the Gentiles: For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.7

And St. Augustine issues this challenge: Question the beauty of the earth, question the beauty of the sea, question the beauty of the air distending and diffusing itself, question the beauty of the sky. . . question all these realities. All respond: “See, we are beautiful.” Their beauty is a profession [confessio]. These beauties are subject to change. Who made them if not the Beautiful One [Pulcher] who is not subject to change?8

33 The human person: with his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about God’s existence. In all this he discerns signs of his spiritual soul. the soul, the “seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material”,9 can have its origin only in God.

34 The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality “that everyone calls God”.10

35 Man’s faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man, and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith.(so) the proofs of God’s existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.

III. The Knowledge of God According to the Church

36 "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.12

Paragraph 36 is Dogma. You, yourself may not be able to see the existence of God in his creation. But that does not mean that the teaching is invalid. It simply means that it doesn’t work for you. And that is why the Church teaches Dogmatically that God does indeed exist. She has likewise defined a large number of his attributes. See Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

So don’t run around telling everyone that the Church’s teaching isn’t certain, just say it doesn’t work for you. Perhaps you need to spend more time at prayer instead of arguing.

If you really do feel that way don’t try to do any evangelizing, nothing worse than a timid warrior.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[blase6]

Yeah, I have already read the snippet from the Catechism you are quoting. I found it to be entirely wrong and unhelpful. The order of the universe and the reason of man are not sufficient for certain knowledge of God.

If anything, it is that existence alone is certain and unavoidable in all reality. Thus God as existence itself is certain. But you can’t get very far past that.

And I think it is very strange that the Catechism needs to define dogmatically that man can certainly know God. Obviously the Catechism’s concept of “certain knowledge” is very strange and not the same with what really is “certain knowledge” (according to my reasoning).

So I can agree with the Church that man can certainly know God, but not in the ways that they describe.

 

[oldcelt]

I think you should read the Catechism. The Church teaches many things about God about which we can be certain. What we believe through faith is certain, it is the highest certitude we can have about anything.

Pax
Linus2nd

And that catechism was put down by whom?

John

 

[inocente]

Living in a world where you can almost never have “certain” but only “reasonable due to evidence” is extremely frustrating.

What’s known as Hume’s fork says there are two kind of statements:

1. Statements about the real world. These can never be known with certainty because they rely on our sense experience. Just because you know the Sun has risen every morning in the past doesn’t mean it logically has to rise tomorrow (it could go supernova or something else overnight).
2. Statements about ideas. Relations of ideas can be known for certain, as in 1 + 1 = 2 (defined to be true by the axioms), but those relations can only prove other relations of ideas, such as 1 + 2 = 3. They can’t prove anything factual about the real world.

It’s easy to confuse the two: idea with fact, analytic with synthetic, a priori with a posteriori, abstract with concrete. If Hume is correct then nothing can logically be proven about God unless God is merely an idea.

On the other hand if God is real then we can’t know anything about Him with certainty, instead we need faith. “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” - Heb 11

 

[Partinobodycula]

What’s known as Hume’s fork says there are two kind of statements:

1. Statements about the real world. These can never be known with certainty because they rely on our sense experience. Just because you know the Sun has risen every morning in the past doesn’t mean it logically has to rise tomorrow (it could go supernova or something else overnight).
2. Statements about ideas. Relations of ideas can be known for certain, as in 1 + 1 = 2 (defined to be true by the axioms), but those relations can only prove other relations of ideas, such as 1 + 2 = 3. They can’t prove anything factual about the real world.

It’s easy to confuse the two: idea with fact, analytic with synthetic, a priori with a posteriori, abstract with concrete. If Hume is correct then nothing can logically be proven about God unless God is merely an idea.

On the other hand if God is real then we can’t know anything about Him with certainty, instead we need faith. “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” - Heb 11

:clapping::extrahappy:

 

[Partinobodycula]

What we believe through faith is certain,

This may indeed be true, but I simply don’t believe that you’re capable of such faith, for if you were then you could say to the mountain, be ye cast into the sea, and it would come to pass. But alas, like Peter you have a faith that is constrained by reason. And so like me, and everyone else, you’re fated to always have some degree of doubt, whether you choose to admit it or not.

…it (faith) is the highest certitude we can have about anything.

But again, many men claim to be capable of such faith. They even persecute, condemn, and kill in its name. But this isn’t true faith, it’s fear, and pride, and self-doubt, masquerading as faith. And then there’s the faith that’s born of hope. It endures in spite of reason. It doesn’t exalt itself. It simply perseveres. In spite of the doubts, and in spite of the uncertainty, it perseveres. That’s the faith that Peter had, it can’t move mountains, but it can move men.

So you have to ask yourself, which faith do I have, the faith born of pride, that believes it can never be wrong, or the faith born of hope, that endures with the humility of knowing that it’s subject to the fallibility of man.

The most dangerous man is the one who believes that he cannot be wrong. The most inspirational man is the one who perseveres with the humility of knowing that he might be.

 

[blase6]

This may indeed be true, but I simply don’t believe that you’re capable of such faith, for if you were then you could say to the mountain, be ye cast into the sea, and it would come to pass. But alas, like Peter you have a faith that is constrained by reason. And so like me, and everyone else, you’re fated to always have some degree of doubt, whether you choose to admit it or not.

But again, many men claim to be capable of such faith. They even persecute, condemn, and kill in its name. But this isn’t true faith, it’s fear, and pride, and self-doubt, masquerading as faith. And then there’s the faith that’s born of hope. It endures in spite of reason. It doesn’t exalt itself. It simply perseveres. In spite of the doubts, and in spite of the uncertainty, it perseveres. That’s the faith that Peter had, it can’t move mountains, but it can move men.

So you have to ask yourself, which faith do I have, the faith born of pride, that believes it can never be wrong, or the faith born of hope, that endures with the humility of knowing that it’s subject to the fallibility of man.

The most dangerous man is the one who believes that he cannot be wrong. The most inspirational man is the one who perseveres with the humility of knowing that he might be.

What a terrifying world it is if you cannot hope to understand the nature of God with perfect certainty. Having faith is not much different from pretending then. The best choice is just to live as if the God of the Catholic Church is real, and hope that God will accept you.

 

[Bahman]

By external world, I mean everything perceived. This includes everything perceived through bodily senses, as well as mental perception, such as thoughts and logical conclusions. (I will not say that thoughts are internal, because they can be imposed on us.)

Firstly, we cannot be certain that what we perceive through our physical senses is real. This is because situations can arise where we perceive a contradiction, for example, a mirage, where we see that an oasis exists, but do not feel that it exists. Therefore we have no guarantee that anything felt bodily is real other than an assumption.

Secondly, we may come to reasonable conclusions that something we do not immediately perceive is real. Such as seeing order in the world, and deriving from that that God exists. However, as with our bodily senses, we may come to a reasonable conclusion that contradicts our senses or internal perception, and thus we cannot be certain that our ability to reason can reveal the truth.

Therefore, one has no certainty of the truth of anything. However, since the concept of existence is the most basic idea, and one that a person is entirely incapable of acting without, then existence itself seems to be a certain truth. But beyond that, I cannot find any certainty.

We cannot know if it is infinite folds.

 

[blase6]

We cannot know if it is infinite folds.

What?

 

[Bahman]

What?

You see the first fold. You try to open it but another fold shows itself. Etc.