KNOWing God

[warpspeedpetey]

So, you admit that sometimes, mistakently people claim to know things that is actually only a blief, so

finally! thats exactly what i have been saying

you display that you know the difference between belief and knowledge, and yet you want us to treat them the sme.

i never said that. i said, if people treat them the same(as above) there is no functional difference.

your just constantly assuming things, no body said

I’m sorry it’s not gonna happen.

good, as thats not what i said, im fine with that.

Knowledge implied evidence.

yes it does, when did i say other wise. your stuck on the definition of the concepts here. ive been talking about their actual use this whole time.

that’s not evidence, it’s argumentative and circumstantial.

so fingerprints, are circumstatial, a wallet left at a crime scene is circumstantial?

that is exactly what evidence is, just like in any court in the land

Just because I don’t know too much about the first cause doesn’t mean that you are right by implication. It’s still called a Argument. It’s never been proven, and for good reasons.

the point is ypou dont know enough about it to make a judgement call, something you seem all too quick to do.

its an 800 year old argument that has never been succesfully refuted. its as much a fact as can be. if you knew the arguemnt well enough to debate it you would find out. the supposedly learned essay you put forth was easily demolished.

God is not real. That’s the end of it.

really? G-d is real. thats the end of it.

see how that works, you have no arguments against G-d, the book you read turned out to be full of holes, and now you think you can just declare a position to be true or false, when you admit you dont even know the arguments.

To argue anything contrary, claiming you have knowledge of this, is fallacy. You have faith and you have belief, yes, but not knowledge.

so you just declared something you admit you dont really know as a fallacy?

your lack of knowledge on these subjects accompanied by your adamant statements of surety sound an awful lot like the Christains you were trying to castigate for as you stated

“Originally Posted by Bear_Claw
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.”

here your claiming to know something(there is no G-d) that you admirtted you cant know(you dont rteally know first cause) so your claiminng its not scientific.

i thought you didn’t like it when people did that.

 

[mlchance]

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

Fine, but at no point in time did I claim that “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.” What’s in quotation marks is your strawman, not my position.

To be upfront, I think Aquinas’s argument from motion (the First Cause argument) is a bit on the weak side, especially if left to stand alone.

Maybe it’s fallicious to you because you know that the only evidence you have does not hold water.

No, it’s fallacious because there is more than one type of evidence. To say that scientific evidence is only evidence that counts is an error. To say that a type of evidence (such as circumstantial) is not evidence is an error. One cannot legitimately advance an argument if one of that argument’s fundamentals is false.

Now, that said, maybe the philosophical, theological, and historical evidence ultimately doesn’t hold water. But since you’re unwilling to honestly engage with that evidence, you have actual basis for making a claim one way or the other.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[morgantj]

Most atheists say they dislike Theists because Theists claim to KNOW that God exists, and that is arrogant. But why is it any less arrogant for an atheist to say that God does NOT exist?

And isn’t Agnosticism just a lazy form of atheism? It doesn’t require you to do anything. You are just in the middle of the road.

Here’s a quote from Father Barron:

‘The universal intelligibility of reality–which must be the starting point for all science-is a mystery that calls out for an explanation. Why should it be the case that laws of tremendous mathematical complexity should obtain at both the microcosmic and macrocosmic levels? Science can’t dispute this, precisely because it rests on it. I think that a very reasonable explanation is that these laws are the work of a supreme personal intelligence.’

Why is it important or valueable to determine who is being arrogant? What does this accomplish?

What does “Agnosticism being a lazy form of atheism” have to do with “knowing god” or “arrogance?”

And as far as agnosticism, Is there something wrong with somebody not choosing a side until they feel they have established enough evidence to lean towards one side or the other? Doesn’t everyone go through this stage? Or would you rather they skip this step and just jump into one side blindly? Is that what blind faith is, to skip this step of evaluating?

Why the attempt to persecute?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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.

it cant be argued both ways, you saw how easily the refuations were demolished, your just assuming that.

actually the arguement has been made fro the greeks to the modern philosphers, its not one guys, he wasn’t the first, he just stated them the most famously.

nor is it based on his own findings, its based on logic, in the same way math is based on logic. first cause is not any different logically than mathematics.

please read the argument or something before you start making such blanket statements that everyone here, who sees these arguments all the time knows is false.

 

[Eucharisted]

Most atheists say they dislike Theists because Theists claim to KNOW that God exists, and that is arrogant. But why is it any less arrogant for an atheist to say that God does NOT exist?

And isn’t Agnosticism just a lazy form of atheism? It doesn’t require you to do anything. You are just in the middle of the road.

Here’s a quote from Father Barron:

‘The universal intelligibility of reality–which must be the starting point for all science-is a mystery that calls out for an explanation. Why should it be the case that laws of tremendous mathematical complexity should obtain at both the microcosmic and macrocosmic levels? Science can’t dispute this, precisely because it rests on it. I think that a very reasonable explanation is that these laws are the work of a supreme personal intelligence.’

Personally, I see no arrogence in someone saying they know God exists or dose not exist. Both statements on God’s existence have a set of evidence behind them: the athests has science and reason, the believer has philosophy, science, and reason. Now, what I would definitely find to be arrogent, though, is the attitude of “Oh, I won’t believe in God until He dose this in that sitatution, and science is able to varify it in this way and that time.” Putting constrictions on God is making Him an object, and that is arrogent. And that arrogence will never discover God, because it has already decided God is not God. It has already decided that God is not who He says He is, that He is something else, something that can be tested and verified by science. Science cannot rule on the supernatural, however, so lowering God to the scientific level is making Him less God - and if God is not God, than God dose not exist. Hence, the individual, in declaring his desire to test God, has already stated his belief that God dose not exist, and he will never be satisfied with any experiments or testings whatsoever, because to him, God is not God. It is this type of arrogence that I hate and that I wish would leave the world. Yet I also know that this arrogence has its origins in Satan. So we must pray and do penance, for this drives out the devil - first in our hesrts, then in our famlies, and then in the world.

There is also anothe type of arrogence which I hate, and which I see sometimes in believers. It is thre arrogence that, because someone believes they hold the truth, they believe they can be snotty, rude, disrespectful, superiorist, and trample others underfoot. It is a horrible attitude and it drives many away from the truth. We must be humble and meek, not arrogent and proud. To have the truth is a privledge, for the truth is God’s gift. We must share it, yes, but we must share it in charity. Love in truth and truth in love: this is the ingredients, I believe, for spreading the glad tidings of the Kingdom of God to all. And we can make repair for the evil of other believers, whether of our fold or another, by way of charity and truth, prayer and penance. And in this way will we testifying to the trustworthiness of our words and to the power of the Gospel. For if we live the Gospel, we will certainly show we live what we preach and preach what we live, and God, in working in our souls, will use us as instruments - though little we be - for the conversion of sinners.

Finally, the third type of arrogence I hate is the arrogence of indifference. It manifests itself in many ways, either quietly or loudly. It is the arrogence of not caring to know the truth, and this type of arrogence is the worst of the three, because, while the first type denies God and the second type drives souls away, it is this third type that makes souls unable to even use their minds; they merely ignore the truth and live a fantasy life, though they act as if everything is normal. Yet, it is not normal. It is never normal to ignore the truth. If it were, than nothing would matter to man: neither history nor trustworthiness nor pleasure nor goodness nor glory would matter. Everything would be vain - including man himself. I know of only one way to make an indifferent attitude leave, and that is by challenging the soul, telling them that indifference is dangerous and that if they neither seek nor deny the truth, they will surly fall among the depressed, the despairing, the deceived, and the fearful. But the best method to help any soul is by praying for them and trusting in God. God will know how to cure how a soul - He created the creature, after all!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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

logic is a branch of philosophy…

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

 

[Bear_Claw]

finally! thats exactly what i have been saying

okay, with you so far

i never said that. i said, if people treat them the same(as above) there is no functional difference.

But that’s not true, you can’t treat them the same and then say they are, they are not the same thing, how hard is this to understand???

its an 800 year old argument that has never been succesfully refuted. its as much a fact as can be.

Incorrect, just because time has passed, it’s not all of a sudden true and can be accepted as fat. That’s a statement that Christians make all too often.
Maybe it hasn’t been refuted because it’s philosophical and you are talking apples and oranges proving a scientific matter with philosophy.

see how that works, you have no arguments against G-d, the book you read turned out to be full of holes, and I’m sure that the rebuttal you made will be refuted and poked full of holes by the right person again.
It’s not as simple as an unchallenged rebuttal = fact.

i thought you didn’t like it when people did that.

Yup, you got me on that one, I’ll admit.
I’m still new at this and sometimes emotions filter through.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Personally, I see no arrogence in someone saying they know God exists or dose not exist. Both statements on God’s existence have a set of evidence behind them: the athests has science and reason, the believer has philosophy, science, and reason. Now, what I would definitely find to be arrogent, though, is the attitude of “Oh, I won’t believe in God until He dose this in that sitatution, and science is able to varify it in this way and that time.” Putting constrictions on God is making Him an object, and that is arrogent. And that arrogence will never discover God, because it has already decided God is not God. It has already decided that God is not who He says He is, that He is something else, something that can be tested and verified by science. Science cannot rule on the supernatural, however, so lowering God to the scientific level is making Him less God - and if God is not God, than God dose not exist. Hence, the individual, in declaring his desire to test God, has already stated his belief that God dose not exist, and he will never be satisfied with any experiments or testings whatsoever, because to him, God is not God. It is this type of arrogence that I hate and that I wish would leave the world. Yet I also know that this arrogence has its origins in Satan. So we must pray and do penance, for this drives out the devil - first in our hesrts, then in our famlies, and then in the world.

There is also anothe type of arrogence which I hate, and which I see sometimes in believers. It is thre arrogence that, because someone believes they hold the truth, they believe they can be snotty, rude, disrespectful, superiorist, and trample others underfoot. It is a horrible attitude and it drives many away from the truth. We must be humble and meek, not arrogent and proud. To have the truth is a privledge, for the truth is God’s gift. We must share it, yes, but we must share it in charity. Love in truth and truth in love: this is the ingredients, I believe, for spreading the glad tidings of the Kingdom of God to all. And we can make repair for the evil of other believers, whether of our fold or another, by way of charity and truth, prayer and penance. And in this way will we testifying to the trustworthiness of our words and to the power of the Gospel. For if we live the Gospel, we will certainly show we live what we preach and preach what we live, and God, in working in our souls, will use us as instruments - though little we be - for the conversion of sinners.

Finally, the third type of arrogence I hate is the arrogence of indifference. It manifests itself in many ways, either quietly or loudly. It is the arrogence of not caring to know the truth, and this type of arrogence is the worst of the three, because, while the first type denies God and the second type drives souls away, it is this third type that makes souls unable to even use their minds; they merely ignore the truth and live a fantasy life, though they act as if everything is normal. Yet, it is not normal. It is never normal to ignore the truth. If it were, than nothing would matter to man: neither history nor trustworthiness nor pleasure nor goodness nor glory would matter. Everything would be vain - including man himself. I know of only one way to make an indifferent attitude leave, and that is by challenging the soul, telling them that indifference is dangerous and that if they neither seek nor deny the truth, they will surly fall among the depressed, the despairing, the deceived, and the fearful. But the best method to help any soul is by praying for them and trusting in God. God will know how to cure how a soul - He created the creature, after all!

darn it ed, every time i get a good head of steam up, you come along saying something true and letting all the air outta my boilers!

 

[Bear_Claw]

Fine, but at no point in time did I claim that “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.” What’s in quotation marks is your strawman, not my position.

But it certainly is impliled.

No, it’s fallacious because there is more than one type of evidence. To say that scientific evidence is only evidence that counts is an error. To say that a type of evidence (such as circumstantial) is not evidence is an error. One cannot legitimately advance an argument if one of that argument’s fundamentals is false.

Now, that said, maybe the philosophical, theological, and historical evidence ultimately doesn’t hold water. But since you’re unwilling to honestly engage with that evidence, you have actual basis for making a claim one way or the other.

– Mark L. Chance.

When talking about proof, knowledge, philosophical and theological evidence is no evidence at all. It’s subjective reasoning and hearsay.

 

[Bear_Claw]

so when we dismantle your next set of arguments, you cant claim it was just because your new. we want you to see the error of those arguments, to help you see G-d waiting on you.

Or next time I’ll stick to arguments I know, so that there is no dismantling to be done and you can start to see the real picture.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

okay, with you so far

But that’s not true, you can’t treat them the same and then say they are, they are not the same thing, how hard is this to understand???

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Or next time I’ll stick to arguments I know, so that there is no dismantling to be done and you can start to see the real picture.

ok then give us one.

i have some things to take care of, but i will respond when i get home

 

[Bear_Claw]

Now, what I would definitely find to be arrogent, though, is the attitude of “Oh, I won’t believe in God until He dose this in that sitatution, and science is able to varify it in this way and that time.” Putting constrictions on God is making Him an object, and that is arrogent. And that arrogence will never discover God, because it has already decided God is not God. It has already decided that God is not who He says He is, that He is something else, something that can be tested and verified by science. Science cannot rule on the supernatural, however, so lowering God to the scientific level is making Him less God - and if God is not God, than God dose not exist. Hence, the individual, in declaring his desire to test God, has already stated his belief that God dose not exist, and he will never be satisfied with any experiments or testings whatsoever, because to him, God is not God. It is this type of arrogence that I hate and that I wish would leave the world. Yet I also know that this arrogence has its origins in Satan. So we must pray and do penance, for this drives out the devil - first in our hesrts, then in our famlies, and then in the world.!

With respect, I can’t see how you can find that arrogant.

Honestly, god put himself in that position with all his scriptural promises. Hear me out.
Things like “have faith and you will move mountains”, or “you will do things even more miraculous as my works”. (I paraphrase of course) I don’t see people raising the dead at all.
Or how about: “if there are two or more people gathered in my name, ask and anything shall be given to you” Now, I don’t see people praying with honest and good intensions for say, an amputee and his leg or arm grows back.

Faith and prayer are hailed in the bible as the cause and channel for many miraculous things, but nowhere is it ever accomplished. Even the Pope can’t pray someone’s arm back on, or raise someone from the dead. Now, either it means that he doesn’t have enough faith, or it means that god’s promises aren’t fulfilled. I don’t think the pope has a problem with faith…

 

[Bear_Claw]

when most people find out that their previously held theories are false, they change their mind

Nah, it just means I have to study more on the topic to finally prove you wrong

 

[warpspeedpetey]

QUOTE=Bear_Claw;4897592]With respect, I can’t see how you can find that arrogant.

Honestly, god put himself in that position with all his scriptural promises. Hear me out.
Things like “have faith and you will move mountains”, or “you will do things even more miraculous as my works”. (I paraphrase of course) I don’t see people raising the dead at all.
Or how about: “if there are two or more people gathered in my name, ask and anything shall be given to you” Now, I don’t see people praying with honest and good intensions for say, an amputee and his leg or arm grows back.

why should G-d make himself that clear to you?

the answer to prayer is quite often, no.

Faith and prayer are hailed in the bible as the cause and channel for many miraculous things, but nowhere is it ever accomplished. Even the Pope can’t pray someone’s arm back on, or raise someone from the dead. Now, either it means that he doesn’t have enough faith, or it means that god’s promises aren’t fulfilled. I don’t think the pope has a problem with faith…

Jesus healed people by their faith, not by the faith of the people praying for them.

 

[mlchance]

But it certainly is impliled.

No, it was certainly inferred. Your inference is not my implication.

When talking about proof, knowledge, philosophical and theological evidence is no evidence at all. It’s subjective reasoning and hearsay.

Prove it.

Nah, it just means I have to study more on the topic to finally prove you wrong

IOW, it’s more easy to speak with certainty from a position of ignorance rather than risk the uncertainty that might come from knowledge?

It doesn’t seem as if you actually have anything of substance left to offer to this discussion. Your persistent refusal to engage in honest debate makes a meaningful exchange of ideas impossible.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Bear_Claw]

It doesn’t seem as if you actually have anything of substance left to offer to this discussion.

not on the first cause argument, I have already agreed to that, are you rubbing my nose in it now?

Your persistent refusal to engage in honest debate makes a meaningful exchange of ideas impossible.

Wow, that’s quite the accusation…
I made attempts that have been refuted, sure, but that just means that I need to get clarity on the facts.

This posts seems like you are kicking me when I’m down now. Interesting…

I agreed that I’m not an expert on first cause, okay?

 

[Bear_Claw]

why should G-d make himself that clear to you?

the answer to prayer is quite often, no.

quote often, okay, but always? Has an arm ever grown back? Due to prayer?
And it’s not for me that god need to make himself clear to, I have already begged and pleaded with him for intensions for quite a number of years, honestly with good intensions, with nothing but silence before I gave up on the concept.

I’m talking about guys that live it…live in faith. Even they can’t seem to have a clear sign, like the ones given to the people when Jesus supposedly walked the earth

Jesus healed people by their faith, not by the faith of the people praying for them.

So, the healing of the Official’s son was by the son’s faith? I don’t think so. Your statement is incorrect.

 

[mlchance]

not on the first cause argument, I have already agreed to that, are you rubbing my nose in it now?

My comments had nothing to do with nose-rubbing or your admitted lack of expertise with the aforesaid argument. Rather, the problems remains your persistent, irrational insistence to recognize as evidence only those types of evidence you want to accept (read: the ones a priori support your conclusions).

Once again: There is more than one type of evidence. Claiming otherwise is an error. As long as one clings to error, there can be no growth in knowledge.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Nah, it just means I have to study more on the topic to finally prove you wrong

which is exactly why i call atheism the position held by desire, not logic. you want to be an atheist, you dont have a reason, how is that different from faith? but go ahead study up. ill be waiting