| donathos said: ... |
How you would propose to keep your skepticism from becoming solipsism, I dunno... :) But maybe you answer that later, with "revelation."
Yep, Solipsism is only another possible belief relating to sense data.
Hmmm... do you mean that, the "fact" that "the sky is blue" could be "revealed knowledge"?
Yes, stated simplistically, as sense data ‘blue’ is being presented to you, you would still need knowledge that it represents the concept of the sky.
By the way, I love your qualifier "if you believe some history on epistemology"...
Hehe…
You're in an awfully difficult spot, naturally, trying to give the reasons for your positions... because at root you're insisting that there are no reasons for your positions (or those of anyone else).
Oh not so difficult, just not so palpable for defense. You could say “no reason”, yes. But of course I find it to be the only answer to the question of how one knows.
But, to facilitate our discussion, how about this: you're free to make "normal/empirical" arguments without needing to qualify them, unless I raise a specific question as to "how do you know that, without resorting to empiricism?"
Hmm not sure I follow you.
What other origins of beliefs do you believe exist, outside of revealed knowledge?
Getting all theological I could pose that all existing ideas could be believed by the “will of a man” (ideas being created by ol’ sovereign God). But that’s not necessary for the explanation of revelation.
For any given belief, how are you aware of the origin of that belief?
Being ‘gifted’ some absolute knowledge about the world doesn’t necessarily imply one also knows where it came from. A person simply can’t claim any absolute knowledge he has came from his own abilities (rationalism, empiricism, whatever) as the meaning of them in our mind confesses otherwise. Whereas, the meaning of revelation in our mind works as an answer to epistemology (a question also in our mind, if I needed to specify that).
* What is "biblical" Christianity? Is it meant to refer to a specific denomiation or set of dogma? Because I can only compare it in my mind to "non-biblical" Christianity... and I'm not sure what that would mean, either. :)
As I find subjectivism nonsensical, I find the bible to mean only what it meant – aka one dogma. The understanding I have of it would contradict many denominations and cult break offs – thus what would be meant by non-biblical Christianity. The only reason I brought that up was because, as I’ve noticed you mentioning with someone else, many Christians hold that their beliefs can be proven via rationalism or empiricism. This isn’t something biblical supported.
* Is your knowledge that "revealed knowledge is a method of truth that is unique to Biblical Christianity" revealed knowledge? Or do you know that is true of Biblical Christianity via some other method?
Nope nope, nothing that I hold onto with such confidence. It’s not ‘absolute knowledge’. This doesn’t eliminate the possibility that such a piece of information could be revealed though.
Related to this subject, there are some pronouncements of the status of “disbelievers” in relation to knowledge, if that matters.
I’m impressed. These are exactly the questions I would have asked.
Okami
To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made. I won't open my unworthy mouth.
