KimberlyAnn Moves to Delphi...

[_KimberlyAnn]

Gad, my reply to Coggins, to which he refers in the opening post, was in response to this statement he made to Marg:

As to religious claims, I can tell you exactly, barring your own unique needs, how you can know for yourself, with perfect certainty, that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, and that the Church is what it claims to be. However, you will, a priori, not accept my methodology, preferring your own and claiming that your own is sufficient to comprehend all possible knowledge (this is scientific method used, not as an intellectual methodology per se, but as an oracle). This is your religious claim, and the burden of proof is on you to verify this as well.

Coggins claims a methodology which can be successfully repeated and which will result in a "perfect certainty" that God lives and that Jesus is the Christ and that the Mormon church is what it claims to be. The trouble is, that methodology has been a failure for many, many people. The experiment of praying and seeking "feelings" (which is all Coggins' claims are based on, as it happens) doesn't, in fact, for many people, result in knowing with a perfect certainty the things Coggins' claims they will know after employing his methodology.

This is the spiritual arrogance of which I made mention on another thread. If Coggins' methodology fails to produce the desired result, of knowing with a perfect certainty that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ and that the Mormon church is true, then the failure of the methodology is blamed on the one employing it. There's no consideration on Coggins' part that perhaps his premise is faulty or his methodology - it's that the investigator didn't participate with enough sincerity. Or they're hard hearted. Or they're sinning. Or they're not asking with enough earnest intent. Why is that? Because Coggins' KNOWS WITH PERFECT CERTAINTY that he is right! He has no faith, hope, wishfulness or doubts whatsoever. He has PERFECT KNOWLEDGE about the existence of God, Jesus Christ and the truthfulness of the Mormon church and his evidence for such certainty is - A Feeling!

I do not claim certain knowledge that God does not exist, but neither can it be known with a perfect, certain knowledge that He/She/It does exist. Likewise, it cannot be known with a perfect, certain knowledge that Jesus is the Christ and that the Mormon church is what it claims to be. It can be believed with the help of "feelings", but sans any other empirical evidence or a methodology that can be successfully repeated, it is, in my opinion, perfectly acceptable to declare Coggins' claim of perfect knowledge of things only accessed by feelings to be false.

KA

[_Gadianton]

Coggins claims a methodology which can be successfully repeated and which will result in a "perfect certainty" that God lives and that Jesus is the Christ and that the Mormon church is what it claims to be. The trouble is, that methodology has been a failure for many, many people.

it's been a failure for everyone! including coggins! :)

[_Runtu]

Coggins claims a methodology which can be successfully repeated and which will result in a "perfect certainty" that God lives and that Jesus is the Christ and that the Mormon church is what it claims to be. The trouble is, that methodology has been a failure for many, many people.

it's been a failure for everyone! including coggins! :)

And it seems that the church implicitly admits this when they talk about strengthening one's testmony. It's not knowledge if you can lose it or strengthen it. There are really two kinds of knowledge: "knowledge that" and "knowledge how." The first is something that, once known, is always known. "I know that the sky is blue." "I know that gravity works." This kind of knowledge isn't affected by constant reinforcement. It is known. The other kind, "knowledge how," does require reinforcement. If you don't practice something at least once in a while, you can lose your ability to do something. Keith Moon, for example, was notorious for not practicing at the drums. When it was time for a tour or a recording session, he would practice long hours for several days to teach himself to play again.

The problem with Cogs' methodology is that it treats knowledge that "I know that the church is true" as knowledge how "I know how to have faith."

[_ozemc]

Coggins, if you think you can know with a perfect certainty that God exists, that Jesus is the Christ and that the Mormon church is what it claims to be, then you are the one who's been sniffing gas from the navel of the earth and fallen into a trance, though you wouldn't make nearly the attractive oracle that I would. You may be less squeamish about sifting through the intestines of a freshly mutilated goat, however.

The idea that you can know with perfect certainty any of the things you claimed is patently absurd. I should enquirer about how you know with a perfect certainty that God exists. Is it through prayer? Feelings? Visions? A burning bosom? You see, Coggins, those are not reliable evidence. People all over the world use feelings, prayer, visions, prophesy and the like as evidence of all kinds of things, many of them to show their perfect certainty that Mohammad was a true prophet. Others claim to know with perfect certainty that Scientology is true. Do you doubt their certain knowledge? I sure as heck do, the same way I doubt yours.

I have no problem with people claiming to believe in God. I do not know that God does not exist, but I have no evidence that He does. For some irrational reason, I hold out hope that a divine being does exist to somehow right the wrongs for people He would not help while they were here on this earth, suffering. Strange, I know. But no one should take the claim of a perfect knowledge of God's existence with any amount of seriousness. The fact is that no human can know God exists, Coggins. If you knew, you'd have no need for faith, right?

Faith, hope, and belief in God are common. A sure, certain knowledge is an extraordinary claim that can be dismissed as wacky.

KA

You should change your avatar from time to time to the Oracle at Delphi, just because! :)

[_ozemc]

already qualified that, Loran. Anything that cannot be attributed to chance, coincidence or simple subjectivity. That would be a good start, I think.

Then you will, of course, a priori, attribute revelation to simple subjectivity. I am helpless before such assumptions

Hence, I have no evidence.

Bingo! Give 'em a cigar!

That's just what KA said.

No one can really know, it is all subjective.

[_ozemc]

H

ow do you KNOW with a perfect certainty, Coggins?

Just one time: I know these things through the power of the Holy Spirit. I know them because God, who knows me by name, has revealed them to me through the principle and power of revelation. I have had intelligence distill upon me like the "dews of Heaven", and I have had the witness that accompanies the feelings and raining intelligence.

And these experiences will occur again.

And all of these things could be the result of misfirings in the brain, or drugs, or self-induced hypnosis.

There is nothing objective, hence knowing, about it.

[_Gazelam]

I Know.

[_asbestosman]

I Know.

ROTFL

That was a pretty good come-back.