# epistemological question



## rembrandt (May 14, 2004)

This might sound like a dumb question, but I am trying to figure out some epistemology. I only want the best presuppositional response to this:

[b:7314392b54]If the Bible told you that Earth was the shape of a triangle, would you believe it?[/b:7314392b54]

How do you respond to this? Of course you could denounce it as hypothetical... but just to get an idea of what good epistemology looks like...

Would you say that if the Bible says this, then it would be wrong? Or would you say that if the Bible says this, then it must be right? Of course we start out with the presupposition that the Bible is right, and could easily say that we believe it offers the best possible interpretation for reality and has yet been disaproven. But what would you say?

Rembrandt


----------



## Saiph (May 14, 2004)

We have the same dilemma in cosmology.

The Bible says the earth was created in six days.

We look at galaxies billions of light years away and redefine the word day.

We should take God at His word and let the Scriptures guide our science.


----------



## rembrandt (May 14, 2004)

If something that we know to be empirically true, is said by the Bible to be false, what do we do? 

I am asking from the point of view of a skeptic who is wondering how much authority I give to the Bible. For instance, if it [the Bible] claims something [i:7a33a60c9b]completely irrational[/i:7a33a60c9b], would I choose to believe the Bible anyway?

Examples: men have 10 legs. squares are round. 1+1=3. 

Can we prove a 'Holy Book' (any 'holy book'- koran or something) false by finding logical fallacies such as these? If so, one could also prove the Bible false by using falty logic.

Sorry for being unclear, and thanks for responses.

Rembrandt


----------



## rembrandt (May 14, 2004)

Thanks Paul.

[quote:d44f048a6b]One cannot know what is false. (helpful episyemological hint)[/quote:d44f048a6b]

Why?

[quote:d44f048a6b]Logic can only be made intelligible on the Christian worldview.[/quote:d44f048a6b]

How so? 

What if some other form of Theism, closely related to ours, worked on the same principles? 

(I suppose this is what you mean- like the Koran argument) Or are you saying that because we have the Bible, no one can use true logic against it, since it cannot be proven false by logic?

I heard you say elsewhere that 'all non-Christians are inconsistent thinkers.' Would this be the same thing you are talking about above? 

thanks,
Rembrandt


----------



## sastark (May 14, 2004)

[quote:d2a04b0e8b][i:d2a04b0e8b]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:d2a04b0e8b]
If something that we know to be empirically true, is said by the Bible to be false, what do we do? 

I am asking from the point of view of a skeptic who is wondering how much authority I give to the Bible. For instance, if it [the Bible] claims something [i:d2a04b0e8b]completely irrational[/i:d2a04b0e8b], would I choose to believe the Bible anyway?

Examples: men have 10 legs. squares are round. 1+1=3. 

Can we prove a 'Holy Book' (any 'holy book'- koran or something) false by finding logical fallacies such as these? If so, one could also prove the Bible false by using falty logic.

Sorry for being unclear, and thanks for responses.

Rembrandt [/quote:d2a04b0e8b]

John 18:38- &quot;Pilate said to Him, '[b:d2a04b0e8b]What is truth?[/b:d2a04b0e8b]'&quot;

John 17:17- &quot;Sanctify them by Your truth. [b:d2a04b0e8b]Your word is truth[/b:d2a04b0e8b].&quot;

1 John 5:6- &quot;This is He who came by water and blood -- Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because [b:d2a04b0e8b]the Spirit is truth[/b:d2a04b0e8b].&quot;

God's Word alone determines truth. If God's word says something &quot;completely irrational&quot; then we need to redefine what is rational and what is not. Because, if God's Word does not determine rationality and reality, then what does? Our senses? Our science? Oh, praise God that is not the case! 


[quote:d2a04b0e8b]
Can we prove a 'Holy Book' (any 'holy book'- koran or something) false by finding logical fallacies such as these? If so, one could also prove the Bible false by using falty logic.
[/quote:d2a04b0e8b]

Yes, we can prove other books (besides the Bible) false by pointing out logical fallacies and historical inaccuracies. Why? Because they are not God's Word and therefore do not determine what is rational, true and real.

Can &quot;logical fallacies&quot; or &quot;historical inaccurancies&quot; be used to disprove the Bible. No. Because the Bible is truth (note: it is &quot;truth&quot; not just &quot;true&quot. If the Bible says that a [b:d2a04b0e8b]snake spoke[/b:d2a04b0e8b], it happened. If the Bible says a [b:d2a04b0e8b]donkey spoke[/b:d2a04b0e8b] it happened. If the Bible says God created all things [b:d2a04b0e8b]in the space of 6 days[/b:d2a04b0e8b], it happened. If the Bible says the Red Sea was parted and the entire nation of Israel walked through it on [b:d2a04b0e8b]dry ground[/b:d2a04b0e8b] it happened. If the Bible says a dead man came [b:d2a04b0e8b]back to life[/b:d2a04b0e8b], it happened. If the Bible says [b:d2a04b0e8b]homosexuality is a sin[/b:d2a04b0e8b], it is. If the Bible says [b:d2a04b0e8b]women are not to be elders[/b:d2a04b0e8b], they are not. Whether the Bible says something that contradicts our culture, our histories, or our common sense, the Bible is still true and every man a liar. 

Sorry for going off there, but I hope you see my point: God's Word is Truth. It defines what is true. If the Bible said &quot;the world is a triangle&quot; not only would this be true, we would have to redefine our definition of a &quot;triangle&quot;. Because God's Word is Truth.


----------



## alwaysreforming (May 14, 2004)

Seth:
You always have great posts, but I would like to respectfully challenge the following statement: 
&quot;God's Word alone determines truth. If God's word says something &quot;completely irrational&quot; then we need to redefine what is rational and what is not. Because, if God's Word does not determine rationality and reality, then what does? Our senses? Our science?&quot; 

I believe that when the Bible says that it is Truth, it is not claiming to be a logic or epistemological textbook, but it is simply emphasising the God's Word never fails to come to fruition, and that it posits no false thing.

IF the Bible said something &quot;completely irrational&quot; would we then be able to simply &quot;redefine&quot; what is and isn't rational?
No. To use the same logic that the above would entail, look at the following:
God says that He is always Faithful. So, if God ever fails to be faithful, do we then simply redefine what &quot;faithfulness&quot; is? No.
We have rationality and logic and truth because they are just as God's attributes are: from Him and consistent with His nature.
I don't believe that we can redefine &quot;rationality.&quot; That would make all things arbitrary and not founded in a consistent, never-failing Being. Things are rational because they ARE, not simply because God decreed that rationality would function according to arbitrary rules and laws.

God cannot contradict Himself. If laws were arbitrary, or could be changed, then &quot;contradiction&quot; would be a moot point because God could simply &quot;change the rules.&quot;

Hope this helps. Just my :wr50:
or possibly....:blah1:


----------



## sastark (May 14, 2004)

Christopher,

Thanks for the reply. I just read through it and am still thinking it over as I write this, so excuse me if this posts wanders a little.

I [i:d275736e67]think[/i:d275736e67] we agree. But maybe not. (doesn't that just clear everything up!)

I agree that the Bible is not a &quot;logic or epistemological textbook&quot;, just as much as it isn't a science textbook or math textbook.

Perhaps a better way of saying what I said (&quot;If God's word says something &quot;completely irrational&quot; then we need to redefine what is rational...&quot would be to say: If God's Word says something that we believe to be irrational, then we need to reexamine how we determine what is rational and what is not. Does that make sense? In other words, it is not &quot;rationality&quot; in and of itself that needs to be changed, but our own understanding (or, how we determine what is rational/logical and what is not).

An example: Dr. X believes that God creating the world in 6 days of light and darkness is irrational. The Bible says that's what happened. Therefore, Dr. X needs to reexamine how he concludes something is rational. There was a mistake made somewhere, and we know it was not in the Bible.

As for your comment about &quot;I believe that when the Bible says that it is Truth, it is not claiming to be a logic or epistemological textbook, but it is simply emphasising the God's Word never fails to come to fruition, and that it posits no false thing.&quot;

I'm not sure I agree. I mean, of course I agree that God's Word never fails to come to fruition and that it posits no false thing. But would that not be better stated as &quot;God's Word is [b:d275736e67]True[/b:d275736e67]&quot; rather than &quot;God's Word is [b:d275736e67]Truth[/b:d275736e67]&quot;?

I agree that God's Word is [b:d275736e67]True[/b:d275736e67], but is something more meant by the statement that &quot;God's Word is [b:d275736e67]Truth[/b:d275736e67]&quot;?

I would also ask, if God's Word does not determine Truth, what does? If God's Word is True, but not Truth, then (quoting Pilate): &quot;What is Truth?&quot;

Another point (sorry these aren't in any order). You said:

[quote:d275736e67]
IF the Bible said something &quot;completely irrational&quot; would we then be able to simply &quot;redefine&quot; what is and isn't rational? 
No.
[/quote:d275736e67]

But, my point in pointing out all those examples in my original post, it to show that the Bible is filled with &quot;irrational&quot; things (irrational to the non-Christian, at least). Snakes and donkeys talking, ax-heads floating, Seas parting, dead men rising, etc. The list goes on and on. To the world, there is no way to &quot;rationally&quot; explain these events. So, how then do we account for these things? If God's Word says a donkey spoke, then donkeys must be able to speak (or, maybe a better way to say it is: donkeys can be made to speak by God).

Ok, to your example:

[quote:d275736e67]
God says that He is always Faithful. So, if God ever fails to be faithful, do we then simply redefine what &quot;faithfulness&quot; is? No.
[/quote:d275736e67]

But, God's Word is Truth. What I take that to mean is:

1) God will never be unfaithful.

2) If God was ever unfaithful, it would be a contradiction of His character.

3) God's Word does not contradict itself, therefore see #1.

I think I'll stop there and think more before replying any further.

Great post Christopher! Really made me think!


----------



## sastark (May 14, 2004)

*PS -....*

Just wanted to let you know that I hardly ever check Puritan Board on the weekends, so if you reply and are waiting to here back from me, it probably won't be til Monday.

Just didn't want you on the edge of your seat waiting for me!


----------



## alwaysreforming (May 14, 2004)

Sorry, Paul, I know I'm following your post but I'm addressing Brother Seth again:
Seth:
Yes, I see where you are coming from. You are not &quot;really&quot; talking about what is irrational, but what &quot;seems&quot; irrational. Its like the guy I had sitting beside me at a Christian event one day who said, &quot;God is illogical.&quot; 
I said, &quot;God is not illogical. Tell me what you mean by that.&quot;
He said, &quot;Well, look at the Trinity: 3 Gods in one? Come on, that's illogical... but its true!&quot;

He wasn't really talking about something illogical, just what might be &quot;deemed&quot; illogical in a loose way of using the word (not scientifically).

So, I get where you're coming from, and I agree with you. With your follow-up post as well. So... I'm gonna sign off from the debate before I dare reveal my ignorance as it goes further. 

Back to you, Paul.


----------



## rembrandt (May 14, 2004)

haha, you are great Paul! 

How about this, can one KNOW what 2+2 equals? How can the man who believes that there are x number of potatoe bugs (according to your example) actually KNOW? Does the fact that there actually were x number of potatoe bugs (as he predicted) cause us to say that he KNOWS? In order for someone to KNOW what 2+2 equals, must he have to prove it? Is proof the qualification of knowledge? Thus, saying that justification is qualification? But, a baby could be correct and not be able to justify it, but he can still be just in what he believes. So, a correct belief = correct knowledge?

So if someone thinks the world is round, do they really know this? I mean, it could be false, right? How can we rightfully say that we KNOW this?

What is the cheif way that our Theism is different than any other Theism? I mean, they [Islam for example] base their theology on a presupposition that a certain book is the Word of God. So that can't be the way (because we do the same)? Or can it? Because we have the only correct Theism, do we say ours is completely different because it is correct? Please explain...

thanks alot Paul,
Rembrandt


----------



## rembrandt (May 14, 2004)

Let me sum up what I was trying to get at in the first paragraph so you can answer easier. I was trying to say this in the last sentence (of the first par.). For someone to say that they know something, they are incorrect unless they are right. They do not need to be able to prove it (to say they know), because the fact that it is correct justifies the belief. 

So, how does someone truly KNOW something? If they are correct.

Am I on the right track? 

thanks


----------



## rembrandt (May 15, 2004)

sorry for taking a while to respond.

[quote:317c1e0e89]How are you using &quot;proof&quot; here? Also, to know 2+2=4 he needs, justified, true belief.[/quote:317c1e0e89]

How does one know that 2+2=4 is a justified, true belief? 

[quote:317c1e0e89]The *only* way to resolve this is by a &quot;transcendental&quot; argument. That is, we see which worldview provides the preconditions necessary for knowledge and human experience.[/quote:317c1e0e89]

What are the preconditions necessary for knowledge and human experience? That the worldview is correct? Thus making their assumptions correct?


I really liked your example of a transendental argument. This seems like we are trying to make the oponent think that our view is &quot;most probable&quot; and the others are unintelligable. Is that the basic idea behind it?

The transendental argument doesn't prove Christianity hands down does it? I mean, it just makes everything else false, and ours the only one left standing. That still falls short of an absolute &quot;proof&quot; right? And as for how I am using the word &quot;proof,&quot; I don't really know. What is a &quot;proof?&quot; A demonstration of truth? Well I guess under that definition it would be a proof (hmmm...). 

Is the concept of how the average person thinks of the word &quot;proof&quot; unintelligible? 

&quot;Proving&quot; that 2+2=4 is only demonstrating it then? How do we do this?

I am probably way off.

thanks Paul,
Paul


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 16, 2004)

Paul, is everthing you have talked about here explained in Bahnsen's book on Vantil? If, not what are some other books which do contain this info?


----------



## rembrandt (May 17, 2004)

Paul, thankyou for explaining.

[quote:7c27a6d95f]Here is an example, is the way we prove a logical rule the same way we prove wether paitballs to the head hurt? No, depending on the metaphysical entity under question the lines and types of &quot;proof&quot; will vary.[/quote:7c27a6d95f]

Perhaps you have already answered this, but what is a &quot;proof?&quot; Is it simply a demonstration of how something works out in reality?

Rembrandt


----------



## rembrandt (May 18, 2004)

Hahahahaha!!! Paul Manata, brother!!! You are awesome!!!


----------

