Epistemology Proves God

Now that it’s locked in philosophy perhaps it should be looked at here.



I just scanned your previous thread. Are you saying that God has certifying your thinking as correct? How do you know you are not just out of touch with reality?

I refuse to answer questions that were already answered in the the thread I linked to. Ask something novel and I will answer it. I don’t correspond with laziness.

How do you know that it is now…?

Do you mean to imply a locker…?

How can something be locked in philosophy…? Philosophy is not a spacial construct.

How do you qualify ‘perhaps’…? my God says probability is the underlying order birthed from the randomly-polkadotted egg of chaos. How can you describe a place that is no-place as ‘here’…?

How how…?

“How do you know it’s now?”

Because the transcendent, self attesting, triune God of the Bible has created man in his image so that we are able to discover facts about the world! (Facts like, what “now” is.)

Do you mean to imply a locker…?

Such would be a valid deduction from examining the implicit meaning of Mr. Category’s statement, (a deduction that you could only make given the truth of the Christian worldview, and the resulting possibility of logic, knowledge, and rationality!)

How can something be locked in philosophy…? Philosophy is not a spacial construct.

Your statement here may or may not be correct, but it is irrelevant, since the “philosophy” being referred to is the overall forum, “Philosophy.” In this instance, certain threads in the Philosophy forum can certainly be locked down, (in the common sense of the phrase!) For you to say otherwise seems maliciously amphibilous! Not to mention that given the common humanistic empiricism that most here adhere to, you would not be able to consistently make the above observation!

[i][b]How do you qualify ‘perhaps’…? my God says probability is the underlying order birthed from the randomly-polkadotted egg of chaos. How can you describe a place that is no-place as ‘here’…?

How how…?[/b][/i]

Your God is inconsistent with itself, and has not provided you with a consistent worldview from which to make sense out of human experience! If all arose from a randomly polka dotted egg of Chaos, then why should ANYTHING be probable? Even if it may have been probable in the past, why is it guaranteed to be so in the future? Why have you written these questions with such confidence, sure that we would “probably” understand them?

Christians are offering epistemic certainty to the world. That is something that generation after generation of philosopher has sought, and not found. Ironic that the answer to life’s most profound questions was to be found lying in a manger, surrounded by sheep, hay, and the love of two young Jews.

What…! There’s a new epistemic on the way…! Shit - I’d better go get the family vaccinated.

Thanks Shotgun for some thoughtful answers to some very silly questions.

Err…just because you think of a thing and say it is absolute doesn’t mean you are actually justified. The whole argument is as imaginary as Descartes’ was the first time around. “Hey everybody, this must be true, because it answers all of the questions and you can’t disprove it!”

category, Epistemology does not prove God. Just because your argument isn’t as “exhausting” doesn’t mean it’s correct, believe it or not. At any rate the fact that God could be this infinite, absolute justifier also means that God is unapproachable epistemologically, because we’d need infinite, absolute understanding to verify His existence. Ever wonder why we Christians keep advocating “faith”?

My taste buds prove that KFC chicken is god especially if it is drank down with beer.

How do you know that God does not cause me to have an infallible piece of knowledge with respect to God’s existence and attributes?

The Bible says that faith is ASSURANCE.



Your beliefs are yours and yours alone. You’re fine with that until you try to step on my turf, and at that point, get a helmet and you’d better hope that your God is standing by to protect you. Know anything you have the power to enforce, but your knowing stops at my door.

Such propositions as those put forth by Mr. Tentative (while admittedly arrogant) would serve to encompass the overall view of secular philosophy towards Christianity; and to the shame of some Christian philosophers, (I humbly include myself in this class) certain Christians have seen fit to retreat into this position.

Whatever the official title for such a view may be, I shall for the sake of discussion call it, “Irrationalism.” Usually persuaded by the likes of the Great Dane Kierkegaard, or Karl Barth, these Christians are ultimately led to accept contradiction, and place importance on a mystical inner pietism. Such is presumably the case with Mr. Alun Aedicita.

This philosophy is especially appealing to Catholics, who in rejecting the empirical observations of textual criticism, would feel themselves philosophically justified in relying on the authority of the Church.

It is beneficial to refute such philosophical positions in order to stay consistent in our Christianity. We are charged with engaging the world, and in the face of this charge, Irrationalists retreat, and relegate their religion to the deepest depths of their hearts. Perhaps the best way in which to approach someone like Alun, would be to first address his false understanding of what constitutes a Christians Faith.

Hebrews 11:1 says this:

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines the word thus:

Faith is an affectionate practical confidence in the testimony of God. (For further contextualization of this presentation of the word Faith, see here: libertytothecaptives.net/webster … faith.html )

Faith then, would be the full placement of our trust (by way of our presuppositions) in the authority of Gods revealed word. Not a blind belief in some internal irrational pietism.

It is certainly not my intent here to present a thorough case for my position; however, it is my hope that I can at least present a path from which we can begin this discussion.


admittedly arrogant? The only arrogance here is the declaration by fiat by category. That there is only one possible view of the world, and that given by a christian god, may be a belief, but is most profoundly arrogant. How else does one respond to such a position?

I’m sick and tired of true believers attempting to tell me what I must believe because the bible says so, and therefore, they are right. I’m through giving a ‘pass’ to religious belief. My my, I wouldn’t want to offend anyone because, afterall, it is their religious beliefs. BS. Placating is placating and I could care less about giving religion a bye round based on holy beliefs. I’ve got a few beliefs of my own, and they don’t square with religion of any persuasion, but I don’t demand that you have to accept them because they are my ‘religious’ beliefs. There is a big difference between discussion and diatribe. Too bad the true believers can’t make out the distinction.

FWIW, I’m what you would label agnostic, and as such, I wouldn’t dream of telling others what they must or must not believe. Having belief > faith may be critical in the lives of some, but it ends in THEIR life, and they may not encroach on me. There is absolutely nothing arrogant about my position. Quite the opposite. Have all the belief and faith you can handle, but leave it at the door when you step into my house.

I’ll give you a chance to think through the above post, and re-state (or hopefully retract all together) your position.

Starting … now.


Don’t hold your breath. :wink: I’ve been around this forum for a while, and most folks know my position. I’m not about to retract a word of my post. I’m willing to engage in reasoned discussion, but there is no talking with people who already know how it is - for themselves and me.

This isn’t about anyone’s sincerity of belief. It is about the very pragmatic issue of where you end and I begin. If you have a problem with that, then it’s your problem, not mine.

Is ‘faith’ even humanly possible?

“being sure of what we hope”
Being sure and hoping are two very different things
Being sure of something you hope is not possible.

What about the very important words DOUBT, EVIDENCE, and BELIEF ?
How do these words effect our ideas of FAITH?

“Oh ye of little faith”

Faith seems to me to be somewhat of a surrender of reason.

If you just have faith… We must have faith…
“Have faith in God and everything will be ok.”
This sentence says to me, “Surrender your questions and you will then believe or have faith.”

To command someone to “Have faith” is exactly like saying, “Stop questioning”. The truth is that we can always question everything, to no end… ie Philosophy!


I thought it was a pretty good argument, myself – although I don’t quite understand the problem of knowledge not equalling right belief (a definition which I think Plato gives)*. Your arguemnt reminds me of Augustine’s On the Teacher where he starts a proof for God with the fact that words are signs. But category’s argument is really different from Descartes’, as someone claimed.

What some non-Christians on this board say about proofs for God being arguing form the Bible is I think a misunderstanding. The trick of a proof for God is to start with the natural and argue for the supernatural from it. I see category’s argument for the proof for the truth of Scripture as coming after the proof for God; although I’m not sure what to say about a proof that only holds for individuals. What am I talking about? – as a Catholic I believe knowledege of faith is a social good! (I think.)

Bane: Faith is more like trust; it is the ability to act on your beliefs.

  • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Gettier
    Gettier: On Wikipedia there is an example I understand. It involves watching a tennis tournament on tape to know who won and the tape was from a previous year. So you have a justified belief but not a right belief. But what can one say if all true knowlege is of the universal, which is non-temporal?

I think I can agree with that to a degree.
Do you think I am wrong in the idea that ‘faith’ is
‘trust’ in a concept and willfully denying or repressing doubt in it, in order to ‘act upon’ it? :-k

I think your question is answered in category’s argument.