is Christianity true or false? (Satan, philosophical, Creator, spiritual)

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

This is actually a good point, though for other reasons than what you imply. Knowledge received by revelation, whether distractionary or not, is a priori by nature, but when scriptural principles are applied to discern the knowledge, then it becomes a posteriori.

That doesn't address my concern. If this a priori knowledge is innate, why do you even need to validate it through external means? It seems that you're contradicting yourself here - in one post innate knowledge is innate with no need for anything external, and then here it becomes knowledge when external criteria are imposed on it.

The rest of your comment we've already covered several times in previous posts.

Ignoring them won't make them go away.

I'm afraid you're the one who denied that logical axioms are axioms.

No, I said that you can pick and choose all sorts of different axioms and get contradictory but still useful frameworks. That shows that whatever these are, they aren't foundational - unless you're saying that the fact the we can use contradictory axioms makes the law of non-contradiction foundational.

So only sense data is "knowledge" in your vernacular?

Where did I say that?

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

.

I've cut out everything irrelevant to my question. I was looking for a reason why you arbitrarily dismissed revelation which disagrees with your religious faith as "false". To me it looks like special pleading, but maybe you have a better answer.

[Grigoriachel]

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

That doesn't address my concern. If this a priori knowledge is innate, why do you even need to validate it through external means? It seems that you're contradicting yourself here - in one post innate knowledge is innate with no need for anything external, and then here it becomes knowledge when external criteria are imposed on

Like our sense sometimes fail us when we hallucinate, or when we're duped by visual or perspective tricks for example, the intuition sense described by rationalists is also sometimes subject to failure. In other words " a priori " does not automatically imply " true " for a number of reasons.
Read about Descartes' problem of the evil trickster for an example of how our intuition may be deceived by agent action for example.

No, I said that you can pick and choose all sorts of different axioms and get contradictory but still useful frameworks. That shows that whatever these are, they aren't foundational - unless you're saying that the fact the we can use contradictory axioms makes the law of non-contradiction foundational.

Can you point out an example of when you can use contradictory axioms that make " still useful frameworks "? Your comment makes little sense here.

[Wardendresden]

Just as all things upon earth represent and image forth all the realities of another world, so the Bible is one mighty representative of the whole spiritual life of humanity.

Helen Keller

Christianity should be displayed more in life like the following video--and so should life be displayed similarly by those without Christian faith.

Many people know so little about what is beyond their short range of experience. They look within themselves - and find nothing! Therefore they conclude that there is nothing outside themselves either.

Helen Keller

[MissionIMPOSSIBRU]

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

That doesn't address my concern. If this a priori knowledge is innate, why do you even need to validate it through external means? It seems that you're contradicting yourself here - in one post innate knowledge is innate with no need for anything external, and then here it becomes knowledge when external criteria are imposed on it.

Reiterating some basic points you've yet to grasp from previous posts:

1. It is our capacity to receive knowledge independently of sense data that is innate, not the specifics of the knowledge itself.
2. This innate ability to receive intuitive knowledge can be misled, either by intrinsic pathological problems or extrinsic causes.

From a Christian ontological perspective, there are several potential sources of spiritual revelation, but all but one of these are deliberately intent to mislead us. False revelation is still a priori and intuitive (attained via an innate capability), despite the fact that it is misleading and subject to a posteriori verification.

No, I said that you can pick and choose all sorts of different axioms and get contradictory but still useful frameworks. That shows that whatever these are, they aren't foundational - unless you're saying that the fact the we can use contradictory axioms makes the law of non-contradiction foundational.

Your epistemology is all over the place here. The following are some important specifics that you need to grasp before you can think of speaking with credibility on this topic:

1. An axiom, by definition, is foundational knowledge. You can consider the two to be synonymous for the purposes of a discussion concerning the epistemology of logic.

2. The Law of Non-Contradiction is an axiom, and it is also foundational knowledge.

Its foundational status is simple to prove in that it is what is referred to as a "necessary truth"; ie. the very act of trying to disprove it requires the assumption that it is true. In other words, necessary truths cannot be wrong and cannot be anything other than foundational/axiomatic.

3. Different axiomatic systems do exist, but they apply to discrete epistemic levels.

This does not mean that they are contradictory, unless you are talking about non-realist axiomatic models that speculate alternate worlds. However, the latter have little real world utility aside from hypothetical study.

Where did I say that?

Among other things:

1. Asserting Falsificationism to be the "basis" of science.
2. Implicitly claiming that only science produces meaningful results.
3. Stating that logical and mathematical axioms express no propositional content and are "neither true nor false".

All of these amount to Verificationist claims asserting the epistemic exclusivity of sense data (eg. "only sense data is knowledge"). If you've changed your mind from this position, then please specify the range of things that now constitute "knowledge" in your vernacular.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by Grigoriachel

Like our sense sometimes fail us when we hallucinate, or when we're duped by visual or perspective tricks for example, the intuition sense described by rationalists is also sometimes subject to failure. In other words " a priori " does not automatically imply " true " for a number of reasons.
Read about Descartes' problem of the evil trickster for an example of how our intuition may be deceived by agent action for example.

Yeah, I'm aware that it is a good idea to check our intuition against reality since it is known to be unreliable. I don't see how that's a point in favor of the ideas being thrown around in this thread regarding certain types of intuition being foundational truths.

Can you point out an example of when you can use contradictory axioms that make " still useful frameworks "?

Sure. Both Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries are useful for solving certain groups of problems even though their basic axioms contradict.

[MissionIMPOSSIBRU]

Originally Posted by Grigoriachel

A mathematically determined boundary to the natural world may imply supernaturalism, as in 'something' beyond the natural, but how does that prove *theism*?

I think our friend simply asked for the objective probability of super-naturalism.

Deducing Classical Theism usually requires accessory deductions and abductions as a cumulative thesis incorporated with the cosmology. However, there is also a thesis based upon 'action theory' positing that non-spatiotemporal causation implies agent causation, but this has yet to be formalised to my knowledge. This kind of thing usually requires impenetrably complex calculus.

[TRANSPONDER]

I don't know what you think KC, but this seems more relevant to the Philosophy section, rather than religion and spirituality.

While the Law of non contradiction is an interesting subject for discussion, though I suspect it leads no-where, it is not very helpful in deciding how valid revelations are as evidence that a divine being in sending them.

Like arguing about the validity of logic itself being dependent on logic to make its case, or the questioning of whether science is valid because it is a method devised by humans, who of course are fallible, Logic and science are the best we have with the best track record, and if we don't take those as being valid tools for analysis of data, then we have nothing, and that of course means that the claims about religion and revelations and god also have no validity.

Over to you.

[Grigoriachel]

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

Yeah, I'm aware that it is a good idea to check our intuition against reality since it is known to be unreliable. I don't see how that's a point in favor of the ideas being thrown around in this thread regarding certain types of intuition being foundational truths.

Sure. Both Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries are useful for solving certain groups of problems even though their basic axioms contradict.

It's best not to think of intuitive knowledge and reality being a dichotomy. If anything intuitive truths give us a better sense of reality than our senses because our senses first require an intuitive framework to function at all. Certain types of intuition may require further checking or verification due to their nature, but that does not mean that these types of intuition aren't foundational. Maybe you don't understand what " foundational " means because a lot of your responses on this are a little confused?
Also, euclidean and non-euclidean geometry have different axioms that apply to different geometric circumstances. This doesn't mean that they are contradictory. If you had different axioms applying to the same geometries, then they would be contradictory.

[Grigoriachel]

Does RE really classify all spiritual revelation as basic knowledge? I thought it just applied to " sensus divinitatis ".