EPISTEMOLOGY: The Key to Everything

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
621

[quote]pookie wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Oh there you are. =] Thanks for poppin in. You were one of the people here who I was wondering if they’d ever given any concentrated thought to the topic this thread.[/quote]

Some, but mostly while highly inebriated (about at the stage where loud volume can compensate for lack of factual arguments), so I’m not quite sure how concentrated the thoughts were.

I don’t hate your (or anyone else’s) God. I wish I did, I’d love to be able to honestly use that Riddick line from Pitch Black about absolutely hating the fucker. It’s mostly his followers I take exception to. And only when their beliefs interfere with my life and personal freedoms. Believe what you want, but don’t force me to and we’ll get along great.

So he’s the one responsible for that typo when I put “tit nation” in the search engine. Dammit.

I might jump into a new thread sometime… I’ve checked out a few, but somehow I have no motivation to read 20 pages to get up to speed. I posted to this one because I thought it amusing that I was still mentioned by name when my last visit was about two years ago…

[/quote]

Not all of it is bible thumping and the Christians raise some good points too. I do understand it’s quite a time commitment.

622

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:<<< Not all of it is bible thumping and the Christians raise some good points too. I do understand it’s quite a time commitment.[/quote]Yeah, even the Christians LOL!!! Thanks Fletch LOL!

623

[quote]Headhunter wrote:<<< Yes, there is a God. But The God of Spinoza is a lot closer to the real God. >>>[/quote]Please elucidate a bit further.

624

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Sincerely putting all of our recent tensions aside Sloth. YOU have it backwards. The mere state of being concious along with the data of the senses are so much blank nothingness unless subjected to an entirely unprovable and pre assumed framework of interpretation we call in the English language “logic”. Your general conclusion is true, but is in my view framed in an ineffective way and itself pre assumes what I’ve been droning on about it seems like forever now here. How do we account even for our own subjective self aware consciousness? To say nothing of the objective data that is incessantly bombarding it?

Again. To all of our self proclaimed evidence addicts around here. It’s at this level that you have no, none, ZEEROH answers and do in fact inescapably assume mine before even one minimally ineligible thought can occur in your mind. I embrace that with Joy, giving my Lord glory for His brilliant and magnificent creation because I have been put at peace with Him through the work of my savior and love Him for it.

You run from it, because you hate Him for holding you morally responsible to Himself and will concoct all manner of bizarre and foolhardy methods of convincing yourself it isn’t so. I’m watching it all around me. I was once just like you. In fact my rebellion AFTER knowing better is far worse than what any of you guys are doing. He is merciful indeed and faithful to His covenant brother, bride and son which He has made me in Christ. Don’t ever think I look down on any of you people.[/quote]

[quote]Cortes wrote:
But seriously, I still don’t get why you get to make claims such as the very bold one you’ve made to Sloth, above, yet it doesn’t count for Catholics. Probably should move it to the epistemology thread, but I’d like to hear an answer to this.
[/quote]Please phrase the question a bit differently as I’m not sure I understand. I think so, but wanna be sure.

625

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Sincerely putting all of our recent tensions aside Sloth. YOU have it backwards. The mere state of being concious along with the data of the senses are so much blank nothingness unless subjected to an entirely unprovable and pre assumed framework of interpretation we call in the English language “logic”. Your general conclusion is true, but is in my view framed in an ineffective way and itself pre assumes what I’ve been droning on about it seems like forever now here. How do we account even for our own subjective self aware consciousness? To say nothing of the objective data that is incessantly bombarding it?

Again. To all of our self proclaimed evidence addicts around here. It’s at this level that you have no, none, ZEEROH answers and do in fact inescapably assume mine before even one minimally ineligible thought can occur in your mind. I embrace that with Joy, giving my Lord glory for His brilliant and magnificent creation because I have been put at peace with Him through the work of my savior and love Him for it.

You run from it, because you hate Him for holding you morally responsible to Himself and will concoct all manner of bizarre and foolhardy methods of convincing yourself it isn’t so. I’m watching it all around me. I was once just like you. In fact my rebellion AFTER knowing better is far worse than what any of you guys are doing. He is merciful indeed and faithful to His covenant brother, bride and son which He has made me in Christ. Don’t ever think I look down on any of you people.

[quote]Cortes wrote:
But seriously, I still don’t get why you get to make claims such as the very bold one you’ve made to Sloth, above, yet it doesn’t count for Catholics. Probably should move it to the epistemology thread, but I’d like to hear an answer to this.
[/quote][/quote]Please phrase the question a bit differently as I’m not sure I understand. I think so, but wanna be sure.[/quote]

How come you can be certain, but Catholics are still supposedly stuck in the same loop of uncertainty as atheists? But also certain other denominations of Christians can be certain. But not some other Protestant branches?

626

The quotes are still messed up above, but they look prettier, anyway.

627

[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< How come you can be certain, but Catholics are still supposedly stuck in the same loop of uncertainty as atheists? But also certain other denominations of Christians can be certain. But not some other Protestant branches?[/quote]You really DO pay attention don’t ya? Because any God subject to the logical proofs of Aristotle and Aquinas is himself an object of investigation in the mind the very autonomous man that he leaves room for. He is not himself the standard by which ALL possible investigations take place. Aquinas’s god allows man to be the one who determines reality for himself INCLUDING the existence of the god who’s supposed to be his creator. It is a stark role reversal in opposition to the scriptures. This brings us to Joab’s conundrum which I still haven’t formulated a clearly expressible answer for. It’s there but elusive. Once you are willing to surrender to the logical tension necessary to account for a sufficient epistemology at all then other types of variations are unavoidably possible and it’s faith fer sher then. Or so it seems to this point. This will require some high intensity prayer and mediation that I have simply not been able to squeeze in yet.

Tell me how you see it. Maybe you can help me. Undetermined future volition is certainly contingency. Undetermined future knowledge as necessitating contingency is tougher to account for and is where I’m at.

628

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< How come you can be certain, but Catholics are still supposedly stuck in the same loop of uncertainty as atheists? But also certain other denominations of Christians can be certain. But not some other Protestant branches?[/quote]You really DO pay attention don’t ya? Because any God subject to the logical proofs of Aristotle and Aquinas is himself an object of investigation in the mind the very autonomous man that he leaves room for. He is not himself the standard by which ALL possible investigations take place. Aquinas’s god allows man to be the one who determines reality for himself INCLUDING the existence of the god who’s supposed to be his creator. It is a stark role reversal in opposition to the scriptures. This brings us to Joab’s conundrum which I still haven’t formulated a clearly expressible answer for. It’s there but elusive. Once you are willing to surrender to the logical tension necessary to account for a sufficient epistemology at all then other types of variations are unavoidably possible and it’s faith fer sher then. Or so it seems to this point. This will require some high intensity prayer and mediation that I have simply not been able to squeeze in yet.

Tell me how you see it. Maybe you can help me. Undetermined future volition is certainly contingency. Undetermined future knowledge as necessitating contingency is tougher to account for and is where I’m at.[/quote]

I’d like a bit of time to formulate my own answer, if you don’t mind. I know what I believe, but I want to make certain that I formulate it correctly. Might also have a question or request or two for a bit of clarification of your statement above, but I think I’ve pretty much got it.

629

Short answer is that it’s not undetermined, at least, not in the sense that we understand determination to be.

I won’t delve any further into it at this point though until I’m certain of how I intend to explain it.

630

Fair enough. Pat put me on ignore when I reminded him of his breathtaking insight found in the very last post of this page here: http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/religious_belief_is_human_nature?id=4531040&pageNo=8 To which I responded on the very next page:

[quote][b]pat wrote:<<< Everybody leads an uncertain life. >>>[/quote]I don’t. [quote]pat wrote:You have to know everything to have certainty, >>>[/quote]BINGO!!! THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!! YOU WIN!!! UTTER PROFUNDITY FROM PAT AND I AM DEAD SERIOUS!!! What you just said is THE key to epistemology. [quote]pat wrote:<<< I don’t know anybody else who fits that definition.[/quote] I do. His name “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace”!!! Isaiah 9:6

I have HIS certainty because I HAVE HIM, by HIS merciful electing grace. All praise, glory and honor be to His holy name.[/b]

Six months later he rabidly denied having said it. When I quoted him saying it and linked to the page, he put me on ignore. That conversation where he puts me on ignore is found here: http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/why_did_god_create_satan_part_2_1?id=4767556&pageNo=2

Yes, I really did have to bring that up. Why. Because Pat is absolutely correct. If there is even one particle of any level or aspect of reality that is contingent and therefore uncertain then NO certainty on any level or in any aspect of reality is possible at all because one single undetermined fact carries with it the potential to alter all the rest.
The God who says:

[quote]8 “Remember this and stand firm,
recall it to mind, you transgressors,
9 remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me,
10 declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,’
11 calling a bird of prey from the east,
the man of my counsel from a far country.
I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass;
I have purposed, and I will do it.”[/quote]
IS that source of certainty. If man himself chooses for himself whether he will “accept Jesus” or not? Then God redeems in response to man and the above quote among dozens of others is false, our source of certainty evaporates AND 2+2 equaling 4 is immediately suspect. The meat of my positions are contained in this document that you asked Fletch for. I don’t know if you ever got it or not. http://gregnmary.gotdns.com/dox/Brother_Greg_refromed_apologetic.pdf This was assembled a the request of one of the associate pastors at my church. You are mentioned by name. Kamui and I had not yet progressed very far in our dialog or he would most definitely be there too. He REALLY gets this. His pagan pantheistic resolution is unbiblical to be sure, but he really does understand the foundational logical dilemma down to the bedrock.

631

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Fair enough. Pat put me on ignore when I reminded him of his breathtaking insight found in the very last post of this page here: http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/religious_belief_is_human_nature?id=4531040&pageNo=8 To which I responded on the very next page:

[quote][b]pat wrote:<<< Everybody leads an uncertain life. >>>[/quote]I don’t. [quote]pat wrote:You have to know everything to have certainty, >>>[/quote]BINGO!!! THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!! YOU WIN!!! UTTER PROFUNDITY FROM PAT AND I AM DEAD SERIOUS!!! What you just said is THE key to epistemology. [quote]pat wrote:<<< I don’t know anybody else who fits that definition.[/quote] I do. His name “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace”!!! Isaiah 9:6

I have HIS certainty because I HAVE HIM, by HIS merciful electing grace. All praise, glory and honor be to His holy name.[/b]

Six months later he rabidly denied having said it. When I quoted him saying it and linked to the page, he put me on ignore. That conversation where he puts me on ignore is found here: http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/why_did_god_create_satan_part_2_1?id=4767556&pageNo=2

Yes, I really did have to bring that up. Why. Because Pat is absolutely correct. If there is even one particle of any level or aspect of reality that is contingent and therefore uncertain then NO certainty on any level or in any aspect of reality is possible at all because one single undetermined fact carries with it the potential to alter all the rest.
The God who says:

[quote]8 “Remember this and stand firm,
recall it to mind, you transgressors,
9 remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me,
10 declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,’
11 calling a bird of prey from the east,
the man of my counsel from a far country.
I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass;
I have purposed, and I will do it.”[/quote]
IS that source of certainty. If man himself chooses for himself whether he will “accept Jesus” or not? Then God redeems in response to man and the above quote among dozens of others is false, our source of certainty evaporates AND 2+2 equaling 4 is immediately suspect. The meat of my positions are contained in this document that you asked Fletch for. I don’t know if you ever got it or not. http://gregnmary.gotdns.com/dox/Brother_Greg_refromed_apologetic.pdf This was assembled a the request of one of the associate pastors at my church. You are mentioned by name. Kamui and I had not yet progressed very far in our dialog or he would most definitely be there too. He REALLY gets this. His pagan pantheistic resolution is unbiblical to be sure, but he really does understand the foundational logical dilemma down to the bedrock.[/quote]

So, before we continue, let me see if I can crystallize the essence of what you are stating here into a single slogan sized phrase:

It’s predestination or uncertainty.

No other possibilities. Is this accurate?

632

Yes. AND quite blessedly and appropriately, the bible reveals just such a predestinating God. All over the place. YOU even told me what a great case I’d made for that very thing when you asked how I then escaped the charge of fatalism.

633

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Yes. AND quite blessedly and appropriately, the bible reveals just such a predestinating God. All over the place. YOU even told me what a great case I’d made for that very thing when you asked how I then escaped the charge of fatalism.[/quote]

Okay, thanks. I’ll respond shortly. I’m thinking that my lingering question, or my answer, possibly both, are exactly the problem Joab proposed to you, that you’ve been promising to get back to him on, but I cannot confidently say that I can remember that this was the topic the two of you were engaged in.

Either way, I’ll try and respond soon.

634

I’m thinking so too and in the interest of giving credit where due, dear Elder Forlife actually was the first to nudge forward a less articulated version of this argument, which, as the Lord lives, I tell you I saw comin from him. It was the best logical attack possible and I knew he’d get there. You took it up after that, Dearest Christopher attempted Aquinas’s more elaborate version and then brother Joab distilled it down to it’s most potent form so far. Make no mistake friends. I listen when people talk. I treat them as worthy opponents AND spend more time than I have, “considering” their arguments. Unless they refuse to engage on my terms which I’ll never relinquish. THEY’RE the ones calling me the antique simpleton. There should be NO terms under which such a sorry case as they say I am cannot be quickly and soundly dispatched.

635

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< How come you can be certain, but Catholics are still supposedly stuck in the same loop of uncertainty as atheists? But also certain other denominations of Christians can be certain. But not some other Protestant branches?[/quote]You really DO pay attention don’t ya? Because any God subject to the logical proofs of Aristotle and Aquinas is himself an object of investigation in the mind the very autonomous man that he leaves room for. He is not himself the standard by which ALL possible investigations take place. Aquinas’s god allows man to be the one who determines reality for himself INCLUDING the existence of the god who’s supposed to be his creator. It is a stark role reversal in opposition to the scriptures. This brings us to Joab’s conundrum which I still haven’t formulated a clearly expressible answer for. It’s there but elusive. Once you are willing to surrender to the logical tension necessary to account for a sufficient epistemology at all then other types of variations are unavoidably possible and it’s faith fer sher then. Or so it seems to this point. This will require some high intensity prayer and mediation that I have simply not been able to squeeze in yet.

Tell me how you see it. Maybe you can help me. Undetermined future volition is certainly contingency. Undetermined future knowledge as necessitating contingency is tougher to account for and is where I’m at.[/quote]

Basically you’re jealous that truth can come from somewhere else besides Farmer Van Til. I understand why you don’t understand why the Body of Christ has used Aristotle’s metaphysics, the only problem is I don’t know how to explain it to you any other way that I haven’t already tried.

636

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Basically you’re jealous that truth can come from somewhere else besides Farmer Van Til. I understand why you don’t understand why the Body of Christ has used Aristotle’s metaphysics, the only problem is I don’t know how to explain it to you any other way that I haven’t already tried. [/quote]Christopher, you are not living up to your avatar. Substance please? I know EXACTLY why Rome has adopted Aristotle’s unbelieving epistemology.

637

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Basically you’re jealous that truth can come from somewhere else besides Farmer Van Til. I understand why you don’t understand why the Body of Christ has used Aristotle’s metaphysics, the only problem is I don’t know how to explain it to you any other way that I haven’t already tried. [/quote]Christopher, you are not living up to your avatar. Substance please? I know EXACTLY why Rome has adopted Aristotle’s unbelieving epistemology.
[/quote]

Adopted? You show your hand too early.

638

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Basically you’re jealous that truth can come from somewhere else besides Farmer Van Til. I understand why you don’t understand why the Body of Christ has used Aristotle’s metaphysics, the only problem is I don’t know how to explain it to you any other way that I haven’t already tried. [/quote]Christopher, you are not living up to your avatar. Substance please? I know EXACTLY why Rome has adopted Aristotle’s unbelieving epistemology.
[/quote]

Adopted? You show your hand too early. [/quote]Don’t you play games with me Christopher. Out with it man. What is that you are saying?
I’m still waiting for you to straighten me out about the divine claims of scripture over in the Romans 2 thread BTW.

639

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Basically you’re jealous that truth can come from somewhere else besides Farmer Van Til. I understand why you don’t understand why the Body of Christ has used Aristotle’s metaphysics, the only problem is I don’t know how to explain it to you any other way that I haven’t already tried. [/quote]Christopher, you are not living up to your avatar. Substance please? I know EXACTLY why Rome has adopted Aristotle’s unbelieving epistemology.
[/quote]

Adopted? You show your hand too early. [/quote]

What word would you use besides adopted?

640

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Basically you’re jealous that truth can come from somewhere else besides Farmer Van Til. I understand why you don’t understand why the Body of Christ has used Aristotle’s metaphysics, the only problem is I don’t know how to explain it to you any other way that I haven’t already tried. [/quote]Christopher, you are not living up to your avatar. Substance please? I know EXACTLY why Rome has adopted Aristotle’s unbelieving epistemology.
[/quote]

Adopted? You show your hand too early. [/quote]

What word would you use besides adopted? [/quote]Custodial care?