Divine revelation

[shunyadragon]

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

Not quoting my accurately. Disagreeing is not saying others are wrong in the absolute sense from my perspective. It is the dominant view among Christians that the cutting edge of right and wrong is more absolute concerning those who believe differently.

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.

Not inconsistent at all, because first science does not make absolute 'truth claims' in the manner religions like Christianity does. There are no absolute 'truths' in science.

False, the differences in the models and theorems concerning cosmology are NOT considered conflicting 'truth claims' in the article cited, because none of the models and theorems made distinct 'truth claims' and do not disagree on the basic theories of science. The reference you cited is a laymen's article and not the actual scientific journal reference. Nothing in any of the models and theorems cited reflect a conflict between the fundamental theoretical claims of science. In the future if you are going to make these claims, cite the actual journals themselves that claim there are controversial conflicts in 'truth claims.', not layman articles. Actually the only sin of the layman's article was to use some hype adjectives to make the article interesting.

Still waiting for evidence that scientists significantly disagree concerning the basic theories and knowledge of science.

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?

The problem remains concerning your original claim concerning conflicts and controversy in science concerning 'interpretations.' Differing interpretations in science are not controversial when they are supported by peer reviewed sound research, and that is the way science works.

True, but so what?!?!?!? The knowledge of science by it's nature evolves and changes over time, but today, the answer is an emphatic no, there are no significant disagreements today in science concerning the basic theories and knowledge. Unfortunately religions fail in this count. Beliefs and knowledge often remain static, and the result is more churches when there is disagreement. In contrast there remains only one science, evolving and changing over time through Methodological Naturalism, consensus, peer review and redundant research. Bad theories and hypothesis, and older and flawed research are weeded out over time.

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.

I never said that some truth (knowledge) remains and accepted by science. Much of Newton's work remains sound and accepted, but it indeed failed to apply at the smallest and greatest scales of physics, and was replaced by modern physics, which for the most part universally accepted, and of course subject to updating and modification in the future.

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. [/quote]

Please cite me correctly. 'You seem' is a very questionable way to cite or quote anyone. Of course, the knowledge of fallible humans should remain provisional and subject to verification and revision, but I most definitely DO NOT do this selectively.

[quote] 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.

Again, this does not reflect my previous posts. Please cite me accurately. Actually nothing in this post actually cited me completely. It is full of 'seems,' which is not the way to communicate effectively.

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

No, this does not address the issues I presented. The fallible nature of humans is very relevant, and the diversity of absolute truth claims becomes problematic.

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

Please respond in context to what I said.

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]

Air Ball! Not relevant to any reasonable logical argument.

My my, it seems you haven't yet grasped the argument I'm using here. The argument I'm using says you can't justify any knowledge claim you make apart from God. So yes, it is relevant to this argument when you make a statement that amounts to making knowledge claim apart from God. And given my argument, it's perfectly fair and valid for me to ask you to justify said claim.

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

When and where did I say that?

[Mr. Black]

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

Will do.

You haven't answered my question.

Could you be wrong about that?

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?

You've already told me what all you could be wrong about: anything. Which means you can't even be sure about the meanings of the words you're using to express your doubt, or to ask me questions. To be rationally justified in asking a question, you at the very least need to know (1) what a question is, (2) what the meanings of the words you're employing are, (3) that your opponent is real, and not a figment of your imagination, which means you have to have justification for saying your sensory organs are working properly (4) that your cognitive faculties are such that you can understand aright and properly reason through the answer give, and (5) that the laws of logic are universal and invariant. But you've precluded the possibility of every single one of those. Therefore, your question is not rationally justified. To justify it, you need to show that those make sense in your worldview.

[shunyadragon]

My my, it seems you haven't yet grasped the argument I'm using here. The argument I'm using says you can't justify any knowledge claim you make apart from God. So yes, it is relevant to this argument when you make a statement that amounts to making knowledge claim apart from God. And given my argument, it's perfectly fair and valid for me to ask you to justify said claim.

God cannot argue your case. You need to do that, at present you only repeat useless repetitive monologues when someone pulls the string.

When and where did I say that?

Every post you have written. You appear to absolutely 'know what God alone knows.' In your view everyone else could be wrong, but you, because you know what is true from God.

As far as the knowledge of science goes it is very, very, very unlikely that the foundation theories of this knowledge is false. The ontic base of science is the overwhelming evidence. You have consistently failed tp present anything in terms of evidence other then your belief in scripture.

[37818]

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.

Item one stated, "if."

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.

If A is true then B is true. If A is not true then B is not true. Now your original question:

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?

The Bible makes claims of revelation from God. Item 1 is introductory to this.

Now item 2,

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.

Now it proposes that if one is willing do do God's revealed will. Now at this point, you do not, I presume, believe there is such a thing. Yet such a thing is presented to be in the gospel according to John. Now the question is, if that really is revelation from God, are you willing to do it? If yes, you will have personal confirmation of it. If it is not true, you will get nothing. If it is true and you are not willing you still get nothing.
". . . My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or [whether] I speak of myself. . . ."

The whole reason John wrote the account, "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

Also, " Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." -- John 6:29.

". . . the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: . . ." -- John 12:49, 50.

So are you willing to believe it, on the basis of it being true?

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.

Jesus claimed, "Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice." So are you really interested in what is really true? If A is true B is true. If A is not true, B is not true.

Item 4, the only reason one does not believe the gospel is one does not have a correct understanding of it.

". . . But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: . . . " -- 2 Corinthians 4:3.
This one should be easy to falsify, if it is not true. Present correctly the Biblical gospel. And give the reasons why it should [from the Christian point of view] be believed. And then explain why it is not true in your view, without misrepresenting the Christian view in so doing.

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.)

". . . this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. . . ." -- John 17:3.
". . . And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, [even] in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." -- 1 John 5:20.

[Doug Shaver]

You've already told me what all you could be wrong about: anything.

And you just got through agreeing to disregard what I had already said. Please answer the question.

[Doug Shaver]

If A is true then B is true. If A is not true then B is not true.

No. You exhibit ignorance of the elementary rules of logic. Will you accept instruction?

[37818]

Will you accept instruction?

Yes.

[tabibito]

If the car is blue then it is not red. ... If the car is not blue then it is red. X
If you are a gossip then you are a sinner. ... If you are not a gossip then you are not a sinner. X
If you do not give it your best you will not win. ... If you give it your best you will win X
If you do not believe then you are not saved. ... If you believe then you are saved. X

[Doug Shaver]

37818,

I will try to avoid excessive pedantry, but it is important to understand the relevant terminology.

Logicians refer to an if-then statement (actually, it is a compound statement) as a conditional, or more specifically as a material conditional. It is symbolized thus: P -> Q means "If P, then Q." The symbol -> represents the word "implies," and the compound statement may also be called an implication or material implication. The statement represented by P is called the antecedent, and the statement represented by Q is called the consequent. We may also say, then, that the antecedent implies the consequent.

The logical rule for any material implication is this: The implication is false in any case where the antecedent is true and the consequent is false; otherwise, the implication is true. This means that P -> Q is true whenever P is false or Q is true. It is important to remember that the logic has nothing to do with causation. If P is false, then "If P, then Q" is true no matter what Q asserts, and if Q is true, then "If P, then Q" is true no matter what P asserts.

But of course, we don't usually care about situations where we know ahead of time the truth or falsity of both P and Q. In the cases we're discussing here, the issue under debate is whether the consequents are true. An argument using the form P -> Q must do two things. (1) It must demonstrate that P is true, and (2) it must demonstrate that Q cannot be false in any situation where P is true. The argument must do both; otherwise, the consequent remains unproved. It still might be true, but it hasn't been proved true.

Why is this? Because, if you assert P -> Q, you in effect assert that anyone who affirms P while denying Q is somehow contradicting himself. But what if I deny P? In that case, even if I agree that P implies Q, I don't contradict myself. The only way I can contradict myself is if (1) I agree that P is true and (2) I agree that P implies Q but (3) I deny Q.

Now suppose we agree about the implication but disagree about the antecedent. That is, we agree that P -> Q but disagree about the truth of P. If you believe the antecedent, then you must believe the consequent, but if I don't believe the antecedent, then I don't have to believe the consequent. Maybe I should believe the antecedent, but I don't have to believe it just because you say so. The mere fact that I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm being illogical. That is for you to prove.

And finally, to your claim, "If A is true then B is true. If A is not true then B is not true." That is what logicians call a biconditional, rendered symbolically as A <-> B, or "A if and only if B." It is a short way of writing the conjunction (A -> B) & (B -> A). Proving a conjunction requires an independent proof of each conjunct.

[shunyadragon]

If the car is blue then it is not red. ... If the car is not blue then it is red. X
If you are a gossip then you are a sinner. ... If you are not a gossip then you are not a sinner. X
If you do not give it your best you will not win. ... If you give it your best you will win X
If you do not believe(in what?!?!?) then you are not saved. ... If you believe then you are saved. X

If the car is blue then it is not red. ... If the car is not blue then it is red. X
If you are a gossip then you are a sinner. ... If you are not a gossip then you are not a sinner. X
If you do not give it your best you will not win. ... If you give it your best you will win X
If you do not believe(in what?!?!?) then you are not saved (from what?!?!?). ... If you believe (in what?!?!?) then you are saved (from what?!?!?).

[tabibito]

If you do not believe(in what?!?!?) then you are not saved (from what?!?!?). ... If you believe (in what?!?!?) then you are saved (from what?!?!?).

From the point of view of a demonstration of the process of the logic flow in first conditional sentences, "in what" is no more than a distraction.

However, sans clarifying context and on a Theology Site, a Christian would consider either (most probably) "Christ" or "the gospel" to be implicit.

[Mr. Black]

God cannot argue your case. You need to do that,

I think you mean, God does not argue my case. But He does. Since my argument is taken from Scripture, though I'm the tool by which He does it, God effectively argues my case (or really, His own case).

at present you only repeat useless repetitive monologues when someone pulls the string.

In a recent reply to me in thread, "rational justification to avoid investigating miracle-claims:, you said, "I do not claim to 'know' in any absolute sense. It is possible that any and all possible human views of the nature of our physical existence could be wrong, and a figment of our imagination". And in a recent reply to MaxVel, you said, "True my skepticism applies pretty much to all areas of human knowledge."
Would not your skepticism apply to your claim from your last reply, which I've quoted above, then (not to mention anything else you say below)?

Every post you have written. You appear to absolutely 'know what God alone knows.' In your view everyone else could be wrong, but you, because you know what is true from God.

Setting aside the fact that you've given up any rational justification for this claim of yours, my view is that all know God in their heart of hearts, because God has made them to know Him, and yet many suppress this truth in unrighteousness. You know just as well as I do that God exists. But, wanting to be your own God, you reject Him and in so doing insist upon eternal damnation for breaking His law. I don't want that for you. Please turn back, bud.

As far as the knowledge of science goes it is very, very, very unlikely that the foundation theories of this knowledge is false.

To say that something is, or is not "likely" assumes a standard of absolute certainty against which to measure the relative "likelihood" of any given proposition. What is this standard in your worldview? What is the ontological base which grounds it in your worldview? What is the epistemology which makes it know in your worldview? And how do you plan to justify your answers given your admission that you don't claim to know anything in an absolute sense?

The ontic base of science is the overwhelming evidence.

That's not an ontic base. What you're appealing to is the appearance of how things seem to be from your perspective. An ontic base would be something that controls the universe such that it guarantees that nature is uniform (that the laws of physics, for example, apply everywhere---even places we haven't looked---and that they will continue to do so in the future without fail). That's what God does. Since He created all things and upholds all things by His power (Hebrews 1:3), and promises regularity in the external world (Genesis 8:22) we can know for certain that nature is uniform, and therefore the biblical worldview provides a rational basis for science.
But leave out of the picture and what guarantee do you have? How do you know that the laws of physics apply everywhere? How do you know they'll apply tomorrow, or even 10 seconds from now? Be careful to note what I'm asking you here. I essentially asking, "How do you know that the laws of physics are such that they do not change?". So if you reply, "They've always been that way, so i trust they'll be that way in the future" that would beg the question, as you can only conclude that the laws of physics will be that way in the future because they were that way in the past by assuming that they are of such a nature that they do not change---which is the very thing you're supposed to be proving.

[Mr. Black]

And you just got through agreeing to disregard what I had already said. Please answer the question.

Oh, so it's my original question that you're changing your answer to then? Great! Please tell me one thing you know for sure, and how you know it. If your response does not include an answer then you beg the question against my worldview and my argument.

[MaxVel]

Shunya, I'm not going to quote your post in full, because you've messed up the quote brackets in your previous response, and my responses are mixed in with yours.


Are there any absolute truths at all? You appear to be denying this when you say: "Disagreeing is not saying others are wrong in the absolute sense from my perspective." So, is it your position that there are no absolute truths?

{PLease note, when I say things like: It seems your position is...", I'm summarising what I understand your position to be. I am not quoting you specifically, but giving you the opportunity of responding and correcting anything where I have misunderstood your position. That's what people do in conversations (it's part of reflective listening). It is not an attempt to misrepresent you - that's why I put 'You seem...' rather than directly quoting you.}

True, but so what?!?!?!? The knowledge of science by it's nature evolves and changes over time, but today, the answer is an emphatic no, there are no significant disagreements today in science concerning the basic theories and knowledge. Unfortunately religions fail in this count. Beliefs and knowledge often remain static, and the result is more churches when there is disagreement. In contrast there remains only one science, evolving and changing over time through Methodological Naturalism, consensus, peer review and redundant research. Bad theories and hypothesis, and older and flawed research are weeded out over time.

Here you contrast 'religion' and 'science'. Religions fail because they disagree on 'basic theories and knowledge', and because their beliefs and knowledge do not evolve over time. Science, however, has 'no significant disagreements' on basic theories and knowledge, and evolves over time.

{The above is what I understand you to be saying}

1. The presence of disagreements - even over very basic things - does not mean that no-one is correct. Nor does it follow that no-one can be correct.

Your basic objection rests on a logical fallacy (your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises).


2. If you mean 'religions' in the broadest sense - i.e. worldviews that have differing conceptions of what fundamental reality is, then you're not comparing them with the same thing when you compare them with methodology naturalism. That's a method, not a full worldview. So it's incorrect to compare the two, because they differ so much in scope. And your objection against religion fails, because it's an invalid comparison.

If you're comparing religions in the sense above with philosophical naturalism, then again your objection fails, because PN is just one more competing worldview amongst many, and it has the same issues with internal differences of belief on fundamental matters as different religions do.

You're using an invalid comparison to object to religions as a whole.


3. In the paragraph quoted above, you reject religions, in part because their beliefs don't change over time. Yet you yourself acknowledge that science has beliefs that don't change either. Use of methodological naturalism as a means to gain knowledge is one, and the 'basic theories and knowledge' that nearly all scientists agree on i another.

So science itself has beliefs that are taken to be true and pretty much unchallengeable. Someone who claims to be a scientist and yet rejects some or all of these 'basic beliefs and knowledge' would be laughed at and told by scientists that he is not a real scientist. I've seen you project this attitude to people who disagree with you/mainstream science. Yet that is what you find fault with religions for doing.


You're special pleading in favor of your position and against religions as a whole.