bruto
Penultimate Amazing
back to relevance....
Yes, but is this an absolute assessment here? Or, is it merely a guess? It seems to me like it can only be one or the other, in which case this itself becomes an absolute assessment. So yes, it is possible to know of things of a certainty.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
? You never went to school? Read a book? Performed a scientific experiment? I've already demonstrated why looking inside is a bad idea in and of itself. Cars, medicine, trips to the moon, computers, etc. were not found by simply looking inside. Overcoming ignorance doesn't come from looking inside but by looking outside and learning to rely on more than your own understanding.
And if that were the case, then what you and everyone else on this forum has said would be completely unintelligible to me. Not to say that the vast majority of it wasn't unintelligible in the first place. But, the fact that I am able to respond, demonstrates that I'm not a living vegetable (if even that) and, am quite capable of "telling" the difference.
And what you fail to realize or, so it seems, that "someone" has to be there (at home if you will) in order to do all these things. If I didn't know what I know, what's to keep me from walking in front of an oncoming bus and getting smashed to pieces?
Tricky
Briefly immortal
But you have not in any way described how a belief becomes knowledge. You claimed it was a process. Show us the process. Your "extension" seems like nothing more than holding the belief for a long time. How does your belief develop and mature into knowledge?
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Nobody here assumes you don't know what you're talking about. That conclusion is based on large bodies of evidence that you don't know what you're talking about. You make incorrect statements about science. You make incorrect statements of logic. You contradict yourself constantly.
No, it's not an assumption. You show us more evidence every time you post.
So if you have never experienced absolute zero AND the center of a star, you are unqualified to tell anyone that the room is too cold? Relative is all you will ever know and all you can ever know, Iacchus. It is called reality. You should visit there sometime.
Experience is much different from imagination and dreams. Just because you imagine that you are Dionysus does not make you him, nor does it even make him a real person, no matter how hard you wish it to be so.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Yes, really. Saying the word "experience" does not show any sort of process. I have the 'experience' of discovering that you are intellectually bankrupt, so that makes it knowledge, by your standards.
So if two people "know" mutually contradictory things, is one right and the other wrong? Yes or no.
(I "know" you won't give a yes or no answer to that question)
At best, all you can hope to say (against anything that I've said) is that it's inconclusive. Anything else, on your part, would be an assumption.
Last edited:
Indeed, with the "experience" of learning comes the ability to judge and discern.
It all depends ... on who knows what.
Eh, what do you know?
Elind
Philosopher
And that is what we call matter. The problem is in the assumption, not what we call matter.
So, where does matter come from then? Or, is this (matter) all there is?
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
What does this have to do with anything? I've never dismissed our internal reasoning and intuition. My point is that our internal reasoning and intuition alone are not sufficient to discern the truth. Why all of the games?
1.) It is demonstrable that subjective reasoning alone leads to different beliefs.
2.) Objective and critical analysis of the observable world is the best way to find the truth.
It was this process that gave us all of the wonderful truths that we rely on every day like the car, the computer, medicine, space flight, atomic energy, etc.
Complexity
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,242
Iacchus - I have far to much respect for words and ideas to have much to do with you. I haven't yet decided whether you are a troll or merely ill.
If you are a troll, I'm surprised that you haven't grown tired and embarrassed. Keeping up the pose of idiocy, complete with smileys, has got to be hard work.
If you are ill, I hope that you get some help.
If you are a troll, I'm surprised that you haven't grown tired and embarrassed. Keeping up the pose of idiocy, complete with smileys, has got to be hard work.
If you are ill, I hope that you get some help.
Yes, something has to exist first in order to discern the truth thereof ... either externally or, internally. Also, with respect to that which occurs internally, we must understand that it too is an external occurrence, for it, like any other external phenomenon, is merely a signal which is being impressed upon our brains.
Last edited:
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
This adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. This all started with what you "know" about god. I pointed out that "knowledge" about god must come from an external source (it is true that we use our internal reasoning to understand that source). Absent external and objective evidence we are left with belief.
1.) I can't prove that you don't "know" the attributes about god as opposed to you simply believing what those attributes are.
2.) However if you did "know" then you should be able to demonstrate that "knowledge". Hey, if I have knowledge about computers or calculus I can demonstrate that in a way that others can confirm based on logic or reason and that there is little room for debate.
3.) Absent an ability to demonstrate your god knowledge in a way that leaves little room for debate then there is little reason to suppose that you actually possess such knowledge.
4.) Absent an ability for the guy at the clinic to demonstrate that he is the reincarnation of Napoleon then there is little reason to suppose that he is in all actuality, Napoleon.
Do you see the problem here?
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
This is a quote out of the Bible. A book that has spawned many beliefs. There is almost no consensus on anything in side of it. Why should I rely on a book that is so disputed that it has caused wars over it's meaning? Why not the Koran or other religious works?
You say the truth is inside of us, if this is true then why didn't people discover Christ before any Christian missionaries traveled there? Why didn't people in the Americas discover Christ before Columbus? Why couldn't god have visted people in other parts of the world the way he visited Moses or other prophets?
Isn't it kind of odd that our internal truth is hidden until someone else tells us what that internal truth is?
Figure that one out and you will have figured out one of the most profound and important truths of humanity.
Last edited: