So, in other words, there really is no such thing as ‘knowledge’ since, by your definition, anything that might later be disproven is merely fallacy. Isn’t that the logical conclusion we must reach, if we believe your assertion here?
In the majority of cases, probably. I think humans can have a sense of different levels of certainty whether knowledge is temporary or more/less permanent based on complexity, etc. So I think it is important to define the level of certainty when speaking about knowledge.
This is why nonbelievers claim they do not have a belief system.
It was a metaphor. The books aren’t literal books they represent the different religions and denomenations and would include holy books, human writings, tradition, symbols, etc. Other religions have their holy men also, and adherents who follow them. My analogy did include people advocating for each book.
The books represent different faiths not just holy books.
Absolutely false. I believe the situation humans find themselves in on Earth is misstated and mischaracterized. I’m stating that the way humans present their ideas of God makes god look unfair, which is a quality those same people would never attribute to him.
The analogy is that each religion has a path to salvation or heaven or whatever is promised, ‘jail’ is whatever you’re denied or whatever punishment you receive for not following that path in some form.
Apparently neither does the Qu’ran, or so I hear.
No it’s not a big misunderstanding. Apologetics has been forced to retreat on hell as far back as it possibly can because the doctrine is so at odds with logic. It has gone from midevil times focus of punishment to modern day apologetics saying people beg God to throw them in hell and they lock the door behind them. If hell is as terrible as it’s described then no one, not one single person with an informed decision would choose it. It runs totally counter to human nature. Look I understand why people put hell as being a choice because you have to. Catholicism is married to the idea of hell now and they have to spin it in some way, but the fact remains that there are many religions all contradicting each other with an omnipetent God who won’t set the record straight but will burn you forever if your on the wrong side. It sounds so much like a human invention it’s not even funny.
Ahhh now I understand your analogy
That’s not quite what I said. I have two points of clarification. When God is said to be eternal, it doesn’t only mean existing for infinite time, it means also that He is unchanging. As for physical things, or anything that is composed in some way, they can have existed for infinite time in the past and infinite time in the future. But they are not intrinsically necessary and still require a cause. So there is no contradiction between what I said previously (that something [say, the universe, or series of universes] could exist for infinite time but would be ontologically dependent on some cause) and the idea of living in a glorified body forever.Wesrock:
If physical can’t be eternal, then how are we supposed to live in all eternity in our glorified bodies?
