Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

Originally posted by RJHinds
Some knowledge by humans can only be gained through divine revelation.

This is just false on the face of it.

For anything to be considered to be knowledge it must be demonstrable.

You can't demonstrate a personal experience.

Also no non-independently verifiable personal experience can be differentiated from a
hallucination of that experience and thus can't even be considered to be knowledge by
the person who has the experience.


Anything that has properties that can be observed and tested can be detected without
'divine revelation' and nothing that can be 'discovered' only through such 'revelation' can
be considered knowledge.

Originally posted by googlefudge
This is just false on the face of it.

For anything to be considered to be knowledge it must be demonstrable.

You can't demonstrate a personal experience.

Also no non-independently verifiable personal experience can be differentiated from a
hallucination of that experience and thus can't even be considered to be knowledge by
the person who ha ...[text shortened]... g that can be 'discovered' only through such 'revelation' can
be considered knowledge.

Also no non-independently verifiable personal experience can be differentiated from a hallucination of that experience and thus can't even be considered to be knowledge by the person who has the experience.

Which is why RJ has found himself in a corner in the 'killing in the name of' thread.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by googlefudge
This is just false on the face of it.

For anything to be considered to be knowledge it must be demonstrable.

You can't demonstrate a personal experience.

Also no non-independently verifiable personal experience can be differentiated from a
hallucination of that experience and thus can't even be considered to be knowledge by
the person who ha ...[text shortened]... g that can be 'discovered' only through such 'revelation' can
be considered knowledge.

Only God has perfect knowledge. Man's knowledge is fallible whether derived
by common-sense or by the scientific method. Perfect knowledge only comes
from direct revelation from God. Even then, man's understanding of perfect
knowledge is fallible because we are not perfect beings. So I disagree with the
idea that man can not obtain knowledge unless he has the understanding to
demonstrate it. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Only God has perfect knowledge. Man's knowledge is fallible whether derived
by common-sense or by the scientific method. Perfect knowledge only comes
from direct revelation from God. Even then, man's understanding of perfect
knowledge is fallible because we are not perfect beings. So I disagree with the
idea that man can not obtain knowledge unless he has the understanding to
demonstrate it. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! 😏

“...Man's knowledge is fallible whether derived
by common-sense or by the scientific method. ...”

“Man's knowledge” ( and woman’s and child's knowledge ) is all we have available.
It would be stupid to disregard it all asp the proven scientific facts that were obtained via evidence/reason.

“...Perfect knowledge only comes from ...”

how do you know that “ Perfect knowledge” is attainable? Or currently exists somewhere?
You cannot know this even if true.

Originally posted by humy
“...Man's knowledge is fallible whether derived
by common-sense or by the scientific method. ...”

“Man's knowledge” ( and woman’s and child's knowledge ) is all we have available.
It would be stupid to disregard it all asp the proven scientific facts that were obtained via evidence/reason.

“...Perfect knowledge only comes from ...”

how do you know t ...[text shortened]... knowledge” is attainable? Or currently exists somewhere?
You cannot know this even if true.

It is through belief and faith. HalleluYah !!!

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is through belief and faith. HalleluYah !!!

In other words, you don't know ( that “Perfect knowledge” is attainable ) .
you just believe without logical reason. -rather like your belief that there is a god.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is through belief and faith. HalleluYah !!!

Different people have belief and faith in different religions teaching different 'truths'. There is no indication that any of this 'knowledge' is perfect.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Only God has perfect knowledge. Man's knowledge is fallible whether derived
by common-sense or by the scientific method. Perfect knowledge only comes
from direct revelation from God. Even then, man's understanding of perfect
knowledge is fallible because we are not perfect beings. So I disagree with the
idea that man can not obtain knowledge unless he has the understanding to
demonstrate it. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! 😏

If you can't demonstrate it or understand it then you can't know it.

And for someone who claims not to make assumptions you have made a boat load here.

You assume the existence of god.

You assume that there is such a thing as perfect knowledge and that it is possible to recognise
that one has perfect knowledge.

You assume that it's possible to tell the difference between divine revelation and a hallucination.

And you claim that it's possible for someone to know something they don't understand or comprehend
and can't demonstrate.



None of those are true or supported by any evidence.

In fact it can bee readily demonstrated that it is impossible for any being of any calibre to have absolute
perfect knowledge of the universe.

Descartes 'evil demons' problem sees to that even if nothing else does.

The same problem makes it impossible to tell the difference between divine revelation an a hallucination.

And it is just tautologically true that you can't know something if you don't understand it.



So basically your post and argument is just wrong on every conceivable level.

Originally posted by humy
To answer your question, I refer to where it says:

“Both Spinoza and Leibniz asserted that, in principle, ALL KNOWLEDGE, including scientific knowledge, could be gained through the use of reason ALONE, “ (my emphases)

you must note here that when Spinoza and Leibniz talk about “reason”, they were talking about deductive logic BUT, unlike when we use the be necessarily and generally more rational than they were. I hope I made that clear.

But I would not claim to be necessarily more rational than they were when thinking about non-philosophical issues that would be unaffected by their irrational assumption so I would not claim to be necessarily and generally more rational than they were. I hope I made that clear.

You did make it very clear that you have no trouble at all pronouncing others less intelligent than yourself, because that's exactly what you did a few posts back to this poster - generalize that you know me to be necessarily and generally less intelligent than yourself.

Please employ all the powers of your rationality and tell us, if you would, WHY you here on the earth ? I mean why are you alive in this universe ?

And is such knowledge of your purpose for living, as you are about to discribe, only the priviledge of the very intelligent elite ?

Do the rest of us commoners simply miss out, having been less intellectually gifted ?

Originally posted by jaywill

But I would not claim to be necessarily more rational than they were when thinking about non-philosophical issues that would be unaffected by their irrational assumption so I would not claim to be necessarily and generally more rational than they were. I hope I made that clear.

You did make it very clear that you have no trouble at al ...[text shortened]... ?

Do the rest of us commoners simply miss out, having been less intellectually gifted ?

Why do you assume that there is a reason or purpose for us to exist?

Other than those we make for ourselves.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Why do you assume that there is a reason or purpose for us to exist?

Other than those we make for ourselves.

He can reply for himself, however he wants to answer.
No?

He said Evolution does not involve accidents so, maybe he doesn't see his life here as accidental but purposeful.

Originally posted by jaywill
He can reply for himself, however he wants to answer.
No?

He said Evolution does not involve accidents so, maybe he doesn't see his life here as accidental but purposeful.

I am sure he can [and will] reply for himself.

But my question to you still stands.

Originally posted by Penguin
Different people have belief and faith in different religions teaching different 'truths'. There is no indication that any of this 'knowledge' is perfect.

--- Penguin.

Not directed to me, I would like to respond to this post my way Penguin.

There has to be truth which is true for everyone and everywhere. There has to be what Francis Schaeffer called "true truth".

You are here attempting to write what is TRUE. You are here attempting to declare what is TRUE for all of us. Are you not ?

So first we have to recognize that truth is telling is like it is. And truth is like it is for everyone and everywhere.

Don't overdose on 20th century relativism.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I am sure he can [and will] reply for himself.

But my question to you still stands.

I am sure he can [and will] reply for himself.

But my question to you still stands.

First I want to see what this rational thinker has realized about his own purpose for existing in this world.

Originally posted by jaywill
Not directed to me, I would like to respond to this post my way Penguin.

There has to be truth which is true for everyone and everywhere. There has to be what Francis Schaeffer called "true truth".

You are here attempting to write what is TRUE. You are here attempting to declare what is TRUE for all of us. Are you not ?

So first we have to reco ...[text shortened]... is like it is for everyone and everywhere.

Don't overdose on 20th century relativism.

I think you missed his air quotes around the words 'truth' and 'knowledge'...

I don't think he was saying that all religions have truth and that truth is relative but was pointing out
that religions have many conflicting claims of 'knowledge' and no reason to suppose any of them are
actually true or justified.