[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

What is knowing? If all perception is just electrical sensory information, then we can never know anything beyond all doubt. What is illusionary and what isn't?

This is at the root of the difference between us and the reason we will never be able to communicate effectively.

To you as an atheist, all knowledge derives from sensory perception.

My epistemology or “how I know what I know and how certain I am that I know it” is completely different as follows:

1. Theological knowledge, direct revelation: I have Spiritual understanding directly from God concerning this issue; e.g., that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — it didn’t come from me.

2. , Theological knowledge, indirect revelation: I believe in a revelation experienced by another; i.e., Scripture is confirmed to me by the indwelling Spirit.

Caveat: Many Christians of good conscience are quite comfortable relying on the doctrines and traditions of faithful spiritual leaders, but I personally eschew the doctrines and traditions of all men (Mark 7:7) which includes all mortal interpretations of Scriptures, whether by the Pope, Calvin, Arminius, Billy Graham, Joseph Smith, or whomever. The mortal scribes (Paul, John, Peter, Daniel, Moses, Isaiah, David, etc.) do not fall into this category for me since the actual author is the Spirit Himself and He authenticates the Scriptures personally by His indwelling. Thus I make a hard distinction between the Living Word of God and mere musings — such as the geocentricity interpretations of the early church or any of my own similar musings.

3. Logical conclusion: I can prove the Pythagorean theorem is valid and true.

4. Evidence/Historical fact, uninterpreted: I have verifiable evidence Reagan was once President.

5. Sensory perception of something external to me: I see my dog is lying at my feet.

6. Personal memory: I recall I had breakfast this morning.

7. Prediction from scientific theory: I calculate there will be a partial solar eclipse this week.

8. Trust in a Mentor: I trust this particular person to always tell me the truth, therefore I know.…

9. Internal emotional state: I feel I’m happy, or I have empathy, compassion or sympathy for you.

10. Evidence/Historical fact, interpreted: I conclude from the fossil evidence in the geologic record that.…

11. Determined facts: I accept something as fact because of a consensus determination by others, positive (affirmation) or negative (veto); i.e., I trust that these fact finders collectively know what they are talking about.

12. Imaginings: I imagine how things ought to have been in the Schiavo case.

We do not have the same knowledge base much less the same order of value for different types of knowledge.

The first two on my list – the most important, most valued and most certain types of knowledge to me - do not exist for you. They are not transmuted into a knowledge form which is within your sense of “reality”, i.e. sensory perception – nor will they be on anyone's demand.

So you speak words without knowledge as follows:

It is a probabilistic approach, our perception, and I fear your mechanism for such an approach has been corrupted by higher psychological needs. Religion is a cradle for the ego, pampering to its insecurities and blinding us selectively to the inconsistencies whilst allowing us to join any logical "dots" together to suit our purposes.

The result is as if I am speaking in one language, you are listening in another language. For instance,

me: [I am living proof that he (God) interacts in the space/time continuum. I’ve known Jesus Christ personally for nearly a half century]

You: You are most certainly not living proof of god! If you want to argue this point, you must prove god is needed for life to exist! - which you haven't. By all means hold such an opinion, but it isn't proof. Knowing Jesus for x years doesn't make him exist any more than an imaginary friend.

My statement was not that I am living proof of God but rather that I am living proof that He interacts in the space/time continuum. It was in response to your assertion that: ”If he is outside our spacetime continuum then he CANNOT interact with it.”

To the contrary, every thing I have posited in our sidebar discussion as evidence to an intelligent man that God exists is based on the beginning of "all that there is" - i.e. causality. I haven't even begun to mention other evidence known to me.

So you see if we cannot communicate on such simple things, if every statement has to be parsed and clarified - and assertions restated over and again - then there is really no point in continuing.

But it has been fun and interesting. Thank you for the discussion!

[TrisB]

Thankyou Alamo-girl, I do appreciate your time and attention on the matter, just a couple final things would plague me if I didn't say them.

I feel you have partitioned your epistemology rather unnecessarily. All the things you have listed are still just sensory information. I challenge you on this. Even if god did speak to you, would you not have to hear him in some way? You don't need to be told that hearing is sensory information, even if not done by your ears in the conventional manor.

Its just that you have deliberately separated out different aspects of sensory information so that you don't have to apply the same objective probabilistic analysis to all of them. If you have spiritual understanding in your memory, then accessing that memory is tantamount to sensory stimulation, is it not? We, by definition, perceive absolutely nothing other than what our senses tell us - any supernatural qualia we perceive is still perceived by our "divine radio antenna", and is thus still just a sense. Why would you be willing to question your senses on a matter of a crucial piece of scientific data, but not on a divine radio broadcast? If religion is so important to you, shouldn't you be even MORE willing to question the authenticity of this sensory information, given its significance? You have shut up shop and refused to question the beliefs you stand to benefit from.

We differ in opinion on whether God is logically necessary to explain creation, and I don't think either of us will budge. I would you say the "proof" you stand by is foggy at best. A universally accepted theory of, say, gravity is something I hope you'd accept, but genuine contrary evidence could sway your view despite its ubiquity. Why do you make such an unfaltering stand by the creator-god theory when it clearly doesn't stand on such firm turf? (It has no measured evidence, and stands only from greatly debated logical musings) You grant "theological knowledge" exemption from critical probabilistic analysis through fear of loosing the benefits it brings you (which I don't doubt). I have great respect for theists who don't do this.

Aside: Before you say that x-billion people believe in god therefor probabilty is on your side, I would point that despite the efforts of x-billion people (all sharing more or less the same phsycological flaws) not one has any substantiable evidence. Hmm, x-billion negative results.

Anyway, I thankyou for your time and effort, and you have raised my awareness of the religious justification for a creator-god. In turn, I hope my words have had at least some resonance with you. It's a shame we cant meet eye to eye on some of these issues, but maybe the price of mental-freedom is eternal vigilance. Regards, Tris