Originally posted by divegeester [b]The true delight is in the finding out rather than in the knowing.
Isaac Asimov
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.
Proverbs 25:2
I'd like to say "discuss"; but there is something slightly pompous about posting that in a debate forum. But I do invite discussion and opinion of ...[text shortened]... h separated by millennia in terms of time and a chasm in terms of philosophy.
I am less than perfect in every way. Fortunately the righteousness of Christ was imputed to my "spiritual bank account" when I first trusted in what Jesus did for me at the cross. Perfection comes later.
This may get deeper than I have time for.
Conviction about knowing, is not claiming perfection. Yes, take some time, there is no agenda in my OP, just a premise.
Originally posted by divegeester That's a big statement josephw, are you saying that no one knows anything without God?
No, just the ones that deny God. Denying the existence of God is the same as saying there is no knowledge of God. Simple conclusion is that the one that denies the existence of God is saying they know nothing about God.
That makes them disqualified to discuss what they know nothing about.
Originally posted by divegeester “I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years..."
Isaac Asimov.
Yes, and? He was still Jewish, had a Jewish upbringing, and whatever he may have done in later years, was culturally very well grounded in the Old Testament. He may not have believed in God, but the philosophy of the Bible was a large part of his background. This is clear from much of his writing.
Originally posted by josephw No, just the ones that deny God. Denying the existence of God is the same as saying there is no knowledge of God. Simple conclusion is that the one that denies the existence of God is saying they know nothing about God.
That makes them disqualified to discuss what they know nothing about.
Originally posted by josephw Do you think that if one believes "there is no God" that that disqualifies them from knowing and understanding anything about God, and that their thoughts and opinions have no bearing on anything related to God and things spiritual?
As you know, I believe that everyone is "spiritual", whether they believe in a divine being or not. To a person who believes there is no God, the thoughts and opinions of people who believe there is one, and who believe that He has revealed Himself to them, have a bearing on their behaviour and interactions with fellow believers and non-believers and believers in other religions. This means they can know a lot about what the believers think and do. If one believes there is no God, it certainly doesn't disqualify them from knowing and understanding what believers claim they "know" about God.
Originally posted by josephw No, just the ones that deny God. Denying the existence of God is the same as saying there is no knowledge of God. Simple conclusion is that the one that denies the existence of God is saying they know nothing about God.
That makes them disqualified to discuss what they know nothing about.
Supposed "knowledge of God" manifests itself in religious beliefs and doctrines. People who do not think there is a God are well able to know what these beliefs and doctrines are if they want to. So they are not disqualified from discussing them at all. What someone who denies the existence of God is disqualified from doing is to claim that they are Christians or Muslims or Hindus, etc.
Originally posted by Shallow Blue Yes, and? He was still Jewish, had a Jewish upbringing, and whatever he may have done in later years, was culturally very well grounded in the Old Testament.
You keep talking about Asimov being "Jewish", as though being "Jewish" means he is in someway predisposed to theism. Is that what you are saying?
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby Knowing trumps discovery in any realm.
In my experience, the problem for religious people who declare that they "know" the "truth" about supernatural things is that this settling for a package of ready-made answers so often deactivates their "curiosity" and meaningful "discovery" of things that they in fact do not "know".
Originally posted by FMF If one believes there is no God, it certainly doesn't disqualify them from knowing and understanding what believers claim they "know" about God.
Yes they can "know and understand" what believers claim to know about God, but I didn't say they couldn't.
Perhaps what I was inferring didn't come through clearly enough. If one knows nothing about something, other than what they hear another say, and has no direct knowledge of the person, place or thing being discussed, what would recommend that one to be considered qualified to draw conclusions about the subject discussed?
If one believes there is no God, how can that one have a qualified opinion about anything related to the knowledge of God?
Knowing vs. discovering
10 Jan '15 22:19
Back to Top