Rise of atheism: 100,000 Brits seek 'de-baptism'

[Final-Fan]

appolose said:

Final-Fan said:
Revelation does not confer absolute knowledge, since you can't be sure of the source or the accuracy without faith.

You couldn't be sure... unless absolute knowledge was given to you. That's the point. If absolute knowledge is given to you about whatever, including the information of where it came from, then... you have absolute knowledge.

It's actually quite logical. 1. You are given absolute knowledge about X. 2. Therefore you have absolute knowledge about X. Saying "we can't be sure of where it came from" would only be true if that absolute knowledge hadn't also been given to you. And knowing it or not wouldn't change the fact that you apparently have absolute knowledge about something else anyway.

If you don't mind, I would like to set this discussion on a higher priority than the other mess.  I may also respond to that while this is ongoing, but this is probably an even more fundamental issue. 

Anyway, it seems to me that this supposed absolute knowledge would fit into two categories: 
(1) consciously received:  I would hope we can both agree on what this phrase means, but if there is any hint of doubt we can discuss it.  [edit: Described in another post as "You receive data and are aware of the fact".]
(2) not consciously received:  i.e. one just HAS it.  [edit: Also described in another post as "your mind/memories/beliefs are altered and you are not aware of it".]

[edit:  If there is any disagreement about the fact that two categories much like that exist, or over where the line is to be drawn separating the two, please speak up.]

Now, if (1) is the case, how do we know it is in fact absolute knowledge?  It seems to me that you are saying that one is also given absolute knowledge that the other absolute knowledge is actually absolute knowledge.  I hope you can see the infinite loop this devolves into, no better than "just because", or "the bible is always correct because it says so, and we know the bible is correct in saying that it is always correct because it is always correct, which we know because it says so". 
     The only way to avoid this problem is to simply trust that the giver is both honest and correct, which is clearly "faith" by any reasonable definition. 

If (2) is the case, I do not see any way we can differentiate it from a "belief" that comes from within us and is not trustable.  It would take "faith" that this is absolute knowledge and not just a belief. 

Your "quite logical" explanation only works because it PRESUMES that the absolute knowledge is actually absolute knowledge, which is begging the question.  (Note:  Unless you're saying that absolute certainty (no matter the origin of said certainty) that it is absolute knowledge makes it so ... I hope you can truly assure me that you are not saying this.) 

Off topic:  howdy, donathos.