KNOWing God

[morgantj]

if the believer treats the belief as knowledge, there is no practical difference

 

[warpspeedpetey]

warpspeedpetey;4893403:

If you treat lies like they are the truth. Does that mean that lies are the truth? Or are they still just lies that you happen to be treating like the are truth?

you seem to be missing the point, lies and truth are mutually exclusive. thats an incompatible analogy.

im saying that if you treat your belief in something like something you know, there is no practical difference.

 

[morgantj]

you seem to be missing the point, lies and truth are mutually exclusive. thats an incompatible analogy.

im saying that if you treat your belief in something like something you know, there is no practical difference.

It is misleading to say you “believe” you will go to a concert tonight when actually you happen to “know” you will go to a concert tonight. Why don’t you just say you “know?” Because there is a difference! If you only believe you will go to a concert tonight, it doesn’t mean you will, you only believe you will. If you “know” you will go to a concert tonight, you WILL go to a concert tonight. Just because YOU are defining “belief” and “knowledge” as though they are one and the same, as though they are synomous, doesn’t mean everyone else does. It is not accurate to do so. Knowing is defined as a “justified true belief” not just “belief.” To “know” something you have to have justified the belief and that in which you believe has to be true. This is not the same thing as “belief” alone. There is a practical difference. If you “know” something but are only saying you “believe” it, why the lack of commitment, why the dishonesty, why the misdirection? I suspect because you really don’t know, you only believe, you lack 100% certainty.

“I believe fairies exist” does not mean the same thing as “I know fairies exist.” To “know” fairies exist, it must be true that fairies exist. To believe fairies exist, it doesn’t mean that faires must exist.

To treat “I believe…” as though it is completely synomous with “I know…” again, is just misleading.

It is important to clear this up since the title of the thread is “knowing god.”

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It is misleading to say you “believe” you will go to a concert tonight when actually you happen to “know” you will go to a concert tonight. Why don’t you just say you “know?” Because there is a difference! If you only believe you will go to a concert tonight, it doesn’t mean you will, you only believe you will. If you “know” you will go to a concert tonight, you WILL go to a concert tonight. Just because YOU are defining “belief” and “knowledge” as though they are one and the same, as though they are synomous, doesn’t mean everyone else does. It is not accurate to do so

you are way over thinking this, no one is claiming they are synonymous, only that there is no functional difference if you treat the concepts the same.

Knowing is defined as a “justified true belief” not just “belief.” To “know” something you have to have justified the belief and that in which you believe has to be true. This is not the same thing as “belief” alone. There is a practical difference. If you “know” something but are only saying you “believe” it, why the lack of commitment, why the dishonesty, why the misdirection? I suspect because you really don’t know, you only believe, you lack 100% certainty.

what lack of commitment, dishonesty, and misdirection? my position is summed up in one sentence, its very simple. i am amazed that you dont seem to get it.

you suspect that i dont really believe what? that i lack 100% certainty of what?

are you reading my posts?

once again, because its too simple too miss.

if you treat belief and knowledge the same, there is no functional difference.

“I believe fairies exist” does not mean the same thing as “I know fairies exist.” To “know” fairies exist, it must be true that fairies exist. To believe fairies exist, it doesn’t mean that faires must exist.

why are you now talking about fairies?

To treat “I believe…” as though it is completely synomous with “I know…” again, is just misleading.

like i said above they are not synonymous, who said that? i said there is no functional difference if the two are treated alike.

what part of this dont you get? its not hard.

It is important to clear this up since the title of the thread is “knowing god.”

if your talking about knowing G-d, why are we talking about this.

i know G-d exists, i dont just believe it, i know it, like i know electrons exist.

is that what the fairy talk above was about?

 

[Bear_Claw]

Okay, I admit that I don’t know a lot about first Cause etc. hence the cut and paste. I’m man enough to admit that.

But I do know that the title of the thread is incorrect and misleading.
Ref previous post regarding belief and knowledge. The poster says it much more eloquently than I can.

 

[Bear_Claw]

if you treat belief and knowledge the same, there is no functional difference.

They can’t be functionally the same. I don’t know how else to spell it out for you. One is based on facts and evidence, one is not based in fact at all.
Functionally they are not the same at all.

why are you now talking about fairies?

Fairies? It was an analogy to put things in perspective for you, but you obviously dismiss it, so the point is lost.

like i said above they are not synonymous, who said that? i said there is no functional difference if the two are treated alike.
what part of this dont you get? its not hard.

you can’t treat the two alike. It’s not possible. They are not functionally the same. Read the fairy post again, it actually makes a lot of sense and puts your fallacy into perspective for you.

i know G-d exists, i dont just believe it, i know it, like i know electrons exist.

Ok, we can prove that electrons exist. If you group it in that same category, then I’ll have to ask for your evidence how you know that God exist like you know that electrons exist.

 

[mlchance]

Okay, I admit that I don’t know a lot about first Cause etc. hence the cut and paste. I’m man enough to admit that.

Aquinas’s argument from the First Cause is not a scientific argument. It does not work backward through time from now to some first moment of the universe as is commonly presented. Rather, it is a philosophical argument about the logical necessity of having a first cause for any sort of change (what in Aristotelian terms is usually called “motion”).

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

They can’t be functionally the same. I don’t know how else to spell it out for you. One is based on facts and evidence, one is not based in fact at all.
Functionally they are not the same at all.

keep trying to equate the conceptional definition, with the functional use. it didn’t fly the first 5 times it aint flying now

if you treat the things you believe the same as things you know, what is the functional difference? not the conceptual difference, but the difference as expressed in its use?

none, your treating both things just the same. if you claim to know something when its really a belief, your treating a belief as knowledge, when you treat someone elses knowledge as a belief, your functionally doing the same thing.

i.e. you thought you knew that first cause was debunked, now you realize it is a belief, you thought i believed in G-d now you understand that i can say i know, even if opinions differ.

functionlly the two positions are the same.

now even im getting confused as to why we are continuing to argue about an observation?

Fairies? It was an analogy to put things in perspective for you, but you obviously dismiss it, so the point is lost.

the first 3 analogies were off base why would one about fairies be any different?

you can’t treat the two alike. It’s not possible. They are not functionally the same. Read the fairy post again, it actually makes a lot of sense and puts your fallacy into perspective for you.

ok, ive explained it. if they are treated the same, there is no functional difference, and the fairies are just another irrelevant analogy.

its very simple. i dont get what yyour claiming not to understand.

the functional difference between belif and knowledge is in how you treat them, i.e. your recent experience with first cause.

Ok, we can prove that electrons exist. If you group it in that same category, then I’ll have to ask for your evidence how you know that God exist like you know that electrons exist.

i just told you about first cause. what did you think i was talking about? that is the evidence.

 

[Bear_Claw]

Aquinas’s argument from the First Cause is not a scientific argument. It does not work backward through time from now to some first moment of the universe as is commonly presented. Rather, it is a philosophical argument about the logical necessity of having a first cause for any sort of change (what in Aristotelian terms is usually called “motion”).

– Mark L. Chance.

But this brings me to an earlier post of mine. I’ll paraphrase it here.

Basically, what strikes me as odd is that when there is not a scientific explanation right away, people chalk it up to God.

Science doesn’t claim to know all the answers and when they don’t know they say so, studying further and evaluating more. Christians claim to know things they can’t know and then claim it to be God.

How do you logically go from “I don’t know how the universe was created” (basically we do know, and we do know that all the elements, even complex amino acids that are required for life, are available in deep space even now) to “It was God”.

People seem to be a bit superstitious. In the dark ages they always ascribed things to God or the Devil that they didn’t understand, but now that they are making new discoveries, and understanding more about the universe, folks still seem to have that same mindset…when they don’t understand things, it’s God.
The sheer lack of evidence for God shows me that this next step in the logic is not very logical.

But that’s just the thing, right? There is no evidence for God so, it’s all based on faith and belief.

 

[Bear_Claw]

if you treat the things you believe the same as things you know, what is the functional difference? not the conceptual difference, but the difference as expressed in its use?

You keep on saying “if they are treated the same, there is no functional difference,” That first If is your error. You can’t treat them the same.
Just because you use it in your sentence doesn’t make it true.

The difference remains the same. Belief is based on faith and knowledge is based on evidence and proof. You can’t get around that by arguing words mean different things to different people.

none, your treating both things just the same. if you claim to know something when its really a belief, your treating a belief as knowledge, when you treat someone elses knowledge as a belief, your functionally doing the same thing.

i just told you about first cause. what did you think i was talking about? that is the evidence

The First cause argument is not evidence. It’s deductions based on unproven deductions. Knowledge requires evidence.
If the First Cause argument was proven fact, we would not have had this discussion.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

But this brings me to an earlier post of mine. I’ll paraphrase it here.

Basically, what strikes me as odd is that when there is not a scientific explanation right away, people chalk it up to God.

once again, the entire universes existence is proof of G-d.

and i told you the steps from first cause to G-d

you seem to have a whole lot of assumptions, very few based on anything more thatn some atheist pamphlet.

you should know what we believe and why before you run around telling us we are wrong.

 

[mlchance]

Basically, what strikes me as odd is that when there is not a scientific explanation right away, people chalk it up to God.

That does happen. On the flip side, some other people chalk up what science can’t explain to science not being “there” yet. It’s just another form of the god of the gaps argument.

Science doesn’t claim to know all the answers and when they don’t know they say so, studying further and evaluating more. Christians claim to know things they can’t know and then claim it to be God.

Neither of those statements is universally true. For example, there are oodles of Christian writers who admit to the limitations of theological knowledge.

People seem to be a bit superstitious. In the dark ages they always ascribed things to God or the Devil that they didn’t understand, but now that they are making new discoveries, and understanding more about the universe, folks still seem to have that same mindset…when they don’t understand things, it’s God.

That’s not entirely true either. The so-called Dark Ages were often a whole more enlightened than conventional “wisdom” says. After all, the seeds of the scientific revolution were planted largely by medieval clerics.

But that’s just the thing, right? There is no evidence for God so, it’s all based on faith and belief.

That’s not the thing. There is plenty of evidence for God, but it too often gets ignored because people want to limit the definition of “evidence” to “what I want to believe” or to “that which is a proven fact.” Neither limit is intellectually honest.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You keep on saying “if they are treated the same, there is no functional difference,” That first If is your error. You can’t treat them the same.

Just because you use it in your sentence doesn’t make it true

 

[Bear_Claw]

.

 

[Bear_Claw]

you should know what we believe and why before you run around telling us we are wrong.

Ah, you you believe, you don’t know…

 

[Bear_Claw]

That’s not the thing. There is plenty of evidence for God, but it too often gets ignored because people want to limit the definition of “evidence” to “what I want to believe” or to “that which is a proven fact.” Neither limit is intellectually honest.

– Mark L. Chance.

Not evidence. Arguments…

 

[mlchance]

Not evidence. Arguments…

Since folks are so found of dictionaries, check what Merriam-Webster says is the second definition of argument.



You’re being intellectually dishonest. You’ve limited “evidence” to a narrow category (which conveniently is that category which appears to support your position). For example, above, you dismiss that which is “circumstantial” as not being evidence. What a curious notion. Circumstantial evidence is the evidence of the circumstances. It is one of the most common forms of evidence there is. Likewise, a philosophical argument can also be a type of evidence. So can that which is logical, mathematical, scientific, and historical.

How ironic that you offer blanket accusations about Christians being irrational in the same thread that you yourself are being irrational.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Bear_Claw]

Since folks are so found of dictionaries, check what Merriam-Webster says is the second definition of argument.



Yeah, “A reason given in proof”…Proof? Nope, no proof here.

You’re being intellectually dishonest. You’ve limited “evidence” to a narrow category (which conveniently is that category which appears to support your position). For example, above, you dismiss that which is “circumstantial” as not being evidence. What a curious notion. Circumstantial evidence is the evidence of the circumstances. It is one of the most common forms of evidence there is. Likewise, a philosophical argument can also be a type of evidence. So can that which is logical, mathematical, scientific, and historical.

How ironic that you offer blanket accusations about Christians being irrational in the same thread that you yourself are being irrational.

– Mark L. Chance.

It’s because it can be argued both way s and the argument will never stop. You’ll have to do more than convince me that one guys philosophical argument, based on their own findings, and not scientific ones are the basis of what you call evidence that God created the universe.

 

[mlchance]

It’s because it can be argued both way s and the argument will never stop.

A lack of universal agreement doesn’t mean there isn’t something to be universally agreed upon.

You’ll have to do more than convince me that one guys philosophical argument, based on their own findings, and not scientific ones are the basis of what you call evidence that God created the universe.

I didn’t mention anything about “one guys” single argument being convincing, now did I?

Again, you’re illegitimately constraining the meaning of evidence to “scientific” meanings. There is no compelling reason to do that (except to continue to prop up the bogus notion that because there is no strictly scientific evidence for God there is no evidence at all).

What you’re engaging in a tired bit of sophistry. It’s basic form goes like this:

Atheist: There is no evidence that God exists.

Theist: Yes, there is. For example, there is X.

Atheist: X isn’t scientific evidence; therefore, it’s not evidence.

One doesn’t have to be a master rhetorician or logician to see that this line of argumentation is fallacious.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Bear_Claw]

I didn’t mention anything about “one guys” single argument being convincing, now did I?

yes, actually, you cited Aquinas, and admited it’s a philosophical one.

Again, you’re illegitimately constraining the meaning of evidence to “scientific” meanings. There is no compelling reason to do that (except to continue to prop up the bogus notion that because there is no strictly scientific evidence for God there is no evidence at all).

What you’re engaging in a tired bit of sophistry. It’s basic form goes like this:

Atheist: There is no evidence that God exists.

Theist: Yes, there is. For example, there is X.

Atheist: X isn’t scientific evidence; therefore, it’s not evidence.

One doesn’t have to be a master rhetorician or logician to see that this line of argumentation is fallacious.

– Mark L. Chance.

Maybe it’s fallicious to you because you know that the only evidence you have does not hold water. it’s not evidence per se, ast this stage it’s just an opinion
Doesn’t make it true no matter how many times you say it is.

Maybe the Atheist side is also just an opinion(Or maybe it’s becuse I’m really bad at debating since I’m a relatively new Atheist, but it still doesn’t make the OP topic true, not by a long shot.