RE: No reason justifies disbelief.
March 23, 2019 at 9:10 am
(This post was last modified: March 23, 2019 at 9:19 am by LadyForCamus.)
(March 23, 2019 at 6:21 am)Belaqua Wrote: How do we know that knowledge through revelation isn't reliable? Because it isn't confirmable through science-like methods.
But that doesn't in itself mean that it's false. Only that it's not science.
If there’s no way to confirm revelation is reliable, on what rational grounds should we assume that it is?! What reason is there to think that it’s a reliable pathway to the truth, and how do you know that reason is a good reason? It’s not a contradiction, Bel. It’s a tacit admission on your part that you have no reason to think these other ways besides science are accurate pathways to the truth. It’s a tacit admission that if we can’t demonstrate a method is reliable, how is it any better than guessing, or imagining, or making shit up?
One good reason why revelation is a lousy way to learn truths about gods:
Revelations lead folks to mutually exclusive gods. So now, how do we figure out who’s revelation was true knowledge, and who’s wasn’t? The guy who saw Allah, or the guy who saw Jesus? Or the guy who saw a space alien from Hale-Bopp’s commet who told him he was god? Maybe I just had a revelation from the universe that there is no god. How do we figure out who’s correct?
@Belaqua
Please tell me how you are going to distinguish, without using any empirical means, the difference between a schizophrenic hallucination of god, and a divine revelation. Remember, no empirical evidence may be used to draw the distinction here.
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.