How Do We Know?

[Iacchus]

"The kingdom of God is within you." ~ Luke 17:20-21 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Luke+17) ... Yes, this is where we will find the evidence. In the same way that we find the evidence to everything else. How so? Because the truth is self-evident. If we weren't conscious and self-aware, what would we know about anything?

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Iacchus
"The kingdom of God is within you." ~ Luke 17:20-21 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Luke+17) ... Yes, this is where we will find the evidence. In the same way that we find the evidence to everything else. How so? Because the truth is self-evident. If we weren't conscious and self-aware, what would we know about anything?

I look within and I see no god.

Good enough! Thanks! *Waves*

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf

I look within and I see no god.

Good enough! Thanks! *Waves* Certainly there's a little bit more to it than that. It's just like any other true mystery, to the extent that we ponder about it, and reason about it, while in the course of making any other general observations, it ultimately becomes the means by which we validate whether it's true or not.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
I look within and I see no god.

You are supposed to see a kingdom, you fool :p

[jimmygun]

How do I know? The bible tells me so. How do I interpret the bible? The minister tells me so. How does he know? The bible tells him so.

Screw the holy spirit! There I've said it again, (though only one blaspheming of the holy spirit is enough to get me roasted for good). I suggest you all blaspheme the holy spirit, become a sinner for which there is no forgiveness and be done with religion. No more worrying about where you will end up and you can get on with your life, the only one you will ever have! How do I know? The bible tells me so.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by jimmygun

How do I know? The bible tells me so. How do I interpret the bible? The minister tells me so. How does he know? The bible tells him so.In what way? The Bible merely tells us to look within. As for what the minister says, I can't vouch for him. However, it's important that he looks within also.


Screw the holy spirit! There I've said it again, (though only one blaspheming of the holy spirit is enough to get me roasted for good). I suggest you all blaspheme the holy spirit, become a sinner for which there is no forgiveness and be done with religion. No more worrying about where you will end up and you can get on with your life, the only one you will ever have! How do I know? The bible tells me so. Are we getting a bit too close to home? So, how do you know the truth?

[MRC_Hans]

Lacchus, you are falling into the trap all deists fall into when trying to make a logical point for God: Your definition of God becomes indistinguishable from materialism.

In a way, 1inchChrist makes more sense in denouncing logic, and simply demand blind faith.

So the bible says look inside for God? Without even discussing why I should consider the bible an authority on anything, I can say that materialism says the same (albeit in other words): "God is a figment og yout imagination, a creation of your consciousness."

See?

Hans

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Lacchus, you are falling into the trap all deists fall into when trying to make a logical point for God: Your definition of God becomes indistinguishable from materialism.

In a way, 1inchChrist makes more sense in denouncing logic, and simply demand blind faith.

So the bible says look inside for God? Without even discussing why I should consider the bible an authority on anything, I can say that materialism says the same (albeit in other words): "God is a figment og yout imagination, a creation of your consciousness."

See?

Hans If the answer to everything is in fact inside of us, then that must mean our relationship to the truth is internal. So, the answer to the truth of all truths must be internal as well. Which, in fact is what the Bible tells us. In other words it doesn't have to based upon anything physical.

[Filippo Lippi]

Hans, are you trying to say god is fig yogurt?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If the answer to everything is in fact inside of us, then that must mean our relationship to the truth is internal. So, the answer to the truth of all truths must be internal as well. Which, in fact is what the Bible tells us. In other words it doesn't have to based upon anything physical. The answer everything? That was not what we talked about, but in a way it is. Our PERSONAL perception of everything is inside us (listening, LG?), so indirectly, your second statement is acceptable: Our relationship to the truth is internal.

However, that does not imply that the answer to any particular truth is internal, only our perception of that answer, which is an entirely different thing.

Now, I don't know why you keep bringing the bible into this, but the way I read it, it is very far from claiming that the answer to the TRUTH (of all truths[tm]) is inside us.

No, answers don't HAVE to be based on anything physical, but what is your evidence that it is in fact not?

Hans

[jimmygun]

Originally posted by Iacchus...

In what way? The Bible merely tells us to look within. As for what the minister says, I can't vouch for him. However, it's important that he looks within also.


The bible doesn't merely tell us to look within. It tells us to not eat pork, to stone adultresses, to commit genocide, to keep the sabbath, to give up 10% of our wages, to follow blindly the priests and ministers, to reject reason and logic, to blindly follow Caesar, etc etc etc.

How do I know? The bible tells me so.

By the way...any comments about the holy spirit blasphemy being the biggy?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by jimmygun

The bible doesn't merely tell us to look within. It tells us to not eat pork, to stone adultresses, to commit genocide, to keep the sabbath, to give up 10% of our wages, to follow blindly the priests and ministers, to reject reason and logic, to blindly follow Caesar, etc etc etc.And do you realize that the Bible actually evolved from the Old Testament to the New Testament, to reflect the more contemporary views of the New Testament?


How do I know? The bible tells me so.

By the way...any comments about the holy spirit blasphemy being the biggy? I'm still working on that one. However, if you understood that the holy spirit is the conveyor of truth and reason (it's not necessary to understand this by the way), then you deny the holy spirit by being flat out unreasonable ... or, incorrigible is perhaps a better way to put it. In other words if you show a willingness to be corrected, then you have nothing worry about.

[The Cats Venm]

I love when believers freely admit that the way to find god is through self deception and blind faith. It is the very definition of circular logic but they cannot see that. That's also why the believer’s faith in science is (often) inversely proportional to the depth of their delusion. I wish I could help them, but once their minds are closed only they can open them again.

Frankly, it is the believers that know it is illogical that I don't understand. What could possess one to take such a stance?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Certainly there's a little bit more to it than that. It's just like any other true mystery, to the extent that we ponder about it, and reason about it, while in the course of making any other general observations, it ultimately becomes the means by which we validate whether it's true or not.

But you said it was Self evident.

How can it be self evident but have "little bit more to it than that"

EIther something is self evident or it is not, it can't be both.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by The Cats Venm

I love when believers freely admit that the way to find god is through self deception and blind faith. It is the very definition of circular logic but they cannot see that. That's also why the believer’s faith in science is (often) inversely proportional to the depth of their delusion. I wish I could help them, but once their minds are closed only they can open them again.

Frankly, it is the believers that know it is illogical that I don't understand. What could possess one to take such a stance? This is all in your own mind I'm afraid. ;) If not, then just where the heck is it coming from?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

But you said it was Self evident.

How can it be self evident but have "little bit more to it than that"

EIther something is self evident or it is not, it can't be both. Do you think the theory of relativity was self-evident to Einstein? If not, then how did he know it was true?

[Z]

He didn't. That's why it's called a theory.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you think the theory of relativity was self-evident to Einstein? If not, then how did he know it was true?

Because he did the math and the experiments to show it to be true. Nothing self evident about it. In short he had to do some real WORK tomake it evident. Unless you hold to a VERY different definition of self evident than I do, the amount of work he had to do to show it makes it NOT self evident.

[jimmygun]

Quote by Iacchus..."And do you realize that the Bible actually evolved from the Old Testament to the New Testament, to reflect the more contemporary views of the New Testament?"

Then why do the bible thumpers still thump with that side of the bible? Why do we have that side of the bible if it is no longer relevent?

Going back to work now.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Filippo Lippi
Hans, are you trying to say god is fig yogurt? No, bigfig :eek:.

Hans

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

Because he did the math and the experiments to show it to be true. Nothing self evident about it. In short he had to do some real WORK tomake it evident. Unless you hold to a VERY different definition of self evident than I do, the amount of work he had to do to show it makes it NOT self evident. Is it self-evident that the world is no longer flat? What do you think?

[AWPrime]

Iacchus, would you please give the guy your definition of self evident, instead of flying in circles.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by jimmygun

Then why do the bible thumpers still thump with that side of the bible? Why do we have that side of the bible if it is no longer relevent? It is relevant, in the sense that it's of the same lineage, and it give us an idea from whence things came.

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
He didn't. That's why it's called a theory.

I vote we find a new word for 'scientific theory'. It's silly that we have a word that means both 'unsupported conjecture' and 'collection of *known and tested to death* facts and explanations'. Like the word bimonthly, that means both 'twice a month' and 'every two months'. Our poor language...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by AWPrime

Iacchus, would you please give the guy your definition of self evident, instead of flying in circles. Something which is commonly perceived or, has the potetential to be commonly perceived. Or, something which is perceivable if you clearly understand what it entails, whether those around you perceive it or not.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

He didn't. That's why it's called a theory. Tell us anything else about life that's not a theory then.

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Something which is commonly perceived or, has the potetential to be commonly perceived. Or, something which is perceivable if you clearly understand what it entails, whether those around you perceive it or not.

That's not a usage I've come across before. I've always taken it to mean 'something that requires no further support or explanation to it's truth'. If someone tells you they have the ability to speak, then that fact is self-evident.

Self`-ev"i*dent\, a. Evident without proof or reasoning; producing certainty or conviction upon a bare presentation to the mind; as, a self-evident proposition or truth. -- Self`-ev\"i*dent*ly, adv.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

But I suppose 'the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' isn't self-evident under this defintion, so common usage has shifted a bit.

Still, I'd think the terms 'proven', 'widely held' or prehaps 'manifest' if you are referring to phenomena such as "pencils fall down" would be preferable.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RamblingOnwards

That's not a usage I've come across before. I've always taken it to mean 'something that requires no further support or explanation to it's truth'. If someone tells you they have the ability to speak, then that fact is self-evident. I understand what you're saying here, and yet the only thing I'm really saying different is how can we know the truth of anything unless we are capable of seeing it for ourselves? In which case it must be self-evident ... at least to somebody. I just don't see how you can get around that, otherwise it's either unknown or, incapable of being known. Does that make any sense?

Therefore, the truth is evidenced within ... which is to say, self-evident.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

The answer everything? That was not what we talked about, but in a way it is. Our PERSONAL perception of everything is inside us (listening, LG?), so indirectly, your second statement is acceptable: Our relationship to the truth is internal.And yet it speaks about the very nature of reality, that it is in fact an internal experience. Even when we verify the empirical facts, it still needs to be interpreted internally, by someone which is self-aware.


However, that does not imply that the answer to any particular truth is internal, only our perception of that answer, which is an entirely different thing.The thing is you can reason about things in your own mind, and determine their truth, without having to refer to anything external ... that is, to the degree that you develop the ability to conceptualize and understand how things work.


Now, I don't know why you keep bringing the bible into this, but the way I read it, it is very far from claiming that the answer to the TRUTH (of all truths[tm]) is inside us."The kingdom of God is within us." Yes, this is the Truth of all truths. Where else would we expect to find it, but in our relationship with truth?


No, answers don't HAVE to be based on anything physical, but what is your evidence that it is in fact not?

Hans The truth is evidenced within.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet it speaks about the very nature of reality, that it is in fact an internal experience. Even when we verify the empirical facts, it still needs to be interpreted internally, by someone which is self-aware.


The thing is you can reason about things in your own mind, and determine their truth, without having to refer to anything external ... that is, to the degree that you develop the ability to conceptualize and understand how things work.


"The kingdom of God is within us." Yes, this is the Truth of all truths. Where else would we expect to find it?


The truth is evidenced within. [/B]All of which is indistinguishable from materialism. Lacchus, there is nothing in what you say that contradicts the materialistic world view. You use phrases like "internal experience" instead of "perception", and "Kingdom of God" instead of "religious beleifs", but those are just words.

As I keep telling you, in your eagerness to make your deism fit the perceived world, you are describing materialism.

Hans

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

All of which is indistinguishable from materialism. Lacchus, there is nothing in what you say that contradicts the materialistic world view. You use phrases like "internal experience" instead of "perception", and "Kingdom of God" instead of "religious beleifs", but those are just words.

As I keep telling you, in your eagerness to make your deism fit the perceived world, you are describing materialism.

Hans Yes, this is the "rational" approach, whether it goes by the label of materialism or not. And yes, I would be inclined to say that it is materialism, at least to the point of understanding our relationship with the truth, which I'm saying is metaphysical. And yes, that implies a higher reality or, spiritual plane, which is ascertainable from within. What do you think the Age of Reason (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=65) implies, if not something similar? ... by which the whole world was transformed via an outcropping of truth. In fact that's it, reason is a higher faculty of mind, by which we are allowed to ascertain the truth.

By the way, do you think you can spell Iacchus with an "I" instead of an "L"? Thanks. ;)

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Something which is commonly perceived or, has the potetential to be commonly perceived. Or, something which is perceivable if you clearly understand what it entails, whether those around you perceive it or not.

By your definition everything in the world is self-evident, even things that don't exist. I don't think so. LIke most people who don't seek to redefine words to fit their pet theories, I define self evident as a fact that requires nothing else to support it.

The fact that the sky is blue is self evident, just look up. The fact that the sky is blue because the atmosphere scatters light is not self evident because you have to establish several other facts to support this, such as the fact that light can be scattered in the first place and that the atmosphere can do this, and so on. And some of those facts may in turn not be self evident, for example the fact that light scatters, which means that THEY have to have other facts to support them, and so on again.

The point is, none of these things are self evident. If you follow the chain on down you might come to some self evident things, but the things the facts combine to say are not self evident, by definition. Further, none of these things are possible to grasp by simple internal pondering, as you seem to be claiming if I interpret you correctly. You have to ask questions and figure out ways to get answers. You might get those answers, but the fact that you have to work at it means those answers are not self evident.

[c4ts]

Apparently what is obvious to lacchus isn't obvious to anybody else.

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
The fact that the sky is blue is self evident, just look up.

I wouldn't even call this self evident. It is manifest:
Clearly apparent to the sight or understanding; obvious.

but it still needs some external support (you need to look up).

the only thing I'm really saying different is how can we know the truth of anything unless we are capable of seeing it for ourselves?

The closest word I can think of to this definition is 'internalised'.

[jimmygun]

Originally posted by Iacchus
It is relevant, in the sense that it's of the same lineage, and it give us an idea from whence things came.

Some contend that the whole bible front to back is the literal word of god and cannot be dismissed. Some like you say that only parts of the bible are important. We are on the same road except that I am at the other end, saying that none of the bible is relevant. It is a matter of opinion, not fact. However, in my case there is no evidence anywhere ever that anything in the bible took place ( in a spiritual way).

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by RamblingOnwards
I wouldn't even call this self evident. It is manifest:

Clearly apparent to the sight or understanding; obvious.

but it still needs some external support (you need to look up).




True enough. Come to think of it, it wouldn't even be manifest to everybody, someone who is totally colorblind for instance.

When you think about it, 'self evident' is a pretty rare thing for something to be.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by jimmygun

Some contend that the whole bible front to back is the literal word of god and cannot be dismissed. Some like you say that only parts of the bible are important. We are on the same road except that I am at the other end, saying that none of the bible is relevant. It is a matter of opinion, not fact. However, in my case there is no evidence anywhere ever that anything in the bible took place ( in a spiritual way). Do you believe in absolutes?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you believe in absolutes?

I believe in absolutes, but that belief is conditional.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by c4ts

Apparently what is obvious to lacchus isn't obvious to anybody else. Hey, I know what my middle name is, it's pretty self-evident to me. Do you know what it is? I know who my mother and father are, that's pretty self-evident? Have you had a chance to meet them?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Hey, I know what my middle name is, it's pretty self-evident to me. Do you know what it is? I know who my mother and father are, that's pretty self-evident? Have you had a chance to meet them?

Um, none of those things are really self-evident. You know them because other people told them to you. If you develop amnesia, neither your middle name nor your parents' identities would be revealed to you automatically by nature of being self-evident.


Edited to add:


self-evident

\Self`-ev"i*dent\, a. Evident without proof or reasoning; producing certainty or conviction upon a bare presentation to the mind; as, a self-evident proposition or truth. -- Self`-ev\"i*dent*ly, adv.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Hey, I know what my middle name is, it's pretty self-evident to me. Do you know what it is? I know who my mother and father are, that's pretty self-evident? Have you had a chance to meet them?

Names are not truths, Iacchus. They are words we associate with other people, which we keep consistent to prevent confusion.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Hey, I know what my middle name is, it's pretty self-evident to me. Do you know what it is? I know who my mother and father are, that's pretty self-evident? Have you had a chance to meet them?

No offense, bud, but do you ever argue with anything but bad analogies? If not could you try to start? Pleeeeeeaaaaase?

[jimmygun]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you believe in absolutes?

I don't understand the question. Please expand for me.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Iacchus
"The kingdom of God is within you." ~ Luke 17:20-21 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Luke+17) ... Yes, this is where we will find the evidence. In the same way that we find the evidence to everything else. How so? Because the truth is self-evident. If we weren't conscious and self-aware, what would we know about anything?
Are you aware of that you are uisin a passage from the bible as evidence? The same bible that say that earth is about 7000 years old? C'mon, you won't convince anyone like that.

So what we are self-aware! There is nothing supernatural about that. Almost all livning things are conscious, except procaryotes and plants perhaps, and fungi, but the rest are.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

No offense, bud, but do you ever argue with anything but bad analogies? If not could you try to start? Pleeeeeeaaaaase? If you are absolutely certain of something, does that not make it self-evident? Regardless of whether it's self-evident to somebody else or not?

Also, with respect to the definition in the dictionary, where does it say it has to be self-evident to everyone at the same time? ...


self-evident

\Self`-ev"i*dent\, a. Evident without proof or reasoning; producing certainty or conviction upon a bare presentation to the mind; as, a self-evident proposition or truth. -- Self`-ev\"i*dent*ly, adv.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc Certainly something can be self-evident to one person and yet not to another don't you think? By the way, if everything is relative, then everything which is self-evident must be relative too, right? ;)

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If you are absolutely certain of something, does that not make it self-evident?

No, a crazy person might be absolutely certain that reptilian aliens shot JFK and now are sending mind control rays from the TV which he can only block by wearing a tin foil hat. I wouldn't call it self evident.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

No, a crazy person might be absolutely certain that reptilian aliens shot JFK and now are sending mind control rays from the TV which he can only block by wearing a tin foil hat. I wouldn't call it self evident. No, it's all relative, while some things are more self-evident than others, depending on who you talk to. Obviously (hmm ...), otherwise we wouldn't be disagreeing here now would we? ;)

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
No, a crazy person might be absolutely certain that reptilian aliens shot JFK and now are sending mind control rays from the TV which he can only block by wearing a tin foil hat. I wouldn't call it self evident.

That is self-evident to our Mr. Iacchus.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If you are absolutely certain of something, does that not make it self-evident? Regardless of whether it's self-evident to somebody else or not?
No, not at all.

To use your own example...I am absolutely certain that the world is not flat. I know, though, that for anyone who has not been high enough (in a plane, for instance) to see the curvature of the earth, it is self-evident that the world is flat. I am absolutely certain that the earth orbits the sun and not vice versa, although for centuries it was self-evident that the earth does not move at all! (tell me, do you feel it rotate? Do you feel it hurtle through space? Of course not--it is self-evident that the earth does not move!)

There are enough examples of things being both A) self-evident and B) wrong, that you should really consider giving up self-evidency as proof of anything at all!

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

There are enough examples of things being both A) self-evident and B) wrong, that you should really consider giving up self-evidency as proof of anything at all! Regardless, the truth is evidenced within. Think about it. ;)

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Regardless, the truth is evidenced within. Think about it. ;) Well, certainly, one of us should.



OK, I thought about it. You are wrong.

If it were only evidenced within, it would be completely useless. The only utility to truth is through agreement with others. A truth that is yours alone is entirely useless, and logically impossible to verify. If it is only evidenced within, by what means can you dare call it "true"? It is true--I know because I asked myself and I told me it was. No one else agrees with me, but that is because they are all wrong--again, I asked myself and I told me so! This is as silly as believing the bible is the inerrant word of god, because it says so in the bible. There may be good reasons to believe, but not that one.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by El Greco
You are supposed to see a kingdom, you fool :p

Oops. My bad. :(

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

Well, certainly, one of us should.

OK, I thought about it. You are wrong.

If it were only evidenced within, it would be completely useless. The only utility to truth is through agreement with others. A truth that is yours alone is entirely useless, and logically impossible to verify. If it is only evidenced within, by what means can you dare call it "true"? It is true--I know because I asked myself and I told me it was. No one else agrees with me, but that is because they are all wrong--again, I asked myself and I told me so! This is as silly as believing the bible is the inerrant word of god, because it says so in the bible. There may be good reasons to believe, but not that one. So how do you know that even this much is true? Because you've taken a pole and happen to agree with others that it is? No, I don't think so. Now, if you were to say that people were capable of experiencing the same thing, and relate to each other a similar signifcance, I might agree. The bottom line, however, is that everyone has evidenced something similar within themselves.