What does it matter . . . ?

[JimL]

Truely unknowable truths - we do not even know what they are.
If those conflicting claims are of no consequence, it may not matter. But if one claim has a more dire consequence to ignore. We would need a very good reason not to believe it. If believing it can make any difference. The standing evidence is we are all going to die some day. Denying that and that we believe that, will not stop that.
Well science does make truth claims. Or nothing in science could be believed. And information cannot be accepted as true knowledge unless that information is actually believed.



We cannot choose what we do not know about. We cannot honestly claim to believe what we cannot accept - even if it were true.

So even if logically we understand a reason something is accepted as true, if we for what ever reason find it untenable, how can we believe it? The drawback is, it might matter and we might not be able to believe it anyway.

Que sera sera, whatever will be will be. Be led by your reason.

[Tassman]

Truely unknowable truths - we do not even know what they are.

If those conflicting claims are of no consequence, it may not matter. But if one claim has a more dire consequence to ignore. We would need a very good reason not to believe it. If believing it can make any difference. The standing evidence is we are all going to die some day. Denying that and that we believe that, will not stop that.

Correct. One believes whatever is supported by the best evidence regardless whether or not we like it.

Well science does make truth claims. Or nothing in science could be believed. And information cannot be accepted as true knowledge unless that information is actually believed.

We cannot choose what we do not know about.

We cannot honestly claim to believe what we cannot accept - even if it were true.

There is no good reason not to accept and believe what has been empirically verified.

So even if logically we understand a reason something is accepted as true, if we for what ever reason find it untenable, how can we believe it? The drawback is, it might matter and we might not be able to believe it anyway.

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedi...l+(psychology)

[37818]

Que sera sera, whatever will be will be. Be led by your reason.

For better or worst that is what we all do. The point comes down to when we refuse to acknowledge what needs to be acknowledged. What needs to be acknowledged is when it matters.

[37818]

It is not funny when what you didn't know does one in.




On the contrary. Unless a thing is believed it is not one's knowledge, whether what is believed is factual or not.


Some just choose to refuse to understand or even know some things which really matter. And their refusal prevents them from knowing it matters.

There is no good reason not to accept and believe what has been empirically verified.

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedi...l+(psychology)

Well, it matters in what way something is considered "untenable" does it not now?

[Tassman]

It is not funny when what you didn't know does one in.

Unless something happens to alert us to the existence of the previously unknown, there is no way of knowing it exists or reason to believe in it.

On the contrary. Unless a thing is believed it is not one's knowledge, whether what is believed is factual or not.

There is no valid reason to refuse believing in what can be empirically verified.

Some just choose to refuse to understand or even know some things which really matter. And their refusal prevents them from knowing it matters.

Well, it matters in what way something is considered "untenable" does it not now?

[mattbballman31]

What does it matter if what you do not believe happens to be true over against what you actually believe happens not to be true?

Let me tease this out. There are two things there:
1. My not believing X, and X being true.
2. My believing X, and X being false.

Well, it matters if you want to have true beliefs, and avoid false beliefs. You get to know more reality. It also helps when you look both ways to cross the street. If I'm affected by 1, I may die, because I might disbelieve that a fast moving car will kill me if I'm in its path, even though it's true that a fast moving car will me if I'm in its path. And 2 is just the contraposition of 1.

[37818]

Unless something happens to alert us to the existence of the previously unknown, there is no way of knowing it exists or reason to believe in it.

There is not much of anything that can be decided about what we cannot know.

There is no valid reason to refuse believing in what can be empirically verified.

Yes. But that does not deal with what is not empirically known. In metaphysics what can be empirically known?


When it comes to metaphysical arguments that cannot be empirically tested. There are still choices. Even refusing to make choice do to any non-empirical claims is still to make a choice. What will matter is what turns out to be true.


Yes. So what verifiable fact do you have that the Jesus of Christianity did not rise from the dead? It is a verifiable fact that Christianity makes the claim that Jesus as the Son of God rose from the dead. And that claim is founded on the claims found in the Christian new covenant writings and predictions of the Hebrew scriptures (Isaiah 53:10, that He will have died and yet see His descendants.)

[Tassman]

There is not much of anything that can be decided about what we cannot know.

Just as I said.

Yes. But that does not deal with what is not empirically known. In metaphysics what can be empirically known?

Metaphysics cannot arrive at a true conclusion unless it begins with a true premise. And it has no mechanism for formulating a true premise; it can only rely on axioms or assumptions.

When it comes to metaphysical arguments that cannot be empirically tested. There are still choices. Even refusing to make choice do to any non-empirical claims is still to make a choice. What will matter is what turns out to be true.

Without scientific knowledge we have no way of knowing what is true or not true.

Yes. So what verifiable fact do you have that the Jesus of Christianity did not rise from the dead? It is a verifiable fact that Christianity makes the claim that Jesus as the Son of God rose from the dead. And that claim is founded on the claims found in the Christian new covenant writings and predictions of the Hebrew scriptures (Isaiah 53:10, that He will have died and yet see His descendants.)

[mattbballman31]

Metaphysics cannot arrive at a true conclusion unless it begins with a true premise. And it has no mechanism for formulating a true premise; it can only rely on axioms or assumptions.

Mechanism? What does that mean?

What's wrong with relying on assumptions and axioms?

Without scientific knowledge we have no way of knowing what is true or not true.

False and self-refuting. There are a priori truths, modal truths, counterfactual truths, moral truths, aesthetics truths, mathematical truths, necessary truths, and religious truths that don't need scientific knowledge. What mechanism is there is determine that scientific knowledge is the only way to know truth?

It is a verifiable fact that dead organisms do not come back to life.

No it's not. Your epistemology restricts you. I reject your epistemology.

Why does that make it unreliable? Pauls letters quote traditions going back to within 5 years of the event. How do you know the Gospels of Matthew and John aren't written by eyewitnesses? No, saying they're anonymous isn't going to work.

[Tassman]

Mechanism? What does that mean?

It means a reliable methodology.

What's wrong with relying on assumptions and axioms?

False and self-refuting. There are a priori truths, modal truths, counterfactual truths, moral truths, aesthetics truths, mathematical truths, necessary truths, and religious truths that don't need scientific knowledge.

What mechanism is there is determine that scientific knowledge is the only way to know truth?

No it's not. Your epistemology restricts you. I reject your epistemology.

Why does that make it unreliable? Pauls letters quote traditions going back to within 5 years of the event. How do you know the Gospels of Matthew and John aren't written by eyewitnesses? No, saying they're anonymous isn't going to work.

[mattbballman31]

It means a reliable methodology.

Why doesn't metaphysics have a reliable methodology, and what do you mean by 'reliable'?

What do you mean by 'shown'?


Which ones? I have reasons for all of them.


1. Define 'scientific knowledge'.
2. Why can't forms of truth that aren't empirically verifiable be known?
3. What "form of truth" does the statement "Scientific knowledge is empirically verifiable other forms of 'truth or not' have? Empirically verifiable or not? If the former, how? If the latter, self-refuting.

Not really. But it is a free country!

Virtually all biblical scholars employing standard historical-critical methodology reject claims of eyewitness reportage.

Prove this, please.

1. Why do you think Baulkham was quoting Papias?
2. Why is referring to Papias incompatible with Matthew and John being eyewitness reports?
3. What about Paul?

[Tassman]

Why doesn't metaphysics have a reliable methodology, and what do you mean by 'reliable'?

What do you mean by 'shown'?

Which ones? I have reasons for all of them.

1. Define 'scientific knowledge'.

Scientific knowledge: "1. knowledge accumulated by systematic study and organised by general principles".

2. Why can't forms of truth that aren't empirically verifiable be known?

Because you cannot establish a verifiable true premise.

3. What "form of truth" does the statement "Scientific knowledge is empirically verifiable other forms of 'truth or not' have? Empirically verifiable or not? If the former, how? If the latter, self-refuting.

Empirical science is verifiable, metaphysical questions such as this are not...for reasons given above.

Prove this, please.

1. Why do you think Baulkham was quoting Papias?

2. Why is referring to Papias incompatible with Matthew and John being eyewitness reports?

Papias does not provide firsthand evidence of eyewitness reportage

3. What about Paul?

Paul seems totally unaware of the Jesus stories and teachings that ended up in the gospels...so much for the oral tradition that was supposed to have been floating around in the pre-gospels period.

[shunyadragon]

Why doesn't metaphysics have a reliable methodology, and what do you mean by 'reliable'?

As far as any methodology reliability refers to how consistently and reliably the methods may be applied and tested.

[37818]

Well if it was a matter of scientific fact that dead organisms did come back to life, then the resurrection of Christ would have no significance.

[Tassman]

Well if it was a matter of scientific fact that dead organisms did come back to life, then the resurrection of Christ would have no significance.

It is a verifiable fact that dead organisms do not come back to life and there is no good reason to think that the alleged resurrection is an exception.