The Foundations of Truth and Knowledge

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

Tart
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1663
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:55 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

The Foundations of Truth and Knowledge

Post #1

Post by Tart »

I am ever more convinced that the foundations of Truth and Knowledge lay on the Truth of God. That is to say of wisdom and knowledge, of truth, of Law and convictions and freewill, of human history, humanity and our relationships, morality, of "good" and "bad", what ought to be, science, ect. Of all the truths our society rest upon in order for it to function properly...

For instance, without law, or objective standards of "right" and "wrong", which our entire court system rest upon, society would break down without such truths.

Or for instance, freewill is also a necessity for holding people accountable for there actions, but all to often you see nonbelievers (usually upon scientific materialism) arguing that everything is predetermined and free will is a myth... If that were true our society and its laws would fall apart.
"It is difficult to reconcile the intuitive evidence that conscious decisions are causally effective with the view that the physical world can be explained entirely by physical law. The conflict between intuitively felt freedom and natural law arises when either causal closure or physical determinism (nomological determinism) is asserted. With causal closure, no physical event has a cause outside the physical domain, and with physical determinism, the future is determined entirely by preceding events (cause and effect).

The puzzle of reconciling 'free will' with a deterministic universe is known as the problem of free will or sometimes referred to as the dilemma of determinism. This dilemma leads to a moral dilemma as well: the question of how to assign responsibility for actions if they are caused entirely by past events"
(Wikipedia "Free will")

I believe we have God given Freedoms that can certainly rest, coherently, on a foundation of God, a law giver and the first mover, or unmoved mover, "or principle of divine reason and creative order [the Word of God]" ("Logos definition, our foundation of "Logic")

https://www.google.com/search?safe=stri ... CAo&uact=5

Or in our foundation for Physics, Aristotle wrote in the book titled "Physics"..
Aristotle argues, in Book 8 of the Physics and Book 12 of the Metaphysics, "that there must be an immortal, unchanging being, ultimately responsible for all wholeness and orderliness in the sensible world".
(Wikipedia, "unmoved mover")

This is about grappling with abstract concepts of knowledge and consciousness. I am convinced there is no better place to go to to study about human law, then the Bible.

Like Simon Greenleaf, and founder of Harvard Law School and expert on "evidence" is quoted saying...
Of the Divine character of the Bible, I think, no man who deals honestly with his own mind and heart can entertain a reasonable doubt, For myself, I must say, that having for many years made the evidences of Christianity the subject of close study, the result has been a firm and increasing conviction of the authenticity and plenary inspiration of the Bible. It is indeed the Word of God.
(Simon Greeleaf)

All the while i have seen atheist philosophers argue that even our logical reasoning, or "inductive" reasoning, ought not to make sense... It is called the "problem of induction", which without God, our logical reasoning isnt even justified upon itself... And yes science needs to rest on inductive reasoning, if without God...


Our society would break down without a foundation for all these aspects of truth and knowledge.

This is what the Bible says in John (Where the "Word" is from the Greek word "Logos").
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
Which is interesting, itst it? The "word", or human communication is a necessity for knowledge.. And that is what this is all about, isnt it? For instance, the story of Adam and Eve is about humans coming into consciousness, and gaining knowledge... That is what the Tree of "knowledge of Good and Evil", has also been translated as, the "Tree of Consciousness"..

And isnt it funny that sources say:
What is the beginning of human history?

In terms of world history, recorded history is first seen in accounts of the ancient world, around the 4th millenium BC. This coincides with the invention of writing.....
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-begin ... lW1b4tYebQ

Marking that about 6000 years ago, when history began with the word.

And, isnt it funny that, that Genesis names the rivers going through the Garden of Eden, that are now known in Southern Mesopotamia modern day Iraq.
And that:

History of the world
[Where did human history begin?]
"Early civilizations arose first in Lower Mesopotamia (3000 BCE)..."..

"Whether in prehistoric or historic times, people always needed to be near reliable sources of potable water. Settlements developed on river banks as early as 3000 BCE in Mesopotamia"
(History of the world)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History ... KTw64eID1Q

This is literally human records. This is human ancestor... Where do you think our fathers go back to? The "Father of Many" Abraham... Our lineages have been recorded as far as we could start to write them down. The history of our laws, our knowledge, and humanity as we know it.

It lays on a foundation of God.

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1917
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 681 times
Been thanked: 470 times

Post #2

Post by bluegreenearth »

At the foundation of truth and knowledge is epistemology. Epistemology describes the process or method we use to justifiably distinguish those things which can be known to be true or false from those things which are only believed to be true or false. Unfortunately, not everyone shares the same epistemology. If your epistemology defines the criteria for "truth" and "knowledge" differently from someone else, your ability to successfully communicate with the other person is severely restricted and often results in both of you talking past each other. So, the only way to resolve this problem is to propose an epistemology that both of you can agree upon.

Admittedly, nothing compels us to choose one epistemology over another since all possess their share of limitations. Ultimately, though, people tend to select an epistemology that best enables them to achieve some arbitrary goal. If the goal is to acquire a justification for supporting a theological claim, then Foundationalism or Coherentism may be the best epistemology to adopt. Arbitrarily qualifying “God exists� as a properly basic belief will establish a foundation upon which it becomes possible to justify a specified theological claim according to Foundationalism. For example, if belief in the existence of God requires no further justification, then it serves as a foundation upon which to support the claim that someone who had been dead for 36 hours was resurrected. The difficulty here will be persuading others to arbitrarily accept “God exist� as a properly basic belief.

Alternatively, constructing a theistic epistemology in accordance with Coherentism is a way to justify a theological claim as long as the claim coheres with the system of accepted beliefs it is associated with. In this case, if the accepted belief is that the Christian God exists, then the claim of a divine resurrection is justified by its coherence with the Christian theological system in which it resides. Conversely, the claim that Jesus never resurrected could not be justified using this epistemology because the claim fails to cohere with the Christian theology which surrounds it. The chief objection to this epistemological justification will be the fact that the claim about Jesus resurrecting is only trivially valid within the context of Christian theology and may not actually correspond with the reality we perceive or within another theological framework.

The more significant difficulty of defending a theological claim from either of those epistemological perspectives is that they almost always have the unintended consequence of providing equal support for competing or incompatible theistic claims. While this epistemic unreliability is often noticed by non-believers, many Christians seem undeterred by it. In fact, when the epistemology they started with is discovered to equally support competing or contradictory religious claims, many Christians casually and often subconsciously adjust the criteria for truth and knowledge in such a way that the newly modified epistemology conveniently justifies only their specific brand of theology.

For example, there is an epistemology which defines truth to be anything which corresponds or is consistent with divinely revealed or inspired holy texts. When this epistemology is applied to Christianity, truth becomes defined as anything which corresponds or is consistent with the Bible. However, this identical or nearly identical epistemology can function to declare truth to be anything which corresponds or is consistent with the Koran since that text is also considered by many to be Holy. As such, an unbiased application of this epistemology produces knowledge that declares both the Bible and the Koran are true.

This inconsistency is not a problem for theism in general, but most monotheistic traditions are inherently dogmatic and are unwilling to accept theological claims from competing sources. When confronted with this dilemma, many Christians modify or transfer their epistemology grounded on divinely revealed knowledge to an epistemology grounded on something like emotional appeal or personal experience which may be more internally consistent but equally unreliable. They will often claim things like, “I know Jesus Christ exists as my one true Lord and Savior because I have a personal relationship with him� or “I know Jesus exists because I’ve experienced positive changes in my life since surrendering myself to his will.� Of course, a Muslim could make identical claims about Mohammed.

In more intellectual Christian circles, a modified theistic epistemology resembling the scientific method is deployed as a strategy for maintaining confidence in a religious belief. Many apologetic arguments which are defended during public debates take this format because their strategic incorporation of empirical data creates the impression that the underlying epistemology is scientific or based on historiography. However, those apologetic strategies fail to successfully mitigate for confirmation bias and, more often than not, depend upon confirmation bias in order to be convincing.

In all fairness, Christians are not prohibited from utilizing fluid and inconsistent epistemologies to justify their beliefs among themselves. If their goal is to reinforce a preferred belief, then adopting the most favorable epistemology or conveniently swapping back and forth between multiple epistemologies will serve them in achieving that goal regardless of whether the truth and knowledge it produces corresponds with reality or not. Furthermore, when changing the epistemic rules at any convenient moment is acceptable or unnoticeable, it becomes relatively easy for apologists to justify theological claims to skeptical Christians who harbor a strong emotional attachment to their beliefs.

It should be noted that all other religious traditions retain the same ability to establish their own customized epistemologies which function to justify and reinforce their knowledge and truth claims. More importantly, non-believers are not obligated to operate within a theistic epistemological framework that permits confirmation bias to produce a knowledge base which does not comport with the reality we all experience. So, if you are seeking my concurrence with your theistic claims about truth and knowledge, you'll first have to propose a demonstrably reliable epistemology that mitigates for confirmation bias and is agreeable to the both of us.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: The Foundations of Truth and Knowledge

Post #3

Post by William »

Tart: I am ever more convinced that the foundations of Truth and Knowledge lay on the Truth of God. That is to say of wisdom and knowledge, of truth, of Law and convictions and freewill, of human history, humanity and our relationships, morality, of "good" and "bad", what ought to be, science, ect. Of all the truths our society rest upon in order for it to function properly...

For instance, without law, or objective standards of "right" and "wrong", which our entire court system rest upon, society would break down without such truths.

Or for instance, freewill is also a necessity for holding people accountable for there actions, but all to often you see nonbelievers (usually upon scientific materialism) arguing that everything is predetermined and free will is a myth... If that were true our society and its laws would fall apart.


William: This is all well and good until one digs deeper and discovers that The Truth is, we are incarcerated on a speck of dust within a seemingly endless Reality Simulation.

Then the rules are better understood in that context. They are the product of a judgmental system set up and endorsed as necessary by the very prisoners involved.

So this makes it "relative truth" and any GOD-idea at the Helm of that system cannot be portrayed or seen easily in any other Role but Judge Jury and Executioner of Justice.

Jehovah, Jesus, Judge, Jury, Justice.

Theologies evolving within said situation are bound to gravitate to ideas which incorporate some kind of explanation to account for The Situation.

However because of the Natural Ignorance The Situation enforces on the Inmate in relation to the fact of having a Beginning which is devoid of all memory of ever having existed prior to this, the Inmate is forced to adapt...as in - has no choice but to accept 'The Facts' and build explanation around the situation.

But are 'The Facts' really The Truth, or are they representations of Inmate opinions which cause factions between those who then use their will - relative to The Situation - to chose to support "Cell Block A" or "Cell Block B" and this subsequent illusion of choice which supports the illusion that The Human Will Is Free.(?)

So it becomes what it is. Not Free Will. But a certain freedom within the constraints of The Prison and its Rules to make minor choices

I think the third option worth seriously investigating as a probable alternate explanation (The Truth) is that since we do not have a memory of a prior existence, we need not assume that we actually did anything wrong in which we deserved to end up in this Prison System Situation.

This idea transcends the current common theological ideas of GOD build from the various world views of the Inmate Captives

To think that we are not here to be punished requires a Whole Paradigm Shift, and can be achieved primarily in two different ways.

1: Proclaim there is no need for Ideas of GOD as there is no GOD.
2: Proclaim that there is still a requirement for an Idea of GOD, but do not assume we exist in This Situation because we did something wrong and GOD is punishing us.

Both aspects of said Paradigm Shift go in different directions but need not necessarily function as oppositions if The Act of Judgement itself is removed from the equation.

Indeed, there would be no significant difference (no Paradigm Shift) if Judgement was required in the process, the same type GOD would eventually be rebuilt (essentially remain) at The Helm and the same Prison System would continue to be built...all on the illusion of having alternate choice inside current Paradigm, when all is really is, is the same choice packaged differently.

There appears to be no actual freedom which is of any practical use while Judgement presides within the heart of The Human Condition. But relative freedom suffices, because any freedom a Prisoner gets, is better than no freedom at all.


Tart
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1663
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:55 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #4

Post by Tart »

bluegreenearth wrote: At the foundation of truth and knowledge is epistemology. Epistemology describes the process or method we use to justifiably distinguish those things which can be known to be true or false from those things which are only believed to be true or false. Unfortunately, not everyone shares the same epistemology. If your epistemology defines the criteria for "truth" and "knowledge" differently from someone else, your ability to successfully communicate with the other person is severely restricted and often results in both of you talking past each other. So, the only way to resolve this problem is to propose an epistemology that both of you can agree upon.

Admittedly, nothing compels us to choose one epistemology over another since all possess their share of limitations. Ultimately, though, people tend to select an epistemology that best enables them to achieve some arbitrary goal. If the goal is to acquire a justification for supporting a theological claim, then Foundationalism or Coherentism may be the best epistemology to adopt. Arbitrarily qualifying “God exists� as a properly basic belief will establish a foundation upon which it becomes possible to justify a specified theological claim according to Foundationalism. For example, if belief in the existence of God requires no further justification, then it serves as a foundation upon which to support the claim that someone who had been dead for 36 hours was resurrected. The difficulty here will be persuading others to arbitrarily accept “God exist� as a properly basic belief.

Alternatively, constructing a theistic epistemology in accordance with Coherentism is a way to justify a theological claim as long as the claim coheres with the system of accepted beliefs it is associated with. In this case, if the accepted belief is that the Christian God exists, then the claim of a divine resurrection is justified by its coherence with the Christian theological system in which it resides. Conversely, the claim that Jesus never resurrected could not be justified using this epistemology because the claim fails to cohere with the Christian theology which surrounds it. The chief objection to this epistemological justification will be the fact that the claim about Jesus resurrecting is only trivially valid within the context of Christian theology and may not actually correspond with the reality we perceive or within another theological framework.

The more significant difficulty of defending a theological claim from either of those epistemological perspectives is that they almost always have the unintended consequence of providing equal support for competing or incompatible theistic claims. While this epistemic unreliability is often noticed by non-believers, many Christians seem undeterred by it. In fact, when the epistemology they started with is discovered to equally support competing or contradictory religious claims, many Christians casually and often subconsciously adjust the criteria for truth and knowledge in such a way that the newly modified epistemology conveniently justifies only their specific brand of theology.

For example, there is an epistemology which defines truth to be anything which corresponds or is consistent with divinely revealed or inspired holy texts. When this epistemology is applied to Christianity, truth becomes defined as anything which corresponds or is consistent with the Bible. However, this identical or nearly identical epistemology can function to declare truth to be anything which corresponds or is consistent with the Koran since that text is also considered by many to be Holy. As such, an unbiased application of this epistemology produces knowledge that declares both the Bible and the Koran are true.

This inconsistency is not a problem for theism in general, but most monotheistic traditions are inherently dogmatic and are unwilling to accept theological claims from competing sources. When confronted with this dilemma, many Christians modify or transfer their epistemology grounded on divinely revealed knowledge to an epistemology grounded on something like emotional appeal or personal experience which may be more internally consistent but equally unreliable. They will often claim things like, “I know Jesus Christ exists as my one true Lord and Savior because I have a personal relationship with him� or “I know Jesus exists because I’ve experienced positive changes in my life since surrendering myself to his will.� Of course, a Muslim could make identical claims about Mohammed.

In more intellectual Christian circles, a modified theistic epistemology resembling the scientific method is deployed as a strategy for maintaining confidence in a religious belief. Many apologetic arguments which are defended during public debates take this format because their strategic incorporation of empirical data creates the impression that the underlying epistemology is scientific or based on historiography. However, those apologetic strategies fail to successfully mitigate for confirmation bias and, more often than not, depend upon confirmation bias in order to be convincing.

In all fairness, Christians are not prohibited from utilizing fluid and inconsistent epistemologies to justify their beliefs among themselves. If their goal is to reinforce a preferred belief, then adopting the most favorable epistemology or conveniently swapping back and forth between multiple epistemologies will serve them in achieving that goal regardless of whether the truth and knowledge it produces corresponds with reality or not. Furthermore, when changing the epistemic rules at any convenient moment is acceptable or unnoticeable, it becomes relatively easy for apologists to justify theological claims to skeptical Christians who harbor a strong emotional attachment to their beliefs.

It should be noted that all other religious traditions retain the same ability to establish their own customized epistemologies which function to justify and reinforce their knowledge and truth claims. More importantly, non-believers are not obligated to operate within a theistic epistemological framework that permits confirmation bias to produce a knowledge base which does not comport with the reality we all experience. So, if you are seeking my concurrence with your theistic claims about truth and knowledge, you'll first have to propose a demonstrably reliable epistemology that mitigates for confirmation bias and is agreeable to the both of us.
Ok so what if we dont agree? Lets say you believe God doesnt exist, and would only accept any belief that corresponds with your basic belief there, and I believe God exists?

How would one come to terms with that? And agree on something?

That is what is going on a lot, one person holds what they believe to be true and another person holds what they believe to be true, and a lot of time they are incompatible with one another. What do you do then?


And i agree with you to a point, my entire belief that the foundations of Truth and Knowledge rest upon God, is entirely dependent on Jesus who is called the "Christ", which is to say he was the Messiah of the Jewish God, fulfilling God's destiny for his life, dying on a cross for the forgiveness of sin that was predestined for Him, and being raised from the dead...

If that isnt true, the Christian idea that Truth and Knowledge is biult upon God could surely be false. As what the apostle Paul wrote in Romans, if Jesus wasnt really raised form the dead, no body should believe in the Faith.

But as far as im concerned, the evidence is undeniable, like the Simon Greenleef quote i noted in the original post... Certainly, the mounting evidence for a foundation of truth resting on God is here, i noted much of evidence in my original post. But this Christian belief would be certainly dependent on Christ being who He said he was. And there is good evidence for both.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Post #5

Post by William »

Tart: If that isnt true, the Christian idea that Truth and Knowledge is biult upon God could surely be false. As what the apostle Paul wrote in Romans, if Jesus wasnt really raised form the dead, no body should believe in the Faith.

William: To be fair, the way it is written, it is simply saying that if one cannot have faith that Jesus really was raised from the dead, then there is no point in believing that.

In that, I do not see any particular evidence that one cannot believe in Jesus without also believing in all the stories written about him.
It is an idea which comes from Christian folklore, but how does it relate to 'Truth and Knowledge' that one is required to believe in it?
One can only really say that it relates as "Truth and Knowledge" to a certain type of Christian, but only relates to a certain type of knowledge to other Christians.

Obviously those types of Christians who follow after Paul, tend to believe the same, but how is believing something equivalent to that something being "The Foundation of Truth and Knowledge"? When Truth and knowledge are readily available without the need for faith of any kind.

Tart
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1663
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:55 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #6

Post by Tart »

William wrote: Tart: If that isnt true, the Christian idea that Truth and Knowledge is biult upon God could surely be false. As what the apostle Paul wrote in Romans, if Jesus wasnt really raised form the dead, no body should believe in the Faith.

William: To be fair, the way it is written, it is simply saying that if one cannot have faith that Jesus really was raised from the dead, then there is no point in believing that.

In that, I do not see any particular evidence that one cannot believe in Jesus without also believing in all the stories written about him.
It is an idea which comes from Christian folklore, but how does it relate to 'Truth and Knowledge' that one is required to believe in it?
One can only really say that it relates as "Truth and Knowledge" to a certain type of Christian, but only relates to a certain type of knowledge to other Christians.

Obviously those types of Christians who follow after Paul, tend to believe the same, but how is believing something equivalent to that something being "The Foundation of Truth and Knowledge"? When Truth and knowledge are readily available without the need for faith of any kind.
Christ, as the Son of God would be evidence that God exist and Christianity is true...


But if we are actually talking about the evidence that the foundations of Truth and Knowledge rest on God, there is mounting evidence all over and in part is talked about in the Original Post, like for instance, "Logos"...


Bluegreenearth just brought up that if it is true we would need to agree (blindly) that God exists... Now i dont think it is blindly agreeing God exists, i think God's existence is proven by Jesus Christ... In fact, i believe this because the evidence convinced me of this... And certainly if that is true, so is its foundations for truth and knowledge


"that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."~Paul


But take Christ away from the debate, and i didnt even mention Him in the original post... We have a foundation for truth and knowledge...

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1917
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 681 times
Been thanked: 470 times

Post #7

Post by bluegreenearth »

[Replying to post 4 by Tart]

Soooo, where in your response do you demonstrate how to mitigate for confirmation bias when investigating these Christian claims about reality?

Tart
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1663
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:55 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #8

Post by Tart »

bluegreenearth wrote: [Replying to post 4 by Tart]

Soooo, where in your response do you demonstrate how to mitigate for confirmation bias when investigating these Christian claims about reality?
Lets take the evidence for Christ then... Where is there confirmation biases, specifically?

I think the evidence shows Christ is the Messiah... It is the best explanation of the evidence, but im willing to hear anyone else's explanation of it...

Where am I committing a confirmation bias?

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1917
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 681 times
Been thanked: 470 times

Post #9

Post by bluegreenearth »

Tart wrote:
bluegreenearth wrote: [Replying to post 4 by Tart]

Soooo, where in your response do you demonstrate how to mitigate for confirmation bias when investigating these Christian claims about reality?
Lets take the evidence for Christ then... Where is there confirmation biases, specifically?

I think the evidence shows Christ is the Messiah... It is the best explanation of the evidence, but im willing to hear anyone else's explanation of it...

Where am I committing a confirmation bias?
Let's examine each piece of evidence one at a time, and I'll consider where you might be influenced by confirmation bias. It might take a while, but I'm willing to take the time if you are.

Tart
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1663
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:55 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #10

Post by Tart »

bluegreenearth wrote:
Tart wrote:
bluegreenearth wrote: [Replying to post 4 by Tart]

Soooo, where in your response do you demonstrate how to mitigate for confirmation bias when investigating these Christian claims about reality?
Lets take the evidence for Christ then... Where is there confirmation biases, specifically?

I think the evidence shows Christ is the Messiah... It is the best explanation of the evidence, but im willing to hear anyone else's explanation of it...

Where am I committing a confirmation bias?
Let's examine each piece of evidence one at a time, and I'll consider where you might be influenced by confirmation bias. It might take a while, but I'm willing to take the time if you are.
Yes absolutely... but first is this the right topic for this?

Post Reply