If it is true that the truth about reality is knowable, then there are several worldviews that would be refuted -- complete/strong agnosticism (b/c it says reality cannot be known, except for that being known) and relativism (b/c it says objectively that there is no objective truth).  That still leaves us with a lot of worldviews to consider.

 

If the truth about reality can be known, then flowing from that is proposition #2, which is that opposites cannot both be true in the same way at the same time.  This proposition refutes pluralism, the belief that all religions/worldviews are true.  One of the "first principles" of knowledge, is the law of non-contradiction.   It states that opposites cannot both be true.  To say that this principle is not true is to destroy one's own argument b/c they are saying the opposite of their statement is not true thus showing the truth of the principle.

 

The conclusion is that not all religions can be true b/c religions are not the same.  There are similarities but they all contradict one another at points.  Even the big three of theism contradict at points.  For example, a tenet of Christianity is that Jesus is God.  Islam says that Jesus was just a man, not God.  Either Jesus is God or not.  They cannot both be true.  Is one of them right?  Well, what corresponds to reality?  So, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Deism, Atheism, and on and on cannot all be true.

 

Certainly there is pluralism when it comes to beliefs but not when it comes to truth/reality.  Contrary beliefs are possible, but not contrary truths.

 

Thoughts?  Agree?  Disagree?

If it is true that the truth about reality is knowable

 

 

 

 

Your first sentence blows the rest of your argument out of the water. I still maintain that the truth about the physical world is knowable (to an extent), but truth about the supernatural isn't knowable. Notice that I didn't say that the supernatural isn't knowable. It is, in principle, possible that some aspectsof the supernatural are knowable..... but it is impossible to know if it is true.

 

 

And, your argument still has the fatal flaw of what is to be considered "true".  You still never overcame (and you won't, it is not possible, the last 3000 years of philosophy has shown that) the problems of ontology and epistemology.
 
I won't press you hard on this point again though.  We had that discussion (it was deleted by the mods on Sunday).  Suffice it to say, that this discussion is fatally flawed, not because of anything Packfan is arguing for or against, but because there has to be an assumption prior to the discussion concerning what Theory of Truth will be allowed.
 
The act of making those assumptions automatically divides the discussion before any other arguments are made.

The conclusion is that not all religions can be true b/c religions are not the same.
-------------------------------
For example, this is only a true statement if one assumes the Correspondence theory of Truth.  If one assumes the Coherence theory of Truth, then all religions are necessarily true.
 
And by True, both theories mean the same thing.  TRUE with all caps.

Do you deny the law of non-contradiction?

 

If I say, "There is a pie in the oven," it cannot be true that "there is a pie in the oven" and "there is not a pie in the oven."  If you agree with that, why is it to say "Jesus is God" and "Jesus is not God" is a different case and that the religions that make each statement can both be true?  I realize that to know which statement in these two cases is true is different, such as it is easier to know which statement about the pie is true, but whether it is pie or Jesus, there is a truth/reality about both.

 

Diver would say that one could know for sure that they know the truth about the pie.  One could know the truth about Jesus but they could not know if they know what they know is the truth.  Might have to read that one twice!  Anyway, if that is the case, it still doesn't mean one cannot come to a conclusion as to what they think is true about Jesus and it doesn't mean that all views of Jesus are equal as some views make better use of the evidence than others.

If it is true that the truth about metaphysical (or spiritual) reality is knowable then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I agree with Diver, physical truths are knowable.

I don't understand why we wouldn't be having this discussion.  In terms of physical truths, do you know physical truth perfectly?  Is there any of your knowledge of physical truth that could be false?  Just b/c truth is knowable doesn't mean it is known.

One could know the truth about Jesus but they could not know if they know what they know is the truth.

 

 

 

 

That is a complete misrepresentation of what I said. Jesus isn't a physical reality that anyone can test; many people doubt he ever even existed.

"There is a pie in the oven," it cannot be true that "there is a pie in the oven" and "there is not a pie in the oven." 

 

 

 

Quantum physics would suggest that neither answer is correct until you open the oven door.

 

But, in a way, this is a good analogy to god; only thing is.... the oven door is sealed shut. So, there might be a pie in the oven, and there might not... but we can't open the door to find out.

One could know the truth about Jesus but they could not know if they know what they know is the truth.

 

That is a complete misrepresentation of what I said. Jesus isn't a physical reality that anyone can test; many people doubt he ever even existed.

 

Sorry.  I did not mean to misrepresent your view.  But let me explain a little further what I was saying.

 

I was trying to say that your position is that no one can know for sure if "Jesus is God" is true or not.  If reality is that Jesus really is God, I may believe that Jesus is God, thus know the truth, but I could not know for sure that what I know is the truth.  And on the other hand, if it is reality that Jesus is not God, one may believe that Jesus was not God, thus know the truth, but they too could not know for sure that what they know is the truth.  Is that accurate of your position?

 

As for Jesus existing, those who doubt his very existence are in the minority.  There is no evidence to suggest he was not a real person.

If I say, "There is a pie in the oven," it cannot be true that "there is a pie in the oven" and "there is not a pie in the oven."  If you agree with that, why is it to say "Jesus is God" and "Jesus is not God" is a different case and that the religions that make each statement can both be true?
-----------------------------------------------
 
Because now you are conflating validity with truth value.  Two contradictory proposition can not form a valid argument, but if there is no truth value to the objects of the proposition, then despite the proposition being invalid, the truth value is unknown.
 
Basic logic 101 at any university or community college.  It is also one of the most difficult things for an undergrad to understand; that validity of an argument and truth value are radically different things.
 
You make a valid argument, but an argument whose truth value is unknown, and therefore meaningless (with respect to truth).

"There is a pie in the oven," it cannot be true that "there is a pie in the oven" and "there is not a pie in the oven." 

 

Quantum physics would suggest that neither answer is correct until you open the oven door.

 

Well, what would common sense suggest?  You may not know which statement is correct until you open the door but one of them has to be correct and one incorrect.  What about this?  When people believed the earth was flat, they were wrong, correct?  Well, if someone back then said, "The world is not flat; it is round," before the earth had been discovered to be round, would that person's statement have been correct?

 

But, in a way, this is a good analogy to god; only thing is.... the oven door is sealed shut. So, there might be a pie in the oven, and there might not... but we can't open the door to find out.

 

Who sealed the door shut?  Why can't the door be opened?  

 

I guess I am getting confused on whether you believe that some things about God can be known or if knowing anything about God is impossible. 

That's a good way of putting it - don't know until you see it - ;-)

I was trying to say that your position is that no one can know for sure if "Jesus is God" is true or not.

 

 

I asked in your other thread, and never got a response: please define what it means to "know", in your understanding. In principle, I agree with whay you say, but I think semantics is really getting things confused here.

 

 

  If reality is that Jesus really is God, I may believe that Jesus is God, thus know the truth, but I could not know for sure that what I know is the truth. 

 

 

 

No, you would not know the truth. You would believe that you know the truth. That doesn't make it true.

 

 

 

And on the other hand, if it is reality that Jesus is not God, one may believe that Jesus was not God, thus know the truth, but they too could not know for sure that what they know is the truth.  Is that accurate of your position?

 

 

 

Same as above. Delete the underlined part of both sentences, and this would be more accurate.

 

 

 

As for Jesus existing, those who doubt his very existence are in the minority.  There is no evidence to suggest he was not a real person.

 

 

 

For what it's worth, I'm not part of that minority. What I question is his divinity.

Well, what would common sense suggest? 

 

 

Common sense doesn't always work.

 

 

You may not know which statement is correct until you open the door but one of them has to be correct and one incorrect.  What about this?  When people believed the earth was flat, they were wrong, correct?  Well, if someone back then said, "The world is not flat; it is round," before the earth had been discovered to be round, would that person's statement have been correct?

 

 

Again, this is a physical reality that can be tested.

 

 

 

Who sealed the door shut?  Why can't the door be opened?  

 

 

The oven is a metaphor for the supernatural. A muslim knows that their god is god; a christian knows that jesus is god. A hindu knows that their god is god. This is why I brought quantum physics into the conversation, because common sense would suggest that they can't all be right..... but common sense doesn't always work.

 

Take an atom for example. How is it possible for an electron to be in all places in the electron shell at the same time? How is it possible for an electron to go from one electron shell to another without traversing the space in between? Common sense suggests these things aren't possible, but to the best of our understanding, that's how it works.

You are trying to apply common sense in the physical world to the supernatural. But by it's very definition, that isn't possible. In doing so, you limit god.

Think about it this way: christian theology suggests that god is three "persons" or aspects at the same time. That makes no common sense. Why isn't it just as possible that in reality, god is jesus for christians, and god is allah for muslims and god is vishnu for hindus..... despite what the religious texts might suggest or what common sense says? Common sense suggests that isn't possible...... but commons sense doesn't always work.

 

 

I guess I am getting confused on whether you believe that some things about God can be known or if knowing anything about God is impossible. 

 

 

You know that jesus christ is your lord and savior. You have no way of knowing that's true. I don't know how else to say it.

 

but whether it is pie or Jesus, there is a truth/reality about both.

_________________________________

You still don't understand (or don't want to understand) the concept of reality. Everybody in the world knows that the pie is there because they can see it, taste it, smell it, etc. There's no need debate about its existence.

The truth about JC being a god is very subjective and only seems to work for those of the christian faith. If JC, Vishnu, Zeus, Allah or any other deities were real, it wouldn't be necessary  to convince people that they exist.

Is that too hard to understand?

As for Jesus existing, those who doubt his very existence are in the minority.  There is no evidence to suggest he was not a real person.

______________________

There's no evidence to suggest that JC was more than a regular person living in the middle-east. Remeber that the bible is not a credible source as much as you want it to be.

I guess I am getting confused on whether you believe that some things about God can be known or if knowing anything about God is impossible.
--------------------------
Again, it goes back to what you will consider  to be "true" and therefore what you will allow as knowledge.  The areas of philosophy this covers is epistemology, ontology, and metaphysics.
 
I actually find it hilarious that you think a general chat room is a place where you can actually get real discussion of this.  This is such a very complex and esoteric (but definitely important to any thinking person) that most people do not have the vocabulary to adequately discuss this.
 
I applaud you for trying Packfan. But, ... you need to define your terms much more rigorously first, and those definitions are sorely lacking. (IMHO)