(January 23, 2016 at 5:05 pm)phil-lndn Wrote: [quote='LadyForCamus' pid='1159776' dateline='1451835564']
What is knowledge that is not testable, not measurable against anything, not reproducible, not able to be objectively confirmed, and not demonstratable to others? It is simply NOT knowledge. How can theists justify using that word when speaking of metaphysical or spiritual subject matter?
Depends a bit on the specific definition of "knowledge" you are wishing to apply: Information, or Awareness
If the latter, you do have knowledge of something that is none of the things you've listed, and it's a knowledge I doubt you would refute because you have direct experience of it.
Knowledge of your own consciousness, your own subjective experience of being an aware being.
Consciousness itself is a bit weird, it's not an object, not demonstrable to others, not measurable against anything, not reproducible (because we don't really know what it is)
[quote='Irrational' pid='1179267' dateline='1453190884']
Well, I would argue that my consciousness IS demonstrable to others. I am demonstrating my consciousness to you right now, in writing this post. I am demonstrating that I have read and comprehended your points, and am able to formulate my own in response. Sure, the evidence is indirect, but I'd say it's sufficient for any rational person to be reasonably certain that I, "LadyCamus", am a conscious being.
Awareness by itself is not equal to knowledge. I'll mention my example in the OP. Does a schizophrenic who is having auditory hallucinations of the devil possess knowledge of Satan based on his experience?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
