How do we know?

Hi sidelined, I didn't know you already got a topic going on this. You beat me to it. I will copy and paste my intended OP into a reply to your OP here.

This was my proposed OP:Time and time again, both Christians and non have stated that they KNOW this or that (usually Christians), and then an atheist argues that you cannot KNOW this or that. This is all fine. But then the atheist goes on to make other statements as if he/she KNOWS them to be true.Somehow the words "know" and "believe" have acquired two different meanings. We say we "know" something if we are dead sure it is true. We say we "believe" something if it is IMPOSSIBLE to be dead sure it is true, but generally think it is true.But I have sort of come to the same conclusion as Descartes that I can be 100% sure of nothing. If I am going to accept anything as true besides the fact that I exist, I must BELIEVE something. I must believe what I am seeing is real. I must believe that my logic is not faulty. I must believe that the scientists who do studies are not figments of my imagination and that the evidence they obtain is real and that their logic and reason is as good as mine.Once I have laid my foundation of beliefs, can I then say, "I know" whenever science produces a fact or theory? Are any of us justified in saying we KNOW anything? Like all the rest of you, I choose to do so.Since ALL knowledge is based on certain presuppostions, to know anything one must believe in SOMETHING.The ultimate skeptic believes nothing to be real. The atheist believes ONLY the world that a statistically significant number of people can see is real. The theist believes the world he sees is real and that there is another world that is real too and that this other world intersects our own. There exists no means to weigh between these beliefs and determine which is TRUE, because any attempt to do so will be based on a belief in certain presuppositions.Can any atheist please tell me how he KNOWS that the BELIEFS upon which his scientific worldview is based are more likely to be true than the BELIEFS upon which a theist's worldview is based? I'm not talking about the facts that science has found vs the facts that personal revelation has found. I'm asking for any atheist to tell me how he KNOWS that ALL reality in existence should be available for our 5 senses to discover through science. He cannot. He BELIEVES this.Though the atheist has decided that he KNOWS only what is scientifically verifiable, this does not mean aspects of reality that are not scientifically verifiable do not exist. I know everyone here is aware that the inability to prove the positive does not prove the negative and that the burden of proof lies on the side of the party claiming the positive.Nevertheless many have come very close if not outright stated that the truths believed in by theists are false because they cannot be proven via methods atheists believe to be the ONLY way to KNOW anything.And many who are wise enough to be reluctant to make the bold statement that theistic beliefs are absolutely false say they are "unlikely" or "implausible" or "improbable" as if probability had anything to do with it.They allow for the POSSIBILITY that we could discover evidence of a god in the future, but since we haven't yet this means it is unlikely we ever will and therefore unlikely that God exists. However, this has nothing to do with the likelihood of God existing, and there is a philosophical paradox that if God could be scientificly proven He would cease to be God.It is no more rational and productive to speak in terms of the probability of God existing than the probability of the universe exploding from nothing.Atheists BELIEVE ALL reality can be discovered through science alone.
Theists BELIEVE there is more to reality than what science alone can discover and that personal revelation from the rest of reality can and does happen. Since everything we KNOW is based on certain presuppositions we BELIEVE to be true, can't we stop with the meaningless arguments and just get along???What do ya'll think?

And our proof must be shown scientifically in order for you to accept it. And this is not possible. Well, Christian theists believe that there is a spiritual war going on so naturally there would be a lot of unreliable information floating around out there. But they do believe science is the only means of gaining knowledge. This is fine for argument's sake as long as they admit that they can't KNOW they are correct in rejecting it.

Thanks for your reply. What is "good enough" depends on your decision. This is what I've tried to point out. What is "good enough" for you? You may only accept evidence of God's existence as good enough to KNOW He exists when a substantial number of independently working scientists come to the same conclusion through repeatable verifiable experimentation and publish their findings in a scientific journal. Whereas I decide to believe in God on non-scientific evidence I have already.Where we decided to say, "I know" instead of "I believe" is completely arbitrarily decided by the individual. What would it take for you to say, "I KNOW God exists"? I do not dispute this. But IF there is an aspect of reality that is on another plane intersecting our physical universe, why would you expect science to discover it? I know you did not say that science is the only way to gain knowledge, but nevertheless you and other atheists imply that the only way they would accept this scenario is if it were scientifically verifiable. Sure. I admit other "revelations" to those of other religions could very well be real. How do I KNOW which ones are telling the truth? I don't. I choose which to believe based on conscience. Since the angel that appeared to Mohammed told him to kill everyone who would not follow Allah, and Christ said love God, love your neighbor, and love your enemies, I would assume that Christ is the good guy and the angel that appeared to Mohammed was the bad guy. I reject Islam due to my conscience. Even Mohammed was sure the devil himself had appeared to him. It was his wife that convinced him it was really an angel from God.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 11-21-2004 03:19 PM

Thank you for your reply. Now we're getting somewhere. One of my points here is to say that where believing becomes knowing is arbitrarily set by the individual's decision. For a person who believes in something completely, believing IS the same as knowing in their mind. The problem occurs when two people who have different standards try to have a discussion.I understand the scientific standards for "knowing" something. But we do not always use those standards. As I've said before, if you had some friends tell you about their trip to the mountains, you would accept their story with possibly no scientific evidence at all. You might even then say, "I know that my friends went to the mountains last week."Your mention of confidence has brought to mind another good analogy to what I'm trying to explain. In statistics I've been doing a lot of confidence intervals lately. You can pick how confident you want to be and depending upon the percentage you choose, you may accept or reject the hypothesis.You may choose an alpha of .05 and discover that you are 95% confident we can reject the null hypothesis. However you may choose an alpha of .15 and discover that we can be 85% confident in accepting the null hypothesis.In our situation, I can raise the confidence so high that I can be sure of nothing, or I can lower it so low I can be sure of everything. Now when you are listening to your friends tell you about their trip, you hold them to a low standard because you are biased to accept their story. If you lowered your alpha, you would grow less and less confident that they were telling the truth until eventually you would doubt they even went to the mountains or even existed.Now let's say you raise your alpha back up to normal friendly level, and your friends were telling you about a hike up a particular mountain, then they all described the Lord appearing to them and speaking to them and showing them all a vision of heaven. Instantly you make your alpha so low that there is practically no way you can accept their statements.Now in real life we cannot apply statistics to this situation because it is impossible to get a data set. Therefore it is strictly a matter of choice as to whether you believe your friends just as it is a matter of choice as to whether you are even going to believe they went to the mountains in the first place.I'm sorry I don't have the time to reply to the rest of your post right now. I've put off homework for far too long. I will get back and reply to the rest later.

Alright, the rest of my reply. I have never known anyone to say it is impossible to know anything about God, IOW that he is completely "beyond human understanding". It is surely possible that in our present state it is impossible for us to know EVERYTHING about God.I don't see how understanding God COMPLETELY and not at all must be mutually exclusive with no partial understanding in the middle. At least he leaves no evidence to be compiled into data through repeatable verifiable scientific experiment. But then... if he did this, how would we know it was from him and not just some new natural law? It is certainly a possibility that he has and continues to break the natural laws on occasion. If he did this, then the only trace of his presence would be seared into the memories of those who were witness to the event. This makes it impossible to reach God by trusting one's own intellect. If God is holding the natural laws in place that dictate the electrodynamic principles which hold together the air molecules we breath thus allowing mechanical waves to be formed and received by our ears. Surely God can do more than speak with no physical vocal apparatus. Shoot, he could even create a whole body right out of thin air if he really wanted to. Jesus said that God knows when every sparrow dies and has the hairs of our heads numbered. If this is the case then he is probably "amused" by a star going supernova 10 billion light years away. And besides that, there is no guarantee we are the only ones inhabiting this universe. In fact, if you accept the whole Christian belief package, we are most definately sharing the universe with other beings. Your assertion that he is only concerned with us is just an assertion and is contrary to what Christ taught. According to the Bible, there will be a time when all things are brought to account and He gives to each what each deserves. Who knows what that will be. If a man loves money more than God, perhaps God will give him all the money he wants and no one to share it with as his hell. In the end all who choose to be cut off from God who IS life simply cease to exist. IOW there is no life apart from God. And this is really not much different than what you expect to happen anyway. What is unreasonable is your dogmatic adherence to this assumption that GOD, whom you do not even claim to know or believe, would surely behave how YOU, a mere man, think that he should if he existed. If he was, would he still be God? You want it to be easy. If it was clear, it would be easy. I wish it was easy too. But why should it be? Even in our own lives many endeavors of greatest worth are not easy. Well, God sorta created the culture for the Jews. And their were always turning away from Him and turning back to him. When Jesus came, they had created cultural traditions unfounded in the law. He rebuked them for this. The words never changed, but you are right in saying the people did. Does this mean God changed? No. Now with the coming Messiah, God did change the covanent with his people (this was predicted by the prophet Hosea, BTW), but God's character did not change at all. Throughout the centuries, churches, like the nation Israel, turned away from God's words in favor of culture or tradition. And what about things that are not of this world? You do not believe in things that are not of this world? Why not? You have no scientific justification of a belief in something other than this world. Therefore, you believe science is really the only way to learn about reality. And thus my statement is verified that Atheists believe all that is knowable in reality can be found through science. I can! But not with repeatable verifiable scientific experimentation. This is not possible. Even if we all made a field trip to PurpleYoku's haunted house, and we all witnessed the things he has witnessed for the last 25 years, and we all turned the house inside out looking for alternative explanations, you would still accept the most far-fetched natural explanation over the spirit beings explanation. And even if you did accept the explanation that there were beings of a different nature inhabiting his house, you would still have no proof of God, only that there is an operating intelligence in our universe not previously discovered.Even if God appeared to to all of us in such a profound way that you changed your entire outlook on life and decided to believe in him, you would STILL not have proof to show anyone else. Even if God struck you blind and then healed you at the sound of his voice which we all heard, others like yourself would say it was a burst blood vessel in your head and a strange coincidence of heightened sensory sensitivity and re-arranged memories.I believe in God. I believe in the miracles Christ performed. I believe in the miracles he has performed in my friend's lives. I believe in the veracity of other's like Purple's claims that they have witnessed supernatural intelligence. I choose to accept them and have no reason to reject them even if I may have my own doubts. Because there is no predictable pattern to personal revelation. I would also really like to know what scientific investigations you are speaking of. Could you provide any links? Sure, it is a possibility that this could be the cause for some or all. But is it? This is where our free will comes in. God says, "Here's the information. You've been given a gift. Now you choose what to do with it." Oh I know! I just needed to end my post with a cliche. You're a nice guy and easy to get along with. ...just stubborn sometimes... like me.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 11-21-2004 11:21 PM

Thanks, I've been an admin since the end of the summer, but then I had to all but quit participating once I got busy with school.

Well, humans are spiritual beings too I believe. Not all misinformation is generated from demons, but how much of it is I cannot know. Could not churches that get bogged down and eventualy split over petty doctrinal debates be playing right into the hands of "Satan and his minions"? Just because the most visible "Christian" organizations become very superficial or cultural or traditional or literal does not mean that there are not a great many believers who have pure motives and the true ideals at the core of their beliefs. Oh yes, definately. Now I never said that, and I don't think there's too many Christians that hold that opinion either. I'm a fan of science. But science is limited to the physical universe. If there's something beyond the physical, then science cannot discover it. I agree. Paul specifically warned against meaningless arguments and against saying, "I follow him or her." We all follow Christ, not a certain individual's overinterpretation of certain passages. How do you know its not real? How do you know that I'm not actually seeing the true picture? There's no need to be frustrated because I do not accept or reject what neither of us can say with complete confidence that we know to be true. lol

Good! Passion is a wonderful thing and a very good thing espeically when focused on the understanding of things that are possibly the most important things in life. Don't get me wrong. I'm glad you're passionate and frustrated with me. We all feel the same way when we believe we're right. That is why Christian fundies come in here and get all upset in a hurry. It's not JUST the fact that they have no knowledge of debate or philosophy or science, its also due to the fact that it angers, saddens, and frustrates them because they believe everyone else has gotten it wrong. Sweet! looks good.

Hi Peeper, I would never base any significant decision on a mere "feeling".

Thanks for your reply. Neither can you offer any real argument that anything is really true. You have decided to accept only certain things that can be scientifically proven as "true" facts because this has practical value. What we decide to accept as "true" is a matter of choice and trust and delusion, not a "true" understanding of reality. That is precisely the question I am asking about EVERYTHING, science included. When we decide to say "I know" is a matter of practicality and choice, not of logical justification.If you were standing in the middle of the road and an 18-wheeler truck was headed straight towards you at 70 mph, and you said to me as I watched on the curb, "I believe the truck is real," but made no effort to move and then proceeded to talk about how nice the weather is today and how the kids are doing... do you REALLY believe the truck is about to run you over?It is the same way with God. If God exists the quest to understand him and find out what we are to do is no less pressing than an 18-wheeler bearing down on us. If we decide we believe in him, our belief that he is real must be complete. His existence defines our own. Therefore there can be no difference between "knowing" and "believing" that God exists in the mind of the believer.

Thanks for your reply. IOW, you want to take it as a given that the only knowable information that exists is what science and our senses alone can tell us. Well, with that presupposition I would also be an atheist. The truck analogy only applies to the believer and it in no way associates God with a threat, but rather shows how important he is if he exists. The unbeliever does not see the truck in the first place. The only purpose in this analogy was to show that there can be no difference between knowing and believing for the believer and that "faith without deeds is dead" (quite literally). So when a believer says, "I know" this or that, try to understand his position. He believes so strongly that it is the same as knowing. Furthermore he accepts a different set of presuppositions that you do not and neither of you can prove these presuppositions to be true or false, therefore you cannot say for sure whether what he "knows" is true or false. It is not a matter of guessing. It is a matter of trust, action, hope, and conscience. Believing in an unquestionable truth is not delusion. Believing we fully understand that truth is a delusion.

Thank you for your reply. I know. I'm not dogging science. No one can deny that science is of much practical value. But no scientist claims that science can find truth. If practical application by many is your qualification for what is knowledge, then Bible doctrine is most definately knowledge. Oh, well nevermind. I disagree with the first statement. If the sun rose in the south, that would have a big effect on our practical daily life. And the second statement just agrees with what I said. You do not? I can only speak for myself, but I know that God is more essential to my ability to live than the air I breathe. So you admit that we cannot fully understand reality and that science does not find truth, but you believe science is the only acceptable tool to search for what we will never find. This is FINE as long as you realize that this is your opinion and not a proven fact in itself.

Thank you for your reply. I completely agree! So you are NOT limiting our means of knowing to empiricism and rationalism? The only other method of knowing I'm aware of is faith. If this is what you are saying, then we have nothing left to argue. What have I been doing all this time? I am basically arguing that faith can be an acceptable means of knowing. Faith IS in fact the foundation for rationalism and empiricism. As I've alread said, we have to believe we are real and that this reality (or perfect illusion) is what it is... etc. and so forth. Once we believe we are what we seem to be and that our logic and senses are not fooling us, we can then have faith in ourselves and begin knowing by rationalism and empiricism. You're still missing the point. Fear actually has nothing to do with it even though in my analogy fear would be the natural reaction to the belief or knowledge that the truck was coming. The point was that you can't half-ass belief in God because God is immanent, and IF you really believe this will produce action. Therefore for the believer, believing is essentially the same as knowing.Yes, obviously I realize that believing something is true does not make it true. But if someone tells you a thing is true, then they are either right or wrong. If you believe them, you make the assumtion they are right and accept their message as truth. You make it sound as if we all just come up with this stuff off the top of our heads and decide it is true because we believe it is true. No, we believe it is true because we trust. You choose to only trust things you can verify yourself, I choose to trust in something else. This is not delusion. If the person lied to me then I am honestly mistaken rather than self-decieved.

Thank you for your reply. Sorry, Paulk put the word "unquestionable" in there and I repeated his words. No truth is unquestionable. We can question everything. Absolute is a better word. That is not always true. Sure, this happens (even scientists are not above this type of arrogance on occasion), but I am living proof that this is not always the case. When new information has been brought to my attention it has changed my perspective and deepened my understanding rather than been dismissed as lies. Please back that up with some kind of argument that I can address. I never said it was unfair! I ONLY said it was a matter of choice and practicality. And that's great. I'm not at all saying science is a bad thing.