Truth and knowledge : Not relative and not plural

[BryanH]

@domokunrox

Dude relax a little bit, you are starting to scare me now... don't take things too seriously...

Bryan, I'm in every position to quote the bible to support my statement. What God is and what his nature is, is a question of theology. Especially between others who believe the bible. You have no idea what you're talking about on how to interpret God. This discussion is best suited to theology since thats what the subject is.

1) No, you are not in the position to quote the Bible without providing proof for your statements. Here we talk about absolute truth/knowledge vs relativity/pluralism. Anyways, on this specific topic.

2) You did mention in your first comment that we can test your challenge for religion as well.
Here are your own words:

Apply this skepticism to religion, morality, and aesthetics. How does it fair?

3) So I say to you again: you know nothing about God. The fact that you quote the bible which was written by men who allegedly spoke to God or claim that they have been inspired by God needs proof, at least on this topic.

You have been pesking me on this topic on and on about using LOGIC and REASON.

Now you use them yourself: WHY should I believe some men that claimed to have spoken/been inspired by the divinity? Today we call them schizophrenics/psychotics if someone claims such things. Just saying...

By the way, have you also noticed that God seems to be quite silent lately? No talking, no inspiration...

God is "everything" is an infinite absurdity. The bible doesn't claim that anywhere. The bible clearly describes God in a very distinctive way thats unlike anything else. Its very exclusive. Not obvious.

I didn't say that God was obvious, I said the fact that we are similar to the "image and likeness" of God is obvious.
But here comes another problem: you can't prove that the statement in the bible is true so you don't know God and you don't know anything about his image and likeness... so try guessing which part of the image and likeness you fit into if there is actually one to begin with.


And to make things even more clear: I am not contesting the existence of a Creator, but I am challenging what knowledge and what truths you claim to have about the Creator.

If the Creator is the first uncaused cause of ALL, he is also the source of all TRUTH.
In order for you to actually have access to ALL TRUTH you would have to place yourself in the shoes of the creator. Can you do that right now?

Since he the CREATOR is source of all TRUTH and he is the one who created it in the first place, he is the only one who can change it as well.

So I ask you again: is truth a relative or absolute concept?

I will tell you my personal opinion: for you it might seem to be absolute, but for God the entire Universe is relative.

Now coming back to the quote from the Bible: since people are said to be the image and likeness of God, I see the reality we live in quite relative.

So would it be correct to say that PEOPLE are ABSOLUTE, but live in a RELATIVE UNIVERSE?

[Byblos]

So I say to you again: you know nothing about God. The fact that you quote the bible which was written by men who allegedly spoke to God or claim that they have been inspired by God needs proof, at least on this topic.

The Bible is the most scrutinized literary work EVER. It has stood the test of history, archaeology, even science. What makes the Bible self-authenticating, however, is the sheer number of prophesies fulfilled. If I had someone that predicted the outcome of sporing events at better than 50% I would consider placing my wagers with him. If his track record is better than 75% I would place a considerable amount of money on his selections. What amount of money would you be willing to wager on someone who has a 99% successful prediction rate? Do you know what the percent of biblical prophecies is Bryan? 100%. That's right, every single prophecy that does not have to do with future times HAS BEEN FULFILLED. You can ignore this fact and keep going about your business but for you to be intellectually honest (remember this term, I will be using it a lot) you must, at a minimum, acknowledge some kind of supernatural force at work with Bible prophecies.

Couple that with the solid evidence for the resurrection of Christ and now not only do you have 100% prophecy fulfillment rate but also an event unlike any other in the history of human kind. And once again, you would have to be a lot less than intellectually honest not to acknowledge the fact that the evidence for the resurrection is on the side of the preponderance of the evidence.

So, er, no, we can most certainly use the Bible to justify our belief.

Given that, now we are in a solid position to use the Bible to know more about God. We didn't need the Bible mind you since, as I told you before, we can know about God through 1) the natural light of reason, and 2) through his creation. The Bible is sort of the icing on the cake.

You have been pesking me on this topic on and on about using LOGIC and REASON.

Now you use them yourself: WHY should I believe some men that claimed to have spoken/been inspired by the divinity? Today we call them schizophrenics/psychotics if someone claims such things. Just saying...

By the way, have you also noticed that God seems to be quite silent lately? No talking, no inspiration...

Since God himself has told us in his self-authenticating book that public revelation has ceased and that He has written the moral law on our hearts so no one may have an excuse, why are you STILL creating excuses?

God is "everything" is an infinite absurdity. The bible doesn't claim that anywhere. The bible clearly describes God in a very distinctive way thats unlike anything else. Its very exclusive. Not obvious.

I didn't say that God was obvious, I said the fact that we are similar to the "image and likeness" of God is obvious.
But here comes another problem: you can't prove that the statement in the bible is true so you don't know God and you don't know anything about his image and likeness... so try guessing which part of the image and likeness you fit into if there is actually one to begin with.

As shown above, based on what we know about God from all the sources I outlined, we certainly can show in what image of God's we were created. God is spirit so it is not a physical likeness. God is pure goodness so there is a measure of goodness in us. This goodness is reflected in us through the moral law but this image was clouded by the fall. All predicted by the Bible and all true.

And to make things even more clear: I am not contesting the existence of a Creator, but I am challenging what knowledge and what truths you claim to have about the Creator.

If the Creator is the first uncaused cause of ALL, he is also the source of all TRUTH.
In order for you to actually have access to ALL TRUTH you would have to place yourself in the shoes of the creator. Can you do that right now?

Huh? That's utterly absurd. I don't have to become god to know something about God, no more than I would have to become gravity to know all there is to know about gravity. That's a nonsensical argument you can't even support but I'd love to see you try.

Since he the CREATOR is source of all TRUTH and he is the one who created it in the first place, he is the only one who can change it as well.

Wrong. I already showed why that is an absurd, nonsensical statement. It is tantamount to rejecting the law of non-contradiction and abandoning all form of reason and rationality. You are saying A is not A. Please prove it.

So I ask you again: is truth a relative or absolute concept?

I will tell you my personal opinion: for you it might seem to be absolute, but for God the entire Universe is relative.

There you go again making assertions that have no basis in truth but at least you acknowledge it is your personal opinion so I guess you are intellectually honest after all .

Now coming back to the quote from the Bible: since people are said to be the image and likeness of God, I see the reality we live in quite relative.

Quite the opposite.

So would it be correct to say that PEOPLE are ABSOLUTE, but live in a RELATIVE UNIVERSE?

No.

[Jac3510]

I've not been following this thread. I just saw Byblos posting, so I wanted to see what was up, and I saw this comment:

you know nothing about God

Is this just you trying to draw the implication out of someone's position or is this an actual assertion on your part? You do realize this is a self-refuting statement, right? For if we can know thing about God, then we could not know that we can know nothing about Him, for to know He is unknowable is to know something about Him.

So either your own position is absurd at the outset or it's an absurd claim to make about someone else's position. Either way, it's a wholly irrational statement. The only other way to take it is that the "you" here was a statement of dom's particular knowledge (like when someone says, "You don't know anything about me!"), in which case you wouldn't be making a metaphysical claim but rather just attacking dom's understanding of the subject matter. But that would just be patently absurd and downright arrogant.

I'm thinking, then, of the principle of charity. Do I interpret your words as irrational or as arrogant? Are you displaying absurdity or hubris? I'd rather just ask for clarification.

[neo-x]

Are you displaying absurdity or hubris

or both

[BryanH]

The Bible is the most scrutinized literary work EVER. It has stood the test of history, archaeology, even science. What makes the Bible self-authenticating, however, is the sheer number of prophesies fulfilled. If I had someone that predicted the outcome of sporing events at better than 50% I would consider placing my wagers with him. If his track record is better than 75% I would place a considerable amount of money on his selections. What amount of money would you be willing to wager on someone who has a 99% successful prediction rate? Do you know what the percent of biblical prophecies is Bryan? 100%. That's right, every single prophecy that does not have to do with future times HAS BEEN FULFILLED. You can ignore this fact and keep going about your business but for you to be intellectually honest (remember this term, I will be using it a lot) you must, at a minimum, acknowledge some kind of supernatural force at work with Bible prophecies.

We can discuss a few of the prophecies if you wish and see if that 99% success rate is actually 99%? You choose a few prophecies you want or we can discuss on another topic. The issue is that bible prophecies are debatable and some of them didn't actually come true. But as I said I am open to discussions. Always like talking about people who can predict the future.

Huh? That's utterly absurd. I don't have to become god to know something about God, no more than I would have to become gravity to know all there is to know about gravity. That's a nonsensical argument you can't even support but I'd love to see you try.

I said ALL TRUTH, not bits of it... Of course you can know some truths without God's help. God in theory gave you a brain to use.

Huh? That's utterly absurd. I don't have to become god to know something about God, no more than I would have to become gravity to know all there is to know about gravity. That's a nonsensical argument you can't even support but I'd love to see you try.

Please read carefully what I said. I didn't say God changes himself this time although he probably can do that as well. I said that God can change what he created...

Is this just you trying to draw the implication out of someone's position or is this an actual assertion on your part? You do realize this is a self-refuting statement, right? For if we can know thing about God, then we could not know that we can know nothing about Him, for to know He is unknowable is to know something about Him.

I was mainly talking about the nature of God and the creation itself. Many people quote the Bible as if it were some kind of absolute truth. I challenge that.

He is unknowable is to know something about Him

Just saying unknowable doesn't mean that you know something about him. You just said that you don't know anything about him without using a negation.
The fact that you say that God is unknowable to you doesn't relate to God, but more to your lack of understanding of how to know God in the first place.
So when you say God is unknowable, you are actually talking about a human characteristic and not God's own nature...

[Jac3510]

He is unknowable is to know something about Him

Just saying unknowable doesn't mean that you know something about him. You just said that you don't know anything about him without using a negation.
The fact that you say that God is unknowable to you doesn't relate to God, but more to your lack of understanding of how to know God in the first place.
So when you say God is unknowable, you are actually talking about a human characteristic and not God's own nature...

To say you don't know something about something is not self-refuting. To say you can't know something about something is. To put it differently, to say you lack knowledge about some subject is not to speak of the subject. It is to speak of yourself. To say, however, that a particular subject cannot be known is not to speak of your lack of knowledge, but to speak of the subject itself (you would know nothing because nothing can be known).

So to say something is unknowable is self-refuting, since you know something about the subject (namely that is unknowable). On that view, your words are irrational and absurd. If, though, you only were challenging dom's personal knowledge (that he doesn't know anything about the subject), then you are just being arrogant, for you don't know what he does or doesn't know. More, that's just a personal attack, since now you are addressing your debate opponent rather than the subject matter.

So, again, are you just being arrogant or are you being irrational?

edit: regarding us saying God is unknowable, as I said, I haven't followed the thread. Who has made that claim? It would be absurd for the same reasons I have already said. Now there is a tradition called negative theology that says that because we cannot know what God is we therefore must speak of what He is not. But saying we cannot know what God is, is NOT to say that God is unknowable. Indeed, on negative theology itself, there are many things we can know about God (e.g., that He is not composed of parts). See Summa Theologica Ia.3.

[BryanH]

To say you don't know something about something is not self-refuting. To say you can't know something about something is. To put it differently, to say you lack knowledge about some subject is not to speak of the subject. It is to speak of yourself. To say, however, that a particular subject cannot be known is not to speak of your lack of knowledge, but to speak of the subject itself (you would know nothing because nothing can be known).

So to say something is unknowable is self-refuting, since you know something about the subject (namely that is unknowable). On that view, your words are irrational and absurd. If, though, you only were challenging dom's personal knowledge (that he doesn't know anything about the subject), then you are just being arrogant, for you don't know what he does or doesn't know. More, that's just a personal attack, since now you are addressing your debate opponent rather than the subject matter.

So, again, are you just being arrogant or are you being irrational?

Actually none of that... You just didn't pay enough attention to what I said...

Here is what I said: you know nothing about God
Here is your response: Is this just you trying to draw the implication out of someone's position or is this an actual assertion on your part? You do realize this is a self-refuting statement, right? For if we can know thing about God, then we could not know that we can know nothing about Him, for to know He is unknowable is to know something about Him.

Who added the CAN KNOW into the discussion? You did... So I don't see your point.

To make things more clear...

1) You know nothing about God = You don't know anything about God

I didn't mention anything about the fact that you can know something or not about GOD.You switched the discussion to something else I'm afraid[/b].
If people can know God or can't remains to be seen. The only thing I said that at the moment you know nothing about God. Period. In the future maybe you will know something... I can't predict the future and even if I could, I wouldn't tell you anything just for the fun of it.

So don't assume that knowing nothing about God = you can't know anything about God. You made the assumption, you have fun with it...

So to say something is unknowable is self-refuting, since you know something about the subject (namely that is unknowable).

Anyways, the one who is illogical here is probably you.
I didn't say any of the things you say I did. That was your own interpretation of what I said and the illogical statement belongs to you and not to me. Hope I have made things clear.

[Byblos]

The Bible is the most scrutinized literary work EVER. It has stood the test of history, archaeology, even science. What makes the Bible self-authenticating, however, is the sheer number of prophesies fulfilled. If I had someone that predicted the outcome of sporing events at better than 50% I would consider placing my wagers with him. If his track record is better than 75% I would place a considerable amount of money on his selections. What amount of money would you be willing to wager on someone who has a 99% successful prediction rate? Do you know what the percent of biblical prophecies is Bryan? 100%. That's right, every single prophecy that does not have to do with future times HAS BEEN FULFILLED. You can ignore this fact and keep going about your business but for you to be intellectually honest (remember this term, I will be using it a lot) you must, at a minimum, acknowledge some kind of supernatural force at work with Bible prophecies.

We can discuss a few of the prophecies if you wish and see if that 99% success rate is actually 99%? You choose a few prophecies you want or we can discuss on another topic. The issue is that bible prophecies are debatable and some of them didn't actually come true. But as I said I am open to discussions. Always like talking about people who can predict the future.

First, I didn't say 99%, I said 100%. The Bible stands on its own as self-authenticating. If you wish to challenge that be my guest. Create another thread and we can tackle that but history is not on your side. Like I said, the Bible is the most scrutinized literary book ever written. Are prophecies declared in the Bible and subsequently fulfilled a matter of interpretation? No doubt some are. Others are undeniable, indisputable. But that's all you've got, your opinion on the matter, nothing else. Contrast that with the historical, archaeological, scientific backing of the Bible and you have not a leg to stand on. But go ahead and try. Regardless, that's not even the point. The point I'm trying to make is that IF you want to be intellectually honest, then at a minimum, you must admit that the Bible is not just another common literary work that can be summarily dismissed for lack of supporting evidence. For if you do not admit that, then honestly we have nothing to go on with here because you will be denying the obvious.

Huh? That's utterly absurd. I don't have to become god to know something about God, no more than I would have to become gravity to know all there is to know about gravity. That's a nonsensical argument you can't even support but I'd love to see you try.

I said ALL TRUTH, not bits of it... Of course you can know some truths without God's help. God in theory gave you a brain to use.

So is it then your contention that we cannot know ANYTHING about God unless we know EVERYTHING about God? I hope you can see how even more absurd that statement is.

Huh? That's utterly absurd. I don't have to become god to know something about God, no more than I would have to become gravity to know all there is to know about gravity. That's a nonsensical argument you can't even support but I'd love to see you try.

Please read carefully what I said. I didn't say God changes himself this time although he probably can do that as well. I said that God can change what he created...

Bryan, please, I don't want to keep repeating myself over and over. I've already broken it down for you in a very simple syllogism how that is a nonsensical statement. Here it is again (hopefully for the last time):

1. God is A
2. God IS truth
3. Truth is A
4. God can change truth
5. A can change A
6. Therefore, God is not God (i.e. A is not A)

Please cut and paste this to your screen and read it every time you get the urge to say God can change truth, therefore truth is relative and not absolute (if you recall that was your claim and the catalyst for this whole discussion).

[jlay]

Please read carefully what I said. I didn't say God changes himself this time although he probably can do that as well. I said that God can change what he created...

Well, how do you know that? You know something about God, but no one else can?
That is patently absurd.

If people can know God or can't remains to be seen.

According to who? You?

Hope I have made things clear.

As mud.

[Jac3510]

For someone who complains about poor reading comprehension, you haven't demonstrated a strong grasp on it yourself. Now let's look back at my words to show that I considered exactly what you said:

So either your own position is absurd at the outset or it's an absurd claim to make about someone else's position. Either way, it's a wholly irrational statement. The only other way to take it is that the "you" here was a statement of dom's particular knowledge (like when someone says, "You don't know anything about me!"), in which case you wouldn't be making a metaphysical claim but rather just attacking dom's understanding of the subject matter. But that would just be patently absurd and downright arrogant.

HMM. So here I entertain the possibility you weren't saying that God is unknowable, but only claiming that Dom himself doesn't know anything. But that's, as I said, just arrogant and patently absurd.

Now you're just admitting that you were issuing a personal attack. Fine. That's not a rational argument. It's what people do who are losing arguments. You are admitting you weren't making an argument at all, and that's good enough for me. I don't have any interest in reading dribble from people who don't argue substance but sit around and blast people's personal knowledge, for one simple reason: blasting personal knowledge isn't an argument, so why bother reading it?

You can go back to your games now. All the best to you.

[BryanH]

@Byblos

1. God is A
2. God IS truth
3. Truth is A
4. God can change truth
5. A can change A
6. Therefore, God is not God (i.e. A is not A)

Why do you assume that God is truth? I just said that God created truth.

GOD=TRUTH is an assumption.

GOD created TRUTH maybe somehow demonstrated, but still lacks consistence.

God changing what he created doesn't relate to God changing himself. He is the first uncaused cause, forgot?

Let's say that I am in front of a computer and I am coding the universe. In order to change some of the values that I have input, do I need to change myself? Don't think so.

Anyways, God has already proven that he change how the universe works according to the bible anyways. So my statement is correct if you believe what the Bible says, but it is an assumption if you don't. I don't believe the Bible so I am making an assumption.

P.S.: Please tell me which part of the forum would be appropriate to use for discussing about Bible prophecies.

@jlay

Well, how do you know that? You know something about God, but no one else can?
That is patently absurd.

Let's see... If God created the universe in the first place and he has the knowledge to create an entire universe, you are asking me how I know that he can change his creation? Really now?

Anyways, since you believe the Bible to be true, I think that the "major flood" is proof of how God can change the universe when he feels like it. Bye bye sinners!! You realize that God actually murdered people by doing that, right? But we do have free will when God wants you to have it.

If you want other examples let me know.

According to who? You?

Taking my words out of context is not nice.

As mud.

Again you take my words out of context and you insult me at the same time.

Jlay no offense, but this kind of behavior is quite rude. I don't do that when I quote what you say, do I? I expect the same from you as well.

@jac3510

HMM. So here I entertain the possibility you weren't saying that God is unknowable, but only claiming that Dom himself doesn't know anything. But that's, as I said, just arrogant and patently absurd.

Now you're just admitting that you were issuing a personal attack. Fine. That's not a rational argument. It's what people do who are losing arguments. You are admitting you weren't making an argument at all, and that's good enough for me. I don't have any interest in reading dribble from people who don't argue substance but sit around and blast people's personal knowledge, for one simple reason: blasting personal knowledge isn't an argument, so why bother reading it?

You can go back to your games now. All the best to you.

So I am irrational no matter what I say.

So if I am irrational that means YOU are rational in your statements. Ok...

What do you know about GOD?

[Byblos]

@Byblos

1. God is A
2. God IS truth
3. Truth is A
4. God can change truth
5. A can change A
6. Therefore, God is not God (i.e. A is not A)

Why do you assume that God is truth? I just said that God created truth.

GOD=TRUTH is an assumption.

GOD created TRUTH maybe somehow demonstrated, but still lacks consistence.

And yet again, I refer you back to classical theism and God's simplicity in particular. God IS existence, God IS truth, God IS love. Those are not distinguishable attributes, they are one and the same, pure essence. We may call them different things as this is how we can relate to God in our physical limitations, it is called anthropomorphism, to attribute human qualities to God in order to relate to Him. So no, God did NOT create truth, he IS truth.

God changing what he created doesn't relate to God changing himself. He is the first uncaused cause, forgot?

He can change what he created but he cannot change who He IS.

Let's say that I am in front of a computer and I am coding the universe. In order to change some of the values that I have input, do I need to change myself? Don't think so.

Irrelevant as shown.

Anyways, God has already proven that he change how the universe works according to the bible anyways. So my statement is correct if you believe what the Bible says, but it is an assumption if you don't. I don't believe the Bible so I am making an assumption.

And your assumption is wrong. If by 'God has already proven that he change how the universe works' you mean by supposedly violating the laws of the universe as related to the resurrection of Christ, well for you to argue that you must first acknowledge that Christ has risen so I'm glad at least we can agree on that . But to answer your point, how exactly do you know God has changed or violated the laws of the universe? How do you know tomorrow or a hundred, 10 thousand years from now science will not discover a perfectly explicable way to bring back the dead to life and that was the method God used with Christ (and Jesus with Lazarus)? How do you know that? If you're interested in this line of thinking, I urge you to watch a documentary called The Exodus Decoded. Even though I may not agree with everything it proposes, it offers a perfectly plausible and SCIENTIFIC answer for the events of the Exodus INCLUDING the 10 plagues and the parting of the Red Sea (as well as some pretty nifty archaeological evidence for it might I add; I simply had to mention that ). So the point is NOT that God violates or changes what he created, it's that He uses it in specific times and instances to accomplish His purpose. The miracle may very well be in the timing, not the method.

P.S.: Please tell me which part of the forum would be appropriate to use for discussing about Bible prophecies.

In the Bible and Scripture forum you can start a new thread on Bible prophecy if you wish.

[Jac3510]

So I am irrational no matter what I say.

No. You are only irrational when you make irrational statements. Things like personal attacks and . . .

So if I am irrational that means YOU are rational in your statements. Ok...

. . . non-sequiturs. Just because you are irrational, it doesn't not follow that I am. We could both be irrational. You need to be more careful in your thinking, Bryan.

What do you know about GOD?

Plenty. That He exists, for one thing. That He is subsistent existence, for another. That He is pure actuality for still another. That He is not composed of parts (metaphysical or otherwise). And on and on . . . and that's before we even get to Scripture.

[jlay]

Let's see... If God created the universe in the first place and he has the knowledge to create an entire universe, you are asking me how I know that he can change his creation? Really now?

Anyways, since you believe the Bible to be true, I think that the "major flood" is proof of how God can change the universe when he feels like it. Bye bye sinners!! You realize that God actually murdered people by doing that, right? But we do have free will when God wants you to have it.

Bryan,

All you've shown me is that you have very prejudiced views of the Bible, and little willingness to conceed. For one, murder is what a person does to another person. God is not a person, (surely you don't assume that) and if He snapped all of creation out of existence in this very moment, He wouldn't be a murderer. Or perhaps you would like to explain your assumptions of a soveriegn Creator and His creation.
Yes, you are making assumptions. Can your assumptions be wrong?

Again you take my words out of context and you insult me at the same time.

Jac and Byb have done a fine job, in context, of showing the faults in your positions and criticisms.

[BryanH]

All you've shown me is that you have very prejudiced views of the Bible, and little willingness to conceed. For one, murder is what a person does to another person. God is not a person, (surely you don't assume that) and if He snapped all of creation out of existence in this very moment, He wouldn't be a murderer. Or perhaps you would like to explain your assumptions of a soveriegn Creator and His creation.
Yes, you are making assumptions. Can your assumptions be wrong?

This is quite funny Jlay.
So when I said that no rule can be applied to God, some people here said that I am assuming irrational statements.

Now you are telling me that when God has murdered people it's not actually murder because God is not a person, but you have claimed many times on your discussions with me that God is the source of all good and objective morality or how Byblos said God is truth, love, existence.

Dude are you serious now? He MURDERED people out of his own will, but he is the source of all good and objective morality.

When I said that God is both good and bad, both immoral and moral, some of you have said that I am wrong and irrational.

Maybe you should rethink some of your statements because they are contradicting one another.

God doesn't murder people, he just makes them disappear below the waves. Excuse me...


P.S.: offtopic: If God can kill his own creation, and we were created in the image and likeness of God, why are Christian people against abortion?