When you can explain this presumption, logically, I will be happy to listen. Until that time, I see no logical reason that such a statement would require absolute certainty. Especially when the statement itself offers that to be an impossibility.
But you can't be certain that it's an impossibility, can you?
In other words, not only are you not certain that it's an impossibility (because you say you aren't), but it could be possible that such a statement WOULD require absolute certainty, no?
You can't be certain of anything, you say, yet you can't even be certain of that, if you want to remain consistent in your beliefs.
Thus, to say that "we cannot know anything to be right, absolutely" you are either certain that you are right (in which case you are being inconsistent with your own beliefs) or you don't really believe that (in which case why hold that position?).
The exact opposite is true. For me to presume the statement an absolute truth would contradict the statement, itself.
That's my point.
You are trying to create this contradiction by insisting that I claim it to be absolutely true. But I cannot do that.
Thus, my point.
All I can claim is that it is logically and apparently true.
No. Sorry, you can't claim that.
At most, you can claim that you want it to be true, but in reality, you have no idea. It's not a truth claim, it's just your opinion.
It's logically self-evident.
Is it true, though?
But we humans do not possess the capacity to determine the nature or existence of God.
So what?
We can comprehend simple things, such as "God exists," "Truth exists," etc, yet that doesn't mean we have to understand ALL truth, or comprehend the ENTIRE existence of God.
In other words, DON'T MOVE THE GOALPOSTS!
Only that it is logically self-evident that God "is". So we cannot claim any kind of absolute knowledge of God.
We cannot know absolutely that God is good?
That He is loving?
That He is relational?
Personal?
Living?
That He not only IS, but WAS and WILL ALWAYS BE?
I agree that I cannot logically deny that I exists.
You have made it further than most people I have asked that question to.
Or that you exist, and therefore, by logical extrapolation, that 'God' exists.
Can you state, as a matter of fact, that you exist?
If not, then you are, illogically no less, denying that "I exist" is true.
Try it. In response to this portion of my post, answer the question, Do you, PureX, exist?
Anything less than a "I exist" will result in a failing grade.
But that doesn't make these observations "absolute",
God exists IS an absolute statement, by definition, because there was never a time when He DID NOT exist, and He exists CURRENTLY, and He WILL ALWAYS exist. There has never been and never will be a circumstance where He does not exist.
That's what "absolute" means here, PureX!
If you deny that "God exists" is an absolute claim, then you call into question God's very existence!
because we (you and I) are not omniscient.
Irrelevant.
And for our knowledge to be logically and honestly proclaimed "absolute", we would need to be omniscient. We would need to know all.
No, we wouldn't.
"Humans cannot fly on their own"
"Humans cannot breathe in the vacuum of space"
"All humans (with the exception of One) are sinful"
"There is no such thing as a four-sided triangle"
NONE of those three statements require ANYONE to be omniscient to be able to claim and be correct.
Again, this is self-evident (the truth is 'what is'). Not "absolute". I think we're just disagreeing on the meaning of the term "absolute". Otherwise, I agree with everything you've posted.
Not sure why you think there are multiple different definitions of the word.
Absolute (adj.):
- viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative.
Absolute (noun):
- a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.
* something that exists without being dependent on anything else.
* ultimate reality; God. |
"God exists" is universally valid, and His existence is absolute.
But it's an "absolute" that we cannot fully comprehend or define or contextualize. Which makes it a bit of an empty, hubristic claim coming from we humans. That's all I'm saying.
Which isn't the point of contention, and thus, your accusation is moot.
Bob takes on a college professor and her philosophy class in a debate regarding absolutes. Who wins? The students have been taught that nothing is absolutely right or wrong, so Bob asks them if that is absolutely right. And they've been taught that they can only know that which their five senses have told them, so Bob asks them which of their five senses told them that.
