Divine revelation

[Doug Shaver]

Could you be wrong about that, Doug?

I'll answer when you tell me what it would mean if I were.

[Doug Shaver]

Mr. Black,

I will stipulate that I am as fallible as you are. No more and no less. You and I are equally fallible. Does that answer your question?

[37818]

This topic came up in another thread, and someone suggested -- rightly, I believe, that it was off topic there.

So, would some Christian (or other theist) care to tell me why I should believe that anyone has ever received any knowledge about God by divine revelation?

1) "It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." -- John 6:45.

2) "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, . . ." -- John 7:17.

3) ". . . Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice." -- John 18:37.

4) ". . . But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: . . ." -- 2 Corinthians 4:3.

5) "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." -- John 17:3.



Item 1, the written ascribed to be holy scriptures, if they are God's word, then reading them and believing them is being taught by God.
Item 2, if one is willing to do God's will, knowing of course what it is, they will know from God that it is God's teaching.
Item 3, on the basis anybody really believes in absolute truth, and are really interested in what is really true, they will heed the words of Christ in the Bible.
Item 4, the only reason one does not believe the gospel is one does not have a correct understanding of it.
Item 5, those who are saved and truly have received eternal life know God personally. Which is the condition of having eternal life. (1 John 5:1, 9-13, 20. Romans 8:9. 2 Corinthians 13:5.)

[shunyadragon]

Mr. Black,

I will stipulate that I am as fallible as you are. No more and no less. You and I are equally fallible. Does that answer your question?

Good response!!!

[shunyadragon]

1) "It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." -- John 6:45.

2) "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, . . ." -- John 7:17.

3) ". . . Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice." -- John 18:37.

4) ". . . But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: . . ." -- 2 Corinthians 4:3.

5) "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." -- John 17:3.



Item 1, the written ascribed to be holy scriptures, if they are God's word, then reading them and believing them is being taught by God.
Item 2, if one is willing to do God's will, knowing of course what it is, they will know from God that it is God's teaching.
Item 3, on the basis anybody really believes in absolute truth, and are really interested in what is really true, they will heed the words of Christ in the Bible.
Item 4, the only reason one does not believe the gospel is one does not have a correct understanding of it.
Item 5, those who are saved and truly have received eternal life know God personally. Which is the condition of having eternal life. (1 John 5:1, 9-13, 20. Romans 8:9. 2 Corinthians 13:5.)

There are many problems with this line of reasoning when faced with the reality of many churches and the different religions of the Abrahamic beliefs. How could any one fallible humans be able to have 'a correct understanding' based on so many claims, which many are very combatively claiming that their version is the absolutely true one.

[MaxVel]

There are many problems with this line of reasoning when faced with the reality of many churches and the different religions of the Abrahamic beliefs. How could any one fallible humans be able to have 'a correct understanding' based on so many claims, which many are very combatively claiming that their version is the absolutely true one.

The first problem with your response Shunya, is that your skepticism applies equally to pretty much every area of human knowledge. Science, for instance, is full of competing theories proposed by 'fallible humans', many of which contradict each other. If it follows, as you seem to suggest, from this that we can't have a correct understanding, how come you're not just as skeptical of scientific claims?

The second problem is that such a skepticism effectively destroys itself. You claim that the Baha'i understanding is the (most) correct one - yet what prevents that understanding from falling prey to the same difficulties as any other one? Even a claim that 'no-one knows' is a claim that those who claim to know are wrong. You're not proposing an agnosticism: 'I don't know if anyone knows, maybe someone does, but I don't know how to tell that.' but a skepticism: 'You guys who claim to know are all wrong.' To be able to say that, you need to have a 'correct understanding' yourself {which you can measure various other understandings against} - yet this is precisely what you deny anyone has.


Also: 'fallible' doesn't mean 'wrong about everything'. Even fallible people can be right about things.

And: It just doesn't follow from 'There are lots of competing truth-claims about this' to 'They must all be wrong'

[shunyadragon]

The first problem with your response Shunya, is that your skepticism applies equally to pretty much every area of human knowledge.

True my skepticism applies pretty much to all areas of human knowledge.

Science, for instance, is full of competing theories proposed by 'fallible humans', many of which contradict each other. If it follows, as you seem to suggest, from this that we can't have a correct understanding, how come you're not just as skeptical of scientific claims?

False, science is not full of competing theories. You will have to document this claim to be worthy of consideration. The scientific world and all the theories since the one plank second of the beginning of our universe are almost universally agreed on by the scientific community of the world.

Where is there serious conflict in the theories and knowledge here? Please cite them.

The models and theorems of the origins of the universe and the possibility of multiverses are not theories in conflict. Read Goth, Vilenkin and others they clearly acknowledge the possibility of the different models and theorems, and consider these theorems and models and origins to be a work in progress for understanding and gathering knowledge concerning the nature of the Quantum world.

The knowledge of science is progressive and changes, the skepticism of science is healthy.

There is by far more conflicts and controversy within the different sects Christianity then anything imaginable within science. More then 99% of all scientists within the disciplines that deal with evolution, such as biology, geology, and biochemistry endorse evolution without question. For scientist as a whole for all disciplines the figure is about 95%. No controversy here within science.

The second problem is that such a skepticism effectively destroys itself. You claim that the Baha'i understanding is the (most) correct one - yet what prevents that understanding from falling prey to the same difficulties as any other one? Even a claim that 'no-one knows' is a claim that those who claim to know are wrong. You're not proposing an agnosticism: 'I don't know if anyone knows, maybe someone does, but I don't know how to tell that.' but a skepticism: 'You guys who claim to know are all wrong.' To be able to say that, you need to have a 'correct understanding' yourself {which you can measure various other understandings against} - yet this is precisely what you deny anyone has.

I believe the lack of skepticism is self defeating, because it does not allow for the natural evolving change of human knowledge over time, and the stagnation of belief to one ancient paradigm.

Believing that the Baha'i Faith is what I 'believe' is the most correct one is a very normal way of belief, and does hold that everyone else is wrong to the degree that Christianity and its many sects view others that do not believe. This way of belief does not preclude a healthy skepticism. One of the principles of the Baha'i Faith is the 'Independent Investigation of knowledge. Even though I believe, I acknowledge 'everything is in pencil.' The Baha'i Faith acknowledges the diverse, changing world of knowledge, both spiritual and physical, which the Baha'i Faith acknowledges the advancing knowledge of science as the standard of understanding the nature of our physical existence and scripture must be understanding in the light of science.

The view of 37818 does not allow for this flexibility of understanding, and acknowledges only one truth according to the interpretation and understanding of scripture, his.

Also: 'fallible' doesn't mean 'wrong about everything'. Even fallible people can be right about things.

Never said this is the case. A broken clock is absolutely accurate once in twelve hours.

And: It just doesn't follow from 'There are lots of competing truth-claims about this' to 'They must all be wrong'

Agreed, I never claimed any such thing, considering the fact that there are lots of competing and conflicting truth claims, particularly within Christianity, it brings to question the value of truth claims in the absolute sense they claim.

Remember the truth claims of many of the different sects of Christianity claim all others are wrong.

[Mr. Black]

Good response!!!

Are you absolutely certain about that, shunyadragon, or could you be wrong?

True my skepticism applies pretty much to all areas of human knowledge.

That statement (as well as your admission in the other thread regarding epistemology) amounts to an admission that you don't know anything. Yet this claim of yours is itself a knowledge claim, and so is self-refuting.

[Mr. Black]

I'll answer when you tell me what it would mean if I were.

It would mean that, if the view of reality that you espouse were true, absurdity would reign. Thus your worldview reduces to absurdity, which means everything you say, do, and think is irrational.

But think about this for a sec, bud. Given your admission that you could be wrong about anything you claim to know, it follows that you can't be sure of what the words "answer", "tell" and "meaning" even mean.
So,
1.) What rational justification do you have for making this request?
2.) Moreover, in your worldview, what sense would it make for me to give you an answer if---by your own admission---you can never know what that answer is, or even that I gave an answer in the first place?

I will stipulate that I am as fallible as you are. No more and no less. You and I are equally fallible.

That's another thing you've admitted you could be wrong about. Everything you say here is totally arbitrary.

You need Christ, bud. Not only are you guilty of breaking God's law, but you wallow in absurdity as well. Christ can save your soul for eternity, taking your punishment onto Himself and imparting His merits to you. But not only that, He can also save your reasoning in the here & now. Without Him, you can't justify any knowledge claim. Please think about this bud. I know these sorts of convos can get lively and sometimes heated, but while I don't know you, I care about you and am here out of love, for God and His creatures who need Him. Please stop denying God and acknowledge Him, and be forgiven. Please turn back, bud. Your life is too precious to just throw away. A moment of sinful pleasure is not worth an eternity of misery.

[shunyadragon]

Are you absolutely certain about that, shunyadragon, or could you be wrong?



That statement (as well as your admission in the other thread regarding epistemology) amounts to an admission that you don't know anything. Yet this claim of yours is itself a knowledge claim, and so is self-refuting.

Air Ball! Not relevant to any reasonable logical argument. The broken record plays on.


Ahhh! Yes! Now I remember know! You know everything there is to know.

[37818]

There are many problems with this line of reasoning when faced with the reality of many churches and the different religions of the Abrahamic beliefs. How could any one fallible humans be able to have 'a correct understanding' based on so many claims, which many are very combatively claiming that their version is the absolutely true one.

You in reality refuted not any of those 5 points. Not one of them.

The truth that there are many truth claims, only shows the odds of merely picking one of them, the odds being one will most probably be wrong in one's choice.

It would seem you presume without evidence item 1 cannot be true.
On item 2 you give no evidence of even knowing what the truth claim is as to what God's will is to be.
As to item 3 you have not demonstrated that you are even interested in what the actual truth to be known is in this matter, showing this by your argument of dismissing it all because there are many different church claims.
On item 4, you cannot see any one of the gospel claims as being the true one.
And on item 5, can you say that you know God personally, where you can show others how to know God too? There is no evidence that you would.

From my point of view, those 5 items as I presented them stand as being true.

[MaxVel]

True my skepticism applies pretty much to all areas of human knowledge.

Except when you say "Those darn Christians are wrong" ?

False, science is not full of competing theories. You will have to document this claim to be worthy of consideration. The scientific world and all the theories since the one plank second of the beginning of our universe are almost universally agreed on by the scientific community of the world.

Where is there serious conflict in the theories and knowledge here? Please cite them.

The models and theorems of the origins of the universe and the possibility of multiverses are not theories in conflict. Read Goth, Vilenkin and others they clearly acknowledge the possibility of the different models and theorems, and consider these theorems and models and origins to be a work in progress for understanding and gathering knowledge concerning the nature of the Quantum world.

The knowledge of science is progressive and changes, the skepticism of science is healthy.

There is by far more conflicts and controversy within the different sects Christianity then anything imaginable within science. More then 99% of all scientists within the disciplines that deal with evolution, such as biology, geology, and biochemistry endorse evolution without question. For scientist as a whole for all disciplines the figure is about 95%. No controversy here within science.

The point is that Science (chosen simply as an example) is an area where there are conflicting truth claims (as you yourself point out re cosmology, see also here), yet you don't seem to be as a priori broadly skeptical of 'scientific truths' as you are of Christian truth claims. You're inconsistent.

Look over the history of science, Shunya. It's littered with the bones of theories that were once held as true, then later rejected after losing to a newer, conflicting, theory. And so what? Does it follow from that that there is no actual truth out there, or that such truth is unknowable? No... ...unless Shunya is talking about Christian truth claims.

I believe the lack of skepticism is self defeating, because it does not allow for the natural evolving change of human knowledge over time, and the stagnation of belief to one ancient paradigm.

While we should indeed be open to the possibility of better understanding, and new knowledge, it (again) does not also follow that we therefore should reject the possibility of having found some truth already. Once found, we should hold on to truth until (if ever) it is shown to be untrue. You seem to want to hold all truth in certain areas as 'provisional' while accepting established truths in other areas. That's a form of special pleading. A better approach is to investigate the support for truth claims, and accept or reject them on the basis of our best efforts to verify them.

Believing that the Baha'i Faith is what I 'believe' is the most correct one is a very normal way of belief, and does hold that everyone else is wrong to the degree that Christianity and its many sects view others that do not believe. This way of belief does not preclude a healthy skepticism. One of the principles of the Baha'i Faith is the 'Independent Investigation of knowledge. Even though I believe, I acknowledge 'everything is in pencil.' The Baha'i Faith acknowledges the diverse, changing world of knowledge, both spiritual and physical, which the Baha'i Faith acknowledges the advancing knowledge of science as the standard of understanding the nature of our physical existence and scripture must be understanding in the light of science.

The view of 37818 does not allow for this flexibility of understanding, and acknowledges only one truth according to the interpretation and understanding of scripture, his.

I'm not arguing that 37818 is correct, but that your objection to his position is itself flawed. Your skepticism is so broad that you can't hold that and also consistently claim others are wrong about something. You yourself might be wrong about your skeptical epistemology, and they might actually have (some) correct truth. Your position doesn't allow you to rule that out, so it's inconsistent for you to reject, a priori, their truth claims solely on the basis of your skeptical epistemology.

Never said this is the case. A broken clock is absolutely accurate once in twelve hours.

So your use of 'fallible' was mere rhetorical puffery, and not actually relevant to your case.

Agreed, I never claimed any such thing, considering the fact that there are lots of competing and conflicting truth claims, particularly within Christianity, it brings to question the value of truth claims in the absolute sense they claim.

Remember the truth claims of many of the different sects of Christianity claim all others are wrong.

Having just agreed with my objection to your point, you then go on to repeat the same flawed objection.

[Doug Shaver]

Item 1, the written ascribed to be holy scriptures, if they are God's word, then reading them and believing them is being taught by God.
Item 2, if one is willing to do God's will, knowing of course what it is, they will know from God that it is God's teaching.
Item 3, on the basis anybody really believes in absolute truth, and are really interested in what is really true, they will heed the words of Christ in the Bible.
Item 4, the only reason one does not believe the gospel is one does not have a correct understanding of it.
Item 5, those who are saved and truly have received eternal life know God personally. Which is the condition of having eternal life. (1 John 5:1, 9-13, 20. Romans 8:9. 2 Corinthians 13:5.)

In each case, your are claiming that if A, then B. I asked why I should believe B. If you don't give me a reason to believe A, then you have told me nothing.

[Doug Shaver]

Given your admission . . . .

Please disregard everything I've said up to now. I'm changing my response to your original question.

I will stipulate that I am as fallible as you are. No more and no less. You and I are equally fallible. Does that answer your question?

That's another thing you've admitted you could be wrong about.

You haven't answered my question. I say I am as fallible as you are. That ought to tell you what I think I could be wrong about. Does it or doesn't it?

[shunyadragon]

You in reality refuted not any of those 5 points. Not one of them.

The truth that there are many truth claims, only shows the odds of merely picking one of them, the odds being one will most probably be wrong in one's choice.

It would seem you presume without evidence item 1 cannot be true.

No, 'it seems' is problematic when you do not quote me accurately and specifically.

On item 2 you give no evidence of even knowing what the truth claim is as to what God's will is to be.

There is no such actual 'evidence' available concerning the 'truth claim as to what God's will is to be. In my response I referring to the problematic view of any narrow truth claims when there are so many conflicting and different, especially within Christianity.

As to item 3 you have not demonstrated that you are even interested in what the actual truth to be known is in this matter, showing this by your argument of dismissing it all because there are many different church claims.

Again you are misrepresenting me, and not quoting me specifically as to my interest in the nature of truth claims. Yes, the value of exclusive 'truth claims remain a problem because there remains many conflicting 'truth claims' in the different sects of Christianity based on the same scripture. You have not responded to this problem in the effort to justify your own truth claims.

item 4, you cannot see any one of the gospel claims as being the true one.

True! I do not evaluate the gospels in terms of specific of the illusive 'truth claims.' The problem of the elephant in the room is the many conflicting truth claims in the many sects of Christianity.

And on item 5, can you say that you know God personally, where you can show others how to know God too? There is no evidence that you would.

Knowing 'God personally' is very problematic, because there are so many conflicting beliefs within Christianity concerning how one 'knows God personally.' Specific consistent evidence is problematic and lacking concerning the anecdotal claims of anyone claiming to 'know God personally.'

I do believe I am aware of the attributes and will of God in humanity, the universe, and my life.

From my point of view, those 5 items as I presented them stand as being true.

True, maybe? but from what perspective is the claim that one 'knows God personally' any more then an anecdotal personal claim?