Many methods of human-generated knowing have been proposed. None of them can possibly lead to knowledge in a true sense of the word. Human-generated knowledge can result in an opinion. It can’t rationally claim certainty. Motors manufactured on an assembly line using a certain process and certain people will result in a certain defect rate. It could be claimed that this is a kind of knowledge, but it’s specific to a situation at a certain moment. Changing anything, even slightly, may change the defect rate. Changes to the people, their attitudes, the equipment, the facility, the process, or unknown factors may change the defect rate at any time. The defect rate isn’t a known entity, but it can be a very good score-keeper. An increased defect rate may trigger corrective action. When it comes to determining the cause for success or failure, there is certainly ample opportunity for conclusions that are based on assumptions. Conclusions based on assumptions are often proven to be wrong.
The same goes for natural phenomenon that can be observed. For instance, we can know some things about gravity. We collect these known things and call this the Law or Gravity. Yet, we may learn something new about the way gravity works. This results in a change to the Law of Gravity. At that point, we find out that we didn’t know what we used to think that we knew. For this reason, what is called “knowledge” isn’t really known. It’s a moving target. Theories and assumptions can’t be known. They can be tested, but there are extreme problems with the interpretations of the test results. Theories about the past or the future are particularly elusive when it comes to knowing. You can’t repeatedly test the stories that are told about the future or the past. Often, “evidence” consists of creative interpretations of observations made in the present. Any speculations about the past or future will result in the illusion of knowledge when only an opinion exists.
Logic is one of the methods of human-generated knowing. Logic is very simple. A conclusion is drawn from true premises using valid form. A thing is known because of something else. That’s logic. The something else, the premises, must be true. Often, logic takes several steps. Each step requires a true premise. The conclusion can never contain information that isn’t in the premise. In other words, the conclusion must become known by the premises alone, not by playing games with the way reasoning is formed or by secretly adding or removing information from the premises.
Generating a true premise is a problem. It has long been known that, without Divine revelation, all premises must be based on made-up stuff. Basing thinking on made-up stuff is known as axiomatic thinking. The made-up stuff may be called “assumption,” “theory,” “hypothesis,” or something else.
Premises can’t rationally be based on axiomatic thinking. There are only two ways to interpret observations: axiomatic thinking (made-up stuff) or Divine revelation. For a person who doesn’t want God to exist, this is a dilemma. Making stuff up is not a reasonable way of thinking, yet that’s all they have.
