an anarchist
Your local anarchist.
I’ve made a couple of threads about “proving God”, and have read through similar threads. I would like to state an observation. There is a fundamental reason why there will always be disagreement.
First, definitions. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. The theory of pramanas is ancient Hindu epistemology. Epistemology deals with discovering what are valid ways to attain true knowledge. Each pramana deals with a separate way true knowledge can be attained.
In total, the Hindus theorized six different pramanas, with the varying schools accepting different ones as valid. Three central pramanas which are almost universally accepted, which are perception (Sanskrit pratyakṣa), inference (anumāna), and "word", meaning the testimonyof past or present reliable experts (Śabda); and more contentious ones, which are comparison and analogy (upamāna), postulation, derivation from circumstances (arthāpatti), and non-perception, negative/cognitive proof (anupalabdhi).
For this thread, I will be focusing on the pramana of “word or testimony”.
The Hindus argued that receiving knowledge directly from God is a valid means to attain true knowledge. As God is the source of all knowledge, information gotten from God is reliable and true. For Hindus, this would apply to their Vedic literature. For a Christian, the Bible. Interestingly, Buddhism does not see this pramana as a valid means to attain knowledge.
Let’s use Christians as an example, now. I myself believe that the Bible is authentic because it says it is authentic. This is a valid way of verifying it, as I believe it to be directly from God. This isn’t just some cop out, trying to talk a way out of philosophically defending my position. That has been the assertion I’ve seen on this site. The notion that “word/testimony” is a valid means to attain true knowledge is a thoroughly developed epistemological concept. It is not a cop out.
So! The believer believes in this pramana. The atheist does not (I’m not atheist, but I assume). Because of this, no matter how much debating is done, no one will ever be moved, I think. It all depends on whether or not you believe testimony is a valid means to attain pure knowledge.
Well for my part, I’m done debating whether God is real. I suppose one could use Bible apologetics to try to prove the Bible in a “scientific” way, but will it ever be satisfactory? Like, the site of Jericho. The Christian will say, “It is archeologically dated to the Biblical date!” And the atheist will say “No, it’s a later date!” Each side can find evidence supporting their beliefs.
First, definitions. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. The theory of pramanas is ancient Hindu epistemology. Epistemology deals with discovering what are valid ways to attain true knowledge. Each pramana deals with a separate way true knowledge can be attained.
In total, the Hindus theorized six different pramanas, with the varying schools accepting different ones as valid. Three central pramanas which are almost universally accepted, which are perception (Sanskrit pratyakṣa), inference (anumāna), and "word", meaning the testimonyof past or present reliable experts (Śabda); and more contentious ones, which are comparison and analogy (upamāna), postulation, derivation from circumstances (arthāpatti), and non-perception, negative/cognitive proof (anupalabdhi).
For this thread, I will be focusing on the pramana of “word or testimony”.
The Hindus argued that receiving knowledge directly from God is a valid means to attain true knowledge. As God is the source of all knowledge, information gotten from God is reliable and true. For Hindus, this would apply to their Vedic literature. For a Christian, the Bible. Interestingly, Buddhism does not see this pramana as a valid means to attain knowledge.
Let’s use Christians as an example, now. I myself believe that the Bible is authentic because it says it is authentic. This is a valid way of verifying it, as I believe it to be directly from God. This isn’t just some cop out, trying to talk a way out of philosophically defending my position. That has been the assertion I’ve seen on this site. The notion that “word/testimony” is a valid means to attain true knowledge is a thoroughly developed epistemological concept. It is not a cop out.
So! The believer believes in this pramana. The atheist does not (I’m not atheist, but I assume). Because of this, no matter how much debating is done, no one will ever be moved, I think. It all depends on whether or not you believe testimony is a valid means to attain pure knowledge.
Well for my part, I’m done debating whether God is real. I suppose one could use Bible apologetics to try to prove the Bible in a “scientific” way, but will it ever be satisfactory? Like, the site of Jericho. The Christian will say, “It is archeologically dated to the Biblical date!” And the atheist will say “No, it’s a later date!” Each side can find evidence supporting their beliefs.