Qualities of the correct epistemology for perceiving God

[Prince_James]

LightGigantic:

"Therefore sincerity is the said qualification - there were several points that I didn't include for the sake of making it more comprehensible - one is
"Scripture must be accepted "as it is". Its authority must always be respected. There must be no addition or subtraction, and no distortion. When scripture is so understood, ther meaning of scripture becomes "self evident" and the texts become "self luminous"

This is an impossibility. Consider, for instance, the secular case of the US Constitution. Our second amendment says:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now, there is a huge controversy over this in the US. Many people claim that this means there ought to be a militia formed and no one has a right to personal guns outside of a militia, whereas the rest (and dare I say, vast majority) claim that it establishes -both- a militia and the right to have guns.

It is dizzying how complex the Vedas, the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Tao Teh Ching, et cetera, are. There are -thousands- of controversies in each because of this. In essence, the book says VERY LITTLE itself.

"What you say about human fallibility is essentially true, therefore god or god's representatives frequently appear to re -establish or reform religion - see point 3"

This is an undemonstratable and unprovable view.

"Proof comes from practical application - practical application comes from a foundation in theoretical knowledge - theoretical knowledge comes from qualified teachers (ie those who have attained to the level of practical application) - how do you propose that physics be proven to a person who will not accept a shred of theory without first having direct perception"

You show him the principles in action. Show him gravity, show him electromagnetism, show him the conservation of energy through a steam engine set up...et cetera, et cetera.

"There how is it possible to teach anything without the dichotomy of student/teacher?"

The teacher/student relationship is indeed necessary, but it is one which ought to follow upon the principle of the student testing the teacher. That is to say, the student must be critical of what his teacher tells him. Wed this to the fact that teachers can never teach, only point to the way, and we find an ideal teacher.

"Each successive generation is granted the same ontological experience according to their ability to apply the relevant epistemology"

This hardly seems to be the case. If so, why do we not have king Ramas running around? It is notable that in all Aryan religions (and most others, too) that the time when man interacted with the Gods was in distant ages.

"The first is theory - the second is prac - in otherwords theory involves knowledge of the qualities of an object thus one can perceive the objects presence or absence."

So basically, it tells us hwo to look and how to think?

"See earlier insertion why priests may fail - basically it arises from incorrectly applying the epistemology - how does objective philosophy overcome these 4 faults of objective human perception?"

All the great philosophers throughout time - but specifically in ancient Greece and Rome - affirm that we ought to test the senses, to protect against mistakes, to not be tricked, and to adopt an objective thought pattern devoid of cheating and such things. Moral character was also of primary importance.

"Having understood god, scripture then becomes a perfect vehicle of comprehension. IN the absence of that one will not be able to distinguish between a principle and a detail of scripture. "

Yet why then does religion almost always require a "throw back" to prior states? The Vedas are written in sanskrit and kept in sanskrit, a dead language of priests. The King James Bible is ludicrously antiquated. The mass was in latin till 50 years ago...

 

[Crunchy Cat]

God is not a contradiction...

Unless you have evidence to show otherwise, 'God' is a man-made concept. I am not aware of any religion's specific claim of 'God' that hasn't been contradicted by reality.

and in fact is a perceivable entity...

Great, show me the evidence.

- such perception of his reality (ontology) is fully dependant on the appropriate epistemology - it is not valid to apply an epistemology for perceiving god that one applies for perceiving lesser realities (like dull mater)

Knowledge is necessary to comprehend what is perceived and is not a dependency of perception itself. The only known case where knowledge can be used to affect perception is when it's used to build tools that can 'see' things we can't and present them within the scope of human senses.

- there is the example of how if one desires to perceive the president directly one must come to the presidnt's attention (that is one must apply an epistemology ordained by the president for perceiving him - you see him on his terms - not your own) - the same applies for god

The example is flawed as it's concerning gaining audience with a life form proven to exist (i.e. 'the president'). In cases concerning 'God', there is no evidence that such an entity exists outside the imagination.

 

[Cris]

Light,

You are assuming that the epistemology has no ontological basis - you make this assumption not because you have actually applied the related epistemology, but because the ontological conclusion disturbs your preconceived values.

But there is no ontological conclusion.

But really I can summarize your entire convoluted speech to a single argument: faith vs reason. There is nothing else to consider.

 

[lightgigantic]

LightGigantic:

"Therefore sincerity is the said qualification - there were several points that I didn't include for the sake of making it more comprehensible - one is
"Scripture must be accepted "as it is". Its authority must always be respected. There must be no addition or subtraction, and no distortion. When scripture is so understood, ther meaning of scripture becomes "self evident" and the texts become "self luminous"
This is an impossibility. Consider, for instance, the secular case of the US Constitution. Our second amendment says:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Now, there is a huge controversy over this in the US. Many people claim that this means there ought to be a militia formed and no one has a right to personal guns outside of a militia, whereas the rest (and dare I say, vast majority) claim that it establishes -both- a militia and the right to have guns.
It is dizzying how complex the Vedas, the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Tao Teh Ching, et cetera, are. There are -thousands- of controversies in each because of this. In essence, the book says VERY LITTLE itself.

Therefore I would say that the epistemology one applies to understanding scripture is not the same as the epistemology one applies for understanding political treatises- to begin with it is not clear how a political treatise meets the requirements of point 7 - as for understanding scripture, that requires applying the epistemology to perceive the reality and thus the conclusion, then there are no more contraversies - if contraversies exist it indicates a lack of epistemology or at best stabilisation on an unsatisfactory level of epistemological performance

"What you say about human fallibility is essentially true, therefore god or god's representatives frequently appear to re -establish or reform religion - see point 3"
This is an undemonstratable and unprovable view.

Really? There are stacks of religions that owe there precedence to numerous such transcendental figures, saints and reformers - you can even fit them in a historical continuum

"Proof comes from practical application - practical application comes from a foundation in theoretical knowledge - theoretical knowledge comes from qualified teachers (ie those who have attained to the level of practical application) - how do you propose that physics be proven to a person who will not accept a shred of theory without first having direct perception"
You show him the principles in action. Show him gravity, show him electromagnetism, show him the conservation of energy through a steam engine set up...et cetera, et cetera.

Wait up now - I don't want to be indoctrinated by your views of gravity - in otherwords you cannot begin prac without theory

"There how is it possible to teach anything without the dichotomy of student/teacher?"
The teacher/student relationship is indeed necessary, but it is one which ought to follow upon the principle of the student testing the teacher. That is to say, the student must be critical of what his teacher tells him. Wed this to the fact that teachers can never teach, only point to the way, and we find an ideal teacher.

I agree - therefore there is a period of testing and then one becomes submissive to the teaching process - its not like the testing continues on constantly, particularly if one encounters the ideal teacher, otherwise there would be no question of teaching

"Each successive generation is granted the same ontological experience according to their ability to apply the relevant epistemology"
This hardly seems to be the case. If so, why do we not have king Ramas running around?

Well Rama is an incarnation of god - and it is never advocated that one gets the same ontological experience of god by the successful performance of religious epistemology - unless you have a weird religious conclusion as a premise

It is notable that in all Aryan religions (and most others, too) that the time when man interacted with the Gods was in distant ages.

No - god is a transcendetal figure (not to be relegated to a historical era) and can interact with anyone anytime in anyway - just becaise this is not apparent to the people in general is not surprising because the people in general don't apply the relevant epistemology to perceive this

"The first is theory - the second is prac - in otherwords theory involves knowledge of the qualities of an object thus one can perceive the objects presence or absence."
So basically, it tells us hwo to look and how to think?

Yes, just like any subject of subtle knowledge one would care to mention in science

"See earlier insertion why priests may fail - basically it arises from incorrectly applying the epistemology - how does objective philosophy overcome these 4 faults of objective human perception?"
All the great philosophers throughout time - but specifically in ancient Greece and Rome - affirm that we ought to test the senses, to protect against mistakes, to not be tricked, and to adopt an objective thought pattern devoid of cheating and such things. Moral character was also of primary importance.

Admittedly its not uncommon to uncover greater character substance the further you go back in history - but still the ancient greeks and romans were not successful in overcoming these 4 defects, what to speak of contemporary science which has no foundation for the existential conditions that enable the correct perception of reality (bereft of lust etc)

"Having understood god, scripture then becomes a perfect vehicle of comprehension. IN the absence of that one will not be able to distinguish between a principle and a detail of scripture. "
Yet why then does religion almost always require a "throw back" to prior states? The Vedas are written in sanskrit and kept in sanskrit, a dead language of priests. The King James Bible is ludicrously antiquated. The mass was in latin till 50 years ago...

I am not clear what you are referring to as a throw back? As far as the vedic tradition is concerned there are stacks of commentaries and explanations of realisations, all of which are authoratative and in line with scriptural conclusions - There are also different elaborations of incarnations for the sake of reformation etc that happen, or are due to happen at different times

 

[lightgigantic]

Unless you have evidence to show otherwise, 'God' is a man-made concept. I am not aware of any religion's specific claim of 'God' that hasn't been contradicted by reality.

Then it begs the question what are the general principles you rely on to draw up reality?

Great, show me the evidence.

I can show you the epistemology that will enable you to perceive the evidence

Knowledge is necessary to comprehend what is perceived and is not a dependency of perception itself.

So why are there breakthorughs in science? Its not like people's eyeballs have changed that dramatically in the past 50 years?

The only known case where knowledge can be used to affect perception is when it's used to build tools that can 'see' things we can't and present them within the scope of human senses.

Then you would have to show clear examples how the sole cause for breakthorughs in science is the manufacturing of new and improved machines that operate on a vision outside of human norms.

The example is flawed as it's concerning gaining audience with a life form proven to exist (i.e. 'the president').

You wouldn't be assuming the president's existence due to indirect doctrinal influences like the media and such would you ? Remember I am a non-believer and I need to see something directly before me before I accept your indoctrinated views of reality

In cases concerning 'God', there is no evidence that such an entity exists outside the imagination.

I can say the same the same thing about the president - see immeiately above - the issue still stands that if a persons insists on the direct perception of the president as evidence of his existence they have to apply an epistemology which is dictated by the president - they do not get to see the president on their own terms

 

[KennyJC]

Light,

But there is no ontological conclusion.

But really I can summarize your entire convoluted speech to a single argument: faith vs reason. There is nothing else to consider.

Tsk Tsk Cris, You clearly have not applied the correct espitemsiofiologicalness

 

[lightgigantic]

.... you're making progress Kenny - it seems that until yesterday you had never heard of the word

 

[KennyJC]

.... you're making progress Kenny - it seems that until yesterday you had never heard of the word

Correct. But I knew enough to know that it helped your argument ziltch since it relied on scripture, which is of course 90 to 99% fictional.

 

[lightgigantic]

Light,

But there is no ontological conclusion.

Remarkable that you have the authority to make that statement despite being completely neglectful of the process to realise whether it is true or not.

But really I can summarize your entire convoluted speech to a single argument: faith vs reason. There is nothing else to consider.

Seems that you are so used to confronting arguments in favour of metaphysical claims that hinge on subjective faith that you imagine it is automatically intrinsic to all such arguments.

Anyway

Here is something anecdotal - when eistein discovered something in outer space that seemed to confirm his theory of relativity it was investigated by the royal british astronomy society (at that time britain was the most powerful country in the world, and the society was highly credible, with links back to newton etc). The head speaker for the society made a press release that this was the most important discovery of the century - when the news reporters asked what it was that he had discovered the speaker was adamant that there was no way for the general public to understand the exact nature of what einstein had discovered - in other words the ontological nature of einsteins discovery was fully dependant on the epistemology of astronomy - persons who had no insight into the epistemology had no insight into the ontology - and this accepted as good science.

We would hardly lay as a condition for scientific inquiry that unless a truth was pereceivable to the man on the street it cannot be accepted - on the contrary it is accepted in science that there are very important truths that only a handful of people can understand - why? Because they have applied the relevant epistemology to perceive the ontology.

If a person refuses to apply the epistemology for perceiving a reality they must establish that the ontology they are established in operates out of a more superior system - in otherwords you would have to provide solid proof that god doesn't exist - since science as it stands today can neither prove or disprove that, it seems that you refuse to accept the epistemology for perceiving the ontological nature of god because the conclusion disturbs your personal value system.

 

[lightgigantic]

Correct. But I knew enough to know that it helped your argument ziltch since it relied on scripture, which is of course 90 to 99% fictional.

Seems like you still haven't made it over point one -

Once again you reveal a comment that isn't unusual for a person who hasn't applied the relevant epistemology.

Just because a highschool drop out does not value a compilation of lab reports from a period of 12 months research does not mean the compilation has no value for a person doing a PHD in a related field of study

 

[KennyJC]

Once again you reveal a comment that isn't unusual for a person who hasn't applied the relevant epistemology.

I will never apply the 'relevant' epistemology. Because according to you (in point 2) you state the foundation of this cult was rooted from 'divine revelation'.

I can think of many reasons why any cult would state particular far-fetched things in it's foundation, but accepting that they are always accurate is a huge assumption and far from the 'relevant' epistemology.

But then, by me saying this, a suicide cult could just say to me that I "have not applied the relevant epistemology", and then they are vindicated.

 

[lightgigantic]

I will never apply the 'relevant' epistemology. Because according to you (in point 2) you state the foundation of this cult was rooted from 'divine revelation'.

So in otherwords your personal value system is traumatically affected by the notion of a divine state?

I can think of many reasons why any cult would state particular far-fetched things in it's foundation, but accepting that they are always accurate is a huge assumption and far from the 'relevant' epistemology.

I can also think of many reasons why a scientist may fabricate the evidence of his findings too - it says something about human fallibility and nothing about science however - once again you insist on using the worst stereotype as a vehicle to measure your logic against

But then, by me saying this, a suicide cult could just say to me that I "have not applied the relevant epistemology", and then they are vindicated.

Still struggling with point one I see ....

 

[KennyJC]

So in otherwords your personal value system is traumatically affected by the notion of a divine state?

With 'divine revelation' it is all from the imagination.

To 'recieve' knowledged gained through scripture from someone qualified is still an act of faith since there is no evidence which someone without faith can seek.

I can also think of many reasons why a scientist may fabricate the evidence of his findings too - it says something about human fallibility and nothing about science however - once again you insist on using the worst stereotype as a vehicle to measure your logic against

The good thing about science is that is has basis in reality. A person makes claims based hopefully on evidence and when peer reviewed we can all find out how he came to that conclusion. With scripture it is all 'God told me'. See Mohammed and other 'prophets'.

Still struggling with point one I see ....

I'm not struggling with point one. I don't have religious faith, so I'm not inclined to believe a person of xxx religion when they say 'I know this because God told me'.

 

[Raithere]

We would hardly lay as a condition for scientific inquiry that unless a truth was pereceivable to the man on the street it cannot be accepted - on the contrary it is accepted in science that there are very important truths that only a handful of people can understand - why? Because they have applied the relevant epistemology to perceive the ontology.

Understanding, in context, relies on neither ontological nor epistemological positioning. The reason for such argumentative positioning is to validate the methodology, it's foundational not interpretive. Understanding / perception is merely a matter of interpretation. It's a semantic problem. One may fully appreciate a position dependent upon an epistemology one does not accept provided one has acquired the semantic context to interpret / understand the argument given.

Your argument here boils down to, "One must believe to perceive." or "Faith comes first, then understanding." Notoriously fraudulent arguments each.

~Raithere

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Then it begs the question what are the general principles you rely on to draw up reality?

To "draw up reality"? Not sure what you mean there.

I can show you the epistemology that will enable you to perceive the evidence

To consider such a proposal means accepting as truth that knowledge can enable / disable human percpetion. Is there evidence that such a phenomenon exists?

So why are there breakthorughs in science? Its not like people's eyeballs have changed that dramatically in the past 50 years?

Process and visibility would be key. People can take a bunch of observations made with existing human senses, create models, make predictions, and test the predictions. If the tests are positive then some new truth about reality is learned. Knowledge of those truths allows us to build tools that exploit the knowledge for visibility purposes (ex, focusing light in optical telescopes and microscopes). With extended visibility we can make more observations at different levels of granularity and repeat the whole process.

Then you would have to show clear examples how the sole cause for breakthorughs in science is the manufacturing of new and improved machines that operate on a vision outside of human norms.

It's not the sole cause. Process is a key component as I mentioned above.

You wouldn't be assuming the president's existence due to indirect doctrinal influences like the media and such would you ?

Seeing the president address issues in a televised conference is evidence of his existence. The claim is the 'president exists' and the instance of him is communicated in a format that humans can perceive.

Remember I am a non-believer and I need to see something directly before me before I accept your indoctrinated views of reality

Then whatever type of non-believer you are, it's one that doesn't know what evidence is and how to think about it.

I can say the same the same thing about the president - see immeiately above - the issue still stands that if a persons insists on the direct perception of the president as evidence of his existence they have to apply an epistemology which is dictated by the president - they do not get to see the president on their own terms

The same thing cannot be said about the president. Human senses can only perceive information within a limited physical range, as I hope you realize. Fortunately we have tools (ex. video cameras) which can bring information from a remote location (ex. visual and audio) to a place (ex. a TV set) where humans can perceive it with their senses (ex. sight and hearing). Using this improved form of visibility evidence can be seen across great distances concerning the existence of something.

Of course, if you are bent in seeing the president without the use of a visibility tool then he schedules public speeches and all you would have to do is attend one.

With 'God' on the other hand there is just nothing... nadda... zip... zilch. Just a claim without the slightest semblance of evidence.

 

[Prince_James]

lightgigantic:

"Therefore I would say that the epistemology one applies to understanding scripture is not the same as the epistemology one applies for understanding political treatises- to begin with it is not clear how a political treatise meets the requirements of point 7 - as for understanding scripture, that requires applying the epistemology to perceive the reality and thus the conclusion, then there are no more contraversies - if contraversies exist it indicates a lack of epistemology or at best stabilisation on an unsatisfactory level of epistemological performance"

Are you then claiming that the sages of all the world's religions have all come to incorrect conclusions due to a "applying an epistemology" that is not perceptive of "reality"? What if their epistemology's perceptions have differed from you? I am certian that St. John of the Cross, or Rumi, or Zhuang Tzu all thought they were applying the correct epistemology, and in fact, received results in their "ontology" accordingly. Nonetheless, all of them would sharply disagree with contemporaries in their own religion, not to mention amongst eachother!

"Really? There are stacks of religions that owe there precedence to numerous such transcendental figures, saints and reformers - you can even fit them in a historical continuum"

One cannot claim they came from God and many of them are mythic features. Krishna, for instance, is very unlikely to have existed. Orpheus is also of suspect historic reality.

"Wait up now - I don't want to be indoctrinated by your views of gravity - in otherwords you cannot begin prac without theory"

One can indeed by showing the necessity of the facts to the world. The theory would actually come only -after- this. That gravity was not accepted as true until the facts showed what it was shows this is so.

"I agree - therefore there is a period of testing and then one becomes submissive to the teaching process - its not like the testing continues on constantly, particularly if one encounters the ideal teacher, otherwise there would be no question of teaching"

If testing does not continue on constantly, then the student is not a good student, nor the teacher a good teacher. If one ever "submits onto the process", one has ceded one's intellectual authoirity to another, and is being lead not by knowledge, but by submission. This is how sitting down at the guru's lotus feet bceomes instead kissing the guru's rear end.

To take a contemporary account of a more ideal Master-Student relationship, consider the critical pedagogy practiced by Morpheus on Neo in "The Matrix".

"Well Rama is an incarnation of god - and it is never advocated that one gets the same ontological experience of god by the successful performance of religious epistemology - unless you have a weird religious conclusion as a premise"

Yet you claimed that each successive generation gets to experience this of God? Where then is our experience even remotely coming near this? Even if we arenot "applying the correct epistemology", we get nothing from our "sages".

"No - god is a transcendetal figure (not to be relegated to a historical era) and can interact with anyone anytime in anyway - just becaise this is not apparent to the people in general is not surprising because the people in general don't apply the relevant epistemology to perceive this"

Why then do even the miracles of your religion exist in the distant past, not now? The Bhagavad-Gita is supposed to have occurred what? Tens of thousands of years ago?

"Yes, just like any subject of subtle knowledge one would care to mention in science"

Yet if we are told how to look and how to think beforehand, is this not just rigging the results? For it is the perfect way to get what one wants and not the reality of things.

"Admittedly its not uncommon to uncover greater character substance the further you go back in history - but still the ancient greeks and romans were not successful in overcoming these 4 defects, what to speak of contemporary science which has no foundation for the existential conditions that enable the correct perception of reality (bereft of lust etc)"

Nor were the ancient Indians. But we should not be surprised at this, considering the majority of people are not philosophic in character, and indeed, it is rare that such is ever found. But at the very least, the philosophers which we can speak of, satisfy these four qualities. Until the 18th century, one could have been certain of the moral integrity of the bulk of philosophers, although there have been some scoundrels after (Rousseau, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche).

But yes, science does not necessarily have any precautions against lust impacting research and in fact, the scandals that periodically arise from bad scientists (the huge National Geographic fiasco a few years ago for one) are certainly owing to a lack of moral character.

"I am not clear what you are referring to as a throw back? As far as the vedic tradition is concerned there are stacks of commentaries and explanations of realisations, all of which are authoratative and in line with scriptural conclusions - There are also different elaborations of incarnations for the sake of reformation etc that happen, or are due to happen at different times "

You claim that comprehension of the scriptures can be regardless of the age in which one reads them and learns from them. What I asked is why then is everything a "throw back" in not only Vedic religion, but in all religion? It always takes place in the past, it always is written in a dead or dying language, and yes, there are many commentaries, but the commentaries disagree and are themselves often obscured by ages upon ages of time. That is to say, if religion is so timeless, why it so "timeful"?

On the other hand, philosophy is more often timeless. Yes, it may well need translation, may be written in past languages, but by appealing purely to the reason of individuals, the very topics and conclusions of philosophy from the past can manifest again in the present age completely independent.

 

[lightgigantic]

~Raithere

]Understanding, in context, relies on neither ontological nor epistemological positioning. The reason for such argumentative positioning is to validate the methodology, it's foundational not interpretive. Understanding / perception is merely a matter of interpretation. It's a semantic problem. One may fully appreciate a position dependent upon an epistemology one does not accept provided one has acquired the semantic context to interpret / understand the argument given.

This is all true assuming that one understands the conclusion of a process of knowledge - in otherwords if one has a false or contradictory understanding of something it says nothing about how the object in discussion is true or false - for instance if one had a 16th century understanding of physics one could not work out of that to validate or invalidate einsteins claim

Perhaps you could hazzard what definition of god you are working with, and we can see whether it reveals the application of the correct epistemology

Your argument here boils down to, "One must believe to perceive." or "Faith comes first, then understanding." Notoriously fraudulent arguments each.

Well in that sense all science operates on the same principle too - one must have faith in physics to see the value in physics, otherwise one wouldn't undergo the botheration of comprehending the discipline of study

 

[lightgigantic]

With 'divine revelation' it is all from the imagination.

So do you actually have an argument or are you more interested in making statements to the world?

To 'recieve' knowledged gained through scripture from someone qualified is still an act of faith since there is no evidence which someone without faith can seek.

To greater or lesser than a science student receiving knowledge from a uni professor or text book

The good thing about science is that is has basis in reality.

Without any logical evidence you are just trying to use will power to give your tentative suggestions an ontological superiority

A person makes claims based hopefully on evidence and when peer reviewed we can all find out how he came to that conclusion. With scripture it is all 'God told me'. See Mohammed and other 'prophets'.

I can see you have hardly studied scripture , or scriptural commentaries - but besides this, only persons who have applied the relevant epistemology to the peer reviewing - scientific ontology is reviewed by scientists - not green grocers - in the same way peer reviewing goes on in spiritual circles

I'm not struggling with point one. I don't have religious faith, so I'm not inclined to believe a person of xxx religion when they say 'I know this because God told me'.

Therefore you ar e not qualified to enter into the ontological discussion of god, since you have a knee-jerk reaction to applying the epistemology
- in otherwords your statements about the validity or invalidity of spirituality indicate nothing but your bigotry

 

[lightgigantic]

To "draw up reality"? Not sure what you mean there.

What general principles do you apply to give a superior ontological status to "A" over "B" (Besides any discussion of a physical or chemical world etc)?

To consider such a proposal means accepting as truth that knowledge can enable / disable human percpetion. Is there evidence that such a phenomenon exists?

If you study physics at uni doesn't it enable you to understand physics?

Process and visibility would be key. People can take a bunch of observations made with existing human senses, create models, make predictions, and test the predictions. If the tests are positive then some new truth about reality is learned. Knowledge of those truths allows us to build tools that exploit the knowledge for visibility purposes (ex, focusing light in optical telescopes and microscopes). With extended visibility we can make more observations at different levels of granularity and repeat the whole process.
It's not the sole cause. Process is a key component as I mentioned above.

So in otherwords you admit that epistemology (the process of knowledge) is intrinsic to ontology?

Seeing the president address issues in a televised conference is evidence of his existence. The claim is the 'president exists' and the instance of him is communicated in a format that humans can perceive.

Don't forget that I am the theoretical non-believer in this regard - so I can disregard this because you are accepted a medium for perceiving the president - I demand direct perception before I accept your doctrine of telecasts which are physically nothing more than pixels of light - are you trying to tell me that the ruler of the country is a combination of light pixels?

Then whatever type of non-believer you are, it's one that doesn't know what evidence is and how to think about it.

Ironically I share the same opinion in regards to atheists

The same thing cannot be said about the president. Human senses can only perceive information within a limited physical range, as I hope you realize.

So in otherwords it ok to accept a process that transcends direct sense perception?

Fortunately we have tools (ex. video cameras) which can bring information from a remote location (ex. visual and audio) to a place (ex. a TV set) where humans can perceive it with their senses (ex. sight and hearing). Using this improved form of visibility evidence can be seen across great distances concerning the existence of something.

Only if you accept the authority of the televised transmission - in other words you have faith that it isn't a computer generated fabrication or something - in other words the key argument to your discussion is that it boils down to having faith in an authority (in this case the televisers) as opposed to direct sense perception (which gives you only pixels - for instance a dog doesn't respond to televised broadcasts of people like they do to people in their direct perception)

Of course, if you are bent in seeing the president without the use of a visibility tool then he schedules public speeches and all you would have to do is attend one.

So in other words you rely on an epistemology established by the president - you see him on his terms - not your own

With 'God' on the other hand there is just nothing... nadda... zip... zilch. Just a claim without the slightest semblance of evidence.

If I refuse to apply an epistemology dictated by the president then I am in the same boat - namely all I see is pixels on a broadcast - where is the president?

 

[Sarkus]

Well in that sense all science operates on the same principle too - one must have faith in physics to see the value in physics, otherwise one wouldn't undergo the botheration of comprehending the discipline of study

Rubbish - physics is evidenced every time you do anything at all.

I'm with Raithere on this - your entire position is one of "Believe to Perceive."

“ To 'recieve' knowledged gained through scripture from someone qualified is still an act of faith since there is no evidence which someone without faith can seek. ”

To greater or lesser than a science student receiving knowledge from a uni professor or text book.

Incorrect analogy.
The knowledge of text books CAN be verified - through EVIDENCE.