Paul S. Jenkins says:September 7, 2013 at 6:57 am
The Christian worldview alone makes it possible for us to answer these questions and have genuine knowledge. This is because knowledge stems from the nature of God (Proverbs 1:7, Colossians 2:3).How do you know this?
[Dr. Lisle: God has revealed it in His Word. Did you not read the verses?]
Paul S. Jenkins says:
[Dr. Lisle: If they were not, it would be impossible to know anything because there could be no justification for those things necessary for knowledge. And it is possible to know some things.]
Paul S. Jenkins says:
I didn't see Lisle's final responses immediately, but when I got around to addressing them he had closed off comments on his blogpost. So I didn't get a chance to counter-respond, and his action in arbitrarily guillotining all comments has resolved me not to comment on anything else he writes on his blog.
Nevertheless, the weakness of his final responses needs pointing out.
Despite Lisle's comment, it is possible to have knowledge without justification. Here's the definition of axiom: "A self-evident or universally recognized truth." If it's self-evident, I don't need justification, or evidence, to support it.
I didn't claim that I was was the one doing the thinking. I merely claimed that an entity designated by "I" was thinking. It doesn't matter who or what that entity is — it is irrefutably thinking.
Lisle is asking me how I know that I don't know everything. Really? He's suggesting that I could be mistaken about not being omniscient? If I were mistaken about not being omniscient, that would mean I was, in fact, omniscient. But how can an omniscient being be mistaken? I don't think Lisle has thought this through. It appears that he's claiming there is only absolute certainty about everything — omniscience — or no certainty about anything. But I have shown that it is indeed possible to be absolutely certain of something, and I gave a couple of examples. His assertion that knowledge is only possible by relying on Christian principles is just that — an assertion, and he has not shown how he can know that his source for that claim is true.
[Dr. Lisle: You are asserting that it is impossible to know everything? How do you know that? How do you know that there cannot be a Being who knows everything?]
I did not make that assertion. I asserted that it is self-evident that I am not omniscient. I made no assertion about the impossibility of omniscience.
[Dr. Lisle: Two problems: (1) You don't have certain knowledge of the two examples you gave - at least you haven't yet explained how you do. (2) You claim that even these examples are dependent on the entity referred to as "I." But how, on your own worldview, do you know that "I" (you) exist?]
(1) Lisle isn't following the argument. I do have certain knowledge that I am not omniscient — see above. (2) There is an entity that is thinking, else the assertion could not have been made (how is something asserted, if not by an entity of some kind?), and if an entity is thinking, it clearly exists — see Descartes.
[Dr. Lisle: God claims that knowledge begins with Him (Proverbs 1:7). Indeed He is the truth (John 14:6) and all knowledge is hidden in Him (Colossians 2:3). Apart from God, apart from the truth of the Christian worldview, we couldn't know anything at all. We've seen this demonstrated in many conversations on this blog. Unbelievers just cannot rationally justify those things necessary for knowledge, such as the reliability of senses, or the properties of laws of logic.]
Lisle quotes scripture without giving any justification for its truth value, and then just repeats what he said before as if he didn't read the argument. As for "Unbelievers just cannot rationally justify those things necessary for knowledge" — I just have.