Is knowledge of God natural knowledge?

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, you are wrong.

Yeah, you have now stated a fact about a thing in the world. There are wrong things, so it works as a part of the world to be wrong.

 

[1213]

Could you explain how the world around us is evidence of gods?

Bible tells God created this world. We can see all the creations, therefore we have evidence for that God created. Obviously you could claim the reason is something else, still, if God created, creation is what would be the evidence for it and for the Creator.

The Bible. You should read it. It is quite interesting.

If you can't show the exact scripture, I don't believe you have it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Bible tells God created this world. We can see all the creations, therefore we have evidence for that God created. Obviously you could claim the reason is something else, still, if God created, creation is what would be the evidence for it and for the Creator.



If you can't show the exact scripture, I don't believe you have it.

I believe differently.

 

[Sheldon]

Could you explain how the world around us is evidence of gods?

Bible tells God created this world. We can see all the creations, therefore we have evidence for that God created.

That's not evidence though, and it explains nothing, it's a fine example of a circular reasoning fallacy though.

Calling something creation doesn't remotely evidence it's been created. So no, we can't "all see creations". Though some people choose to believe this, then wrongly assert their belief is evidence for itself.

 

[1213]

That's not evidence though, and it explains nothing, it's a fine example of a circular reasoning fallacy though....

Unfortunately everything seems to be either circular, regressive or dogmatic. If you expect something more, I don't think you ever will get that. But I would like to know, do you think you have something that solves Münchhausen trilemma?

"The Münchhausen trilemma is that there are only three ways of completing a proof:

• The circular argument, in which the proof of some proposition presupposes the truth of that very proposition
• The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
• The dogmatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended

The trilemma, then, is the decision among the three equally unsatisfying options."
Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia

 

[Sheldon]

Unfortunately everything seems to be either circular, regressive or dogmatic. If you expect something more, I don't think you ever will get that. But I would like to know, do you think you have something that solves Münchhausen trilemma?

"The Münchhausen trilemma is that there are only three ways of completing a proof:

• The circular argument, in which the proof of some proposition presupposes the truth of that very proposition
• The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
• The dogmatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended

The trilemma, then, is the decision among the three equally unsatisfying options."
Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia

It's a question for philosophers clearly, but did you read the article you linked?

"In contemporary epistemology, advocates of coherentism are supposed to accept the "circular" horn of the trilemma; foundationalists rely on the axiomatic argument. The view that accepts infinite regress is called infinitism.

Karl Popper's suggestion was to accept the trilemma as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism."

However this is clearly circular reasoning and a begging the question fallacy:

Bible tells God created this world. We can see all the creations, therefore we have evidence for that God created.

You've assumed your conclusion a priori, by called everything creation, then using circular reasoning insist "creation" requires a creator.