Divine revelation

[shunyadragon]

For someone who express doubt that he knows anything, such as whether Mr. Black knows anything at all, he surely has made a great many assertions by now. Way to go!

If you are referring to me. I did not express doubt that I know anything. I expressed the doubt that I know anything absolutely, which is justified considering the fallibility of human nature.

I will readdress this question of what it is to know with the following:

Simply to know, and not know absolutely.

We may know beyond a reasonable doubt. OK definition below.

Source: https://www.google.com/#q=know+definition I know 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that our present knowledge of science describes our physical existence and its history accurately. I know 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that the ontic base of the physical evidence is consistently reliable without known exceptions.

We can go on from here with a fairly accurate definition of what is 'to know.'

[Truthseeker]

We may know beyond a reasonable doubt. OK definition below.

Considering this definition. I know 'beyond a reasonable doubt that our present knowledge of science describes our physical existence and its history accurately. I know beyond a reasonable doubt that the ontic base of the physical evidence is consistently reliable without known exceptions.

I don't think I know how accurate our present scientific theories are in describing reality. Sure, they appear to work, but we just don't really know. For one thing, we may have better theory later. Maybe the long-sought Theory of Everything.

We can go on from here with a fairly accurate definition of what is 'to know.'

[shunyadragon]

I don't think I know how accurate our present scientific theories are in describing reality. Sure, they appear to work, but we just don't really know. For one thing, we may have better theory later. Maybe the long-sought Theory of Everything.

I cited a reasonable definition from a dictionary for 'to know.' The concept of 'To know beyond a reasonable doubt' is a well known concept in law academics and science concerning knowledge. All you appear to do is respond 'I don't think I know how. . .' Fortunately the knowledge of science is not dependent on what you 'think' you know and not know. Careful on your notion of 'we.' It is best to only speak for yourself without more references and coherent supported statements on 'What is the nature of the 'knowledge of science?' before using 'we.'
This subject is pretty deep in the pbilosophy of science and philosophers like Karl Popper.

The present efforts of research in science is not necessarily the 'long sought?' Theory of everything.

Can you present a better 'accepted' definition of the verb 'to know' as it applies in this discussion?

Let's go for more definitions:

[Truthseeker]

I cited a reasonable definition from a dictionary for 'to know.' The concept of 'To know beyond a reasonable doubt' is a well known concept in law academics and science concerning knowledge. All you appear to do is respond 'I don't think I know how. . .' Fortunately the knowledge of science is not dependent on what you 'think' you know and not know. Careful on your notion of 'we.' It is best to only speak for yourself without more references and coherent supported statements on 'What is the nature of the 'knowledge of science?' This subject is pretty deep in the pbilosophy of science and philosophers like Karl Popper.
before using 'we.'

The present efforts of research in science is not necessarily the 'long sought?' Theory of everything.

Can you present a better 'accepted' definition of the verb 'to know' as it applies in this discussion?

Let's go for more definitions:

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
- Hamlet, to Horatio

[MaxVel]

I’m not going to respond to everything as there is some repetition of ground we’ve covered, and the post is long enough as it is…

My position is that there are no 'absolute truths' from the 'fallible human perspective.' Absolute Truth would be from the perspective of God in the Theist perspective, and the ultimate Laws of Nature and the physical nature of our existence would be the Philosophical Naturalist perspective. Science is the Methodological Naturalism human perspective for the nature of our physical existence. The knowledge of science will likely always evolve and change and does not consider this knowledge to reflect absolute truth.

I believe in God, therefore I believe 'absolute truth' resides with God only. There are absolute Divine Natural Laws that govern the nature of our physical existence. Religions reflect Divine Revelation from the human perspective in the limits of the culture and time the religion was Revealed. Revelation is the process of the progressive evolving spiritual knowledge of humanity throughout time and in all cultures, and progressively evolves and changes with time.

The advantage of scientific knowledge is in the consistent methodology based on the consistent ontic base of the physical evidence with a broad sense of agreement among scientists.

Human claims of religious knowledge and 'absolute truth claims' lacks this consistent ontic base, because the claims are based on mostly anecdotal evidence. There are far to many conflicting claims, disagreements and divisions in religions to make a claim of absolute truth from this perspective.

The problem from my perspective with any denial of absolute truth, even a qualified one, is that it’s self-defeating. Either people can’t know any absolute truths, or they can. If they can’t then even the truth that ‘people can’t know absolute truths’ is itself not absolute (and thus people can know absolute truths). If people can know (at least some) absolute truths, then it’s hard for someone to argue effectively as to why those truths are to be limited to only the ones that suit their position.

Secondly, science deals with a limited part of knowledge – not all truths are accessible to us through science – and it deals with a different area of knowledge than (most of) philosophy and religion. So it’s really a specious argument to compare science and religion/philosophy and find fault with one for not being what the other one is. Pointing out that science is based on physical evidence and is thus somehow better is missing the point, really. Of course science is based on physical evidence – that’s what science is – but the claim that ‘scientific knowledge is better / more reliable / truer / more consistent’ seems to be one that can’t be demonstrated using science.

Thirdly, the fact that some religions make different truth claims is still irrelevant to the truth value of any particular claim that a religion makes. If you are convinced that it logically follows from the premise that there are “…many conflicting claims, disagreements and divisions in religions…” to the conclusion therefore we can’t “…make a claim of absolute truth from this perspective.” Then please express it as a logically valid syllogism.

It is best to quote me and not summarize.

Actually, it’s not always best to quote you, because sometimes you say things that are nearly incomprehensible. For example: “Science is the Methodological Naturalism human perspective for the nature of our physical existence." That’s a near-gibberish sentence.

So the best way is to rephrase what I understand you to mean in my own words, and thus giving you an opportunity to agree or clarify. That’s part of being a good listener.

Careful again, I do not reject religions as a whole. If I did I would be an atheist or other Metaphysical Naturalist of sorts. Yes, there is a distinct problem with the inflexibility of the claims of different religions that do not change over time. Just compare the current claims of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and the problems become evident. The unfortunate rejection of the science of evolution by 40-50% plus Christians in this country reflect this problem.

Again the problem here is that you’re using a flawed general principle to reject specific truth claims, rather than examining those claims and seeing if they have sufficient evidence to support them.

Secondly, your position itself (that it’s a problem when religious beliefs are inflexible and don’t change) either is inflexible and doesn’t change - in which case it fails its own standard; or itself is subject to change – in which case sometime in the future it will be ‘It’s Ok for religious beliefs to be inflexible and not change’, and you have no basis for such an objection to current religious beliefs.

[shunyadragon]

The problem from my perspective with any denial of absolute truth, even a qualified one, is that it’s self-defeating. Either people can’t know any absolute truths, or they can. If they can’t then even the truth that ‘people can’t know absolute truths’ is itself not absolute (and thus people can know absolute truths). If people can know (at least some) absolute truths, then it’s hard for someone to argue effectively as to why those truths are to be limited to only the ones that suit their position.

The belief that metaphysical truth and knowledge is relative from the human perspective IS NOT an absolute truth claim. It and of itself does not claim that metaphysical absolute truth does not exist, and it does claim that the problem is with the fallible human ability to distinguish the absolute truth of such claims. First problem; There are many diverse absolute truth claims from different religious perspective, and they change over time. Question for you; 'How would you distinguish one metaphysical absolute truth from another when they are contradictory?'

In logic and philosophy it is not a self-refuting nor self-defeating claim. If you believe it is please provide an academic source that supports your view. See below reference to Pluralist Theories of Truth.

Secondly, science deals with a limited part of knowledge – not all truths are accessible to us through science – and it deals with a different area of knowledge than (most of) philosophy and religion. So it’s really a specious argument to compare science and religion/philosophy and find fault with one for not being what the other one is. Pointing out that science is based on physical evidence and is thus somehow better is missing the point, really. Of course science is based on physical evidence – that’s what science is – but the claim that ‘scientific knowledge is better / more reliable / truer / more consistent’ seems to be one that can’t be demonstrated using science.

I dot disagree with most of the above. In fact you essentially describe the limits of 'methodological Naturalism. I have never claimed that methodological naturalism could find any fault with a religious or metaphysical position. What I do challenge from the scientific perspective is truth claims by religions, churches or sects when they present absolute truth claims that are in contradiction with the physical evidence.

Thirdly, the fact that some religions make different truth claims is still irrelevant to the truth value of any particular claim that a religion makes. If you are convinced that it logically follows from the premise that there are “…many conflicting claims, disagreements and divisions in religions…” to the conclusion therefore we can’t “…make a claim of absolute truth from this perspective.” Then please express it as a logically valid syllogism.

The problem arises; 'It is possible that one may be true, but how can you distinguish between contradictory metaphysical truth claims from the fallible human perspective?'

The belief in the relative nature of truth from the human perspective is best described in the Pluralist Theories of Truths. Nothing here indicates that this view is self-refuting nor self-defeating.

Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-pluralist/#Str

The plausibility of theories of truth has often been observed to vary, sometimes extensively, across different domains or regions of discourse. Because of this variance, the problems internal to each such theory become salient as they overgeneralize. A natural suggestion is therefore that not all (declarative) sentences in all domains are true in exactly the same way. Sentences in mathematics, morals, comedy, chemistry, politics, and gastronomy may be true in different ways, if and when they are ever true. ‘Pluralism about truth’ names the thesis that there is more than one way of being true.

1. Alethic pluralism about truth: a plurality of properties

1.1 Strength

The pluralist's thesis that there are many ways of being true is typically construed as being tantamount to the claim that the number of truth properties is greater than one. However, this basic interpretation,
(1)there is more than one truth property.
is compatible with both moderate as well as more radical precisifications. According to moderate pluralism, at least one way of being true among the multitude of others is universally shared:
(2)there is more than one truth property, some of which are had by all true sentences.
According to strong pluralism, however, there is no such universal or common way of being true:
(3)there is more than one truth property, none of which is had by all true sentences.
Precisifying pluralism about truth in these two ways brings several consequences to the fore. Firstly, both versions of pluralism conflict with strong monism about truth:
(4)there is exactly one truth property, which is had by all true sentences.
Secondly, moderate—but not strong—pluralism is compatible with a moderate version of monism about truth:
(5)there is one truth property, which is had by all true sentences.
(2) and (5) are compatible because (5) does not rule out the possibility that the truth property had by all true sentences might be one among the multitude of truth properties endorsed by the moderate pluralist (i.e., by someone who endorses (2)). Only strong pluralism in (3) entails the denial of the claim that all true sentences are true in the same way. Thus, moderate pluralists and moderate monists can in principle find common ground.

© Copyright Original Source

More to follow . . .

Actually, it’s not always best to quote you, because sometimes you say things that are nearly incomprehensible. For example: “Science is the Methodological Naturalism human perspective for the nature of our physical existence." That’s a near-gibberish sentence. [/quote]

Not gibberish at all it simply acknowledges the limits of metaphysical naturalism from the human perspective you described above. Since scientific knowledge changes over time, it is most definitely the 'knowledge from the human perspective of our physical existence. Absolute knowledge would be limited to documented specific 'facts' which do not change, but new 'facts' and knowledge may change scientific knowledge.

Again the problem here is that you’re using a flawed general principle to reject specific truth claims, rather than examining those claims and seeing if they have sufficient evidence to support them.

I have never specifically rejected specific truth claims, unless religious truth claims contradict the physical evidence of the nature of our physical existence, i.e. our physical existence was created in six days.

What would be convincing objective evidence of metaphysical truth claims? All the evidence that I have every been presented has been subjective anecdotal evidence.

Secondly, your position itself (that it’s a problem when religious beliefs are inflexible and don’t change) either is inflexible and doesn’t change - in which case it fails its own standard; or itself is subject to change – in which case sometime in the future it will be ‘It’s Ok for religious beliefs to be inflexible and not change’, and you have no basis for such an objection to current religious beliefs.

Careful in your statement qualifying possible unknown future hypothetical consequences that result in changes in our knowledge. You would be arguing a fallacy. Take your pick

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise (illicit negative) – when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise, or Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.

© Copyright Original Source

[Mr. Black]

To[o] circular to be real considering the ambiguity of ancient literature.

How do you know what is, or is not, "real"?

You have failed to provide a coherent logical argument for your view.

Nonsense. I've provided a transcendental argument for it. The "proof" that the biblical worldview is true and that you already know God in your heart of hearts is that, if it were not, and you did not, you couldn't know anything. The consequence is that if you deny God you can't justify any knowledge claim you make, which you've already (although probably unwittingly) conceded by admitting that on your worldview you can't know anything for sure.

Saying what you believe is true, tells me nothing.

I've done more than simply say< "I believe such and such". I've provided an argument (which you've actually added force to). Now I understand if you wanna say that it's a bad TA (in which case you'll have to refute, which can be done by showing that knowledge is possible apart from God), but simply ignoring the argument and pretending it's not there doesn't make it magically go away.

Problem, no coherent argument here, simply calling everyone else heretics fails to present a coherent argument.

It wasn't meant to be an argument. It was meant to point out that you had no coherent argument against my worldview (or anything else, given your own admission regarding your worldview).

empty 'hand wave' repeated over and over again is meaningless.

No. Given the context and subject of this discussion, and your previous admission that you don't know anything for sure, when you then turn around and make knowledge claims, my reply, "Could you be wrong about that?" is a perfectly fair and valid question. Dismissing a fair question that aims to show the logical consequences of your worldview as a "meaningless" "hand wave" will simply not do, and each time you behave in that way you demonstrate to everyone reading this thread that you'd rather be irrational and embrace absurdity than accept the truth and be changed by it.

Fallacy:Take your pick -

[cite=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Formal_fallacies]

This is the straw man fallacy again. My question is not based on a syllogism. You admitted that you don't know anything in an absolute sense. Therefore, you can't be sure of anything. You have given up knowledge. My question is fair and valid.

Appeal to an authority as, 'I believe.'

Appeal to authority is perfectly fine if it's an appropriate authority. A sovereign Creator-God Who's all-powerful, all-knowing, and who cannot lie, and was there all throughout history is an adequate authority (the only one, in fact) on the issue. Fallible men and women, who are not all-powerful, nor all-knowing, and can 9and often do) lie, and who were not there, are not even close to being adequate authorities on the issue.

Already explained this. Repeating none sense does not amount to a reasonable dialogue.

I already refuted this illogic. Making arbitrary knowledge claims after having admitted that you don't know anything for sure is a clear mark of irrational thinking.

Please not the accepted definition of to know and how it applies to these arguments.

Notice the danger of equivocation here. Even if most people used a different definition of knowledge, that would not require me to use that particular definition in my argument. Dismissing my argument by sutbly changing the meaning of a key term is the fallacy of equivocation.
But that's the least of your problems, bud.

What is the "accepted" definition of knowledge?
Who is it "accepted" by?
How can you be sure of this?
On what basis do you make this claim?

Facts of history is only one limited aspect of knowledge, and in and of themselves do not usually change. Knowing facts is ok, but not the subject of 'What changes?'

Then it's not knowledge that's changing. If I believed that Hitler was against racism, but later found out that he was in fact a racist, my knowledge didn't change. My belief was refuted when I gained knowledge of the facts.

False, by definition I gave the ontic base...

This pure irrationality. Arbitrarily defining one insufficient thing thing as something else does not make it so. I could say that I have defined you---in and of yourself--- as a pedophile, but that wouldn't make you a pedophile.

(foundation of science)

Science cannot serve as the foundation for the preconditions of intelligibility, as I've already explained. I guess I'll have to explain it again below.

with a reference as the physical evidence for methodological naturalism (the pillars)

Notice that the perception of, and evaluation of evidence requires first that you...

(1) know that nature is uniform, otherwise you have no basis for conducting identical experiments in sufficiently similar conditions and expect the same result,
(2) that the laws of logic are universal and invariant, otherwise you cannot know what is true or false at what locations, and when (or if it'll continue into the future,
(3) you must know that what you experience with your senses is real and not illusion,
(4) that your cognitive faculties are working properly, as that you can be sure that your reasoning about that evidence is sound (or even valid),
(5) that your past memories of that evidence and how you reasoned about it are accurate.
If you don't start with those in place you cannot even begin to do science. Thus science presupposes and depends upon every one of those. So no, science is not the foundation of the preconditions of intelligibility, because it derives from them.

and the knowledge of science (the roof).[/QUOTE]

There are many other references you may access on your own time.

This is another problem with the "science is the foundation" view. Notice that you're making declarations on what's said to be universal truths, and you're appealing to your particular experiences. You haven't been everywhere, so how do you know that the laws of physics and the laws of logic apply everywhere?You haven't experienced the every moment of the past, so how do you know they've always applied in the past? You haven't been to the future, so how do you know that they'll apply anywhere 10 seconds after you get done reading this?
In fact, given the fact that your scope of the universe and history, and your experience of it, is so limited, how can you say anything about everything?

You may reject this with your usual 'hand wave'

While it's never my intention to be disrespectful, when someone asserts absurd nonsense (like saying that science, which depends upon the uniformity of nature before it can get started, somehow grounds it----so that it can get started), it should be refuted and brushed aside. That's the responsibility of rational adults.

False I appeal to the ontic based (physical evidence)

Evidence is not an ontic base at all. You've confused ontology with epistemology. Evidence is something that informs us of what's real, so it's epistemological. An ontic base would be some aspect of reality that explains why it is that way, and if/why it will remain that way in the future. This is why I suggested that you give an ontic base to ground the preconditions of intelligibility, and an epistemology to make that base known. You're asserting scientific "evidence" as the grounding for what's required before science can even get off thr ground, begging the question and confusing ontology with epistemology in the process.

Same argument as your detractors, very very circular without an explanation why yours is true over the others.

I suggest you do some reading up on transcendental arguments, my friend.

[Mr. Black]

Simply to know, and not know absolutely.

We may know beyond a reasonable doubt. OK definition below.

Source: https://www.google.com/#q=know+definition

Know 1. be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.

© Copyright Original Source

Considering this definition. I know 'beyond a reasonable doubt that our present knowledge of science describes our physical existence and its history accurately. know beyond a reasonable doubt that the ontic base of the physical evidence is consistently reliable without known exceptions.

You're still making an absolute claim. Suppose I ask you what "reasonable doubt" entails? Suppose I then ask if you're absolutely sure that you "know beyond a reasonable doubt". To be consistent with your earlier claim, you'd have to admit that you don't. I see this sort of duck & cover reply a lot. Non-christians will admit they don't know anything for sure on their worldview, and then turn around and say they know to a high degree of probability. But to know whether or not something is "probably" true, you must have an absolute standard of truth by which to measure the relative probability of a given truth claim. So you can only assert that you "know something "beyond a reasonable doubt" if you have such an absolute standard by which to make that measurement (you'd also have to know for certain that the laws of logic are absolute, as "reasonable" entails reason, which entails logic). But you've already given up any hope of that standard. So your claim here is refuted by your earlier claim. Thus your objection here reduces to absurdity.

Are you absolutely sure that that's what logic is?

I do not assert logic.

You just posted a definition of logic. That's asserting it. But wait, you're about to do it again...

It is simply a tool first formalized by the Greeks, and Chinese, with forms in Persia and India as a discipline of debate and dialogue. It is a tool to be used in math and science.

1.) That's asserting logic (again).
2.) Are you absolutely sure that that's what logic is, or could it be something else?

Apparently your logic is simply: God says and I believe.

I had hoped you were the kind of thinker who took adequate time to understand his opponent's position before responding, instead of chucking straw men at him. Anyone who reads through our conversations here on TW can see quite clearly that your misrepresentation here is not even close to my view.

[Mr. Black]

For someone who express doubt that he knows anything, such as whether Mr. Black knows anything at all, he surely has made a great many assertions by now. Way to go!

I know, right? He may think he has a hiding spot from God on this, but he only compounds the problem for himself. If he can't know anything for sure, then he can't be sure that he has good reason for believing it (or even what "good reason" means). Which means, not only can he not know that his worldview is true, but he can't even be sure that it's likely true either. Totally arbitrary.

Are you sure about this ("6,000 years ago")? Are you sure you are interpreting Genesis correctly?

Roughly speaking, 6,000 years ago, yes. And yes, I'm sure the YEC paradigm is correct, as OEC, if held to consistently, would destroy foundational biblical doctrines (like the New Heavens and the New Earth, and ultimately the Gospel itself).

Hint: the word usually translated "day" ("yom") may actually be a moment when the sun is up (daylight) or it may be an indefinite span of time usually greater than 12 hours (the meaning depends on the context, of course).

I agree that context is key. I would (respectfully) argue that the context does not allow for creation days longer than 24 hours.

[whag]

Roughly speaking, 6,000 years ago, yes. And yes, I'm sure the YEC paradigm is correct, as OEC, if held to consistently, would destroy foundational biblical doctrines (like the New Heavens and the New Earth, and ultimately the Gospel itself).

The failure of western evangelicalism is encapsulated in that statement.

[Truthseeker]

you must have an absolute standard of truth by which to measure the relative probability of a given truth claim.

I don't understand. If one knows a bit of absolute truth, and a claim is made that can be compared to that bit, why not just say the claim is wrong (or right, as the case may be)? To me, "relative probability" makes sense only in statistical analysis of data or in judgment of likelihood (like betting on horse races).

[Truthseeker]

I agree that context is key. I would (respectfully) argue that the context does not allow for creation days longer than 24 hours.

Another hint: "Yom One" "Yom Two" "Yom Three" . . . "Yom Six" should be translated "Part One" etc. Or maybe even "Act One." etc.

[Mr. Black]

The failure of western evangelicalism is encapsulated in that statement.

Notice that my worldview provides an explanation for the state of affairs: the willful ignorance and rebellious hearts of fallen men and women.
Even your rhetoric begs the question, whag.

[Mr. Black]

I don't understand. If one knows a bit of absolute truth, and a claim is made that can be compared to that bit, why not just say the claim is wrong (or right, as the case may be)? To me, "relative probability" makes sense only in statistical analysis of data or in judgment of likelihood (like betting on horse races).

I think you misunderstood what I meant by "relative". Different claims are going to have different probabilities. In that sense the probability is "relative". That is, relative to the claim in question.

Another hint: "Yom One" "Yom Two" "Yom Three" . . . "Yom Six" should be translated "Part One" etc. Or maybe even "Act One." etc.

On what basis do you make this claim?

[shunyadragon]

How do you know what is, or is not, "real"?

Are you Vedic believer that our physical reality is an illusion? If so it is a radical change of religion.

Nonetheless, this question is a fallacy: take your pick.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Nonsense. I've provided a transcendental argument for it. The "proof" that the biblical worldview is true and that you already know God in your heart of hearts is that, if it were not, and you did not, you couldn't know anything. The consequence is that if you deny God you can't justify any knowledge claim you make, which you've already (although probably unwittingly) conceded by admitting that on your worldview you can't know anything for sure.

Yes, you have provided this Transcendental argument, but it does not qualify as adequate "proof" of anything. It is simply an assertion based on the claim that ancient literature is the absolute infallible word of God. Simply asserting this base on anecdotal evidence does not represent "proof," unless your primary goal is to convince yourself.

I've done more than simply say< "I believe such and such". I've provided an argument (which you've actually added force to). Now I understand if you wanna say that it's a bad TA (in which case you'll have to refute, which can be done by showing that knowledge is possible apart from God), but simply ignoring the argument and pretending it's not there doesn't make it magically go away.

See above

It wasn't meant to be an argument. It was meant to point out that you had no coherent argument against my worldview (or anything else, given your own admission regarding your worldview).

No such admission given. Knowledge and knowing is by definition:

I will readdress this question of what it is to know with the following:

Simply to know, and not know absolutely.

We may know beyond a reasonable doubt. OK definition below.

Source: https://www.google.com/#q=know+definition

No. Given the context and subject of this discussion, and your previous admission that you don't know anything for sure, when you then turn around and make knowledge claims, my reply, "Could you be wrong about that?" is a perfectly fair and valid question. Dismissing a fair question that aims to show the logical consequences of your worldview as a "meaningless" "hand wave" will simply not do, and each time you behave in that way you demonstrate to everyone reading this thread that you'd rather be irrational and embrace absurdity than accept the truth and be changed by it.

No such admission given.

I will readdress this question of what it is to know with the following:

Simply to know, and not know absolutely.

We may know beyond a reasonable doubt. OK definition below.

Source: https://www.google.com/#q=know+definition

This is the straw man fallacy again. My question is not based on a syllogism. You admitted that you don't know anything in an absolute sense. Therefore, you can't be sure of anything. You have given up knowledge. My question is fair and valid.

I will readdress this question of what it is to know with the following:

Simply to know, and not know absolutely.

We may know beyond a reasonable doubt. OK definition below.

Source: https://www.google.com/#q=know+definition

Appeal to authority is perfectly fine if it's an appropriate authority. A sovereign Creator-God Who's all-powerful, all-knowing, and who cannot lie, and was there all throughout history is an adequate authority (the only one, in fact) on the issue. Fallible men and women, who are not all-powerful, nor all-knowing, and can 9and often do) lie, and who were not there, are not even close to being adequate authorities on the issue.

This remains as a fallacy unless your argument can go beyond this with a basis in the real world we live in

I already refuted this illogic. Making arbitrary knowledge claims after having admitted that you don't know anything for sure is a clear mark of irrational thinking.

You have refuted nothing. Your simply propose an anecdotal transcendental belief in the absolute truth of another world. This argument cannot refute arguments based on the physical evidence of this world.

Notice the danger of equivocation here. Even if most people used a different definition of knowledge, that would not require me to use that particular definition in my argument. Dismissing my argument by sutbly changing the meaning of a key term is the fallacy of equivocation. but that's the least of your problems, bud.

What is the "accepted" definition of knowledge?

Knowledge is the noun for the verb to know.

I will readdress this question of what it is to know with the following:

Simply to know, and not know absolutely.

We may know 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' OK definition below.

Source: https://www.google.com/#q=know+definitionhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/know regard as true beyond doubt

Who is it "accepted" by?

Pretty much all of our society, science, law, and general practical use in the real world, except for questionable fringe beliefs. The knowledge of modern science is not necessarily the most popular among lay people, in fact 40 to 50% or more Americans reject evolution. It is not popularity that supports science it is the sound scientific methods, and the evidence,

[quote[ How can you be sure of this? [/quote]

Humans are capable of acquiring knowledge that is 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'

On what basis do you make this claim?

The evidence.

Then it's not knowledge that's changing.

Knowledge is most definitely changing. In the 19th century they had no knowledge of the Theory of Relativity. After Einstein discovered the theory and it became the foundation knowledge of modern physics

If I believed that Hitler was against racism, but later found out that he was in fact a racist, my knowledge didn't change. My belief was refuted when I gained knowledge of the facts.

Again, facts are one limited aspect of knowledge, and yes, of course, may not change, but knowledge over all changes with time.

Science cannot serve as the foundation for the preconditions of intelligibility, as I've already explained. I guess I'll have to explain it again below.

Nonsense.

Notice that the perception of, and evaluation of evidence requires first that you...

(1) know that nature is uniform, otherwise you have no basis for conducting identical experiments in sufficiently similar conditions and expect the same result,

See definitions above.

(2) that the laws of logic are universal and invariant, otherwise you cannot know what is true or false at what locations, and when (or if it'll continue into the future,

Fallacy take your pick:

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

(3) you must know that what you experience with your senses is real and not illusion,

By definition above; to know beyond a reasonable doubt.

(4) that your cognitive faculties are working properly, as that you can be sure that your reasoning about that evidence is sound (or even valid),

I have no reason to question the cognitive faculties of over a million scientists over a period of more then 100 years. Mine work fine how about yours? The question would apply both ways and by all, which makes the question absolutely useless. Plantinga bases his argument on the assumption of human cognitive facilities functioning properly. What would be the reason you would give that your cognitive facilities are functioning better then mine or millions of scientists.

(5) that your past memories of that evidence and how you reasoned about it are accurate.

Same response to the nonsense above.

If you don't start with those in place you cannot even begin to do science. Thus science presupposes and depends upon every one of those. So no, science is not the foundation of the preconditions of intelligibility, because it derives from them.

and the knowledge of science (the roof).

Questions answered. No problem with the foundation, pillars and roof of science.

[quote]This is another problem with the "science is the foundation" view. Notice that you're making declarations on what's said to be universal truths, and you're appealing to your particular experiences. You haven't been everywhere, so how do you know that the laws of physics and the laws of logic apply everywhere?You haven't experienced the every moment of the past, so how do you know they've always applied in the past? You haven't been to the future, so how do you know that they'll apply anywhere 10 seconds after you get done reading this?
In fact, given the fact that your scope of the universe and history, and your experience of it, is so limited, how can you say anything about everything?

While it's never my intention to be disrespectful, when someone asserts absurd nonsense (like saying that science, which depends upon the uniformity of nature before it can get started, somehow grounds it----so that it can get started), it should be refuted and brushed aside. That's the responsibility of rational adults.

While it's never my intention to be disrespectful, when someone asserts absurd nonsense (like saying that science, which depends upon the uniformity of nature before it can get started, somehow grounds it----so that it can get started), it should be refuted and brushed aside. That's the responsibility of rational adults

Evidence is not an ontic base at all. You've confused ontology with epistemology. Evidence is something that informs us of what's real, so it's epistemological. An ontic base would be some aspect of reality that explains why it is that way, and if/why it will remain that way in the future. This is why I suggested that you give an ontic base to ground the preconditions of intelligibility, and an epistemology to make that base known. You're asserting scientific "evidence" as the grounding for what's required before science can even get off thr ground, begging the question and confusing ontology with epistemology in the process.

Your hopelessly confused, your confusing ontic base with epistemology, The following article and definitions described the epistemology of science and it is not the evidence.

Ontic base is short for ontological base which is the adjective, not Ontology. The ontic base is the physical evidence 'The intransitive objects of some specific, historically determinate, scientific investigation.' as per definition below

Source: https://www.wordnik.com/words/ontic

The intransitive objects of some specific, historically determinate, scientific investigation.
Etymologies: From Ancient Greek ὄν (ōn, "being’, ‘existing’, ‘essence") + -ic. (Wiktionary)

© Copyright Original Source

I gave the definition previously from a reliable source, and I stand by it. The ontic base of science is the 'physical evidence.'

Epistemology concerns the ways of knowing and how we know, by definition. The epistemology of science is methodological naturalism. The atheist metaphysical belief is philosophical

I suggest you do some reading up on transcendental arguments, my friend.

No problem, alone they do not stand on anything, but 'I believe' in another transcendental world that is true. You have to argue based on anecdotal experience and belief. It has no basis in the objective evidence of the real world we live in. Your argument against science, cannot be accounted for by a transcendental argument. It is simply based on a stoic denial of science without justification.