Replies

In the first place, I was very careful not to read your mind but rather to couch my statements as my own based upon what you have said and my own recollections of our past conversations.

In the second place, I restated that scientists are not infallible because you brought up Newton’s beliefs and those of scientists during the Wright brothers’ experiments.

And finally, your appraisal of my epistemology – though I appreciate your time to express it - is irrelevant to what I classify as knowledge (post 1201.)

You already know I am not a physicalist, that there is a lot more evidence than that which is directly available to perception. I cannot perceive my consciousness, yet I know I am conscious. I cannot perceive my ability to consciously choose (volition) or reason, but I do them, and that fact is evidence of more than the physical can explain, or any physical science will every explain.

I would never have called you a physicalist. Indeed, if I were to make an estimate of how you rank your sources of knowledge based on our past conservations, I’d put reason at the top of the list because you seem to value consciousness, volition, autonomy, etc.

”There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” – Hamlet

From your next post:

I asked, “Out of curiosity, how do you know what your feelings mean, and how do you distinguish between those that are genuine and those that just have physical causes.”

“Since I am not an epiphenomenon of this physical body, I know the difference and can evaluate their meaning.”
Don’t mean to be picky, but you did not answer the question, just reasserted that you could, but I already knew you believed you could. The question was “HOW?”

My brothers and sisters in Christ need no explanation of this. And those who are not my brothers and sisters in Christ would not believe it anyway.

But for the record, dear Hank Kerchief, I am dead and yet I am alive with Christ in God. (Col 3:3) I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. (Gal 2:20)

Or to put it another way, I am here and there, in time and in timelessness, more aware of the Spirit than of the flesh. (Romans 8)

Therefore, I know the difference between urgings of the flesh and of the spirit, or as a metaphor the mechanical noise of the radio/receiver versus the actual signal.

God’s Name is I AM.

I am surprised you did not use,

“The spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the Children of God.”

“It is given to you to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of God,”

Well you know all the verse as well as I do. :Was quoting from memory ...]

The problem is, I’ve been there and was as convinced as you that these were true, until I realized everyone who believes they have mystic insight, or oneness with God, or the revelation of the Spirit is as certain of that knowledge as you—but you all believe different things, your borthers in Christ and you.

So how does one know which revealed truth is the really true truth? If there is not a way to discern the truth other than, well, I just feel it is true, and believe the feeling is from God, and not the five tacos I just ate, just anything might be believed.

Hank

...if I were to make an estimate of how you rank your sources of knowledge based on our past conservations, I’d put reason at the top of the list because you seem to value consciousness, volition, autonomy, etc.

Most astute insight, dearest sister in Christ! But notice: Nowhere does Hank explain why or how such things as "consciousness, volition, autonomy" or even reason itself are themselves "reasonable" in the first place. Yet the question remains: By reason of WHAT?

Somehow what comes to mind by virtue of neglecting such questions is an image from Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels re: the "floating island" which he called Laputa....