KNOWing God

[morgantj]

?

little confused here. you seem to be talking about the legitimacy of scripture, where as i was speaking about the legitimacy of faith in general.

that said, there is plenty of mathematically precise evidence as to the legitimacy of Christain Scripture in general.

in the old testament, prophecies were written by a number of people, people who lived at different times, spoke different languages, belonged to different cultures, and lived far apart both in time and distance.

yet they were fulfilled in the person of Christ centuries after the fact.

there were several dozen prophecies, many very specific as to place of birth, lineage, manner of death, various specific situations, etc.

these claims are unique to Christianity, they provide a mathematical certainty to the validity of Christianity.

you didn’t think that Christains just believed for no reason, or that the martyrs died for opinion?

i assure you that we are as intelligent and capable of critical thought, as any others,

there is a reason we believe.

I don’t doubt you have your reasons to believe just as I don’t doubt children have their reasons to believe in Santa. And I’m sure we could go on, but lets try not to derail the thread.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Regardless of semantics? “Faith” and “knowing” are not the same thing.

? again a little confused, im a little disjointed maybe.

im talking about the difference between ‘knowing’ and ‘believing’, that if your holding to a ‘belief’ is as strenuous as some one hanging on to what they ‘know’, there doesnt seem to be much practical difference in the terms.

If you believe they are, than I “frankly” ask that you start saying that you “know” where you would normally say you “believe” or have “faith.” Why the hesititation?

what hesitation, and what is the signifigance of “frankly”?

why would i use the same word for different definitions?

Because they are not the same. To make the the two terms equivalent just to fit the needs of your faith or argument is quite dishonest.

which 2 of the 3 terms mentioned?

if you mean ‘faith’ that is a basic theological virtue with a specific definition. as were are on a religious forum, the theological definition seems to be the one best suited.

if you mean the other two terms, weel, i handled that above.

Shall we also say that we don’t see how borrowing “doesn’t become the equivalent” of stealing. regardless of semantics?

the difference between borrowing and stealing is all in intent, if you dont return the borrowed item there is no practical difference between the two now is there?

Do you also disregard the semantics of the bible?

what do you think the ‘semantics’ of the bible are?

do you know what ‘semantics mean’ ?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I don’t doubt you have your reasons to believe just as I don’t doubt children have their reasons to believe in Santa. And I’m sure we could go on, but lets try not to derail the thread.

other than the under handed derision implied in the santa analogy, thats my point, we can say we “know” we have a firm basis for such belief. ithink thats in line with the thread.

 

[morgantj]

? again a little confused, im a little disjointed maybe.

im talking about the difference between ‘knowing’ and ‘believing’, that if your holding to a ‘belief’ is as strenuous as some one hanging on to what they ‘know’, there doesnt seem to be much practical difference in the terms.

It doesn’t matter how much passion you have in your belief, just because you “strenuously” believe something, it doesn’t make it any closer to “knowing” then just “believing.”

For example, saying, “I strenuously believe that this year will be a good year” is no more closer to “knowing” it will be a good year, than saying, “I believe it will be a good year.”

the difference between borrowing and stealing is all in intent, if you dont return the borrowed item there is no practical difference between the two now is there?

Great! As you explained, they are not the same, there is a difference.

 

[morgantj]

other than the under handed derision implied in the santa analogy, thats my point, we can say we “know” we have a firm basis for such belief. ithink thats in line with the thread.

You have shifted the focal point. Sure, you know you believe, and I know you believe, but we are not talking about knowing that you believe or knowing what the reasons are to why you believe, in the end you still just believe. Why is it that you just don’t say you “know?”

For example, saying, “I know I have a firm basis to believe god exist”

is not the same as saying, “I know god exist.”

nor do they mean the same thing.

 

[Maranatha33]

warpspeedpetey

Dr. Stoner and 600 students calculated the odds of one man being able to fulfill the OT Prophecies regarding Jesus, the Messiah. To fulfill just 8 of the 333 predictions is the same as taking a silver dollar and marking one side, mixing it in with others and covering the entire state of Texas 2 feet deep in silver dollars. Then you give a person ONE chance to find the marked coin that is somewhere in that state. This link should take you to “Science Speaks” chapter 3.

geocities.com/stonerdon/ScienceSpeaks/science_speaks.html#c9

Ps. 22 and Is. 53 are the best prophecy chapters.

I must take exception to your reference to “Prosperity Protestantism.” The Prosperity Gospel is not in Protestant doctrine, it is a false teaching in all mainstream Catholic and Protestant denominations. Only rougue churches of any denomination and cults teach it.

 

[Bear_Claw]

To further this discussion and get the parties on level playing field, let’s define faith.

www.dictionary.com states:

faith
–noun
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

If we are taking about faith, you cannot equate it with knowing.
If you do that in any walk of life, except talking to another person of your religion, most likely of your denomination, you will have to back that up with proof.
If you say that faith is knowledge, you will have to prove that knowledge with evidence, historical, factual, scientific.

Faith by definition is not knowledge.

If the Catholics can agree on this, then we can carry on discussing the issue.
If you cling to the idea to equate faith and knowledge, then you will have to supply roof of this claim.
Let me also say that scripture is not sufficient proof, since scripture in itself requires proof, if it is claimed to be inspired, or even true.

 

[mlchance]

Faith by definition is not knowledge.

If the Catholics can agree on this, then we can carry on discussing the issue.

When debating the reasonableness of the Catholic explanation of faith, it is intellectually dishonest to use a definition that the Church rejects. If one is not willing to actually examine, critique, and discuss what the Church means by faith, then those who object to the Church’s teaching don’t have a leg to stand on.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Bear_Claw]

When debating the reasonableness of the Catholic explanation of faith, it is intellectually dishonest to use a definition that the Church rejects. If one is not willing to actually examine, critique, and discuss what the Church means by faith, then those who object to the Church’s teaching don’t have a leg to stand on.

– Mark L. Chance.

If you need to make your church understood then you need to define terms by which everyone can understand it and be on the same page, otherwise it’s apples and oranges.

It would be unreasonable to ask us to acknowledge that faith equates to truth without proof of said truth.
Without proof faith is not based on concrete facts.

To request otherwise of the secular community is unreasonable.

It’s not that we don’t have a leg to stand on, you are asking us to put aside logic and reason, to ascribe to your ideals and definitions in order for you to prove your point to us.
Not gonna happen.
If you don’t want to agree that faith is not based on facts, then you cannot participate in this discussion.

 

[nohamaria]

To further this discussion and get the parties on level playing field, let’s define faith.

Faith by definition is not knowledge.

If the Catholics can agree on this, then we can carry on discussing the issue.
If you cling to the idea to equate faith and knowledge, then you will have to supply roof of this claim.
Let me also say that scripture is not sufficient proof, since scripture in itself requires proof, if it is claimed to be inspired, or even true.

Would you please let us know what are your creteria about “Knowledge”
To enable us replying to you according to those Creterias.
Because sometimes Not seeing Does’nt mean necessary Not Existing.

Thank you.
Nohamaria(OFSmember)

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It doesn’t matter how much passion you have in your belief, just because you “strenuously” believe something, it doesn’t make it any closer to “knowing” then just “believing.”

For example, saying, “I strenuously believe that this year will be a good year” is no more closer to “knowing” it will be a good year, than saying, “I believe it will be a good year.”

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You have shifted the focal point. Sure, you know you believe, and I know you believe, but we are not talking about knowing that you believe or knowing what the reasons are to why you believe, in the end you still just believe. Why is it that you just don’t say you “know?”

now i am thourougly confused.

For example, saying, “I know I have a firm basis to believe god exist”

is not the same as saying, “I know god exist.”

nor do they mean the same thing.

thats right, i know G-d exists with logical certainty, i know which deity is G-d also, with logical cetainty. thats why i dont say that i simply believe.

because i know.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I must take exception to your reference to “Prosperity Protestantism.” The Prosperity Gospel is not in Protestant doctrine, it is a false teaching in all mainstream Catholic and Protestant denominations. Only rougue churches of any denomination and cults teach it.

there are only to Catholic churches, neither we nor the orthodox practice that as, we dont really differ doctrinally,

ive only seen it in protestant denominations, but if you see a Catholic doing it, you should call them down immediatley, i would have a few sharp words for them to.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

To further this discussion and get the parties on level playing field, let’s define faith.

www.dictionary.com states:

faith
–noun
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

If we are taking about faith, you cannot equate it with knowing.
If you do that in any walk of life, except talking to another person of your religion, most likely of your denomination, you will have to back that up with proof.
If you say that faith is knowledge, you will have to prove that knowledge with evidence, historical, factual, scientific.

Faith by definition is not knowledge.

If the Catholics can agree on this, then we can carry on discussing the issue.
If you cling to the idea to equate faith and knowledge, then you will have to supply roof of this claim.
Let me also say that scripture is not sufficient proof, since scripture in itself requires proof, if it is claimed to be inspired, or even true.

your in a catholic forum, faith has a different theological definition.

google ‘theological virtues’

that might help

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If you need to make your church understood then you need to define terms by which everyone can understand it and be on the same page, otherwise it’s apples and oranges.

It would be unreasonable to ask us to acknowledge that faith equates to truth without proof of said truth.
Without proof faith is not based on concrete facts.

To request otherwise of the secular community is unreasonable.

It’s not that we don’t have a leg to stand on, you are asking us to put aside logic and reason, to ascribe to your ideals and definitions in order for you to prove your point to us.
Not gonna happen.
If you don’t want to agree that faith is not based on facts, then you cannot participate in this discussion.

we expect you to use the definitions, pertinent to a theological discussion, after all, you are in a Catholic, not secular, forum.

 

[mlchance]

If you need to make your church understood then you need to define terms by which everyone can understand it and be on the same page, otherwise it’s apples and oranges.

I’ve already referenced the Church’s teaching on faith in a previous post. Those references were dismissed out of hand.

It would be unreasonable to ask us to acknowledge that faith equates to truth without proof of said truth.

I didn’t ask you to acknowledge anything. I simply pointed out that if one is objecting to the Church’s teaching on faith, it makes sense to actually address that teaching rather than a cherry-picked definition of faith from a dictionary.

…you are asking us to put aside logic and reason, to ascribe to your ideals and definitions in order for you to prove your point to us.

I didn’t ask you to put aside logic and reason, nor did I ask you to ascribe to my ideals and definitions. I asked you to actually address what the Church teaches regarding faith rather than insisting the debate be limited to a cherry-picked definition of faith from a dictionary.

If you don’t want to agree that faith is not based on facts, then you cannot participate in this discussion.

And if you want to use that definition of faith then you are not actually addressing what the Church teaches regarding faith. Given that fact, you certainly have no grounds for claiming that what the Church teaches is in error.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Maranatha33]

Now let me get this straight… this thread is called “knowing God.” Those who know God
are called theists. Theists know God by faith.

The theistic definition of faith is Hebrews 11:1

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

You site www.Dictionary .com as saying:

1. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

Gee bear claw, your not being very honest, are you? I was wondering what the 2. in your

definition meant, now I know.

According to the same source, www.dictionary.com here are the NINE definitions of faith.

Notice only ONE includes the word “Proof”.

faith
   /feɪθ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [feyth] Show IPA
–noun

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be

substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the

Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same

faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.:

Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one’s promise, oath, allegiance, etc.:

He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through

Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom
9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.

Was that the sound of your credibility hitting the floor I just heard? Isn’t it unreasonable
to accept on 11% of the definition, because it suits your purpose?
Isn’t it logical to accept the 89% substantiation of YOUR source. Actually, the theistic
definition, it is gonna happen. Am I to presume that you own this web site because you can determine who can and cannot participate?
It seems that theists address the issues as they are presented, the secular community you represent, well…

 

[Bear_Claw]

nohamaria:
Would you please let us know what are your creteria about “Knowledge”
To enable us replying to you according to those Creterias.
Because sometimes Not seeing Does’nt mean necessary Not Existing.

Thank you.
Nohamaria(OFSmember)

Okay, first, the whole rolleyes thing, which is described as sarcasm, as per the emoticon title, is really uncalled for.

The OP claim to know that God exist, as per the title of the post. If I use that statement in any other context, I would need proof to back up my statement. Not necessarily produce it, but you’ll need to be sure to have it in case your statement gets challenged.

• I know that this garment came from India. (It could be as simple as the “Made in India” label, or research the garment back to the store, back to the shippers manifest and get ht e original location for the garment)
• I know that the sun is a nuclear reactor. (Show spectrum-analysis and other research of the radiation produced by the sun, analyzed and researched, proving the statement is true.) If this is not 100% scientifically correct, pardon me, I’m not a nuclear physicist, I’m an engineer.

Now for en example of your statement:

• I know that Ultraviolet light exist. (Again, show analysis of filtered light, fed through an analyzer to show the presence of UV light. We cannot see it, but we can prove that it’s there.

Now, apply this statement to God, I know that God exist. How do you know this? You cannot know this merely by the statement in itself. You have to be able to back up a statement as concrete as that.
And, as with the garment made in India, you may be asked to back up your statement, all the way back, past shop receipts, to purchasers PO’s to the shipper’s manifest, even as far back to the weaving mill where the garment was woven, and we might even speak to the laborer that wove it. It’s an extreme example, but it’s possible to obtain this proof, if challenged, or if required by law.

It we may have to do all this for a garment, how much more would it be required when claiming knowledge of a super-intelligent, supreme, almighty being that is invisible.

For things that we cannot explain, that we have no proof of, we can say that we are unsure. In fact Science is the first to admit that it can’t be sure about some things, but not being sure does not automatically equate it to being God.

If I’m unsure about how the Aurora borealis comes to be, I won’t automatically say it’s God, and yet so many people do this every day.
Do you see where I’m heading?

If you claim to know, you will have to supply facts and evidence. Got any?

You asked for me to define knowledge:
knowledge
–noun
1.acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
2.familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
3.acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.

These are the normal, standard accepted definitions for Knowledge.

Thanks.

 

[Bear_Claw]

I’ve already referenced the Church’s teaching on faith in a previous post.
.
. I simply pointed out that if one is objecting to the Church’s teaching on faith, it makes sense to actually address that teaching rather than a cherry-picked definition of faith from a dictionary.
.
.
I didn’t ask you to put aside logic and reason, nor did I ask you to ascribe to my ideals and definitions. I asked you to actually address what the Church teaches regarding faith rather than insisting the debate be limited to a cherry-picked definition of faith from a dictionary.
.
.
.
And if you want to use that definition of faith then you are not actually addressing what the Church teaches regarding faith. Given that fact, you certainly have no grounds for claiming that what the Church teaches is in error.

– Mark L. Chance.

Okay, I’ll bite.

In order for me to not have to sive through this thread, what does the Church teach about faith?

 

[Bear_Claw]

Now let me get this straight… this thread is called “knowing God.” Those who know God
are called theists. Theists know God by faith.

The theistic definition of faith is Hebrews 11:1

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
…

The context of the title denotes that they have proof.
Proof = faith is a circular argument.
I chose the definition that would get you to provide proof of this claim.
Do you have any proof of the existence of God? Proof is by faith.

You said: “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. “

I can show you that UV light exists even though I cannot see it…can you show me God? How do you KNOW this?