Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do we decide about "things"?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 31 of 53 (360456)
11-01-2006 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by iano
11-01-2006 10:45 AM


Re: Bump for Iano (and Buz)
It seemed like a simple enough test to take.
I'm trying to tell you why your test is flawed. But, whatever. If you really want me to tell you why God isn't going to send me to Hell, I will. If that's what you desire you have merely to ask.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by iano, posted 11-01-2006 10:45 AM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 32 of 53 (360473)
11-01-2006 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by NosyNed
11-01-2006 10:53 AM


Re: Bypassing ...
So your answer to the KNOWN problems of a psychological nature is to simple ignore them and pretend that they don't exist?
Not at all. These problems do exist in man. What I was trying to point out was that the problems that man might have are not relevant to God. God can circumvent any problem in man (except one, which is not relevant here). A person could be the most convinced athiest and God can reveal himself to that man. If he does, all the objections the atheist has evaporate like so much morning dew.
Only if man had to work his way to God then all you say would be potential impediements. Man could not be sure he knows God because he cannot be sure of himself. He might be deluded, he may have been indoctrinated. He may be engaging in wishful thinking.
But (I ask again) if God works his way to man what possible thing can stand in His way?
Why don't we stick with something that could be both emperically "known" about and "known" by your method (like the flood or somesuch)? That is, if we must have concrete examples.
For what reason? If a person knows that the flood happened because God let them know that (I do not know it myself) then you would have a conflict between what they know and what many think the empirical evidence strongly indicates. And if they knew something because God let them know which matched with what was empirically known then they could have known it due to them having the same empirical knowledge.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by NosyNed, posted 11-01-2006 10:53 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2006 2:27 PM iano has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 33 of 53 (360490)
11-01-2006 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by iano
11-01-2006 1:32 PM


Re: Bypassing ...
So, no such thing as free will, then. If God wills that we believe, there can be no outcome but our belief.
But (I ask again) if God works his way to man what possible thing can stand in His way?
The fact that God doesn't seem to be doing any of that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by iano, posted 11-01-2006 1:32 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by iano, posted 11-01-2006 2:34 PM crashfrog has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 34 of 53 (360492)
11-01-2006 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by crashfrog
11-01-2006 2:27 PM


Re: Bypassing ...
So, no such thing as free will, then. If God wills that we believe, there can be no outcome but our belief.
Yup. I don't believe we have free will in the classic sense (I chose for God I chose against God). Left to his own devices man will never chose for God.
But (I ask again) if God works his way to man what possible thing can stand in His way?
The fact that God doesn't seem to be doing any of that.
What stands in God way is the 'fact' that he doesn't 'seem' to be doing any of that. You are better than this Crash.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2006 2:27 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2006 3:08 PM iano has replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 35 of 53 (360493)
11-01-2006 2:37 PM


Ummmm, I recently posted a response to iano's message number 32. I was reading it through and noticed a couple typos. I hit the "edit" button and surprisingly was told that I was not the author and therefore couldn't edit the message. When I hit the "back" button the entire message was no longer posted. Is this typical?
Edited by FliesOnly, : Just wanted to see what would happen if I hit the edit button...nothing I guess

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by iano, posted 11-01-2006 2:51 PM FliesOnly has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 36 of 53 (360495)
11-01-2006 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by FliesOnly
11-01-2006 2:37 PM


The case of the missing message
That's wierd. For it to be posted meant it had a number. Now its gone but there is nothing amiss in the post numbering from my msg 32 to yours at 35.
If at first. I'm off home so will have a read of it there if posted again

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by FliesOnly, posted 11-01-2006 2:37 PM FliesOnly has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 37 of 53 (360498)
11-01-2006 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by iano
11-01-2006 2:34 PM


Re: Bypassing ...
What stands in God way is the 'fact' that he doesn't 'seem' to be doing any of that. You are better than this Crash.
I'm glad that you think so, but simply ridiculing me doesn't prove me wrong. Show me one factual case of revelation that can be distinguished from imagination.
Absence of evidence, as you know, is evidence of absence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by iano, posted 11-01-2006 2:34 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by iano, posted 11-01-2006 4:35 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 38 of 53 (360519)
11-01-2006 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by crashfrog
11-01-2006 3:08 PM


Re: Bypassing ...
I'm not trying to ridicule you Crash, I like you. But I asked a question and your answer didn't attempt to address the question.
What stops God letting me know he exists? I can't think of anything myself and I don't suppose that anyone else can. Best just say "well nothing I suppose - if he exists" and leave it at that.
"If Iano says he knows God and God exists and let him know then fine - he knows God exists. Anything else means he is seriously deludeded or honestly mistaken or lying through his teeth. His problem"
There isn't much to argue about. There are questions that could be asked of a person on the (suspended disbelief) assumption that what they said was actually true. But many seem to prefer trying to dismantle that which is impossible to dismantle (imho)
I could be wrong on that last point but the case isn't helped by not answering the question asked.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2006 3:08 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by NosyNed, posted 11-01-2006 7:22 PM iano has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 39 of 53 (360565)
11-01-2006 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by iano
11-01-2006 4:35 PM


Allowing anything
But many seem to prefer trying to dismantle that which is impossible to dismantle (imho)
It appears you are happy allowing anything at all to be accepted as possibly (or even actually) true as long as someone believes it to be true. In fact, you'll take it as possibly true even if there is no other reason to accept it and maybe there is emperical evidence to show it can not be true?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by iano, posted 11-01-2006 4:35 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by iano, posted 11-01-2006 7:55 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 41 by jar, posted 11-01-2006 8:10 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 40 of 53 (360569)
11-01-2006 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by NosyNed
11-01-2006 7:22 PM


Re: Allowing anything
It appears you are happy allowing anything at all to be accepted as possibly (or even actually) true as long as someone believes it to be true. In fact, you'll take it as possibly true even if there is
Sorry to anyone who sighs to themselves *not again* but what can I do?
I know God exists. That I know he exists doesn't actually mean he does exist in fact. I just know that he does. This puts a limit on knowing. Knowing that something is the case doesn't mean it is absolutely the case. Knowing is not the be and end all.
You know there is a computer screen on front of you. It doesn't actually mean that there is a computer screen on front of you. It could be that you are part of an alien kids playstation game in fact. And as soon as he pulls the plug both you and the computer screen in front of you disappear. You have seen the Matrix I'll warrant?
Both you and me decide that that which arrives at us as 'knowing' is in fact, absolute fact. But we cannot be sure our 'knowing' represents absolute fact - no matter what system we decide establishes "knowing = actually the case" We do not decide what is the case. What is the case is the case irrespective of us or our systems.
Globally, you (and others of like mind) decide "empirical demonstrability" is the sytem which establishes knowing = actually the case best of all. Neither you nor anyone else can validate it. And unvalidated it floats without any concrete moorings. Its just a convention decided by us. Don't get me wrong though: I use the same system for a lot of what I 'know'.
Then a time comes when a different convention enters the fray. One that is apparently not introduced by man but introduced by something else. You can tell it is by something else because nothing that the current system engages in has anything to do with what this engages in. It is totally new. New that is, to a 38 year old who has seen more or less all that the current system has to offer. This is not to say that the new system of knowing (which speaks of things which men rarely speak of) is of GOD. But the wisest men the world has to offer do not speak of it - in fact the wisest men the world has to offer ridicule it. Which makes it all the more interesting.
"I know something according to this new way of knowing which is as good a way of knowing (if not better) than the very best the world has to offer. And I find there is more to it in this 2-4,000 year old book with thin pages" What I find this system describing fits perfectly with this old book. One tends to sit up - as one should. This does not make it actually be the case - it just makes one sit up and take notice.
But I don't nor do I ever say that my knowing means it is the case in fact. I could be a character in an alien kids Playstation game and he is just pressing the X button at this moment. You can't say anymore about your empirical knowing either. You can be the O button.
So. If someone says they know the IPU exists then they know it. It doesn't matter if the convention they use to establish their knowing isn't empirical - who says any convention establishes knowing = actually is the case. Saying "Empiricism works - we fly man to the moon on the basis of it" falls in the face of knowing whether there is man or a moon to fly him to.
Empiricism works perfectly in its own little world. As does the knowledge it offers. One cannot comment on other forms of knowledge from any position of superiority other than to presuppose a hell of a lot whilst operating without any fixed moorings at all.
Its not a question of me being happy or unhappy about the way it is. It is the way it is. You know what you know according to the system you employ for knowing things. So do I. We are both, ultimately, adrift.
Its just that this knowing I speak of incorporates the empirical but adds an ingredient to it which alters the way I view the empirical (without violating it totally). It harmonises with it in a way that both can still operate side by side. But that is not to say the empirical is not unaltered. It is - it must reference and subject itself to this seemingly better form of knowing. A knowing that talks of things far more important that anything empiricism on its own can ever speak of.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by NosyNed, posted 11-01-2006 7:22 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Sour, posted 11-02-2006 12:15 AM iano has not replied
 Message 43 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 11-02-2006 8:44 AM iano has replied
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 11-02-2006 9:44 AM iano has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 41 of 53 (360576)
11-01-2006 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by NosyNed
11-01-2006 7:22 PM


Re: Allowing anything
It appears you are happy allowing anything at all to be accepted as possibly (or even actually) true as long as someone believes it to be true.
That's not quite true. It seems that things iano "knows" are true trump things that other people "know" are true.
Edited by jar, : No reason given.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by NosyNed, posted 11-01-2006 7:22 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Sour
Member (Idle past 2248 days)
Posts: 63
From: I don't know but when I find out there will be trouble. (Portsmouth UK)
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 42 of 53 (360608)
11-02-2006 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by iano
11-01-2006 7:55 PM


Re: Allowing anything
Hi Iano,
I know God exists. That I know he exists doesn't actually mean he does exist in fact.
/boggle
You accept that God might not exist, yet you know he does?
Ok, irrespective of that I'd like to restate the question that Crash asked earlier in the thread.
You say you have non-empirical evidence that God exists. How do you know that you are not imagining it? Now, I know you want to ask
Are you saying the God cannot let me know he exists? That there is something operating that would prevent him doing so?
Yes it's possible. Frankly who cares? The possibility does not make it true. The question to you is how do you know that you are not imagining it, given that you do not have any evidence outside of your own head? It seems to me that knowing you aren't imagining it is a requirement of knowing it is true. God *might* have put it there, or you might have made it up. Stranger things happen every day.
Obviously you can resort to the alien gamer out-of-context reality as a reason why your knowledge might be wrong, but frankly thats a pretty juvenile philosophical tool, although it is good that you recognise at least that possibility (in general).
Please don't take this as an attack on your faith, I am genuinely confounded by your position as I was in our previous brief conversation.
Then a time comes when a different convention enters the fray. One that is apparently not introduced by man but introduced by something else. You can tell it is by something else because nothing that the current system engages in has anything to do with what this engages in.
How do you know that it isn't introduced by yourself?
I presume you think it is possible for different people to know contrary things? How does this happen? Are they simply wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by iano, posted 11-01-2006 7:55 PM iano has not replied

  
CACTUSJACKmankin
Member (Idle past 6274 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 04-22-2006


Message 43 of 53 (360710)
11-02-2006 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by iano
11-01-2006 7:55 PM


Re: Allowing anything
quote:
I know God exists. That I know he exists doesn't actually mean he does exist in fact. I just know that he does. This puts a limit on knowing. Knowing that something is the case doesn't mean it is absolutely the case.
I think you are confusing belief and knowledge. The only stance anyone can have on the existance or otherwise of god is one of belief. Because no one has any cosmic knowledge that the rest of us don't somehow possess. Any ideas you have about god came from your observations of nature, your reasoning powers, and the ideas of other people (which includes the bible).
quote:
You know there is a computer screen on front of you. It doesn't actually mean that there is a computer screen on front of you. It could be that you are part of an alien kids playstation game in fact. And as soon as he pulls the plug both you and the computer screen in front of you disappear. You have seen the Matrix I'll warrant?
Well I purchased my computer screen myself. The casing looks and feels like plastic. Whenever i type something on the keyboard it appears upon the screen. If you are right then there is no degree to which we can reliably trust our sense organs, in which case all science is wrong, we don't know anything and your point about knowing about god is moot.
quote:
Globally, you (and others of like mind) decide "empirical demonstrability" is the sytem which establishes knowing = actually the case best of all. Neither you nor anyone else can validate it. And unvalidated it floats without any concrete moorings. Its just a convention decided by us. Don't get me wrong though: I use the same system for a lot of what I 'know'.
It isn't unvalidated beacuse it isn't just "empirical demonstrability" its also "universal reproductablility". If you conduct an experiment, a scientist in Sweden should be able to use your methods and get the same result. That increases the chances that the errors of any particular person or group will be weeded out.
Again your statements if true would invalidate all science and all knowledge so if you have a distrust of science then just say so and btw have the decency to refuse medical treatment. You know packaging food is unnecessary because demons cause disease, not bacteria. Don't go bashing science and then reap the benefits of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by iano, posted 11-01-2006 7:55 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by iano, posted 11-02-2006 9:16 AM CACTUSJACKmankin has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 44 of 53 (360720)
11-02-2006 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by CACTUSJACKmankin
11-02-2006 8:44 AM


Re: Allowing anything
I think you are confusing belief and knowledge. The only stance anyone can have on the existance or otherwise of god is one of belief. Because no one has any cosmic knowledge that the rest of us don't somehow possess. Any ideas you have about god came from your observations of nature, your reasoning powers, and the ideas of other people (which includes the bible).
Your reasoning seems flawed to me. How do you figure that one person having access to 'cosmic' knowledge means all must have it. It doesn't follow.
Belief (in the sense you use it) is typically built up as you describe. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow because all the evidence available to me suggests it will etc.
Belief is not knowledge. I recognise the difference and am not confusing the two.
Well I purchased my computer screen myself. The casing looks and feels like plastic. Whenever i type something on the keyboard it appears upon the screen. If you are right then there is no degree to which we can reliably trust our sense organs, in which case all science is wrong, we don't know anything and your point about knowing about god is moot.
There is no absolute degree in which we can trust our sense organs to transmit information about the actual reality. It is sheer convention that we decide that they do transmit information about the absolute reality. Sheer convention that the reality we exist in is the absolute reality.
However, there are no absolute moorings we can attach our knowing to in order to say that knowing = absolutely the case. You can't do it with the computer screen, I cannot do it with knowing God exists. We could both be wrong. All we can do is decide that the information we receive reflects absolute reality.
When I say I know God exists I am comparing that in terms of quality to other things that I know (such as the computer screen existing on front of me). It is the fact that the quality is of the same order (ie: it is not the lesser sense involved with things I believe (such as the flood occurring)) that leads me to say "I know" rather than "I believe"
It isn't unvalidated beacuse it isn't just "empirical demonstrability" its also "universal reproductablility". If you conduct an experiment, a scientist in Sweden should be able to use your methods and get the same result. That increases the chances that the errors of any particular person or group will be weeded out.
Moorings to absolute reality aren't in any way enabled by spreading the net in this way. That convention only deals with establishing knowledge on according to a convention which says what knowledge is. If the absolute reality is the reality desribed by the convention then the knowledge is absolute. If it is not then it is not. If the reality of the convention intermingles with the absolute reality then there is more to things than meets the eye.
This doesn't invalidate science. It just puts a limit on the remit of science (which many accept). Scientific knowledge becomes just scientific knowledge. Not all knowledge.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 11-02-2006 8:44 AM CACTUSJACKmankin has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 45 of 53 (360730)
11-02-2006 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by iano
11-01-2006 7:55 PM


Re: Allowing anything
The problem with your argument is that it's an argument from ignorance.
Simply saying "nobody knows anything" doesn't give you a basis to draw conclusions. Asserting that all epistomologies are equally fruitless doesn't substantiate the fruitfulness of yours.
Saying "it's impossible to know" gives you no basis to say "I know that God exists." The simple truth of the situation is that, regardless of the true nature of reality, empiric knowledge produces tangible results, answers questions, solves problems. Revalatory knowledge has never, ever been any more useful than outright imagination. Even if we're all in The Matrix, that's still true. The experiences of our senses are real, even if they don't model actual reality. And empiricism makes accurate predictions about what kinds of experiences we can expect to have. Revelation does not. Imagination does not.
Destroying all knowledge, as your post seems to attempt to do, leaves you with no basis to conclude anything. Not a basis to conclude whatever you want. But even in the world where knowledge cannot be verified or may not reflect reality, empiricism is still the most useful knowledge; revelation and imagination are still essentially useless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by iano, posted 11-01-2006 7:55 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by iano, posted 11-02-2006 10:17 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024