The short answer is no.
But depending on exactly how the words in the question are defined, that could make a difference in how the question is answered.
Knowledge is generally understood to at least require justified, true belief. It may entail more than that, but it at least requires those elements.
What this means is that if someone is justified in believing something, but that something is false, then it cannot correctly be said that they "know" it. What's more, if someone believes something that is in fact true, but there is no rational justification for their belief, then likewise it cannot be said that they "know" it.
For example, imagine that you asked me my name, already knowing that my name is Timothy. Imagine that I told you that my name is Timothy. Sounds good so far, right?
Now imagine that you ask me why I think my name is Timothy. If I told you that I think my name is Timothy because the sky is made of molten lava, and therefore, of necessity, my name is Timothy, you would at first think that I am joking. However, if you found out that I was entirely serious, you would probably conclude that I was insane. You may conclude that I am completely irrational and I don't really "know" anything at all, and that if the babble coming out of my mouth happened to correspond to reality, it would be entirely accidental.
The key word there is "accidental".
If there is no God, then every belief we hold, every conclusion we come to, and every assertion we make is ultimately accidental. If our beliefs are accidental, they cannot be said to be rationally justified. Instead, they are irrational, no more justified than the beliefs of an insane person, and we cannot be said to "know" anything at all. Atheism, thus, demands absolute irrationality.
Now note that each of us comes pre-programmed with a foundation for rational thought. From the moment we begin to exist, we already recognize, for example, that the entire universe and everything in it is non-contradictory. We know contradictions are false before we learn anything at all. If this were not the case, learning itself would be impossible.
If this pre-programming is accidental, as atheists claim, then it is without rational justification. However, if it is intentionally directed by a rational entity for the purposes of enabling us to come to rational conclusions, then it is rationally justified. Compare, for example, the irrational conclusions of the Magic-8-ball with the rationally justified conclusions of the calculator. Which of the two was rationally programmed to come to rational conclusions?
PROGRAMMING VERSUS REVELATION
I've explained above why, in order for humans to be able to "know" things, we must (and indeed we all do) base our thinking on God's pre-programming of us. Everything we truly "know", therefore, is based on God's providing us with an informational groundwork.
However, the word "revelation" may, in some people's minds, connote the idea of something we did not know that was then revealed to us. The things we have been pre-programmed with are things that we cannot be said to have not known. Before we knew it, we didn't exist to be ignorant of it.
If this is more the meaning that the questioner had for the question, a meaning that excludes initial programming, then my answer changes from no to yes, since pre-programming gives us knowledge to begin with. Revelation would, under this definition of the word, only come after we begin to exist, and when we begin to exist, we already have knowledge, such as the knowledge that contradictions are false.
So, under this definition of revelation, knowing that contradictions are false is something we know independent of "revelation".
What we know is absolutely dependent upon God making things known to us. Otherwise, based on what we understand "knowledge" to be in common parlance, no one has any of it at all... and all beliefs are rationally unjustified.
However, there is a God (Genesis 1:1; John 1:1). A rational God (Exodus 3:14). A God who never contradicts Himself (2 Timothy 2:13), who created everything other than Himself (John 1:3; Acts 17:24) and knows it all perfectly (2 Timothy 2:13; John 21:17). A God who cannot lie (Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18; John 14:6).
And He designed us with an innate knowledge of these facts about Himself (Romans 1:20). We live by His programming every single day. Every time we come to a conclusion about anything at all, we do so in faith that the God who created us programmed us correctly, and that the world He created cannot possibly contradict itself, because God cannot cause things to be that He does not cause to be.
Each and every one of us places full trust in the perfect nature of God every time we think.
But many of us refuse to trust this same trustworthy God to save us from the results of our own disobedience, results that cannot possibly be good (Romans 3:23, 6:23).
We already trust Him with our reasoning. Why not also trust Him to save us? (Romans 10:9-11; 1 John 1:9; Hebrews 10:23)
The god theory, belief with out evidence, gets you in to all sorts of philosophical difficulties doesn't it?
Every created entity has blind faith in their initial programming, presuppositionalist or otherwise. A calculator trusts its initial programming without question. It didn't create addition -- it simply trusts that it was programmed to do it correctly. Its conclusions can still be rational. They can still be justified in spite of their basis in the calculator's "blind faith".
Our created rationality is built on faith in God our programmer, not the other way around. The other way around requires each of us to be the sole creator of the universe -- the creator of addition, so to speak -- and none of us created beings are the sole creator of the universe. If we were, theism would still be true. So theism is necessarily deductively true because of the impossibility of the contrary.
Faith in our creator God comes first. Even when we pretend to deny that same faith that we exercise every time we think.
It's been almost inexpressibly pleasant discoursing with you my friend, but I'm afraid it's time for you to pick up your ball and go home for some milk and cookies. You really have nothing left to say if you're reduced to "defending" your position by making silly, specious statements about mechanical devices like calculators having "trust", which doesn't even work as a metaphor (if that's what you intended - as an analogy it's even worse, needless to say).
Oh, and enjoy heaven! JK it doesn't exist and nor does your god. Get over it.
I have, on this website, repeatedly claimed that human certainty rests in trusting God's divine revelation. This is nothing new for me. It is not a refutation of my claims, nor something I am finally "admitting", but rather has been my consistent claim. It can be seen here:
As well as in numerous other places.
I ask, as Jon did, what premises or first principles you yourself are trusting your "creator" for (from your own perspective)? And if there is some first principle or premise you are trusting your creator for from your own perspective, how is your own view not "intellectually bankrupt" in your mind by the same reasoning you claim mine is?
If, on the other hand, you are not trusting anything or anyone for first principles or premises, then, without first principles or initial premises, what is it that you use to draw conclusions? If you start without premises, you have nothing with which to draw conclusions, since conclusions are based on premises, which you claim you do not have. Absent both premises and conclusions, you then appear to be wholly without beliefs of any kind, including the belief that my views are "intellectually bankrupt".
If then you do not have beliefs, and therefore do not believe that my views are "intellectually bankrupt", I suggest you retract your statement, since you do not believe it.
But, again, if you do have beliefs, if you do have premises or first principles, then what is it you are trusting that those initial beliefs came from, and why is your "blind faith" in this thing you are trusting somehow not an "intellectually bankrupt" position as you claim mine is?
Your question (how do I know the Christian God is telling the truth) was answered above. It's like if you asked how I know that bachelors don't cheat on their wives. Bachelors don't have any wives. If someone is cheating on his wife, he isn't a bachelor. If someone is lying, he isn't the Christian God.
The Christian God always tells the truth by definition (Hebrews 6:18; Titus 1:2). If there is a sovereign creator God who lies, He isn't the Christian God, and Christianity is false.
If some God (other than the one I advocate) programmed humans to believe that He is noncontradictory even though in fact He contradicts Himself (in other words, if Christianity is false) then human rational justification and thus deductive reasoning is nonexistent. The existence of human rationality depends upon a noncontradictory, revelatory, rational, sovereign, omnipotent and omniscient God.
Now what is your faith placed in? What are your first principles determined by?
(i) god (through "pre-programming" or revelation) has caused us to believe that certain things are true.
(ii) God can't lie (thanks for the bible quotes by the way. They really bolster your case. Except they don't, since 2 Thess 2:11 says that god (not a "lying spirit") sent a deluding influence to cause people to believe a lie, which had to have been told by...your god. Ergo, either your god can lie or your bible contradicts itself)
So your position boils down to "I believe that god said it so I believe it". This is your "absolute certainty"? Really?
But the verse does say that god sent the deluding influence i.e. god caused people to believe the lie, the clear implication being that the people wouldn't have believed the lie if god hadn't caused them to be deluded.
On the flip side, if we are all irrational, as would be the case if there is no god or if there is an irrational god who programmed us incorrectly... then all kinds of loony things could be true (and perhaps also not true at the same time). But note that deductive principles exclude irrational hypotheticals -- they are always deductively false. So we can accurately say that, of deductive necessity, there is a rational God. If deduction, then God.
The basic gist of it is that if one claims to be rational then they are claiming that a rational God correctly programmed them to accurately interpret the universe they find themselves in, and deductive reasoning (at least as far as I can make out) simply doesn't allow for any other hypothetical.
You state that you have no possible source of knowledge other than what your god has programmed you with or "revealed" to you. Given that, your omniscient, omnipotent god could programme you to believe anything he wanted, for whatever reason, including (and this is crucial) that he is rational, when in fact he may not be.
In your epistemology, you are a tabula rasa which your god can programme in whatever way he wants. To go back to your silly calculator analogy (and I'll show why it's silly) one could programme a calculator to think 2+2=brown and (crucially) to believe that this is rational. The calculator would accept this because it wouldn't know any different because that's what it was programmed to believe, and it would accept no other source of knowledge other than what it had been programmed to.
Ergo your claims to absolute certainty about anything, including your and your god's rationality, are nonsense since they are all reduced to you taking your god's word for it.
It seems to me you think that you can rationally justify the view that it is impossible to rationally justify any view. But from my perspective attempting to rationally justify complete irrationality is nothing more than foolishness (Psalm 14:1).
If rationality, if certainty, if deduction, then an omniscient, omnipotent, honest and rational God.
Like the Bible says.
If not, then yellow seven empties quadrupeds Hollywood skunk. Those are the choices: God, or nonsense.
If you don't want to label that way of thinking "certainty" simply because it is delegated to you and justified by something other than yourself (ie God), or else because it is dependent upon an assertion of the veracity of the hypothetical of certainty, then don't label it "certainty". Call it whatever you like.
1. a rational God
2. hummus squared sundance 79 polygrip vice
That's all the available options. If that means we cannot know whether or not God exists, it also means that those who claim He does not are claiming to be utterly incoherent fools.
Pick your poison.
1. Pre-suppose that a materialist sentient entity cannot become rational by natural means.
2. Pre-suppose that only a supernatural entity can be the source of rationality for a materialist sentient entity.
3. Observe that a materialist sentient entity such as a human has rationality.
4. Hence the source of rationality exists.
5. Hence the source is a supernatural entity.