by 1.62 » Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:20 pm
You have made some good points. I, on the other hand, seem to have sliced my ball out to the tree line, when, I really intended to lay it up in the short grass. Please allow me to take a mulligan. I’ll tee the ball up a little higher, I hope that it might make a difference. I don't know that this will change your overall position but it should better justify my position and clarify the point I was trying to make. This should get us moving along so others don’t try to play through.
> (3) the true difference between knowledge and belief is indistinguishable. At some point reason and presuppositions (beliefs) have to weigh in to everyone's epistemology where, to be able to proceed with any logic or to live in the "real" world, we have to default to presuppositional beliefs.
I think if we step way back, and I mean waaayyyy back, we would find agreement on the most fundamental level, would, ultimately be true when you say we can't really know anything, i.e., with absolute certainty. However the epistemological problem is not the obstacle in our path, the path is the obstacle. Fortunately, none of us need 100% certainty and knowledge. As a matter of fact, a great many of us in the world are able to get by and survive on starvation portions of common sense and rational thinking skills.
Concerning my views and my example using math is, " an exercise in using our senses ". My views do incorporate some of the principals contained within logical positivism, however, I am not basing the argument solely upon logical positivism. My arguments or view is more situated upon warrant and justification. I tend to hold the views of Carl Popper, who maintained opposition to logical positivism. He held that scientific theories talk about how the world really is, not, as positivists claim, about phenomena or observations experienced by scientists. Concerning my views and my example using math is,
" an exercise in using our senses ".
was that math is ultimately the tool we use logically and rationally organize our thoughts in correspondence to reality. The point is that what we get out of math is that it is a map of the world, a world that is tangible.
Earlier you said:
Again, I see things quite differently, from all my study. The more I study, the more I am absolutely convinced of the Bible's reliability and authority.
And then later:
When you read the Scriptures, and the experiences of Moses, Joshua, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, etc., revelation isn't just floating in the air, "Oh, I had a dream." In that case anyone can say what they want. But Moses said God spoke, and then the sea parted. Joshua said God was with them, and a part of the wall of Jericho fell down.
Here you are beginning to use some circular reasoning, using the bible to support the things you believe, which, came from the bible. I see no warrant to hold that the poetry and writings from many generations of an ancient civilization were anything more than stories and metaphor. There is no reason for me to suspend what I know about science, geology, anthropology, archaeology, etc. For example, we (including modern theology) know that the flood was not an event as described in the bible and you agreed that it was a regional event. However, there was much more to the Flood than just the water. It talked about gathering every animal from all over the world. It claims that the world began anew with eight people. It was about God rebooting creation, establishing a covenant or promise to the new creation. What should someone think really happened?
We now know that there was no exodus from Egypt in which there were a couple of million people wandering in the Sinai for 40 years. We know that when the bible talks about Abraham taking a caravan from Ur to the west that that didn't happen, like the bible claims. Camels were not domesticated until 1000 years later. Also modern theology admits the Gospels were anonymous and there were no "eye witnesses". The claim that there were eye witnesses is a false belief that people have held since the 4th century spread of Christianity. There are many reasons to question the claims of the bible and the claims of traditional Christianity, two very different stories.
> Are you kidding? We have a piece of John from about 125, and pieces of other gospels from early in the second century—nowhere NEAR the 250-300 years you claim. But that's another far-ranging topic for another discussion.
I apologize for my ambiguity here, when I was referring to manuscripts I was meaning the full writing of the book, not the scraps. It is a fact that the first identifiable reference to any Christian gospel was by Justin Martyr around 160 CE. The New Testament is not a historical record nor is there any contemporary witness that verifies any of the bible's miraculous events. What we have today is 160 English bible translations. When we consider the modern versions there is much disagreement and many major theological contradictions that disagree on the very nature of God.
At this point I think you have the burden to show justification for revelation, specifically, justification for how you or someone is supposed to receive new, special knowledge from God. Also in describing revelation it is important to be aware that an explanation is not a justification.
I look forward to your reply.
You have made some good points. I, on the other hand, seem to have sliced my ball out to the tree line, when, I really intended to lay it up in the short grass. Please allow me to take a mulligan. I’ll tee the ball up a little higher, I hope that it might make a difference. I don't know that this will change your overall position but it should better justify my position and clarify the point I was trying to make. This should get us moving along so others don’t try to play through.
> (3) the true difference between knowledge and belief is indistinguishable. At some point reason and presuppositions (beliefs) have to weigh in to everyone's epistemology where, to be able to proceed with any logic or to live in the "real" world, we have to default to presuppositional beliefs.
I think if we step way back, and I mean waaayyyy back, we would find agreement on the most fundamental level, would, ultimately be true when you say we can't really know anything, i.e., with absolute certainty. However the epistemological problem is not the obstacle in our path, the path is the obstacle. Fortunately, none of us need 100% certainty and knowledge. As a matter of fact, a great many of us in the world are able to get by and survive on starvation portions of common sense and rational thinking skills.
Concerning my views and my example using math is, " an exercise in using our senses ". My views do incorporate some of the principals contained within logical positivism, however, I am not basing the argument solely upon logical positivism. My arguments or view is more situated upon warrant and justification. I tend to hold the views of Carl Popper, who maintained opposition to logical positivism. He held that scientific theories talk about how the world really is, not, as positivists claim, about phenomena or observations experienced by scientists. Concerning my views and my example using math is,
" an exercise in using our senses ".
was that math is ultimately the tool we use logically and rationally organize our thoughts in correspondence to reality. The point is that what we get out of math is that it is a map of the world, a world that is tangible.
Earlier you said:
Again, I see things quite differently, from all my study. The more I study, the more I am absolutely convinced of the Bible's reliability and authority.
And then later:
When you read the Scriptures, and the experiences of Moses, Joshua, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, etc., revelation isn't just floating in the air, "Oh, I had a dream." In that case anyone can say what they want. But Moses said God spoke, and then the sea parted. Joshua said God was with them, and a part of the wall of Jericho fell down.
Here you are beginning to use some circular reasoning, using the bible to support the things you believe, which, came from the bible. I see no warrant to hold that the poetry and writings from many generations of an ancient civilization were anything more than stories and metaphor. There is no reason for me to suspend what I know about science, geology, anthropology, archaeology, etc. For example, we (including modern theology) know that the flood was not an event as described in the bible and you agreed that it was a regional event. However, there was much more to the Flood than just the water. It talked about gathering every animal from all over the world. It claims that the world began anew with eight people. It was about God rebooting creation, establishing a covenant or promise to the new creation. What should someone think really happened?
We now know that there was no exodus from Egypt in which there were a couple of million people wandering in the Sinai for 40 years. We know that when the bible talks about Abraham taking a caravan from Ur to the west that that didn't happen, like the bible claims. Camels were not domesticated until 1000 years later. Also modern theology admits the Gospels were anonymous and there were no "eye witnesses". The claim that there were eye witnesses is a false belief that people have held since the 4th century spread of Christianity. There are many reasons to question the claims of the bible and the claims of traditional Christianity, two very different stories.
> Are you kidding? We have a piece of John from about 125, and pieces of other gospels from early in the second century—nowhere NEAR the 250-300 years you claim. But that's another far-ranging topic for another discussion.
I apologize for my ambiguity here, when I was referring to manuscripts I was meaning the full writing of the book, not the scraps. It is a fact that the first identifiable reference to any Christian gospel was by Justin Martyr around 160 CE. The New Testament is not a historical record nor is there any contemporary witness that verifies any of the bible's miraculous events. What we have today is 160 English bible translations. When we consider the modern versions there is much disagreement and many major theological contradictions that disagree on the very nature of God.
At this point I think you have the burden to show justification for revelation, specifically, justification for how you or someone is supposed to receive new, special knowledge from God. Also in describing revelation it is important to be aware that an explanation is not a justification.
I look forward to your reply.