[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
Isn’t there an alternative - no knowledge?
[/quote]You could claim it, but not without lying.
Because you could never truly act on it.
(you’d be lying to yourself btw)
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
Isn’t there an alternative - no knowledge?
[/quote]You could claim it, but not without lying.
Because you could never truly act on it.
(you’d be lying to yourself btw)[/quote]
surely we’re saying we cant have certainty but that doesnt preclude acting on what appears to me, im stil driven by instinct and emtion, whether i live by arguement shoudlnt affect its validity?
just to clarify, when we say lnowledge, do we mean in reference to any truth or in respect to reaity or the real world?
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
I don’t think that Kamui’s statement is that profound to anyone who has thought about this before[/quote]
Me too.
[quote]
- I don’t think that statement has any bearing on religon.[/quote]
Indeed.
It’s a philosophical statement, not a religious one.
But then, that’s quite consistent with the fact that the author of this statement is an impenitent, incorrigible pagan fornicator.
[quote]
Yes, our reasoning is built upon itself[ but I think that is perhaps good enough[/quote]
It’s actually better than a reasoning built upon nothing, or a reasoning built upon ourselves (the “autonomy” Tiribulus negatively refers to / the “anthropomorphic projection” i negatively refers to).
I’m not a christian, and i won’t speak for them, but as an impenintent, incorrigibke pagan fornicator, I can still see tha, even if this belief is definitely rooted in circular logic, i is not rooted in the same circular logic than the circular logic of infinite regress.
Which is the point, actually.
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
just to clarify, when we say lnowledge, do we mean in reference to any truth or in respect to reaity or the real world?
[/quote] What did you mean by it?
truth
reality
the real world
…these all mean the same things to me.
itake it to mean knowledge of the thing itself, so we have no knowledge of the real world, only of our perceptions. i think circular logic makes more sense than a first cause. and i think it does allow u to claim knowledge of your own perceptions,. what we know does have to be objectively grounded against some externl entity,it is whar it is to us and thats it,
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
I don’t think that Kamui’s statement is that profound to anyone who has thought about this before[/quote]
Me too.
[quote]
- I don’t think that statement has any bearing on religon.[/quote]
Indeed.
It’s a philosophical statement, not a religious one.
But then, that’s quite consistent with the fact that the author of this statement is an impenitent, incorrigible pagan fornicator.
there is no infinite regress with circular logic?
I’m not understanding your post
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
itake it to mean knowledge of the thing itself, so we have no knowledge of the real world, only of our perceptions. [/quote]I get this
[quote]
i think circular logic makes more sense than a first cause.[/quote]I’d like to understand what you’re trying to say before blasting you on this… If I understand better I may not blast anything at all
[quote]
and i think it does allow u to claim knowledge of your own perceptions,. [/quote]You mean circular logic allows this?
[quote]
what we know does b[/b] have to be objectively grounded against some externl entity,it is whar it is to us and thats it, [/quote]You made a typo here?
You are saying that there is no objective reality - it’s ALL subjective?
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]
i think circular logic makes more sense than a first cause.[/quote]I’d like to understand what you’re trying to say before blasting you on this… If I understand better I may not blast anything at all
[quote]
and i think it does allow u to claim knowledge of your own perceptions,. [/quote]You mean circular logic allows this?
When i said circular logic makes more sense, I think i meant it seems more likely to me. While a lack of objectively verified/grounded beliefs means we can’t claim knowledge of the real world, it does allow us to make the claims on our perceived world, we only require internal consistency, i dont know how we can ever claim to have knowledge of anything external to our minds. Im not saying it doesnt exist…im not saying anything about it, what can i claim to say about it? god?
I’m not gonna be able to do you guys justice tonight. [quote]Neuromancer wrote:<<< Or perhaps I just don’t understand the argument well. >>>[/quote]not too far off. Not to slight anyone else. Actually all you guys here right now are closer than 99% of the people I’ve had these discussions with. I need to step more surely than ever going forward now. If there’s one thing I am more convinced of than ever before since I first read Van Til’s “The Defense of the Faith” 23 years ago, it’s how right he was that traditional apologetic methods will not carry weight with the educated thinking modern man.
I appreciate everybody’s participation. Even my second favorite Dutchmen, Ephrem. Of course there’s a few I’d really love to see here, but probably won’t. I’ll leave with this for tonight. YOU ARE GOD ALONE, Philips, Craig and Dean - YouTube Oh praise His magnificent name. Holy holy holy is the Lord of hosts. The whole earth is full of His glory. His dominion is from everlasting, declaring the end from the beginning and accomplishing all His good pleasure so that none can stay His hand or question what He does. He is indeed God alone. How I do love to stand with His saints, hands raised singing high praise to the King of all kings. He is flawlessly faithful to His church bride. I need sleep. He does not. In the First Light - GLAD - YouTube
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
When i said circular logic makes more sense, I think i meant it seems more likely to me. [/quote]
As I understand it - no one is arguing against circular logic. As humans with a limited perspective, we’re pretty much stuck with that.
The thing is that you started with asking what anyone had to base their religious beliefs on. More or less making fun of faith itself because it didn’t have a basis in logic. But you had it backwards - it wouldn’t even make sense to have faith based on logic. It does make sense to have logic based on faith though.
So - what do you base your logic on, if not faith?
If I were to (lie and) tell you that I don’t believe in logic - and asked you to prove logic for me - what could you do?
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
When i said circular logic makes more sense, I think i meant it seems more likely to me. [/quote]
As I understand it - no one is arguing against circular logic. As humans with a limited perspective, we’re pretty much stuck with that.
The thing is that you started with asking what anyone had to base their religious beliefs on. More or less making fun of faith itself because it didn’t have a basis in logic. But you had it backwards - it wouldn’t even make sense to have faith based on logic. It does make sense to have logic based on faith though.
So - what do you base your logic on, if not faith?
If I were to (lie and) tell you that I don’t believe in logic - and asked you to prove logic for me - what could you do?[/quote]
Define faith.
Though you two are both atheists, I don’t think you’re coming at this from the exact same direction.
That was written for him, not you. I think he will read it differently.
Throwing around the term “faith” and having you two accept it wasn’t the point of that post.
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
So - what do you base your logic on, if not faith?
If I were to (lie and) tell you that I don’t believe in logic - and asked you to prove logic for me - what could you do?[/quote]
You can define it however you want as you answer this - or not - but I’m not interested in a semantics debate here.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
When i said circular logic makes more sense, I think i meant it seems more likely to me. [/quote]
As I understand it - no one is arguing against circular logic. As humans with a limited perspective, we’re pretty much stuck with that.
The thing is that you started with asking what anyone had to base their religious beliefs on. More or less making fun of faith itself because it didn’t have a basis in logic. But you had it backwards - it wouldn’t even make sense to have faith based on logic. It does make sense to have logic based on faith though.
So - what do you base your logic on, if not faith?
If I were to (lie and) tell you that I don’t believe in logic - and asked you to prove logic for me - what could you do?[/quote]
Define faith.[/quote]squating_bear has defined epistemology here. EVERY last finite human being ever born is bound by his innate finitude to reasoning that terminates in circularity. I dare you to demonstrate otherwise. Faith is the epistemological basis upon which we persist in living our lives in practical certainty (2+2=4 and all the vaaaast scientific implications that depend upon the fact that it does) despite the fact that in ourselves we have utterly NO objectively certain reason to do so. Everybody does this. EV REE BUDDY. The bibles tells me that the reason is because we have been designed and created by a God of infinite infallible logic who has imputed to us a derivative finite version of his infinite mind. His image. It is He alone to whom “nothing is contingent or uncertain”.
Man has always been UNequipped by his finitude and is now additionally ILL equipped by his sin, to operate his own mind by himself. Autonomously in other words. Man MUST live by faith, as defined above, in SOMETHING. No choice. In his fallen state of sin and death he will believe absolutely anything except the truth about himself and his God. Satan will be most enthusiastically helpful in that regard.
My friend Kamui here is a perfect example. He has REALLY thought HIMSELF through this. He has grasped the dilemma quite well. He’s even dogmatic about it’s nature. However, not having been brought from death to life in the only available remedy he has proceeded to construct FOR HIMSELF an arbitrary system of thought which TO HIM answers the dilemma while allowing him to escape responsibility to the God who alone is able to truly save him from it. He has faith, he’ll you that, in what ultimately winds up being HIMSELF. I have faith as well, in the mind of God revealed by that God himself in the Christian scriptures. Everything that He is and everything that He does explains EVERYTHING. That is, once one has had his mind regenerated by the resurrecting power of the Holy Spirit.
Until then you will inescapably turn my own argument back on me. I understand that. “Unless a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God” John 3:3 It is not until you are REcreated in the eternal image of the risen Christ of God that you will be even able to see yourself and your God in truth. That cannot be proven on the basis of autonomous reason. The very attempt presupposes the falsity of everything I’ve just said.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
When i said circular logic makes more sense, I think i meant it seems more likely to me. [/quote]
As I understand it - no one is arguing against circular logic. As humans with a limited perspective, we’re pretty much stuck with that.
The thing is that you started with asking what anyone had to base their religious beliefs on. More or less making fun of faith itself because it didn’t have a basis in logic. But you had it backwards - it wouldn’t even make sense to have faith based on logic. It does make sense to have logic based on faith though.
So - what do you base your logic on, if not faith?
If I were to (lie and) tell you that I don’t believe in logic - and asked you to prove logic for me - what could you do?[/quote]
Define faith.[/quote]squating_bear has defined epistemology here. EVERY last finite human being ever born is bound by his innate finitude to reasoning that terminates in circularity. I dare you to demonstrate otherwise. Faith is the epistemological basis upon which we persist in living our lives in practical certainty (2+2=4 and all the vaaaast scientific implications that depend upon the fact that it does) despite the fact that in ourselves we have utterly NO objectively certain reason to do so. Everybody does this. EV REE BUDDY. The bibles tells me that the reason is because we have been designed and created by a God of infinite infallible logic who has imputed to us a derivative finite version of his infinite mind. His image. It is He alone to whom “nothing is contingent or uncertain”.
Man has always been UNequipped by his finitude and is now additionally ILL equipped by his sin, to operate his own mind by himself. Autonomously in other words. Man MUST live by faith, as defined above, in SOMETHING. No choice. In his fallen state of sin and death he will believe absolutely anything except the truth about himself and his God. Satan will be most enthusiastically helpful in that regard.
My friend Kamui here is a perfect example. He has REALLY thought HIMSELF through this. He has grasped the dilemma quite well. He’s even dogmatic about it’s nature. However, not having been brought from death to life in the only available remedy he has proceeded to construct FOR HIMSELF an arbitrary system of thought which TO HIM answers the dilemma while allowing him to escape responsibility to the God who alone is able to truly save him from it. He has faith, he’ll you that, in what ultimately winds up being HIMSELF. I have faith as well, in the mind of God revealed by that God himself in the Christian scriptures. Everything that He is and everything that He does explains EVERYTHING. That is once one has had his mind regenerated b the resurrecting power of the Holy Spirit.
Until then you will inescapably turn my own argument back on me. I understand that. “Unless a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God” John 3:3 It is not until you are REcreated in the eternal image of the risen Christ of God that you will be even able to see yourself and your God in truth. That cannot be proven on the basis of autonomous reason. The very attempt presupposes the falsity of everything I’ve just said.
[/quote]
So the short version is “The Bible tells me so,and because it is the infallible word of God, it is correct, hence my belief system is the ONE and ONLY correct one.”?
Please Confirm this for me if you would…just want to make sure I have essence right.
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Though you two are both atheists, I don’t think you’re coming at this from the exact same direction.
That was written for him, not you. I think he will read it differently.
Throwing around the term “faith” and having you two accept it wasn’t the point of that post.
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
So - what do you base your logic on, if not faith?
If I were to (lie and) tell you that I don’t believe in logic - and asked you to prove logic for me - what could you do?[/quote]
You can define it however you want as you answer this - or not - but I’m not interested in a semantics debate here. [/quote]
I would tell you, you would have to have faith. That’s what you wanted to here? Let me just repost what I said to push in another thread since it applies here.
You certaintly have been throwing the word faith around.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
The sort of thing that we all do that might be labeled “faith”, at that rudimentary level, is definitely not the same sort of “faith” that religious people (you) are attempting to justify. It’s a dishonest word game to make your unjustified beliefs seem to be more plausible.
It’s like saying “When you really get down to it, we all occasionally have a desire for something that isn’t good for us…” in an attempt to make eating feces appear to be as justified as eating too much ice cream.
[/quote]
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The bibles tells me that the reason is because we have been designed and created by a God of infinite infallible logic who has imputed to us a derivative finite version of his infinite mind. His image. It is He alone to whom “nothing is contingent or uncertain”.
[/quote]
How do you know this? You’re working off a presupposition.
This is nothing but special pleading.
How do you approach people of other religions?
How do you show them their faith in their holy books is incorrect?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:<<< That cannot be proven on the basis of autonomous reason. The very attempt presupposes the falsity of everything I’ve just said.
[/quote]And I would add, the falsity of everything anyone else will ever say as well. Faith is by definition presuppositional. Everybody’s. I owe TT response and I’m at work now. I’ll do my best later for more. (I’m always saying that)
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
When i said circular logic makes more sense, I think i meant it seems more likely to me. [/quote]
As I understand it - no one is arguing against circular logic. As humans with a limited perspective, we’re pretty much stuck with that.
The thing is that you started with asking what anyone had to base their religious beliefs on. More or less making fun of faith itself because it didn’t have a basis in logic. But you had it backwards - it wouldn’t even make sense to have faith based on logic. It does make sense to have logic based on faith though.
So - what do you base your logic on, if not faith?
If I were to (lie and) tell you that I don’t believe in logic - and asked you to prove logic for me - what could you do?[/quote]
Define faith.[/quote]
How about you define it for us. Every time someone defines something for you all we get is a dismissal telling us why our definition is wrong.
I gave mine already so I can ask, too.
Please, raj, define faith.