We are not only limited by our perception but by our experiences as well. This is true of everyone. Why are your perceptions and experiences to be trusted by me. Am I supposed to just take your word that your an expert.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You can't have perfect knowledge through science
- Thread starter I-Ching
- Start date
We are not only limited by our perception but by our experiences as well. This is true of everyone. Why are your perceptions and experiences to be trusted by me. Am I supposed to just take your word that your an expert.
skydivephil
Active Member
But you have to assume that a higher authority exists, it might not.
You have to assume that you can correctly identify the higher authority, you may not be able to .
Your original post is a straw man, science does not claim perfect knoweldge. Never the less ,its the best method we have to assess objective claims of the universe, your method is simply trust someone who claims to be a guru. Good luck in that.
I-Ching
Aspiring to Transcendence
If there was no God then science would be the best method. Unfortunately His existence is quite obvious to those that are pious. His Knowledge is infinitely superior to ours.
I-Ching
Aspiring to Transcendence
As I have already said Guru, Sadhu and Sastra. You verify my word by checking with these three sources.
Yeah, looked them up my perceptions of my experiences puts no more faith in them then in you.
I-Ching
Aspiring to Transcendence
You first have to have faith in God, then faith in them will follow.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
Or those who see what they want to see
I also notice that you like to speak for your God and attribute humanistic characteristics to him. How curious.
But I don't have faith in God. So what exactly are you accomplishing here.
Summary:
I have perfect knowledge. I know & communicate with God. He gives me his perfect truth.
Disagree? Then you're not just wrong, you're an utterly inadequate delusional reprobate.
How do I know this? Pay attention this time....I have perfect knowledge & commune with God.
At least I & my fellow losers have a lot of company.
I have perfect knowledge. I know & communicate with God. He gives me his perfect truth.
Disagree? Then you're not just wrong, you're an utterly inadequate delusional reprobate.
How do I know this? Pay attention this time....I have perfect knowledge & commune with God.
At least I & my fellow losers have a lot of company.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
To be fair, I have perfect knowledge (given time) as well, though the domain is somewhat more limited than what I-Ching is claiming. (And I didn't talk to God to get it.)
(And I didn't talk to God to get it.)
I-Ching
Aspiring to Transcendence
You either have to have in your senses or faith in God. I prefer God, since my senses are limited and faulty.
Except the only way you can gain knowledge of God (or anything else) is through your senses, so you still have to have faith in your senses to have faith in God.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
I don't have either. My senses aren't perfectly accurate, but I still listen to them most of the time.
I-Ching
Aspiring to Transcendence
I think we've already been through this. The theist sees through his ears by hearing from Sastra. Just like you hear from your mother who is your father. This superior to trying to test every man to detect who is you father. But you have to accept the axiom that God exists.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
What an odd turn of phrase.
In Revoltifarianism, the whole idea of "perfect knowledge" is a dangerous illusion.
It leads to the greatest of human faults, ie, certainty. One's hubris & faith prevent
learning & the changing of one's mind when necessary.
No one has to accept the axiom that God exists. That is your burden alone.
It leads to the greatest of human faults, ie, certainty. One's hubris & faith prevent
learning & the changing of one's mind when necessary.
No one has to accept the axiom that God exists. That is your burden alone.
Baloney.
You get told (i.e. hear through your ears) or read (i.e. see through your idea) about religious ideas. You then think about them and decide whether to accept them or not. Later on, you think about them more and come up with inferences by which you apply the concepts you were taught to things beyond the immediate subject matter.
This is how all learning works, including religious learning.
And it's got the same problems that you identified in the OP:
- our senses our limited and imperfect, but we're dependent on them to learn things, including religious things.
- we have to rationalize and make intelligent inferences in order to apply what we've learned, but we sometimes do this improperly... even for religious beliefs.
- even if we do all of the above flawlessly, our beliefs are still dependent on their source: maybe the person who taught us was lying. Maybe our teacher was honestly mistaken.
:areyoucra
My mother is not my father. Regardless, I have mis-heard both my mother and my father on different occasions.
If the Guru is human then they are limited by the same senses the rest of us humans are limited to.