Are we just talking about the "brain in a vat" problem here? That seems to be what Rhology is hammering and that somehow Christianity solves this? I'd like to understand how this is the case. It seems to me that everyone must start with "I exist" and move forward from there. (Source)
You're the one claiming a hotline to absolute truth- let's see some evidence for it. All I'm claiming is the way things seem to me to be, and you are in no position to doubt that- or are you a mind reader?
Er, again, you're using a word in a "special" sense. Trusting my cognitive faculties to be more or less accurate is hardly a "religion"- or would you say that cockroaches also have religion? And I'm only asking for you to provide proof (or let's say any evidence whatsoever) for your beliefs, because you have been saying over and over that you have a hotline to absolute truth which I do not have. (Source)
Are we just talking about the "brain in a vat" problem here? That seems to be what Rhology is hammering and that somehow Christianity solves this?
That is merely one of the problems I've been citing. But it's a good one!
The point is not that "Christianity solves it". Rather, it's that the "I believe what I see evidence for" epistemology has no way around the problem. There can be no evidence that we're not brains in vats.
If that is one's fundamental axiom, there are all sorts of problems and questions one can't answer.
However, if one's fundamental axiom is that the God of the Bible is and speaks, then none of that is true. My fundamental axiom DOES give me a reason not to believe in the brain in a vat. zilch's does not; he has to sneak in other axioms and pretty soon we realise that all he has is just a messy mesh of subjective preferences that he happens to be saying now. Though they could change tomorrow, because after all, all his thoughts are determined by the chemicals that compose his brain.
we're not getting anywhere.
Au contraire, I disagree strongly. We've seen quite clearly that all you have is your blind faith, and that faith doesn't match what you're getting out of it.
You're the one claiming a hotline to absolute truth- let's see some evidence for it.
How do you know evidence is a good way to discover truth? What evidence of that assertion have you seen? How do you know you properly saw it? How do you know you properly processed what you saw? How do you know you're communicating relevant information to that experience you had?
How would you know if you did NOT see evidence, since experiencing evidence is a sensation? What does NOT experiencing evidence feel like? Is it also a sensation? How did you learn it?
See, one can just go on and on with these questions. It always comes back to "well, I think so", as if zilch has some sort of ability to pronounce on absolute truth from where he stands.
Trusting my cognitive faculties to be more or less accurate is hardly a "religion"
Oh? It's a metaphysical claim.
It's centered on one charismatic personality, namely you.
You have a single authority - what you think your brain is doing.
You can't adduce any evidence for this belief.
Sounds a lot like what you accuse religion of being to me.
would you say that cockroaches also have religion?
As if you have any idea whether cockroaches actually exist, for one thing.
Or what sensations they have.
Yes, I have a "hotline" that is available to anyone who is willing to repent of one's sinful self-deceptive self-sufficiency. Hardly a hotline, really. It's just listening to the One Who is in a position to know what I can't know, and believing Him.