Do You Apply Your Epistemology Consistently?

[bluegreenearth]

Whenever I evaluate apologetic arguments, I'm compelled to wonder if these apologists consistently apply their epistemology to other claims. Usually, the apologists I encounter dodge the challenge of applying their epistemology consistently. Instead, I'm offered appeals to special pleading for why they are justified in accepting a positive result of a particular epistemology when it has been applied to a desirable theistic claim but also justified in rejecting an equally positive result from that same epistemology when it has been applied to an unfavorable or competing claim.

For example, some Christians commonly refer to an epistemology which justifies the application of faith in Holy Scriptures and sensory experiences they interpret to be divine revelation from the Holy Spirit as a reliable mechanism for obtaining knowledge of God’s existence and his requirements for humanity. At the same time, the identical or nearly identical epistemology underlies theological claims from other competing religious traditions which are not only incompatible with Christianity but each other as well. This inconsistency is not necessarily a problem for theism in general, but most religious traditions are inherently dogmatic and unwilling to embrace external theological claims.

When confronted with this dilemma, many theists modify or transfer their epistemology grounded on faith to an epistemology grounded on something like emotional appeal or personal experience which may help distinguish their preferred theology from other less desirable theologies, but these epistemological approaches are equally unreliable. For instance, Christians will often say 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 Christianity is true because I’ve experienced positive changes since surrendering my life to the will of God.� Meanwhile, nothing prohibits loyal followers of competing religious traditions from using the identical epistemology to distinguish and justify their own theological beliefs.

In more intellectual circles, many theists will modify their epistemology to resemble a scientific or historiographic methodology as a strategy for maintaining confidence in a religious belief. Nevertheless, those intellectually motivated epistemological modifications usually fail at permanently resolving the initial problem of producing positive results that also serve in supporting the interests of unfavorable or competing claims. At the same time none of those strategies successfully mitigate for confirmation bias and may actually depend upon it to achieve the theist's desired goal unlike an epistemology that is actually grounded in a scientific or historiographic methodology.

In all fairness, theists are not prohibited from utilizing a fluid epistemology in that way to justify their beliefs among themselves. If the goal is to reinforce a preferred belief, then adopting the most favorable epistemology or swapping back and forth between multiple epistemologies will serve to achieve that goal regardless of whether or not it corresponds with reality. 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 themselves and other people who already harbor a strong emotional attachment to their shared beliefs. However, it should be noted that every religious tradition retains the same ability to modify their epistemology at will in order to justify and reinforce a preferred theology. More importantly, there is no reason to expect a non-believer to operate under such an unstable and unreliable epistemological model which fails to mitigate for confirmation bias and produces a knowledge base that is inconsistent with or contradictory to the reality they experience.

Questions for consideration and debate:

What is the justification for failing to consistently apply an established epistemology?

How reliable is an epistemology that serves to support multiple competing or contradictory beliefs?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 189 by Diagoras]

By the same token, I’m not obligated to phrase my questions to you in any particular way either.

I have not complained about the way in which you phrase the question. Rather, I am complaining about the way you seem to insist that I answer the question.

The point is made. I’ll repeat it here, so there’s no ambiguity:

Diagoras introduced ‘heaven and hell’ into this debate before RealworldJack ever mentioned it.

I trust the general reader will read my previous posts to understand my reasons for introducing those two ‘alternate realities’.

Let us recall the reason I bring up who it was who brought this up in the first place is one must have thought there would be some kind of point to make, and the only way I can imagine they would think they had any sort of point is to presuppose what I would have thought, otherwise there would be no point to be made.

You’re on record as stating that we can prove that we know nothing about any alternate reality. You seem to be ‘softening’ your stance here. Perhaps you’d clarify to remove any ambiguity here.

There is no softening involved here. I make the statement, and then go on to say, "as far as I know" giving anyone the opportunity to demonstrate where I may be in error.

That was in post 183.

What’s changed for you to move from ‘proving we can know nothing’, to claiming to have ‘reports’? Having any kind of report is not ‘nothing’.

Nothing has changed my friend. Saying, "we can prove that we can know nothing about any sort of heaven, or hell", does not necessitate that there would be no facts, or evidence concerning the matter. However, if all we have is evidence, this would not cause any of us to be able to know, (demonstrate) these things.

Are you comfortable with the label ‘agnostic’ applying to this specific belief, then?

My friend, I do not make my conclusions based upon how I feel, but rather upon the facts, and evidence we have. As far as heaven, and hell is concerned, I do not believe I have enough information concerning either to base any sort of belief in what they may, or may not be, if they even exist.

"It can be proved that nothing can be known about any alternate reality. Given that premise, a person is therefore being inconsistent if he or she claims a belief in heaven or hell, but claims not to believe in any other alternate reality"

My friend, when one says, "it can be proved that we know nothing about" a particular thing, this is not the same as saying that this "particular thing" can be demonstrated not to exist. My whole point in bringing this up would be that the person I was conversing with at the time, seemed to want to leave the facts, and evidence, we both agreed upon, and delve into something for which we cannot even have an intelligent conversation about. In other words, it seemed to me to be some sort of tactic, in order to attempt to divert the conversation, by saying, "we can know nothing about what reality really is, because there may be outside sources causing us to experience a reality that really is not reality at all". If this was not the point, then it is over my head, and seems senseless to bring it up, since he and I seemed to agree on certain facts, and evidence we can know.

So then, this was the whole point of my bringing into the conversation, "we can prove that we can know nothing about any sort of alternative reality", and since he and I seemed to agree upon what reality would be, I see no sense in discussing something for which we can know nothing about.

In the same way, when we are discussing the facts, and evidence concerning the claims in the NT, it would make no sense for me to bring up heaven, or hell, since we can know nothing about any sort of heaven, or hell. However, there are certainly facts, and evidence that we can demonstrate, and know, concerning other reports made in the NT.

Therefore, as for me, I have no problem with what one claims to believe. My concern is what sort of facts, and evidence they can bring to the table in order to back up what they claim to believe.

[Realworldjack]

The bottom line here is, the originator of the OP was attempting to make an argument, by appealing to some sort of alternative reality, that even he seemed to be apologetic for, in attempt to argue that reality may not be the way we experience, which would have nothing whatsoever to do with the way we actually experience reality, with no facts, and evidence to demonstrate there may be other factors involved that we do not know about.

This is a desperate argument, and would be no different than the Christian appealing to some sort of heaven, or hell, which I have never done.

Therefore, I do not believe, nor disbelieve in any sort of alternative reality, but rather attempt to deal with the facts, as we all know, and experience them. Ergo, I do not believe, nor disbelieve in any sort of heaven, or hell.

The originator of the OP (me) was not "appealing" to some sort of "alternative" reality. If that was your impression, then please pardon my lack of clarity. I was simply describing the necessary philosophical distinction between a metaphysical reality and an empirical reality. These philosophical concepts have to be understood in order to properly discuss epistemology. Otherwise, people just end up talking past one another. So, when someone claims to "know" something about reality, we need to understand whether the knowledge claim is referencing a metaphysical reality or an empirical reality because this distinction determines whether the claim is justifiable or not.

Pardon me if I may be incorrect here, but I believe this was all brought into the conversation when I said something to the effect, "it is a fact that we have the claims in the NT". Now, either you, and I can agree on this being a fact which can be demonstrated, or there is some reason you believe there may be to doubt this would be a fact.

If we can both agree this would be a fact, then it simply seems to me to be some sort of diversion, to bring in this whole other topic, which we both seem to be convinced would be ridiculous.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 190 by Realworldjack]

I have not complained about the way in which you phrase the question. Rather, I am complaining about the way you seem to insist that I answer the question.

Complaint is noted.

...the only way I can imagine they would think they had any sort of point is to presuppose...

<bolding mine>

Just because you can’t imagine what the point is doesn’t mean there isn’t one. You’ve committed a argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

There is no softening involved here. I make the statement, and then go on to say, "as far as I know" giving anyone the opportunity to demonstrate where I may be in error.

As far as I know, to the best of my knowledge, on the understanding that I may be wrong, conditional on the information to hand... you’re trying to shift the goalposts on this point.

1. We can prove the earth orbits the sun.
2. As far as I know, the earth orbits the sun.

Would you say Statements 1 and 2 are logically equivalent? Our whole side-debate here originated precisely because you used the word ‘prove’ in a specific way (regarding alternate realities), so if you are now trying to claim that you really meant something closer to 2. above, please confirm that.

Saying, "we can prove that we can know nothing about any sort of heaven, or hell", does not necessitate that there would be no facts, or evidence concerning the matter.

non sequitur (lit.)

As far as heaven, and hell is concerned, I do not believe I have enough information concerning either to base any sort of belief in what they may, or may not be, if they even exist.

From merriam-webster:

Definition of agnostic (Entry 1 of 2)
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable
broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
political agnostics

The above (definition 2) seems to me to be a fair and sufficiently accurate way of describing your opinion on heaven and hell. I agree with your point about not basing conclusions on feelings, though.

My friend, when one says, "it can be proved that we know nothing about" a particular thing, this is not the same as saying that this "particular thing" can be demonstrated not to exist.

I agree that these are not the same. I’ve taken care to avoid the trap of false equivalence, but if you believe I’ve erred in this, please point it out.

Also (just my opinion), starting so many paragraphs with ‘my friend’ comes across as a rather disingenuous trope. I’d be happier if you dropped them.

I see no sense in discussing something [heaven and hell] for which we can know nothing about.

[my additional words for clarification]

My reading of the above is that you’re perhaps conflating something that neither of us wants (a debate on whether heaven and hell exist) with something that one of us wants - and the other would (for some reason) prefer not to address.

I don’t want to debate you on whether heaven and hell exist.

I would like you to consider the strength of a generalised logical argument (already given twice) that uses ‘heaven and hell’ simply as an example to show how a person could display inconsistency.

- - - - - - - - - -

One final opinion: looking at all your points which I’ve replied to in this thread, I could summarise them as:

complaint
argumentum ad ignorantiam
Shifting goalposts
Non sequitur
Quibble over simple definition
Point not in debate
Dodging the question

What I don’t see is any genuine engagement. While we’re in a thread which has inconsistency as its subject, I consider it not unreasonable to respectfully ask that you address the one question I’ve been asking.

[Diagoras]

A further thought, after reflecting on the tone of my previous post:

The only good kind of debate is one where the goal is to make progress rather than ‘win’. Please try to view my enquiry in that light.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 192 by Diagoras]

Just because you can’t imagine what the point is doesn’t mean there isn’t one. You’ve committed a argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

When I say, "I cannot imagine" this does not in any way indicate, there would be no way. Rather, it simply means, it is beyond my imagination to understand. So then, why don't you explain to us why you brought heaven, and hell into the conversation, if it was not because you would be under the impression that as a Christian I would have to hold some sort of opinion? Maybe, I am in error, and you can correct me in that this was not your point.

As far as I know, to the best of my knowledge, on the understanding that I may be wrong, conditional on the information to hand... you’re trying to shift the goalposts on this point.

1. We can prove the earth orbits the sun.
2. As far as I know, the earth orbits the sun.

Would you say Statements 1 and 2 are logically equivalent? Our whole side-debate here originated precisely because you used the word ‘prove’ in a specific way (regarding alternate realities), so if you are now trying to claim that you really meant something closer to 2. above, please confirm that.

My friend, have you ever heard of something called, "sarcasm"? So then, if I am in a conversation with someone concerning something that would be plainly evident, I may say, "as far as I know" giving folks an opportunity to demonstrate where I may be mistaken, not being under the impression this would be possible. I will try to keep in mind that you are a stickler concerning these sort of things, but I will assure you that I was not attempting to "shift the goal posts".

non sequitur

How would this not follow? I have just started a thread asking the question if we can know anything about the authors of what we call "The Gospels"? There are certain facts, and evidence one can use concerning the authors, and there has been one who has already given certain facts, and evidence. However, even he admits that nothing can be firmly established about the authors. So then, we can have facts, and evidence concerning heaven, and hell, and still not be able to know (demonstrate) anything about them.

The above (definition 2) seems to me to be a fair and sufficiently accurate way of describing your opinion on heaven and hell. I agree with your point about not basing conclusions on feelings, though.

That is fair. In other words, I understand that we cannot demonstrate anything concerning either heaven, or hell. Besides, I do not understand what there would be to believe in, since I am not under the impression that any of us will be spending any sort of time in either place. So then, what is there to believe in?

I agree that these are not the same.

Exactly! Therefore, if I say, "it can be demonstrated that we know nothing about any sort of alternate reality" which the originator of the OP was referring to, this is not to say that there would not be any sort of alternative reality. Rather, what I am saying is, we have nothing at all concerning any sort of facts, evidence, or reports of any sort of thing. So then, my whole point would be, the only reason I can think for one to bring up such a possibility, is in order to avoid having to deal with the facts, as we agree upon.

I’ve taken care to avoid the trap of false equivalence, but if you believe I’ve erred in this, please point it out.

You err if you are somehow under the impression that one saying "we can know nothing about something", would be the same as, "there would be no facts, and evidence to support such an idea". In other words, we may be able to piece together certain evidence in support of certain things, but until it can be demonstrated to be fact, we cannot say this is something we can know.

It is sort of like this. We cannot know the reports in the NT would be false, but there may be facts, evidence, and reason for those to believe the reports would be false, but we cannot "know" this to be a fact.

Also (just my opinion), starting so many paragraphs with ‘my friend’ comes across as a rather disingenuous trope. I’d be happier if you dropped them.

I certainly desire your happiness.

I would like you to consider the strength of a generalised logical argument (already given twice) that uses ‘heaven and hell’ simply as an example to show how a person could display inconsistency.

As demonstrated above, there may be facts, evidence, and reason to believe certain things, which does not absolutely demonstrate something we can say we know.

The fact of the matter is, I was in a discussion with one who was attempting to bring in a subject, of which we have no facts, and evidence to support, and it seemed to me to be an attempt to get us off the facts, and evidence that he, and I agree upon. This is why I went on to say, "we can know nothing about any sort on alternative reality". In other words, we have certain facts, and evidence we can discuss, because we agree on these as being facts.

You come in and bring in heaven, and hell, but not only have I never mentioned these things, I would never mention any of these things in such a way as to say we can know anything about them, which seems to be exactly what the one I was discussing was doing.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 192 by Diagoras]When I say, "I cannot imagine" this does not in any way indicate, there would be no way. Rather, it simply means, it is beyond my imagination to understand. So then, why don't you explain to us why you brought heaven, and hell into the conversation, if it was not because you would be under the impression that as a Christian I would have to hold some sort of opinion? Maybe, I am in error, and you can correct me in that this was not your point.

I’m happy to address this point.

Back in Post 176 (third paragraph), you stated that we can prove that we know nothing about any alternate reality. From purely a formal logic viewpoint, that’s a very interesting statement, because you generalised it to ‘any’ alternate reality.

Therefore, in Post 178 (when I joined the debate), I simply wanted to understand whether we could test such a generalised statement with a specific example. I chose heaven and hell because (it seems to me) that if your ‘proof’ still worked, it would weaken any claim that heaven and hell exist. Such matters are the stuff of the C&A forum, and it seemed relevant to the thread (my opinion).

Where I possibly sowed confusion (as I review the responses from that point on), was by first asking you specifically about your beliefs in heaven and hell. I realise now that this has been a sore point for you, so I apologise. Even though I seem to have reached some better understanding of your opinion on them, I recognise that such opinion isn’t germane to my ‘point’, and we needn’t carry on that part of the discussion any longer.

I trust this addresses your objections, which you raised multiple times (e.g. Post 179 and 181) and that we can set that aside and move on.

My friend, have you ever heard of something called, "sarcasm"?

<This was in relation to my accusation of a ‘shifting goalposts’ fallacy>

We should probably start calling this the ‘bleach defence’ in honour of the President who claimed he was talking sarcastically when extolling its health benefits. The relevant posts here are 183 (last two sentences) and 187 (“we have reports�). After being called out on an apparent shifting of position, you had the opportunity in Post 190 to clarify that you were in fact being sarcastic, but chose not to do so. While I cannot force you to answer any question in a particular way, I don’t think it’s helpful in debate (and in fact, I consider it intellectually dishonest) to use sarcasm without being emphatically clear that you are doing so.

Perhaps you’d like to revisit and reframe Posts 183 and 187 to help clear up any misunderstanding on my part, now that you know what a “stickler� I am?

How would this not follow? I have just started a thread...

<In relation to accusation of ‘non sequitur’>

I’m not involved in that other thread, so will set aside that part of the argument. Here’s your quote which ‘does not follow’:

Saying, "we can prove that we can know nothing about any sort of heaven, or hell", does not necessitate that there would be no facts, or evidence concerning the matter.

Whether or not the ‘facts, or evidence’ are weak or strong, if we have them, then we can’t logically state the first part of the argument.

[1] If you have a ‘fact’ about something (anything), then you ‘know’ something about it. If you ‘know nothing’ about a particular thing, then you have no facts. However, please read on...

In other words, I understand that we cannot demonstrate anything concerning either heaven, or hell.

Noted. As you’re using the general case (“we�), I feel comfortable addressing this point. Would you then agree that the logic of this specific example (heaven and hell) extends to the general case, i.e. “we cannot demonstrate anything concerning any alternate reality�?

Exactly! Therefore, if I say, "it can be demonstrated that we know nothing about any sort of alternate reality" which the originator of the OP was referring to, this is not to say that there would not be any sort of alternative reality. Rather, what I am saying is, we have nothing at all concerning any sort of facts, evidence, or reports of any sort of thing.

Ok, I can see where you’re coming from: Your phrases “it can be demonstrated� and your previous “we can prove� are roughly synonymous. Am I understanding you right: you wish us (collectively) to set aside ‘alternate realities’ from the discussion about inconsistencies, precisely because we can “know nothing about them�?

You err if you are somehow under the impression that one saying "we can know nothing about something", would be the same as, "there would be no facts, and evidence to support such an idea". In other words, we may be able to piece together certain evidence in support of certain things, but until it can be demonstrated to be fact, we cannot say this is something we can know.

We may be inching closer to some middle-ground here, as there’s a subtle point which I believe we may both have not paid enough attention to:

“We can know nothing� isn’t exactly the same as “We know nothing�. I hope we can agree with that.

The former is a statement of logic (“it’s impossible to know�); the latter is a statement of fact (which could change if new knowledge becomes available).

It is sort of like this. We cannot know the reports in the NT would be false, but there may be facts, evidence, and reason for those to believe the reports would be false, but we cannot "know" this to be a fact.

As this works (logically) just as well with ‘true’ replacing ‘false’, I agree with the validity of your statement. In this instance, “know� should really say, “state with 100% certainty� in order to clarify the point. I suspect our disagreement may hinge upon our understanding of ‘we cannot know’ and the degree to which we maintain something ‘can be known’. Hence my accusation of a non sequitur explained at [1] above. Can you see where I’m coming from?

I’m hopeful we can move toward some form of resolution on the ‘logical front’, based on what I’ve tried to clarify above.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Diagoras]


Whether you would like to believe it or not, (I really do not care what you happen to believe) I never intended what you were claiming in the first place. In other words, you were attempting to make me say something that I did not intend. Let's go back through the conversation.

I was having a discussion with another person, who had brought into the conversation some sort of "alternate reality" in which we may think what we experience is reality, but in fact it may be possible that this would not be reality at all. It seemed to me to be some sort of tactic in order to get us off certain facts, and evidence we had already agreed upon, in order to chase after something we have no way to know anything about. Therefore, when talking to him, and him alone, concerning our conversation I say, "we can prove we can know nothing about any sort of alternate reality", I am only referring to the alternative reality he has brought into the conversation, and have no other alternative reality in mind, because we had not referred to any other alternative reality, which would include heaven, and hell, (if they can even be referred to as alternative realities?).

In fact, I would like you to notice that I refer to it as "alternative reality" singular, and then you come in a refer to "alternative realities", plural.

You then come along, and bring in the idea of heaven, and hell which would have had nothing to do with our conversation in an attempt to make some sort of point. I understand that I had never intended any other alternative reality such as heaven, and hell, and in fact bring this up by mentioning that I had never mentioned heaven, and hell.

However, because I believed that you were attempting to make some sort of point, based upon what you would have had to assumed I believed about heaven, and hell, I went along with what you were saying, and even said that you must assume what I must, and have to believe concerning heaven, and hell as a Christian. In fact I asked,

You have somehow determined that I have a desire to reach heaven, and avoid hell?

You responded by saying, "not at all", to which I replied,

I don't know how you would think you could possibly be making any sort of point, unless you think you would have an idea of what my thoughts would be on these things, otherwise I do not see how you would have a point?

So then, I make a definite statement here, giving you an opportunity to correct me by giving us the point you were attempting to make by bringing in heaven, and hell, and you have failed to make any sort of point.

The whole point here would be, you never had any sort of point either way. First, you did not have a point in that when I said, "we know nothing whatsoever about any sort of other reality" I was only referring to the reality which had been brought up by the person I was conversing with, and had no other reality in mind, and could not have been possibly referring to any other reality.

Next, I went along with your idea, because I was sure you had to be under the impression that I would have to believe certain things as a Christian concerning heaven, and hell, and gave you the opportunity to express these things.

However, as many other Christians, I am not under the impression that any of us will be spending time in heaven, or hell, but rather the "Kingdom of God" on an earth made new, while unbelievers will be consumed along with the earth now as we know it, which is what is referred to as, "conditional immortality." So then, as I have explained, you had no point either way.

Back in Post 176 (third paragraph), you stated that we can prove that we know nothing about any alternate reality. From purely a formal logic viewpoint, that’s a very interesting statement, because you generalised it to ‘any’ alternate reality.

My friend, I can kind of understand you attempting this sort of thing, but the fact of the matter would be, you are putting far to much weight into the word "any". Again, the person I am responding to would have only brought up one alternative reality, and so when I say, "we can know nothing about any alternative reality", I was only including the reality he had referred to, and could not possibly had any other reality in mind. In fact, what I actually said was, and what you initially responded to was,

We can prove we know nothing whatsoever about ANY SORT of other reality

Again, you can believe as you wish, but I had no other reality in mind as I wrote this, and this should be evident by the conversation.

Therefore, in Post 178 (when I joined the debate), I simply wanted to understand whether we could test such a generalised statement with a specific example. I chose heaven and hell because (it seems to me) that if your ‘proof’ still worked, it would weaken any claim that heaven and hell exist. Such matters are the stuff of the C&A forum, and it seemed relevant to the thread (my opinion).

And as we have seen, you had no point either way. First, I was not including any other reality. Next, even if we include heaven, and hell, what would be your point? We are waiting?

Where I possibly sowed confusion (as I review the responses from that point on), was by first asking you specifically about your beliefs in heaven and hell. I realise now that this has been a sore point for you, so I apologise.

Nothing for you to apologize for, since it would have nothing to do with it being a "sore point" for me, but rather you have failed to make any sort of point by bringing heaven, and hell into the conversation.

Even though I seem to have reached some better understanding of your opinion on them, I recognise that such opinion isn’t germane to my ‘point’, and we needn’t carry on that part of the discussion any longer.

Which was exactly my point in going along with what you presented, even though I never had any other reality in mind, other than the one brought up by the one I was conversing with at the time.

I trust this addresses your objections, which you raised multiple times (e.g. Post 179 and 181) and that we can set that aside and move on.

Sure! We can "move on", as long as it is understood that your point would have been "germane" either way.

<This was in relation to my accusation of a ‘shifting goalposts’ fallacy>

We should probably start calling this the ‘bleach defence’ in honour of the President who claimed he was talking sarcastically when extolling its health benefits. The relevant posts here are 183 (last two sentences) and 187 (“we have reports�). After being called out on an apparent shifting of position, you had the opportunity in Post 190 to clarify that you were in fact being sarcastic, but chose not to do so. While I cannot force you to answer any question in a particular way, I don’t think it’s helpful in debate (and in fact, I consider it intellectually dishonest) to use sarcasm without being emphatically clear that you are doing so.

Perhaps you’d like to revisit and reframe Posts 183 and 187 to help clear up any misunderstanding on my part, now that you know what a “stickler� I am?

Do you really want to make this argument over such a simple thing? Seriously? I start out by saying, in post 183,

So then, we can prove we can know nothing about any sort of other reality, and we can prove that we can know nothing about any sort of heaven or hell. So, what would be your point again?

This would have all gone back to the fact that I never had any other reality in mind other than the one given by the one I was conversing with, but went along with you in order to allow you to make some sort of point, and when I use the word "again" at the end of the sentence, I would assume everyone would understand this to be sarcastic?

Then, in post 187 you refer to, I say,

For one to believe in anything at all, there should be some sort of facts, and evidence to support such a belief.

This sentence is right before the one you are complaining about, and it is clearly intended to set up this sentence, where I say,

As far as I know, there are no facts, and evidence to base a belief in any sort of alternative reality.

How in the world would this be "shifting the goal posts"? If it is, (and it is not) then it certainly would not be by much at all. Moreover, for one to "shift the goal posts" one would be making the target more difficult to hit, and I am making the target easier to hit.

However, the fact if the matter would be, I have already taken a hard line, and my intentions were to invite those who would be under the impression that there would be some sort of facts, and evidence concerning this alternate reality to bring it forward. The main point here is though, this would not be enough to even make a fuss over? GOOD GRIEF!

If you have a ‘fact’ about something (anything), then you ‘know’ something about it.

This is what does not follow. We can know it to be a "fact" that we have certain reports concerning heaven, and hell. This would be a "fact about" heaven, and hell. However, this "fact" does not cause us to be able to know a thing about heaven, and hell.

Noted. As you’re using the general case (“we�), I feel comfortable addressing this point. Would you then agree that the logic of this specific example (heaven and hell) extends to the general case, i.e. “we cannot demonstrate anything concerning any alternate reality�?

The whole point being made here on my part as far was your "general case" was, "why are we bringing into the conversation something we have no facts, and evidence to support, and we can know nothing about (demonstrate) when there are already facts, and evidence we have agreed upon, as far as the claims in the NT is concerned.

In the same way, I did not bring up, nor have I ever brought up, heaven, and hell, as something we can know about (demonstrate) but rather deal with the facts, and evidence we can agree upon.

This is not that difficult to understand! I brought up the fact that "we can know nothing about this other reality" to get us back to the things we could agree upon, and never had any other alternate reality in mind, and we have demonstrated that either way, you had no point to make.

Ok, I can see where you’re coming from: Your phrases “it can be demonstrated� and your previous “we can prove� are roughly synonymous. Am I understanding you right: you wish us (collectively) to set aside ‘alternate realities’ from the discussion about inconsistencies, precisely because we can “know nothing about them�?

You would be correct here other than, it is the "alternative reality" (singular) I was referring to, because it was that "alternative reality" that was causing us to get away from those things which we can demonstrate.

“We can know nothing� isn’t exactly the same as “We know nothing�. I hope we can agree with that.

I think what is happening here is one is putting far to much into the phrase I used, "we can know nothing of any sort of alternative reality" when responding to someone who brought up an alternative reality which we can know nothing about, and then goes on to attempt to make some sort of point which has yet to be made. I will however take some responsibility, since I could have phrased it another way and I believe this would have caused us to never have had this conversation in the first place. I could have said, "we can know nothing of this alternative reality you are referring to"?

As I said, this would have eliminated this whole waste of time, but I really did not have any idea that one would want to come into the conversation attempting to make a point by bringing heaven, and hell into the conversation, and never making any sort of point at all, either way we slice it.

As this works (logically) just as well with ‘true’ replacing ‘false’, I agree with the validity of your statement.

It would go both ways, so it seems we agree that there can be facts, and evidence concerning something which we can still know (demonstrate) nothing about.

I suspect our disagreement may hinge upon our understanding of ‘we cannot know’ and the degree to which we maintain something ‘can be known’. Hence my accusation of a non sequitur explained at [1] above. Can you see where I’m coming from?

It seems to me that much of our disagreement is over semantics. As an example my use of the word "know" has the meaning of demonstrate. In other words, we may have some sort of facts, and evidence to support a certain idea, or opinion, but these facts, and evidence would not be enough for us to be able to know, (demonstrate) the idea, and opinion would be correct.

Ergo, there would be facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the claims in the NT would be true, while there may also be facts, evidence, and reasons to believe them to be false. We have no facts, evidence, or reason to believe in the alternate reality referred to by the person I was conversing with. Therefore, I can say, "we can prove we know nothing of any sort of alternative reality", such as the one he was referring to.

I’m hopeful we can move toward some form of resolution on the ‘logical front’, based on what I’ve tried to clarify above.

I am ready to move on, as soon as it is acknowledged that you had no point to make. As far as the point concerning heaven, and hell, you seem to have admitted it would be "germane", and the only thing left that I see for you to complain about would be the "moving of the goal posts" which I did not do, but even if I would have, what would be the point?

In other words, all that could be said would be, I claimed in one post, we can prove a certain thing, only to later reply, "as far as I know". So then, if you would like to hang your hat on this being the movement of the goal post, then I cannot possibly see how, but please feel free to celebrate if this is what it takes for one to feel better.

[bluegreenearth]

Pardon me if I may be incorrect here, but I believe this was all brought into the conversation when I said something to the effect, "it is a fact that we have the claims in the NT". Now, either you, and I can agree on this being a fact which can be demonstrated, or there is some reason you believe there may be to doubt this would be a fact.

If we can both agree this would be a fact, then it simply seems to me to be some sort of diversion, to bring in this whole other topic, which we both seem to be convinced would be ridiculous.

How was my discussion on the distinction between ontology and epistemology a diversion from this topic? The topic is epistemology. When I asked about your epistemological criteria for what constitutes a fact, the content of your response implied a lack of understanding for the distinction between ontology and epistemology. So, I proceeded to explain that distinction by way of an analogy.

[Diagoras]

In reply to Post 197.

Life and login issues got in the way, so my initial response to this sat in Draft form for a lot longer than I would have liked. By way of a final comment before abandoning the thread, then:

Whether you would like to believe it or not, (I really do not care what you happen to believe) I never intended what you were claiming in the first place. In other words, you were attempting to make me say something that I did not intend.

I can’t make you say anything, and would never attempt to. All I (or anyone) can do is read what you write, try to understand it, and ask questions. Your disinterest in my beliefs is noted, though (and reciprocated).

I will however take some responsibility, since I could have phrased it another way and I believe this would have caused us to never have had this conversation in the first place.

Very likely. It’s almost as if taking care to say exactly what one means is important...

I really did not have any idea that one would want to come into the conversation attempting to make a point by bringing heaven, and hell into the conversation, and never making any sort of point at all

Your obdurate repetition of this idea that I “have no point to make” has become extremely tedious to read. I’m curious to know how many of the 3,000+ views of this thread, other than yours, would have ascertained my “point”.

It seems to me that much of our disagreement is over semantics.

I’d be encouraged to continue the discussion if I agreed with this, but I think it goes much further than that.

I am ready to move on, as soon as it is acknowledged that you had no point to make.

Case in point. I’d call that sanctimonious.