Does anyone have an answer to this haunting question?!

[dakane]

Luke,

I've thought about related issues some. I don't think I can resolve the issue but can comment on how I see it. I am convinced that us mortals do not know anything with certainty. Any information we can obtain about the world is filtered through our flawed senses and reasoning. Anything we think we know could turn out to be wrong.

That said, flawed knowledge can get us somewhere. All of humanity's knowledge about physics cannot satisfactorily explain how the strong force - which holds together atomic nuclei - works. Am I satisfied with that? Not at all. I really wish we knew better. But that flawed knowledge about physics, and the approximate models based on it allow us to understand things well enough to make useful semiconductor devices, for example.

Now, with regards to the critical issues you bring up, maybe you've already come to a similar conclusion but I feel that God exists and is honest/benevolent/etc because I feel the Holy Ghost tell me that's the case. Could the Holy Ghost really be an expression of my own emotions, or otherwise totally wrong? I can't totally rule it out and that does bug me. I accept the existence of God (and by extension that He doesn't lie) not because I can know it in absolute terms, but rather in probabilistic ones.

If someone can know more certainly than that I'd love to know how as well!

[zil]

Welcome, @dakane!

[Luke]

On 5/14/2018 at 1:56 PM, Jersey Boy said:

I presume you’re a knowledgeable Latter-Day Saint and are aware of the fact that you had no beginning and have already existed for endless eternities. Are you bored yet?

No....but perhaps that is because of the veil.

 

On 5/15/2018 at 7:48 AM, zil said:

complete confidence

Hi Zil.  I have trouble with the idea of "complete confidence" or claims of absolute surety....other than the proverbial "I think therefore I am".  I feel I have a testimony, but I cannot claim to KNOW 100%....and I don't see how anyone can as long as they are mortal and have a veil placed over their mind.  When I hear someone say "I know..." during a testimony meeting I cringe a little and think "you are cheapening the word 'know'"

btw, I'm now working my way through Lectures on Faith....thanks for the recommendation.

On 5/15/2018 at 7:48 AM, zil said:

Is it lying to explain things to a child's understanding and then later, after they have grown (up), to explain the details?

I agree with what you are saying.  That is why we start out talking about heaven/hell and then progress to understanding the degrees of salvation and damnation.  But I do think D&C 19 is different....the way I read it God was intentionally misleading....perhaps for benevolent, fatherly reasons...but still it is lying.

On 5/15/2018 at 7:48 AM, zil said:

act in faith, test the theory

I definitely agree with this approach...to me this is the primary difference between spiritual knowledge and other types.  Faith/action required to unlock & understand spiritual knowledge

 

On 5/15/2018 at 7:48 AM, zil said:

you must control these thoughts and not allow them to control you.

Agreed!  And one thing I have figured is when I get lax with living the gospel these types of doubts tend to grow.  And when I'm living the gospel they don't seem as important....or when I'm going through moments of real struggle, these types of questions take a back seat.  I was in a bishopric and the bishop came back from a training with Elder Bednar.  He recounted how Elder Bednar had agreed to meet with a group of disgruntled LDS that were protesting some policy of the church.  He started out the meeting asking the group questions like:  How many of you read from the BOM everyday?  no hands go up.  How many of you pray at least twice a day?  almost no hands go up.  etc.  After a few questions like that with similar responses he said something to the effect:  So you walked into a room and turned off the lights and then you are surprised that you've bumped into a wall. 

 

On 5/15/2018 at 8:54 AM, Lost Boy said:

I know I am happiest while living the gospel.

100% agree!

 

On 5/15/2018 at 11:24 AM, Traveler said:

virtual reality

Traveler....you blew my mind with your post.  I'm convinced your right.  In many ways, mortality is a superficial virtual reality....but on the other hand, these new mortal bodies actually adds a dimension of "reality" we had not experienced before.   I liken our mortal experience to our ability to see light....visible light is only a small sliver from the entire electromagnetic spectrum.  I heard a general authority warn about social media and virtual reality entertainment saying that Satan wants us to give up our physical reality for a virtual reality that does not include our bodies...and thus traps us in the same reality he is eternally damned to live.

 

On 5/15/2018 at 11:24 AM, Traveler said:

the rebellious sons and daughters of G-d in our pre-existence

Regarding your 2nd paragraph, I have a different understanding.  I don't think they were deceived.  I think God can forgive people that act wrongly due to deception.  I think it was Joseph Smith that described sons of perdition and the denial of the HG like looking directly at the noonday son and denying its existence.  To me it is PRIDE plain and simple.  I don't think if they were pulled out of outer darkness after a billion years would they repent or say "uncle".  They hate God and His authority that much!

On 5/15/2018 at 11:24 AM, Traveler said:

making bad choices

Again, I'm going to partially disagree (or should I say partially agree to sound more agreeable)...yes, there are a lot of bad choices due to incorrect or incomplete info, but I know that I have made bad decisions knowing that I was sinning, knowing it was wrong, knowing the consequences....but still choosing wrongly. ( I do this every time a Krispy Creme donut is put in front of me.)  This is the most dangerous type of sin and I would guess most common among LDS (due to our correct knowledge).  I think a lot of bad decisions are also the result of immaturity (which I define as overvaluing present pleasure/happiness compared to future pleasure/happiness).

BTW:  Do you by chance come from a Jewish or Muslim background?  Just curious why you write "G_d"

 

On 5/15/2018 at 12:44 PM, CV75 said:

"All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence."

Hmm....that gives even more weight to the statement "I think, therefore I am"...interesting

 

Well, I think the conclusion of all this is that there is no way to know if God is lying or if there is a fact of reality which dooms us....at least not while we have a veil placed over our spirit and mind.

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Luke said:

 When I hear someone say "I know..." during a testimony meeting I cringe a little and think "you are cheapening the word 'know'"

Is that kind of like cheapening the word "literally"?

 

[Jersey Boy]

52 minutes ago, Luke said:

No....but perhaps that is because of the veil.

 

The question of mine that prompted the above response from you was obviously intended to be a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it presents a very valid point nonetheless. After all, if you have already existed for endless eternities, as far back into the impossibility distant past as one could ever hope grasp concerning the full scope of the endless future, then the fact that you are not yet bored is a very likely predictor you are not ever going to be bored with your existence. But I’m sure if you ever do find yourself in that predicament that God has methods and means readily at his disposal to straighten out that situation right quick. 

But I will tell you the reason why you’re bothered by the thoughts and questions you presented in your initial post is because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ and of the nature reality. Without spoon feeding you, I will tell you the answers you’re looking for are found in Lehi’s masterful discourse in 2 Nephi 2. For now, the only thing I will say on the subject is that the nature of reality revealed in 2 Nephi 2 tells us all your concerns and fears are totally unfounded. But the problem is that since by your own admission you do not know by the power of the Holy Ghost that the gospel is true, it’s unlikely the answers to be found in 2 Nephi 2 will satisfy you, even if you are able to intellectually understand them.

Edited May 17, 2018 by Jersey Boy

[Jersey Boy]

51 minutes ago, Luke said:

No....but perhaps that is because of the veil.

 

The question of mine that prompted the above response from you was obviously intended to be a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it presents a very valid point nonetheless. After all, if you have already existed for endless eternities, as far back into the impossibility distant past as one could ever hope grasp concerning the full scope of the endless future, then the fact that you are not yet bored is a very likely predictor you are not ever going to be bored with your existence. But I’m sure if you ever do find yourself in that predicament that God has methods and means readily at his disposal to straighten out that situation right quick. 

But I will tell you the reason why you’re bothered by the thoughts and questions you presented in your initial post is because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ and of the nature reality. Without spoon feeding you, I will tell you the answers you’re looking for are found in Lehi’s masterful discourse in 2 Nephi 2. For now, the only thing I will say on the subject is that the nature of reality revealed in 2 Nephi 2 tells us all your concerns and fears are totally unfounded. But the problem is that since by your own admission you do not know by the power of the Holy Ghost that the gospel is true, it’s unlikely the answers to be found in 2 Nephi 2 will satisfy you, even if you are able to intellectually understand them.

[zil]

2 hours ago, Luke said:

Hi Zil.  I have trouble with the idea of "complete confidence" or claims of absolute surety....other than the proverbial "I think therefore I am".  I feel I have a testimony, but I cannot claim to KNOW 100%....and I don't see how anyone can as long as they are mortal and have a veil placed over their mind.  When I hear someone say "I know..." during a testimony meeting I cringe a little and think "you are cheapening the word 'know'"

D&C 46 (emphasis mine):

Quote

13 To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.

...

15 And again, to some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know the differences of administration, as it will be pleasing unto the same Lord, according as the Lord will, suiting his mercies according to the conditions of the children of men.

16 And again, it is given by the Holy Ghost to some to know the diversities of operations, whether they be of God, that the manifestations of the Spirit may be given to every man to profit withal.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with not knowing - faith is a huge part of what this mortal experience is all about - and knowledge cannot exempt one from exercising faith.  There is also nothing wrong if you can only believe, or even if you can only desire to believe (see Alma 32).  But just because you personally do not know, do not presume that others do not know, nor by which method they gained their knowledge, nor the nature of their knowledge, nor that they are abusing or "cheapening" the word "know".  Unless you can truthfully claim to have direct access to their brain, you cannot claim to know whether they know, and therefore you have no right to dismiss their use of the word as inaccurate, or inappropriate.  Because some of us know.

I submit that there are different ways by which we come to knowledge.  There are different types or natures of knowledge.  And there are different sources of knowledge (though ultimately, truth only comes from God).  The "translated and taken up into heaven" method is only one.  If that's the one you personally need before you can call it "knowing", that's fine, but don't assume that another has not already experienced this, nor that this is the only valid way God has of imparting knowledge.

2 hours ago, Luke said:

btw, I'm now working my way through Lectures on Faith....thanks for the recommendation.

Ah, good.  I hope at the least that it gives you a pattern for your own study and pondering.

[Behemoth]

I have an answer. 

No. He doesn’t have to be good. He is good, and that’s why he’s God. (You see, you get to use circular reasoning when considereing eternity) 

I just read the book of Job in one go, trying to understand it, because in the past I’ve only understood the first couple chapters. It just about broke me. God seems ALOT more bad then good. What frivolous suffering! What laws governed this escapade? (It is a little thing to READ it, but one can not simply LIVE a diet of Hell, and still perceive light.)

Does a child comprehend the disciplinings of his parents?

He is right because he is God, and he is God because he is right. 

If you are in the middle of a hellish existence, will you still believe in love? If you have kept the commandments then death & continual pain are your earthly reward can you still believe in his perfect goodness? This is like our existence.

So we will fear him, because we don’t know what he’ll do with our lives, whether to burn them today with the lilies, or tomorrow, with the sparrows. 

Or, will we choose to forever believe in love. 

(most of our silly conundrums can be solved by correctly discerning when to use circular reasoning.)

how can I not believe in love? Sounds like an in-existential existence... null-void.

Hope in love abounds in existence.

Cleave to it and see if it doesn’t enlarge your soul.

- separate idea to test your reasoning skills... I think of you, therefore you are? 

Edited May 18, 2018 by Behemoth
The more English I use, the more the idea will become polluted

[zil]

Welcome, @Behemoth!

[Luke]

5 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

by your own admission you do not know by the power of the Holy Ghost that the gospel is true,

You are wrong.  I believe I have felt the Spirit many times.  My question is simply how do you know that just because the Spirit makes you feel good and right about something that is is actually true and right.  I don't see the answer to my question in 2 Ne 2.  

[Luke]

4 hours ago, zil said:

just because you personally do not know, do not presume that others do not know

Zil, to be more specific, I am not challenging that someone can know with absolute certainty that the Holy Ghost testified to them that something is true.  What I am saying, is that I don't see a way that anyone can be absolutely certain that what the Holy Ghost communicated is absolutely true.  God could appear to you and tell you something is true and you could know for certainty it was God and you could be absolutely clear about what he was communicating...but I don't think you can know for certainty that what He said was true....I don't see how you could until you yourself have the veil completely removed and arrive to a level of intelligence on the same plane of God...an intelligence that encompasses and perceives everything.  I can accept that you can know the identity of the messenger, you can know what the message was that was delivered, but I do not see ,and so far no one's explanation or logic shows how we could know that the messenger is honest.  Hmm, I guess what I am saying (and I am coming to this realisation as I write this) is that I think you cannot know anything for absolute certainty until you know everything...since all truth is part of one great whole.

Science, for example, can never come to absolute truth because you can never test every possible scenario in the universe...

Edited May 18, 2018 by Luke

[Behemoth]

In D+C, it says a messenger from God won’t shake your hand no matter what, and a messenger of the devil, they’ll try but won’t be able to cause they don’t have a body....boohyah! (I imagine if the devil spirit knows this trick, you’re just gonna have to trick him with a different idea)

Annndddd, you’re completely right about the truth thing.

look at the example of confidence that comes from the Book of Mormon. I like how they bare testimony: “as I know that I live... and “as surely as you live... Jesus is the Christ” .. blah blah blah. Get it? I feel comfortable saying the same thing. As surely as I exist, Love, Joy, God, His Son, revelation, modern prophets inspired by Him with authority etc.... exist.

so you can’t KNOW... any better then you know you exist. What more certainty can we ask for?

Don’t stop seeking for the mysterious of the universe, but don’t allow yourself to be “haunted” by silliness either. 

Edited May 18, 2018 by Behemoth

[zil]

19 minutes ago, Luke said:

Zil, to be more specific, I am not challenging that someone can know with absolute certainty that the Holy Ghost testified to them that something is true...

I knew what you were saying.  I'm saying you're wrong.  More emphatically, I'm saying you cannot say that others don't know - unless you also claim direct access into their brains.

I get that this doesn't make sense to you, that you cannot see logically how my claims could possibly be true / correct. That doesn't mean they aren't. 

[wenglund]

3 hours ago, Luke said:

You are wrong.  I believe I have felt the Spirit many times.  My question is simply how do you know that just because the Spirit makes you feel good and right about something that is is actually true and right.  I don't see the answer to my question in 2 Ne 2.  

The answer is actually in Alma 32:26-43.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[lostinwater]

On 5/13/2018 at 3:25 AM, Luke said:

But I am curious:  Does anyone have an answer for my dilemma?  If there is a flaw in my thinking or something I’m missing, please point it out.  This has been haunting me for more than a decade.

@Luke

i'd agree with you - there is not much in the realm of religious belief that can be empirically proved or perceived.  i sometimes think the whole system was designed to require constant choice.  That life is intentionally filled with events that lead us up to that silent wall we all pound our fists on for answers.  Maybe our pounding and not knowing and having to choose to hope is what deepens our souls.  Though at the same time, i guess the agnostics could and do argue that our pounding and not hearing an answer is an indication that there is no meaning to anything at all.

There's plenty that seems too perfect and deeply good to be a matter of chance (i mean you can explain some things with evolution - but can you explain the pureness of the love of a child with evolution?), and plenty more that seems too horrifically senseless to allow any other belief aside from total randomness.  Think of the most pointless application of the most debauched thought a person is capable of, and it's likely occurred at least several dozen times in the past 1000 years.

i think it's better to choose to hope though.  Because, i mean, what's the alternative?  Whether it's lights out, hot flames, or endless joy at the end, i think hoping makes the time before that point better, regardless of which it ends up being.

And please don't mistake what i am saying for something like Pascal's Wager - i feel like i've had enough personal experiences to justify believing in God, and at least attempting to make my actions reflect those beliefs (though sadly failing more often than not).  i guess i'm just saying i doubt plenty too - but the lack of utility of those doubts has so far gotten me through the troughs of the waves.  It just seems better to continue on my raft that (very) occasionally appears like a self-imposed delusion than it is to willfully swim towards the bottom in search of the horrific truth we fear might be there.

On the question of not having fullness of joy knowing one of your children is suffering - i think everyone will be saved who wants to be saved.  Some will have a rockier path than others, but in the end, everyone who will allow God's Love to change and save them, will be.  How long is eternity in hell, when there is no time?  Maybe it's just long enough to have the dross burned off of you.  

And yes, i agree, heaven as portrayed seems horribly boring.  i read a lot of near death experiences.  One person said that joy in heaven is different there than it is here.  Joy is not something you extract from a novel experience.  It is something that just comes.  It's there, all around - no extraction necessary.  

Anyways, this speculation on my part obviously isn't Mormon doctrine - but i'm sure you know that already.

Regardless, i hope you find the peace you are looking for.

[wenglund]

9 hours ago, Luke said:

 When I hear someone say "I know..." during a testimony meeting I cringe a little and think "you are cheapening the word 'know'" 

...that, or you my have an overly narrow,  rigid, and formal interpretation of the word "know.".  

Whereas, Webster's dictionary provides an interpretive range, from awareness of truth  to awareness of factuality, and from convinced to certain.  In other words, if someone  is convinced of the truth of the Church, etc., they can, according to the dictionary,  legitimately say "I know." 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Luke]

6 hours ago, zil said:

you cannot say that others don't know

Zil, are you 100% absolutely certain that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true?

[Luke]

3 hours ago, wenglund said:

they can, according to the dictionary,  legitimately say "I know.

You bring up a good point Wade and I think I agree with you.  When it come to the word "know" in this scriptures I will often check to see how it is translated in Spanish because in Spanish there are two words for know:  conocer (which is to have familiarity with....like, "I know him very well") or saber (which is like knowing a fact:  "I know his name").  Occasionally I have seen "know" translated as "discern" (discernir)

So, for example, in Moroni 10:5 it states "by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things".  In Spanish it uses the verb "conocer".

The other thing I think that is interesting is that I hear the word "know" more during a ward sacrament meeting than I do in General Conference...it seems the apostles and church leaders tend to use the word "testify" more than using these common phrases "I know without a shadow of a doubt with every fibre of my being..."  

I had a Bishop that when he shared his testimony would say, "I believe..."  On the other hand, I knew another gentleman, who would get up and say, for dramatic effect: "I don't believe the BOM is true, I don't believe the church is true, etc.  and then when everyone was sufficiently confused or shocked he would say, "I KNOW the BOM is true.  I KNOW the church is true..."  Strikes me as showmanship and not a genuine testimony...and it seems to belittle those that sincerely believe but don't KNOW.

4 hours ago, lostinwater said:

i think it's better to choose to hope though

I really enjoyed your post and fully agree.  The Greeks have a phrase:  Hope is the last to die.  And I've arrived at the same conclusion:  Hope is the obvious choice.

[Behemoth]

What about the elephant in the room? 

Yeah....me. 

Logically sound, faith promoting, humongous.... how can you ignore it?

Do any of your questions remain unanswered?

Edited May 18, 2018 by Behemoth

[zil]

9 hours ago, Luke said:

The other thing I think that is interesting is that I hear the word "know" more during a ward sacrament meeting than I do in General Conference...it seems the apostles and church leaders tend to use the word "testify" more than using these common phrases "I know without a shadow of a doubt with every fibre of my being..."  

Probably because they know that some people have problems with use of the word "know".  I do the same (I say, "I testify..." or I just make a flat out statement) and for that reason - Group A get upset when Group B claim to have knowledge that Group A don't believe Group B can actually have.

9 hours ago, Luke said:

On the other hand, I knew another gentleman, who would get up and say, for dramatic effect: "I don't believe the BOM is true, I don't believe the church is true, etc.  and then when everyone was sufficiently confused or shocked he would say, "I KNOW the BOM is true.  I KNOW the church is true..."  Strikes me as showmanship and not a genuine testimony...and it seems to belittle those that sincerely believe but don't KNOW.

One person being a dork is not evidence that all people who claim knowledge are being dorks.  One person mindlessly imitating does not prove that all people who claim knowledge are mindlessly imitating.

9 hours ago, Luke said:

When it come to the word "know" in this scriptures I will often check to see how it is translated in Spanish because in Spanish there are two words for know:  conocer (which is to have familiarity with....like, "I know him very well") or saber (which is like knowing a fact:  "I know his name").  Occasionally I have seen "know" translated as "discern" (discernir) 

So if you understand that there are multiple correct uses of the English word "know", why do you find fault with those who use it, as if you knew that they were using it incorrectly?

9 hours ago, Luke said:

Zil, are you 100% absolutely certain that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true?

First, why do you avoid the more important point, which is acknowledging that you do not have direct access into another human's brain and therefore cannot know what's in there, and therefore ought not to find fault with others' ways of expressing what's in there?  So far, rather than accept that there are things beyond your knowledge, and that other people might have experiences you don't understand, you've doubled-down on the idea that yours is the only valid understanding of the word "know", and that no one else has the right to any other, nor to have knowledge that you yourself don't have.  Is it really that hard to simply acknowledge that your experience is different from other people's experiences (and that their experiences vary widely)?

As to your question, yes, I am 100% absolutely certain that the Church is true.  But unless you can be sufficiently humble to recognize that yours is not the only possible experience in the mortal realms, I think I'm done with this topic - you've had witness and opportunity enough.  More would be worse than pointless.  Please note, I fully understand your point about the type of knowledge or this usage of the word "know".  I comprehend the logic which says that this particular type of "know" cannot happen short of omniscience.  I find no flaw in that particular logic within its scope.  I also see nothing at all wrong with your questions, wondering, or even doubts.  My sole problem is that you deny that others might have experienced a reality beyond your own - not just the possibility of it, but their witness of it.  Having denied that, there's nothing left to discuss in that particular realm.

Edited May 18, 2018 by zil

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Luke said:

Science, for example, can never come to absolute truth because you can never test every possible scenario in the universe...

That is true.  No argument there.  And yet we hear everyone say (based on science) that we "know" XYZ.  That is how we speak of it.  

It speaks to the nature of knowledge itself.  If you're going to confine the usage of the word "know" to those things we have absolute, complete, unequivocal, zero doubt, comprehensive knowledge about, then you're basically saying that you can only use the word "know" for two things:

1) I think, therefore I am.
2) That which you have the sure word of prophecy revealed.

If that were so, then the word would quickly be removed from the vocabulary since no one would ever use it.

EDIT: if you meant that anything short of omniscience is "belief" then the word "know" shouldn't even exist.  But it does exist.  Therefore, it must mean something else.

The reality is that the meaning of "know" covers a spectrum.  Now, you can argue about where you draw the line.  And you would set the lowest bar at a level quite a bit higher than most people.  And I would believe that I do too.  But that's the way language is.  Sometimes you fight this tendency.  Sometimes you just let it go.

Also consider that we "know" certain things in an "incorrect" way simply to learn a principle enough to learn a clearer picture of the way things "really are".  Then we work with that new knowledge until we get a clearer picture still.  And each time we learn, we realize what we knew before was completely wrong.  Right?  Not really.

When we consider the "knowledge" we gain about the atom, we see what science calls "models".  This is not necessarily a declaration of the way things "really are" but rather a pattern or image we can use to describe what is going on.

1) We decided an atom was the smallest particle that any element could be broken down into.  And for the knowledge we had at the time, this was in fact an excellent explanation.  It helped us understand what elements really were.  It helped us understand chemical reactions  We learned a LOT from such knowledge even though it was wrong.  But even while it was incorrect, for the abilities we had, the tools available, it may as well have been the truth.  Based on what we were able to do, that was the truth.  We couldn't split an atom.

2) Then we discovered subatomic particles.  Particularly, we discovered the basis of all chemical reactions was the interchange of electrons between atoms.  But we didn't know much about it.  We were in a state of a lot of doubt.  We thought the atom was inseparable.  Now it appears there's something challenging that.

3) We created the model of orbital shells of electrons.  This explained a LOT.  The number of electrons and number of shells were a big part of how electrons interacted on an interatomic level.  And for all we were able to do or experience at the time, it may as well have been true.  But it wasn't.  Yet, it was from a particular point of view.

4) So, we have s and p orbitals that look nothing like the shells we previously "knew" to be true.  And the thing is that my chemistry professor emphasized that these are all "models".  We're not saying that we have actually seen or "know" any of this stuff is the way things REALLY ARE. 

But these models are used to explain certain phenomena that we see in a laboratory.  And additional models continue to be made and used to describe a condition that would explain various phenomena.  That is all.  Yet, with all this, we daily converse with one another about these things as "fact" that we "know".  And no one calls people liars for this.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Guest

[zil]

27 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That which you have the sure word of prophecy revealed. 

He's rejecting even this one, and saying that nothing short of omniscience is knowledge - short of omniscience, it's belief.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, zil said:

He's rejecting even this one, and saying that nothing short of omniscience is knowledge - short of omniscience, it's belief.

I guess I didn't catch that part.

[zil]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I guess I didn't catch that part.

I suppose one could take that to extremes too - how does an omniscient being know they're really omniscient?  How do they know there's not someone or something behind the curtains (curtains they're currently unaware of)?  How does one know there's nothing more to be known?   I think Lectures on Faith answers that question, indirectly - or gives one sufficient to figure out the answer.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, zil said:

I suppose one could take that to extremes too - how does an omniscient being know they're really omniscient?  How do they know there's not someone or something behind the curtains (curtains they're currently unaware of)?  How does one know there's nothing more to be known?   I think Lectures on Faith answers that question, indirectly - or gives one sufficient to figure out the answer.

I think that when someone is in the dark, it is really easy to believe everyone is in the same boat.  There are varying levels of light. But the very definition of the sure word of prophecy is to know beyond what man's reason, or evidence, or science, or intellect can achieve. And that includes actually KNOWING rather than simply believing.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Guest