Spoonseeking

Recently a fairly long article was promoted by some friends of mine as a criticism of “militant atheists”: http://highchurchpuritan.com/2015/07/27/god-is/ I enjoyed this article.  It seemed a fairly well-stated description of the epistemological basis argument for generic monotheism.  However, it was not without flaw (writing rarely is, especially my own). Believing When True Brandon writes, All truth rests on a single basic proposition: God is. This is the fountainhead of all true knowledge and wisdom. This is the bedrock of all true belief. There is no other foundation for epistemological certainty. This says that God is provides basis for knowledge.  But knowledge isn’t defined, and it has many meanings.  I think in this case it is used as: Knowledge: belief when you have good reasons to believe if the thing is true But using that we can know mutually exclusive things.  We can know Yahweh, and Krishna, and Suijin, and Thor....

Back in 2008 I wrote a blog post where I discussed what I use as a working definition of knowledge.  I recently re-read it and realize that I now strongly disagree with that definition. Here is what I wrote: Knowledge, according to Dr. Bahnsen, requires three things. Belief. To know something, one must first believe it to be true. This should not really be surprising or debatable. Basis. To know something, one must have a reasonable justification for the belief. The belief you have must not be based on invalid data or invalid or arbitrary reasoning. Truth. To really know something, that thing that you know has to be true. The thing known must accurately represent the truth of the situation. I got this during an apologetic course I took at Grace Baptist Church.  There are major flaws with this definition.  When applied it can claim as knowledge multiple mutually exclusive claims.  The biggest problem is #3 - truth.  This definition requires for somet...