EPISTEMOLOGY: The Key to Everything

[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< In an earlier post I told you I don’t know if a god exists, but that doesn’t mean we can’t know anything for certain. >>>[/quote]You’ve been telling me since I’ve known you that we can’t know ANYTHING for certain. Unless I’ve misunderstood. You indeed do not know if A god exists. You DO know that THE God exists. You can’t help it. That’s where your and everybody else’s certainty comes from. God, and not just any ol God, is unavoidably revealed in absolutely EVERY fact of reality and especially in you yourself having been created in His image which you still bear, broken though it is in sin. Once you object to this I’ll have to quote Romans 1 again.[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< You know you’d fall to your death if you jump off a tall building without a parachute or safety net, don’t you? >>>[/quote]Yes I do. I have a very good reason for this. On your declared world view you have ultimately NO reason whatsoever. You are stealing my certainty, actually God’s, in order to live your life because left to yourself you are in bondage to an utterly meaningless probability. (you won’t be able to resist this one)[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< Similarly, if you have a single item and then you’re given another single item, there are two items in your possession. You really don’t need to make this complicated, because it is not complicated. That’s why I say you try to confuse things.
Keep it simple stupid![/quote]Let me apologize for launching this thread in haste. Major mistake on my part. Epistemology is not a Christian term. It is a philosophical term. It is that area of philosophy wherein men seek to discover HOW anything whatever is known at all. Everybody has one of two. The following is THE Christian one. I have not gone to the throne of grace in prayer yet with a single believer who does not pray in strict accordance with what this says regardless of what they might say otherwise. Could I ask you respectfully to please read this carefully?
The Westminster Confession of Faith, 365 years ago, Chapter 2, section 2:[quote]II. God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; he is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth. In his sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them.[/quote]Ohhhhh my dear friend. It don’t get no better than that. I know 5 year old children who get it. I also know a 101 year old women who also gets it. It IS simple, but utterly foreign.

Unbelievers exalt themselves, by faith, oh yes they do, as ultimate judge. Insolently requiring even God their creator answer to their finite probings. They reduce Him by this very act to the status of fellow creature. One contingent entity examining another the end of which can only be skepticism as Elder Forlife so rightly concluded.

Believers BEGIN with surrender to the triune(we’ll get to that part) non contingent all governing, all knowing God above. HIS “infinite, infallible knowledge” which is “independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain.” is theirs also by faith.

Unbelievers live in the believers universe and hence pragmatically live like believers. No choice.

Believers live like believers on purpose.

The former live in damnable rebellion as do the latter until they are saved from it by the infallible non contingent election of God in Christ.

The lesson I use for children is a drawing of a big king on a big throne with a little person standing in front of it. See that king boys n girls? That’s you before Jesus saves you, staring down at God deciding whether He’s really there and whether He gets to be king or not. After He saves you? You see that He was the King all along.

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
@Squating_Bear: Feel free buddy. The only reason I didn’t mention you right away is because you told me you that this topic was consuming too much of your private time. You were one of the first I thought of.[/quote]
Thanks

It’ll take a long while, but I think I will eventually get around to reading that book you posted. I don’t really want to battle you again until after that.
[/quote]Battle? LOL!! You’re alright in my book man. I think you did the right thing takin a break when you did. I’ll give ya an observation and a piece of advice. Advice first. Go back and reread that thread from where I started praising you. When you understand why, you will be back on track. Observation? You went from careful thinking to over thinking to frustration. I have to say again though. I am not trying to talk people into agreeing with me. That will not save them. I want them to surrender to Christ. Whether they do or not is between them and God. I’m jist a servant.

If you’re talking about Van Til’s “The Defense of the Faith”, I could not possibly encourage reading that more. Have a bible handy. You can get both for under 20 bucks and much less used. Get one of the editions WITHOUT John Frame’s notes. I do not approve of His understanding or misunderstanding actually of Van Til despite his having sat in the man’s classroom and claiming to be a proponent. This http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Faith-Cornelius-Van-Til/dp/0875524834 is the one that I first read 22 years ago. You WILL read the whole thing. I know you by now. He will hook you in even you don’t wind up agreeing. He was an intellectual monster and an unstoppable warrior for the gospel of Christ. Here is the T.O.C. from his “A Survey of Christian Epistemology” Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics

Whelp. It’s settled. God (a perfect God mind you) hates some people.

And some of you are still debating with this guy?

“The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost hate all who do iniquity.” Psalm 5:5
“The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, And the one who loves violence His soul hates.” 11th Psalm 5th verse.
“There are six things which the Lord hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: 17-Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18-A heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil, 19-A false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers.” Proverbs 6:16-19
“All their evil is at Gilgal; indeed, I came to hate them there! Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of My house! I will love them no more; All their princes are rebels.” God speaking, Hosea 9:15

Wadda you care anyway? Anything to add? I’ll even try n use synonyms for “autonomous” so as to avoid unnecessarily aggravating you from now on. When addressing you at least

Tiribulus is right.

Either there is an absolute principle or everything is meaningless.
Therefore, there is only two consistent positions : absolute faith and total nihilism.
Make another choice and you will have some inconsistencies between your thoughts and your acts.

He “choosed” absolute faith.
Me too.

The only differences between us :
-I don’t believe that the “absolute intellect” is a person. nor three persons.
-He is quite lyrical. And i’m not.

And there he is folks. The one and only unbeliever I have seen who clearly grasps the inescapable nature of the form at least of what this thread is about. I think by “lyrical” he means “loquacious” lol. If he starts getting some questions HE’LL have to talk a bit more too. An exploration of the defining difference between us, which he accurately describes, would be most instructive. To me as well. I have never argued this path though I have gone over the possibility on my own in case it ever came up.

Squating_Bear. As a Muslim you have a weapon on this path too. I still refuse to take it outta yer locker and hand it to ya though it was KILLIN me in our last exchange not to. We brushed shoulders on it briefly.

How much have you read of this thread and please tell us more Kamui. Describe your “absolute intellect” if you would be so gracious. I will be in and out today. Less than prompt response times may be unavoidable. I intend no slight to anyone else, but this is a first rate thinker right here people. If my internal preview was correct we will see an introduction to the “problem of the one and the many”. An ancient conundrum solved in the triunity of the God of Christianity.

Indeed. The key to everything.

EDITED:as I remembered something a minute later

Not quite. There are a few simple objective truths: we all need air, food and water to survive. We are humans living on a planet. We piss and shit. Much of everything else is subjective.

You keep telling me that but in reality you have to keep telling yourself that. This is the doubt that’s inherent to beliefs, and it belongs to you, not me.

Yes, but with the caveat that you can decide for yourself what does have reason. It’s that simple.

What the rest of your post is concerned: prove your god exists.

[quote]kamui wrote:
Tiribulus is right.

Either there is an absolute principle or everything is meaningless.
Therefore, there is only two consistent positions : absolute faith and total nihilism.
Make another choice and you will have some inconsistencies between your thoughts and your acts.

He “choosed” absolute faith.
Me too.

The only differences between us :
-I don’t believe that the “absolute intellect” is a person. nor three persons.
-He is quite lyrical. And i’m not.
[/quote]

Everything is inherently meaningless. Everything is without meaning in an indifferent universe.

A respons to that might be nihilism, but it’s not the default position.

The default position is that we don’t know.

Whoops. I got some stuff to do Ephrem. Elder Forlife had this same issue you’re having for a while. I keep asking you about the road yer on and you keep tellin me about yer car.

My friend, there’s no road.

There’s just this.

Robert Ingersoll on the bible, written in 1894.

[quote]ephrem wrote:
My friend, there’s no road.

There’s just this.[/quote]Then yer nuts. I gotta go work chest, tri’s and shoulders, but will be back.

[quote]kamui wrote:
Tiribulus is right.

Either there is an absolute principle or everything is meaningless.
Therefore, there is only two consistent positions : absolute faith and total nihilism.
Make another choice and you will have some inconsistencies between your thoughts and your acts.

He “choosed” absolute faith.
Me too.

The only differences between us :
-I don’t believe that the “absolute intellect” is a person. nor three persons.
-He is quite lyrical. And i’m not.
[/quote]

Meh, I will go with rules of thumb and experience, thank you.

While you seek for THE PERFECT ANSWER, I shall settle for, meh, good enough.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[/quote]

Well, but, I like, dont.

So there.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
Tiribulus is right.

Either there is an absolute principle or everything is meaningless.
Therefore, there is only two consistent positions : absolute faith and total nihilism.
Make another choice and you will have some inconsistencies between your thoughts and your acts.

He “choosed” absolute faith.
Me too.

The only differences between us :
-I don’t believe that the “absolute intellect” is a person. nor three persons.
-He is quite lyrical. And i’m not.
[/quote]

Meh, I will go with rules of thumb and experience, thank you.

While you seek for THE PERFECT ANSWER, I shall settle for, meh, good enough. [/quote]

I don’t seek for the perfect answer.
just for a consistent one.

And since an inconsistent (“good enough”) answer is not an answer at all, i could even say : “i just seek an answer”.
And any answer will do the trick. Really.

Actually, the problem is no to find it. It’s to accept it.
Tiribulus is right on this one too.

[quote]
How much have you read of this thread and please tell us more Kamui. Describe your “absolute intellect” if you would be so gracious. I will be in and out today. Less than prompt response times may be unavoidable.[/quote]

Indeed.
But i will try to answer your questions in a not-too-unreasonable delay.

The truinity of the christian God is indeed a solution to the problem of the one and the many.
I will concede this.
But this solution is a mystery.
It’s not a problem in itself (after all, as you noted, we have to accept the circularity).
But it’s not intrinsically better than another (equally mysterious) solution.

[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Actually, the problem is no to find it. It’s to accept it.
Tiribulus is right on this one too.[/quote]I knew it. You DO get it. This is not a poo pooable matter of irrelevant mental masturbation. It IS the key to everything. The very bedrock of all human thought. [quote]kamui wrote:<<< The truinity of the christian God is indeed a solution to the problem of the one and the many. I will concede this. >>>[/quote]Oh my Lord, this is gonna be good =] I don’t know how to say this any other way, but right now you and I are the only two who’ve touched this thread who have any idea what each other is talkin about. I’m asking two things very honestly. Do you feel that my exposition has been clear enough? And, do you agree that as far as you and I do agree, what we agree on is actually quite simple once understood? [quote]kamui wrote:<<< But this solution is a mystery. >>>[/quote]Yes it is. As any solution would be by definition.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< It’s not a problem in itself (after all, as you noted, we have to accept the circularity). >>>[/quote]Yep, that’s what I just said in agreement. Mystery and circularity are in this case two ways of saying the same thing.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< But it’s not intrinsically better than another (equally mysterious) solution. [/quote]Elder Forlife, Squating_Bear and Cortes. I am compelled by honor to report that this Frenchman has just become the solitary non Christian champion in this arena in my opinion. Monsieur Kamui here has done his cerebral homework and is taking me to the only stalemate possible with the epistemology I started this thread to advance.

I always go over every objection to every position I hold, arguing them with myself as if I already believed those objections to see if I can convince myself that they are valid. If I can defeat one of my positions with an objection then I adopt the position corresponding to the objections. I NEVER enter a public debate unless I have already settled every objection I could think of ahead of time. I’m not the smartest guy ever born, but I’m good at this.

I have been over dozens of attempted species of attack upon the transcendental, reformation epistemology so brilliantly codified by Dr. Van Til and the very one I believe Kamui is about to propose is the one and only stalemate possible as far as I have been able to discern. NOT a refutation, but a possible stalemate. Am I right Kamui?

Alright. Enough playin coy huh?. =] Please introduce us to your alternative to the triune God who’s universal, comprehensive all governing exceptionless decree is the bedrock of all human thought and existence.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
My friend, there’s no road.

There’s just this.[/quote]

Then yer nuts.
[/quote]

Coming from you that’s a compliment (:

Yeah… not exactly in that order - I bounced around between them all. But I recognized that my response wasn’t the proper one.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Advice first. Go back and reread that thread from where I started praising you. When you understand why, you will be back on track. [/quote]
I’ve already done this… I was pretty sure it’s because I came in between Pat and Oleena, bit them both in the legs like a pit bull and no matter how hard they tried shaking me off, I wasn’t ever letting go. 2 + 2 = 4, in the face of Einstein or any other man. Nor do we need to do any tests to verify a simple statement of logic. I was repeating these types of things left and right - I can see how that would catch your eye.

(was that right?)
(or are you gonna make me read it AGAIN?)

English Standard Version good enough?

And by the way… was that just a regular old typo, a playful jab at my slipperyness, or some sort of a slip of your own? I’m talking about the “extraordinary intellectual AGILITY”

:slight_smile:

(thanks whichever way)