Can we trust what God says?

[Mr. Black]

No, I'm saying that knowledge is nothing more than information and that the information is itself what you would call the ontic ground or prerequisites of intelligibility, not to mention of life itself. That the ontic ground, or prerequisites of intelligibility as you call it, need come from a living personal mind is your assertion which you have yet to justify with a logical argument.

I've given a rational argument. It's a transcendental argument which argues that if one does not make the biblical worldview logically primary in their thinking, then they cannot justify any knowledge claim they make. You can arbitrarily dismiss it all you want, but can you logically refute it? That involves demonstrating that knowledge is possible apart from the God that's revealed in the Bible. So let's look at your proposed justification.
You appeal to "information". This begs the question. Before you can go about perceiving and understanding any alleged information in the external world (or even yourself), you must first have a rational basis for asserting that...
(1) reality is actually orderly & intelligible, instead of chaotic, and that the information you supposedly perceive is real, and not illusion, which means you must provide a rational basis for assuming your senses are reliable before your appeals to information is justified.
(2) You must have a rational basis for assuming that your cognitive faculties, by which you reason about the information you come across are reliable, so that you can be sure that your reasoning is valid, let alone sound.
(3) You must provide a rational basis for assuming that your memories about your past perceptions of information are reliable, and not fabricated.
(4) You must provide a rational basis for asserting that the external world in which you claim to live is truly uniform---that all of it acts in a law-like fashion, and that it will continue to do so in the future.
(5) You also must explain where this information came from and how you know it will never change, or, if you wish to assert that it's eternal and unchanging, you need to justify this claim and demonstrate how you know that.
What are your bases for these assumptions on which your argument hinges? Please note that any reply that appeals to information that's found in the external world begs the question, as it would assume the very assumptions on which are argument hinges, and which you've been asked to justify.

So are you saying that your God is not the source of all knowledge? Or that your God doesn't lie?

You asserted that "my concepyion of God" allows for Him to lie. That's false.

Btw, it was Paul not God that tells you God does not lie. I realize you tend to believe God communicated this to Paul, but you didn't get it from God.

That makes no sense. That's like saying that if the King sends a message to another kingdom, then since the message was delivered by the messenger, it therefore wasn't sent by the King. Rank non-sequitur.

Its pretty safe to say that the universe, which is not a mind, is the direct source and creator of the human body and mind, not to mention the source of all human knowledge,...

Then you'll have no problem answering the above questions. ;)

...since there is no evidence to the contrary,...

I hope you're not saying that, because there's "no evidence" against your claim, that therefore it's true. That would be the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

...and the universe certainly doesn't lie.

How true. It neither lies nor tells the truth, as it's impersonal. Any claim that it "tells" us things would be the fallacy of reification.

You can assert that a mind is necessary as an ontic ground or as a prerequisite of human intelligibility until the cows come home, but there is no reason to accept that conclusion based on your assertion that there is no other possible explanation.

I wouldn't expect you to---and haven't asked you to. I've explained several times now that it's proven, not by my assertion, but by the impossibility of the contrary: rejecting it reduces one to absurdity. That's a transcendental argument. I've asked you to refute my argument---which involves your demonstrating that knowledge is possible apart from God. You've attempted to do this above (which I appreciate), but you still do not seem to understand the nature and function of TAs. Your criticisms apply to deductive arguments, which utilize commonly accepted principles and build up to a theorem, and not to transcendental arguments, which point out the necessity of a certain principle (or set of principles)---which is not commonly accepted---and without which no theorem can be reasoned to at all. This sort of argument is proven via reductio.

[Mr. Black]

Good point. Only Christians can know what dry skin, hats, and cotton candy really are.

Correction: only the Christian worldview provides a rational foundation for knowing anything at all. Non-Christians can know lots of things, but only because the biblical worldview is true, and they secretly suppress their knowledge of God.

[Mr. Black]

I am as fallible as you are. How sure do I need to be?

I replied to you in the other thread. I appreciate your time.

[Mr. Black]

Both seer and you have failed to present a coherent argument for 'a standard of absolute certainty (and here I speak of epistemic certainty' other then 'I believe it so.'

Fallacy of begging the question. I covered this in the other thread.

Still waiting . . .

Telling your opponent---after he's drawn his sword---that you're "still waiting" for him to draw his sword is not rational. I've presented the proof through the transcendental argument I employ, and rather than refute said argument you've ignored it and merely asserted that it's unsound. If it's unsound you should have no problem refuting it. But if you can't refute, on what basis do you assert that it's unsound?

[seer]

It's an assumption, not an inference. I don't try to justify it with reasoning, circular or otherwise. Every one of us believes some things that we cannot prove. We do not all assume the same things, but none of us can begin to reason about anything without making some assumptions.

So why is starting out with the assumption that the bible if the word of God circular?

[Doug Shaver]

But you can only justify that by circular reasoning.

It's an assumption, not an inference. I don't try to justify it with reasoning, circular or otherwise. Every one of us believes some things that we cannot prove. We do not all assume the same things, but none of us can begin to reason about anything without making some assumptions.

[shunyadragon]

Did you ever ask yourself Shuny why it is that you almost always take the side of atheists?

First, you did not respond to the post. 'Can red always be red regardless of whether you are blind?'

This has been addressed many, many, many times. I attack 'bad unsound and illogical arguments, and there are many bad, bad ones here. some of these 'bad' arguments have been also aimed at me.

On the other hand I have gone head to head against atheists, like Jim here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...smogony/page10, and others in the whole history of Tweb.

Part of the problem is the warped view of many Christians concerning Science. Many attack atheists with unsound and illogical arguments against evolution and science, and the uniformity and consistency of our physical existence. I have studied Geology for all of my adult life, and I will defend always science and evolution regardless.

[seer]

Therefore red cannot always be red regardless whether you are blind or not.

Did you ever ask yourself Shuny why it is that you almost always take the side of atheists?

[shunyadragon]

But again Doug you also reason in a circle. You assume that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality. But you can only justify that by circular reasoning. How do you know that you are actually experiencing reality, except by assuming the conclusion that this is what reality actually looks like. It is not only circular but viciously so.

Therefore red cannot always be red regardless whether you are blind or not.

[seer]

Why do I have to? Can you prove the contrary?


The usual definition makes no such distinction. If you assume your conclusion, you're arguing in a circle.

But again Doug you also reason in a circle. You assume that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality. But you can only justify that by circular reasoning. How do you know that you are actually experiencing reality, except by assuming the conclusion that this is what reality actually looks like. It is not only circular but viciously so.

[Doug Shaver]

Regarding your above claims, how you, in terms of your worldview, be sure what "argument", "prove", and "circularity" even mean?

I am as fallible as you are. How sure do I need to be?

[Doug Shaver]

Prove this please.

Why do I have to? Can you prove the contrary?

Not a "redefinition." Just an important distinction between two different types of circularity.

The usual definition makes no such distinction. If you assume your conclusion, you're arguing in a circle.

[JimL]

Wait a minute. Are you saying that the universe knows things? Not that it houses facts of reality within its boundaries----but that the universe has knowledge? Is the universe alive in your worldview? is it personal?

No, I'm saying that knowledge is nothing more than information and that the information is itself what you would call the ontic ground or prerequisites of intelligibility, not to mention of life itself. That the ontic ground, or prerequisites of intelligibility as you call it, need come from a living personal mind is your assertion which you have yet to justify with a logical argument.

Straw man. I said no such thing, and the Bible flatly contradicts it (Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18).

So are you saying that your God is not the source of all knowledge? Or that your God doesn't lie? Btw, it was Paul not God that tells you God does not lie. I realize you tend to believe God communicated this to Paul, but you didn't get it from God. Its pretty safe to say that the universe, which is not a mind, is the direct source and creator of the human body and mind, not to mention the source of all human knowledge, since there is no evidence to the contrary, and the universe certainly doesn't lie. You can assert that a mind is necessary as an ontic ground or as a prerequisite of human intelligibility until the cows come home, but there is no reason to accept that conclusion based on your assertion that there is no other possible explanation.

[shunyadragon]

Try giving a direct answer Shuny, can an all powerful, all knowing God impart absolute truth to us? Yes or no?

I answered it in another thread, so hear goes.

Yes it is possible God could reveal the absolute truth to a fallible human, but the first BIG problem is the immense diversity of those that claim that they have been revealed the 'absolute truth' from God, and many do not agree and their claims contradict each other. There is no logical nor reasonably way I can distinguish between who is correct out of the thousands of conflicting claims. This diversity of claims goes beyond Christianity to Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and thousand of others who differ greatly. The second problem is the filter of interpretation of what was revealed and language of communication, which limits the understanding who rely on this claim of absolute truth,

[whag]

You're dodging again, ignoring the argument, begging the question in the process.
How can you, in terms of your worldview, be sure what "dry skin" is?

Good point. Only Christians can know what dry skin, hats, and cotton candy really are.