Is Jesus Christ a man or a god?

[Immanuel Can]

Because what is knowable is the same for everyone.

This doesn't seem obviously true.

I don't know the place where you live: that can't tell me that it's not "knowable" for you. If you have access to better information about your home town than I do, this does not point to a different kind of knowing, just a different set of data on your side.

Agnosticism can be rational if it remains a modest, personal claim of not knowing; but it becomes irrational if it claims to know what others can know without knowing what they have indeed experienced or the data to which they may have access that the agnostic does not.

in the sense of knowing beyond even unreasonable doubt, there is an entire thread dedicated to the two irrefutable facts that philosophers have found in two and a half millenia.

Which you would say are what? I'm guessing one is Descartes "cogito." What's the second?

knowledge in the sense that it cannot be seriously doubted.

Such knowledge is not empirically available anywhere. It is only available in maths, or else in analytic statements. And in both cases, this is because, as you say, knowledge is a kind of definitional or tautological circle, referring back to an abstraction not reality. Knowledge of reality itself is always inductive, not deductive. So to suppose that a Theist would be irrational to believe in something in the absence of deductive certitude would be irrational.

Again, the most the Agnostic position can say is, "I don't know." But it cannot with any conviction or justice say, "You don't know," and certainly not, "It cannot be known by anyone." It simply cannot know these latter two things.

[ReliStuPhD]

Again, the most the Agnostic position can say is, "I don't know." But it cannot with any conviction or justice say, "You don't know," and certainly not, "It cannot be known by anyone." It simply cannot know these latter two things.

We might go so far as to say that the latter two positions would undermine the claim to agnosticism insofar as they are positive statements with respect to what can--or, in this case, cannot--be known. Almost by definition, Agnosticism is a personal position.

[Immanuel Can]

Almost by definition, Agnosticism is a personal position.

"Almost"?
When it's rational at all, that's all it ever is.

To go beyond that, it has to convert into a faith position...which is, as you point out, quite ironic.

[SpheresOfBalance]

OK, I obviously got far too strong for you, but that you stoop to this ploy, was unexpected, I thought you were thick skinned.

Ha. I am.
Then why turn and run when I had you on the ropes? You should have either come back swinging, or admitted defeat. You hightailed it and ran.

It's not a "ploy." If it were, it would be insincere and unnecessary, and I'm sincere and actually think it is necessary. I'm inviting you to be clear and literal, which in a philosophical discussion is very, very helpful indeed to lucid conversation without metaphorical misunderstandings. Quite simply, the "metaphorical" thing wasn't working as a means of getting your meaning across to me, so I needed to give you a better alternative.
Yes it was a ploy. You took "ALL" that I said and bundled it together as metaphor, (ambiguous to your understanding), when in fact quite a bit of it was a logical argument that you had no interest in attempting to dispute. That way, in your mind alone you could discount "ALL" that I said to mask those parts you feared to deal with. You used a blanket statement to discount, so as to avoid, and that's a straw man as well by the way. Unless of course you were truly ignorant of those intentions at the conscious level, that it was a self preservation mode your subconscious often employs to shield yourself automatically.

This is absolutely no metaphor, rather logical argument:

You assume he's non deterministic just as much as you say that I assume he's deterministic, as neither of us can know your gods intent, even though you think otherwise. That's for him alone to know. So we equally assume as to his intent! however I used simple logic based upon his actions, not what's in his mind that suggests determinism, not free will. The bible "threatens" hell and not heaven if one does not follow the word of god. For believers that's like someone sticking a gun to their head. They want to live forever, the main crux of faith, in most followers minds. I'd call that very deterministic, and not promoting free will at all.

You come to me and ask me which you should choose, if I tell you what I believe you should do, it lends to determinism, If I ask you what you believe you should do, that lends to free will, thank god psychologists see it the same way. Some supposedly have lead the patient during hypnosis and have been denounced for doing so. Here is something on wikipedia as to determinism:

"Determinism rarely requires that perfect prediction be practically possible."

I argue that for an all powerful entity to "TELL" a puny entity how to live, is more deterministic than it harbors free will. Especially with threats of retaliatory consequence. Didn't god supposedly burn Sodom and Gomorrah to the ground and turn some onlookers into salt? I'd say that's pretty "god damned" deterministic!

The same here:

Obviously I spoke of belief, as how could one "know" otherwise. Come on IM some things are just no brainers. This is the last time I'll take you by the hand, you should be able to keep track as I have done. You use some words used in logic, but show no logic in your argument.

Certainly it does. Many people want to belong, it's natural, humans are said to be social animals. Some anyway, me... (another topic for sure) If in fact the greater percentage of people believe something is true, and amongst those are the so called brightest, the so called authorities on the matter, the less knowledgeable tend to go along with the crowd, they don't want to be left out, after all the mob rules, or so they believe: physically, of course; mentally: not necessarily! So by proxy they believe themselves brighter than the minority: those that disagree, having other less popular ideas. But it's not only those that actually know no better, the so called brighter ones believe so as well.

So get back in the ring and either give me an uppercut, by addressing point by point, or admit defeat, or not.

And now I can understand you better. So it works, no? No hard feelings at all.
No you don't, or maybe you do, either way, you're just giving up, which is totally your right to do. Of course I wish you wouldn't! I'd prefer you come back swinging, or admit defeat.
Of course it's your call, and I support you in that call, just please be honest about it, that's all I ask. I'm a truth seeker, and I despise liars above all others, except killers of course, (of course, they are the supreme liars, well... of course!). Q: Did I use "of course" enough times? A: Well, of...!

If you thought I was looking for answers, I apologize. I was just telling you my side of belief in this matter. I'm agnostic, no man can "know" your god, they can only have "faith" (believe) in him.

This is an epistemological ambiguity. I can't quite tell what you mean by "know" and "faith". People use these words in different ways, of course, but you'll need to specify before I understand you aright: can you give me a thing you believe you "know" and a situation in which a person is having what you consider to be "faith"?
I "know" that the shape of the planets are spheroid, because I can prove it. I have "faith" (belief) in the theories of the shape of the universe, because it cannot, "currently" be proven.

Interestingly, unless I misunderstand you, you seem to think you "know" what another person can or cannot "know." So that paradox needs to be explained as well. How can one "know" what anyone else can possibly "know"?
If they can "only" "tell" me that they "know(?)," then it can only "actually" be "belief (faith)(?)." If they can "show" me what they "know(!)," then it is "truly" "knowledge(!)."

And nothing that anyone can say shall change that.

Is that a literal claim that no evidence is any longer involved in your judgment? Or am I to understand something metaphorical from it? I'm guessing it's hyperbole, offered more for effect than literality.
I meant that if "say" stands alone, without "show" (proof), then they'll never change my "belief." It was literal!

It shall take the creator itself to set me straight, I trust no man as to faith (belief), been there and done that, getting older and wiser, finally.

Fair enough.
Thank you!

This is important for everyone to read, that truly has problems with me, or with anyone else, for that matter!

I have come to understand that the differences between us, our specific life long set of experiences, spell out preconceptions that we bring with us as we provide our argument. Within this individual framework, as we read someones words, we decide what pieces that we understand, that they don't, and try our best to provide what we believe they are missing in terms of our understanding. Yet we still leave out things, that to us is "self evident," such that our giving to them is incomplete. So of course they capitalize on that area we left out, where they have a different preconception of that which is "self evident."

What I'm saying is that when there is much disparity between these differences between us, it's almost as if we are speaking a different language. That only when individuals are similar in experience, do they tend to readily see eye to eye. That we can only project what it is that we "believe" another needs to understand out thinking, and likewise we tend to leave out what we "believe" should be self evident, for them to understand. So we do not always "know" what to bring to the table of argument, rather we only "believe" we know. And often because of these differences between us, we fall short of what's "actually" required to allow them to come to terms with our understanding.

This then, is why there is seemingly so much hate and discontent thrown at one another. And is why I somewhat hate forums, because they test our patience, because the pace at which we can proceed "effectively" in argument, comes to a crawl when there is extreme disparity in our differences.

In "truth," often, we must spend an extensive amount of time, when the differences between us are great, with many many volleys of back and forth arguments in order to defeat the ambiguity between our understandings. And to be honest most don't have the required staying power. I admit that I don't. Early on, I was abusive towards Arising_uk for this very reason. I apologized for it, because I owed them that. I became frustrated because I spoke and they seemingly were not listening and would ask the same thing over and over again. I couldn't keep up with that pace because it takes me so long to write a message for a variety of reasons. People are often just selfish with their time, and would rather have a quick fix that serves their agendas. And that's their prerogative, but it's still just their "one way street." ("One way street" is a metaphor for "selfishness," and I do such things often! Sometimes on a much larger scale.) And when I do so, I believe it to be self evident, or I wouldn't do it.

[Immanuel Can]

Sorry, Spheres...you and I seem to have very different ideas of what we're doing here.

I'm not playing "boxing" with you, swinging wildly at provocative nonsense delivered in no particular order and with no particular focus. I find that boring and pointless. To quote the Godfather, "Fuggedaboudit."

I only care for something genuinely philosophical. Philosophical discussion does not do swat wildly or play for "wins". It takes singular propositions and builds toward conclusions by means of rational conversation. There may never be a "winner" in some such exchanges, and sometimes there is one; but more often than that, there may be two: as two people come away from the exchange smarter and better than they were going into the "game." That's worth doing.

If you can learn to talk like that, I'm up for it. If you can't, then honestly, I can't be bothered engaging. Life's too short.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Because what is knowable is the same for everyone.

This doesn't seem obviously true.

I don't know the place where you live: that can't tell me that it's not "knowable" for you. If you have access to better information about your home town than I do, this does not point to a different kind of knowing, just a different set of data on your side.
No! Because he "can" in "fact" "show" you where he lives. Show me where god lives! YOU CAN'T!!! IT IS CURRENTLY IMPOSSIBLE!!! "CURRENTLY IMPOSSIBLE!" That is what frames "only faith (belief). That which is currently impossible to do, always defines faith/belief. That which "currently can be shown" is what defines "knowledge;" what is "possible" to be shown. Whether one does so or not is immaterial, that it can be done is all that matters.


Agnosticism can be rational if it remains a modest, personal claim of not knowing; but it becomes irrational if it claims to know what others can know without knowing what they have indeed experienced or the data to which they may have access that the agnostic does not.
No, it's "irrational" to say one "knows" something exists, when in fact it "cannot" be "shown" that it exists. In all "truth" all they can say, is that they "believe" that it exists, because it cannot currently be proven. This of course does not mean that it "can't" be proven "one day," just that it cannot "currently" be done.

in the sense of knowing beyond even unreasonable doubt, there is an entire thread dedicated to the two irrefutable facts that philosophers have found in two and a half millenia.

Which you would say are what? I'm guessing one is Descartes "cogito." What's the second?

knowledge in the sense that it cannot be seriously doubted.

Such knowledge is not empirically available anywhere. It is only available in maths, or else in analytic statements. And in both cases, this is because, as you say, knowledge is a kind of definitional or tautological circle, referring back to an abstraction not reality. Knowledge of reality itself is always inductive, not deductive. So to suppose that a Theist would be irrational to believe in something in the absence of deductive certitude would be irrational.

Again, the most the Agnostic position can say is, "I don't know." But it cannot with any conviction or justice say, "You don't know," and certainly not, "It cannot be known by anyone." It simply cannot know these latter two things.

Prove to me that you know there is a god. I can prove to you that you have red blood cells coursing through your circulatory system because I have a microscope that can "show" you. Not to mention all the accumulated data thus far on their function, it can even be shown to you as the are functioning, live!

Show me god, "live," so that I know that he exists. The only way I could "certainly" "know" he exists is if he preserves my consciousness within his, while I watch him destroy the universe, then bring it back again, instantaneously. Better yet, that he preserves "all our" consciousness' and does the same thing, so that we all can witness it at the same time, otherwise how could I prove it was actually done. If only I witnessed it you could say I was insane, that I imagined the entire thing. Only then could we "know" that a god truly exists. Of course I'm sure that there are other ways in which one could be sure, but unless it was on that scale, where all could witness it, it's "probably" only "ones" imagination.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Sorry, Spheres...you and I seem to have very different ideas of what we're doing here.

I'm not playing "boxing" with you, swinging wildly at provocative nonsense delivered in no particular order and with no particular focus. I find that boring and pointless. To quote the Godfather, "Fuggedaboudit."

I only care for something genuinely philosophical. Philosophical discussion does not do swat wildly or play for "wins". It takes singular propositions and builds toward conclusions by means of rational conversation. There may never be a "winner" in some such exchanges, and sometimes there is one; but more often than that, there may be two: as two people come away from the exchange smarter and better than they were going into the "game." That's worth doing.

If you can learn to talk like that, I'm up for it. If you can't, then honestly, I can't be bothered engaging. Life's too short.

There you go again with a ploy to sidestep the issue, the boxing analogy, (metaphor) was just me being playful). And you know it! You just fear arguing against my logical arguments, or you would have done so by now, instead of finding reasons not to.

[Immanuel Can]

Oh, baiting? Gosh, I've never seen that before.

If you have some point related to the topic in hand, make it. If you have a coherent question, ask it. If you don't, then suit yourself.

[uwot]

Because what is knowable is the same for everyone.

This doesn't seem obviously true.

It is if you understand the Cogito. As you guess, the kernel of that is one of the two irrefutable facts: 'There is thinking'. The other is Parmenides observation that something exists. As I said, there is a thread on precisely this topic viewtopic.php?f=17&t=14822 . Both Parmenides and Descartes argued that observation was unreliable, both sought and found a fact that is so true it is self refuting even to challenge them. We know beyond any conceivable doubt that there is something and that there is thinking; as Descartes pointed out, the same is not true of any other proposition that I am aware of.

Again, the most the Agnostic position can say is, "I don't know." But it cannot with any conviction or justice say, "You don't know," and certainly not, "It cannot be known by anyone." It simply cannot know these latter two things.

We might go so far as to say that the latter two positions would undermine the claim to agnosticism insofar as they are positive statements with respect to what can--or, in this case, cannot--be known. Almost by definition, Agnosticism is a personal position.

I don't know why agnosticism was introduced, but you are both missing the point: any proposition expressed other than those two could be untrue; it is not self refuting to say: "I don't live in London", or "God doesn't exist", in the way it gibberish to say "Nothing at all exists" or "There is absolutely no thinking".

[SpheresOfBalance]

Oh, baiting? Gosh, I've never seen that before.

If you have some point related to the topic in hand, make it. If you have a coherent question, ask it. If you don't, then suit yourself.

I did and you ignored them, because you were ill-equiped to "tackle" them. (oh no there goes another reason for you to run and hide, I used a football analogy. Formulate an argument against those quotes of mine above, that I indicated to you are logical arguments, at least in my book. I really can't wait! Honestly!! I can't wait to see the next "curved ball" you throw at me. Oh my god, I used a baseball analogy, crap you'll probably never talk to me again, as surely someone that does so is beneath you, that is... to hear you tell it.

But seriously, I'm just teasing you a bit. I really do look forward to your next logical argument. I really have enjoyed arguing with one that does so in a nice way, without demeaning diatribe. You tend to be a gentleman, more so than many, and I truly appreciate that endeavor. If I've been far to nasty, tell me so, it may just be my relative ignorance of your ways. We are from different environments, after all!

Thanks much for your arguments thus far, I have really appreciated your participation.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Because what is knowable is the same for everyone.

This doesn't seem obviously true.

It is if you understand the Cogito. As you guess, the kernel of that is one of the two irrefutable facts: 'There is thinking'. The other is Parmenides observation that something exists. As I said, there is a thread on precisely this topic viewtopic.php?f=17&t=14822 . Both Parmenides and Descartes argued that observation was unreliable, both sought and found a fact that is so true it is self refuting even to challenge them. We know beyond any conceivable doubt that there is something and that there is thinking; as Descartes pointed out, the same is not true of any other proposition that I am aware of.

Again, the most the Agnostic position can say is, "I don't know." But it cannot with any conviction or justice say, "You don't know," and certainly not, "It cannot be known by anyone." It simply cannot know these latter two things.

We might go so far as to say that the latter two positions would undermine the claim to agnosticism insofar as they are positive statements with respect to what can--or, in this case, cannot--be known. Almost by definition, Agnosticism is a personal position.

I don't know why agnosticism was introduced, but you are both missing the point: any proposition expressed other than those two could be untrue; it is not self refuting to say: "I don't live in London", or "God doesn't exist", in the way it gibberish to say "Nothing at all exists" or "There is absolutely no thinking".

Come on uwot, observation is not unreliable, at least not 100% of the time. If the observation is not scientifically scrutinized, then maybe. Otherwise no way. Give me an example of this. Wait a minute you can't, because in it's telling/showing lies the truth that observation is in fact reliable.

[Immanuel Can]

I did and you ignored them, because you were ill-equiped to "tackle" them.

Nope. You have no idea, old sock. I Just haven't got the time to track down the one relevant criticism you may have offered from twenty you shot out scattergun style.

You will find that I'm not in the least perturbed by anything you can throw...but let's keep order in the court here. Let's follow one line of thought and do it justice, not try to track down twenty unrelated side comments. Seriously...I do have a job, and occasionally like to sleep. I enjoy chatting online, but I'm not making it a 24 hour a day job, and certainly not for the entertainment of anyone who happens just to be trolling around.

But if you're not, then pick a line and we'll go with it. But let's do everything in order, in reasonable chunks, and see how far we get.

But seriously, I'm just teasing you a bit. I really do look forward to your next logical argument. I really have enjoyed arguing with one that does so in a nice way, without demeaning diatribe. You tend to be a gentleman, more so than many, and I truly appreciate that endeavor. If I've been far to nasty, tell me so, it may just be my relative ignorance of your ways. We are from different environments, after all!

Thanks much for your arguments thus far, I have really appreciated your participation.

This is a gracious and kind thought, and I return thanks for it. Let me reassure you that had you nothing to say I would not be bothering to speak to you now. But I'm wondering if perhaps you do have something specific in mind.

If you do, go ahead. But let's drop the provocative language...not because it's offensive, but because it's so rhetorical and imprecise to speak that way that it becomes impossible to detect, without seeing things like facial expression or tone of voice, which remarks you expect me to give serious attention, and which are off-the-cuff shots you have no real interest in pursuing.

If we both keep speaking like gentlemen, as we are now, we shall both make progress.

[Immanuel Can]

It is if you understand the Cogito.

I do. But if you require all knowledge to be as firm as the Cogito, then you shall have no knowledge at all, save that you yourself are thinking. You will not have any science, and not even an external world. So that doesn't look promising as an epistemological standard for you at all.

I don't know why agnosticism was introduced,

Ummm... because Spheres asked for certain knowledge of the existence of God, and that's an Agnostic position?

Do try to stay awake here.

it is not self refuting to say... "God doesn't exist."

No, not in all cases, because it has two possible interpretations. But it is either trivial or stupid. And if it's the stupid version, then yes, it is rationally self-refuting, as you shall soon see.

Version 1
If by "God doesn't exist" we understand the statement, "I don't know God exists," then it's trivial, because then it's merely personal. For anyone else, it's a trivial observation, one that doesn't even imply they don't or can't know God exists.

Version 2
If, on the other hand, we understand by "God doesn't exist" the statement, "I know God does not exist for anyone, anywhere, anytime," then it's stupid, because a person simply could not know such a thing. The person who says it can be dismissed as irrational, as as mad as a man who thinks he's a silk hat. A single human being is not capable of empirically or scientifically ruling out the existence of a God, because the standard of the evidence required actually to validate that claim is too high for a mortal to meet. He would have to have been everywhere, seen everything, at all times, and eliminated every possible phenomenon that could be a manifestation of a Supreme Being; only then could a rational person say definitively, "I KNOW there's no God."

But here's the irony: if he did that, then there would be a God -- it would be him! Now is that not obviously as silly, contradictory and self-refuting a position as a person could possibly hold?

[Ginkgo]

It is if you understand the Cogito.

I do. But if you require all knowledge to be as firm as the Cogito, then you shall have no knowledge at all, save that you yourself are thinking. You will not have any science, and not even an external world. So that doesn't look promising as an epistemological standard for you at all.

I don't know why agnosticism was introduced,

Ummm... because Spheres asked for certain knowledge of the existence of God, and that's an Agnostic position?

Do try to stay awake here.

it is not self refuting to say... "God doesn't exist."

No, not in all cases, because it has two possible interpretations. But it is either trivial or stupid. And if it's the stupid version, then yes, it is rationally self-refuting, as you shall soon see.

Version 1
If by "God doesn't exist" we understand the statement, "I don't know God exists," then it's trivial, because then it's merely personal. For anyone else, it's a trivial observation, one that doesn't even imply they don't or can't know God exists.

Version 2
If, on the other hand, we understand by "God doesn't exist" the statement, "I know God does not exist for anyone, anywhere, anytime," then it's stupid, because a person simply could not know such a thing. The person who says it can be dismissed as irrational, as as mad as a man who thinks he's a silk hat. A single human being is not capable of empirically or scientifically ruling out the existence of a God, because the standard of the evidence required actually to validate that claim is too high for a mortal to meet. He would have to have been everywhere, seen everything, at all times, and eliminated every possible phenomenon that could be a manifestation of a Supreme Being; only then could a rational person say definitively, "I KNOW there's no God."

But here's the irony: if he did that, then there would be a God -- it would be him! Now is that not obviously as silly, contradictory and self-refuting a position as a person could possibly hold?

And 1 and 2 versions come from...???

[uwot]

It is if you understand the Cogito.

I do. But if you require all knowledge to be as firm as the Cogito, then you shall have no knowledge at all, save that you yourself are thinking. You will not have any science, and not even an external world. So that doesn't look promising as an epistemological standard for you at all.

I really don't think you do understand the Cogito. It is precisely because empiricist philosophers did, that we have science in its current guise. They realised that Descartes was right that the only thing we can be sure of is that there are phenomena. However, we do not know, and can never, ever know that the causes to which we attribute the phenomena, our hypotheses and theories, are true. That is why science can make progress, for all that the authority figures can command respect, they can be challenged and overthrown in a way that is anathema to religion.

I don't know why agnosticism was introduced,

Ummm... because Spheres asked for certain knowledge of the existence of God, and that's an Agnostic position?

Do try to stay awake here.

Why is something said by a third party relevant in a response to a point that makes no mention of it?

it is not self refuting to say... "God doesn't exist."

No, not in all cases,

It is only self-refuting if God says it.