Divine revelation

[Doug Shaver]

I asked you above a couple questions on logic. I propose you won't be able to answer them without an arbitrary answer.

You can propose all you want. We had this discussion back before the site had its big crash. You insisted on using a definition of knowledge that I don't accept. Because of that, our dispute is irresolvable.

I asked you a question that you have not yet answered. When you do answer, you'll have my answers to your questions about logic.

[Mr. Black]

I am still struggling to understand.

I understand, and am sympathetic to that. Most people---including a lot of Christians---aren't used to thinking about these issues, as they've been raised to take secular philosophical assumptions for granted, without examining them to see their consequences.

For one thing, can anything be known really, except for a few facts about oneself (I eat, I sleep, I am typing a post, etc.)?

I don't see how one could know just those without knowing some things about the actual state of affairs outside of him/herself. For example, what do you eat? Where do you sleep? What are you sleeping on? Where are you typing a post? What are you using to type it with? Also, to say that you know those (or even to say that you only know those) few things requires logical absolutes, which exist independently from our minds and bodies.

One question is about Islam. They claim that their God is also the Christian God IIRC.

The Qur'an makes the claim, and perhaps some Muslims do as well, but many deny it as well. So, just to be on the safe side and avoid misrepresenting his/her views, it would be a good idea to ask each Muslim you witness to.

However, Islam fails because it does not provide an ontic base, correct?

I want to be careful about my answer here, because often people can (unintentionally) conflate proof with persuasion (or, if you will, they confuse knowing with showing). I know that Islam is false because God said that Christianity is true, and the only true worldview. The outward demonstration of this is what you just said above. Allah cannot ground one of the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience (the law of non-contradiction).

[Mr. Black]

You can propose all you want. We had this discussion back before the site had its big crash. You insisted on using a definition of knowledge that I don't accept. Because of that, our dispute is irresolvable.

So after TWeb came back from the dead, you wait all this time, throughout our entire conversation, just to equivocate on the word "knowledge"? If you don't like the term I employ to refer to that concept, then at least have the intellectual honesty to ignore the term and deal with the concept itself, instead of ducking and dodging. With that in mind, let me rephrase the question.

Is there anything that you have epistemic certainty of? If so, what is the ontic base which grounds it in your worldview, and what is the epistemology that makes that ontic base known in your worldview?

I asked you a question that you have not yet answered. When you do answer, you'll have my answers to your questions about logic.

And I asked you a question a long time ago which you have not yet answered. Refusing to accept the referencing term that I've affixed to the concept I've employed does not actually deal with the concept itself. Enough with the semantics, my friend. First thing's first.
Looking forward to your reply.

[Truthseeker]

The Qur'an makes the claim [[that Allah and the Christian God are one and the same]], and perhaps some Muslims do as well, but many deny it as well. So, just to be on the safe side and avoid misrepresenting his/her views, it would be a good idea to ask each Muslim you witness to.

[[Does Islam not provide an ontic base?]]
I want to be careful about my answer here, because often people can (unintentionally) conflate proof with persuasion (or, if you will, they confuse knowing with showing). I know that Islam is false because God said that Christianity is true, and the only true worldview. The outward demonstration of this is what you just said above. Allah cannot ground one of the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience (the law of non-contradiction).

What would your reply be, if a Muslim claims Allah is the true God, not the Christian God? The Muslim might claim that the Christian God cannot ground one of the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience (the law of non-contradiction).

[Doug Shaver]

Looking forward to your reply.

I am as fallible as you are.

[NormATive]

To justifiably claim that something or some truth claim is "wrong" (=false) you need a standard of truth.

Well, the faith of my ancestors was actually written by the hand of G-d. Yours is second-hand through possible liars. So, you tell me which has more veracity.

What is that standard of truth in your worldview? What is the standard of absolute certainty by which you measure the truthfulness of other truth claims you come in contact with, and how can you know about it in terms of your worldview?

Truth is a human standard. So, look to yourself - one's own reality is the only one that counts. It's not that complicated, really. There is no need for the shamans and BS religiosity you employ. The only purpose that serves is to puff yourself up. I think the men who wrote your Christian Testament were spot on about such braggadocio. You sound more and more like a banging gong when you spew this Van Til nonsense.

... the fallacy of irrelevant thesis...

LOL! You wear philosophical catch phrases like a bad suit. Do you even have the slightest idea of how to properly deploy Aristotle's ignoratio elenchi? Maybe you should apply this flashlight to your own ramblings! Ha, ha!

yet still provides a basis for the text written by those liars to be 100% true: divine inspiration, the infallible Creator God inspiring fallible men to write down exactly what He wanted written down. You have not explained how you know that He did not do that.

You've already done so. Over and over again, you've pointed out that humans are subject to the Original Sin(c) and prone to error, so you cannot possibly know for sure that they weren't lying. And, since what they wrote directly contradicts Judaism, it stands to reason that they were indeed lying. Or, at the very least, extremely misguided.

NORM

[NormATive]

1.) You've equivocated on the term "faith" ...

More Van Til nonsense. You can create your own definition of faith to suit your delusions, but everyone knows what I mean.

If you're not a Christian now then you weren't then either....

Ha, ha! That's a good one! Are you running out of Van Til arguments?

NORM

[Mr. Black]

What would your reply be, if a Muslim claims Allah is the true God, not the Christian God?

Since he would be invoking a transcendental argument for Allah, I would show that knowledge is possible apart from Allah, which is the only way to refute a TA of that sort.

The Muslim might claim that the Christian God cannot ground one of the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience (the law of non-contradiction).

I would supply the biblical verses that justify the claim that God accounts for the law of non-contradiction (or whatever other precondition(s) he wants to talk about).

[Mr. Black]

I am as fallible as you are.

This does not answer my question. You're dodging again. How do you know for sure what "fallible" even means?

[Mr. Black]

Well, the faith of my ancestors was actually written by the hand of G-d.

You've already admitted to being a non-theist. Please stop being dishonest and justify your knowledge claims.

Yours is second-hand through possible liars.

How does it follow from this that God did not inspire those "possible liars" to write down exactly what He wanted them to?

So, you tell me which has more veracity.

The Word of God has the greatest veracity and epistemic authority.

Truth is a human standard.

Are you saying that truth didn't exist before humans existed?

LOL! You wear philosophical catch phrases like a bad suit. Do you even have the slightest idea of how to properly deploy Aristotle's ignoratio elenchi?

How do you know, in terms of your non-theist worldview, that Aristotle existed?

Over and over again, you've pointed out that humans are subject to the Original Sin(c) and prone to error,

The deficiencies of fallible people do not limit their infallible Creator from using them to accomplish His good pleasure.

...so you cannot possibly know for sure that they weren't lying.

Are you saying that it's impossible for a transcendent, all-knowing, all-powerful Creator to reveal some things to His creatures such that we can know them for certain?

And, since what they wrote directly contradicts Judaism, it stands to reason that they were indeed lying. Or, at the very least, extremely misguided.

The New Testament fulfilled the teachings and prophecies of the Old.

You can create your own definition of faith...

Please go back and re-read my last comment. I used the biblical definition of faith, as given in Hebrews 11:1.

...but everyone knows what I mean.

Of course they do. They're not idiots. It's quite clear that you've employed the pop-culture definition of faith, which directly contradicts Hebrews 11:1, thus committing the fallacy of equivocation. You're not fooling anyone.

[shunyadragon]

You've already admitted to being a non-theist. Please stop being dishonest and justify your knowledge claims.

You have failed to justify your claims? Your only basis is I 'believe,' which is the weakest possible claim.

How does it follow from this that God did not inspire those "possible liars" to write down exactly what He wanted them to?

It is hypothetically possible, but it is also possible that he wants you to lie.

The Word of God has the greatest veracity and epistemic authority.

True, but all we have to go on is your claim as to what the 'Word of God.'

Could you be wrong about your claim?

Are you saying that truth didn't exist before humans existed?

I believe truth has always existed, but your claim of truth is only based on I believe' it so.

Could you be wrong about that?

How do you know, in terms of your non-theist worldview, that Aristotle existed?

How do you know from your theist world view, that Aristotle existed?

Could you be wrong about that?

The deficiencies of fallible people do not limit their infallible Creator from using them to accomplish His good pleasure.

Same applies to you.

Are you saying that it's impossible for a transcendent, all-knowing, all-powerful Creator to reveal some things to His creatures such that we can know them for certain?

Possible, but considering the thousands of different claims that someone knows. It is highly questionable that any one claim knows for certain.

Could you be wrong about your claim?

The New Testament fulfilled the teachings and prophecies of the Old.

Could you be wrong about that?

Please go back and re-read my last comment. I used the biblical definition of faith, as given in Hebrews 11:1.

Of course they do. They're not idiots. It's quite clear that you've employed the pop-culture definition of faith, which directly contradicts Hebrews 11:1, thus committing the fallacy of equivocation. You're not fooling anyone.

'Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.'

Could you be wrong about that? Many make different claims based on this quote.


.

[Truthseeker]

Since he would be invoking a transcendental argument for Allah, I would show that knowledge is possible apart from Allah, which is the only way to refute a TA of that sort.

A Muslim, or for that matter, an atheist like Norm AT ive would know stuff outside the Bible or the Qur'an. Again, he eats; sleeps; moves his fingers so to make posts; reads TWeb posts; etc. Oh, maybe that's what you mean. But I fail to see that refuting the Muslim's TA establishes the TA for God from the Bible.

I would supply the biblical verses that justify the claim that God accounts for the law of non-contradiction (or whatever other precondition(s) he wants to talk about).

Perhaps at least for the benefit of Doug Shaver and Norm@ive you could demonstrate that claim.

[NormATive]

You've already admitted to being a non-theist.

But my friends, family and ancestors are not. Please pay attention. It is irrelevant what I believe. You're just dodging again.

How does it follow from this that God did not inspire those "possible liars" to write down exactly what He wanted them to?

So, it should be pretty easy for you to prove it. Maybe G-d mentioned this inspiration in the book G-d wrote with G-d's own finger? .... Nope. Next.

The Word of God has the greatest veracity and epistemic authority.

The Pentateuch certainly does, according to my Hebrew brethren. Shame you don't follow THAT book.

Are you saying that truth didn't exist before humans existed?

Maybe the animals have a word for it, too. Why don't you ask them?

How do you know, in terms of your non-theist worldview, that Aristotle existed?

I've read his books. What does theology have to do with Aristotle? Another dodge. Sheesh, don't you ever get tired of all this bull@#$%? I know we all do.

The New Testament fulfilled the teachings and prophecies of the Old.

According to who? Oh, right. You find it in the book written by possible liars (because ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of G-d).

I used the biblical definition of faith, as given in Hebrews 11:1.

I use Merriam Webster. Not familiar with the Hebrews 11.1 dictionary.

Also, please don't parse my comments like that again. I will refuse to indulge your nonsense if you do it again. I know it's difficult for you to carry a cogent thought all on your own without referring to your Van Til decoder ring, but please try.

NORM

[NormATive]

... Norm@ive...

I like this shorthand, Truthseeker!

NORM

[Doug Shaver]

You're dodging again. How do you know for sure what "fallible" even means?

I learned English the same way all other native English speakers learn it.