to know or not to know

Imagine for one moment that....

a) I could prove God (Christian God) to you scientifically and objectively with 100% certainty . You would then know (or have knowledge) that God exists for sure and no further proof would be needed. There's one catch though. Although you would have 100% certain intellectual knowledge that God exists you would be prevented from knowing him personally. Your knowledge would be an intellectual proposition and factual only.

Now imagine an alternative....

b) You can sacrifice your 100% intellectual knowledge for intimate personal knowledge. The door is open for you to get to "know" God almost like a "lover" and to experience his presence with you in a living and dynamic way. You would feel loved by him and be able to love back. You would experience the joy of communing with him. The drawback would be that your intellectual position would be down to faith. You would no longer have objective "factual knowledge" of God's existence as a certainty , you would have to see him through the eyes of faith.

QUESTION - Which kind of knowing would you choose and why?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Imagine for one moment that....

a) I could prove God (Christian God) to you scientifically and objectively with 100% certainty . You would then know (or have knowledge) that God exists for sure and no further proof would be needed. There's one catch though. Although you would have 100% certain intellectual knowledge that God exists you would be prev ...[text shortened]... rough the eyes of faith.

QUESTION - Which kind of knowing would you choose and why?

What we can know, there should be no bar against knowing. Knowledge is never an enemy of religious faith—idolatry is.

With that said, I think the true polar opposites in religious thinking are the (seeming) assurances one gets from his mental idols, and the risk of openness to the mystery and the myriad possibilities it contains (about which we may or may not come to know). For me, it is an attitude of confidence vis-à-vis the latter that defines religious faith.

________________________________

With regard to your specific question, I prefer to know intimately the mystery of my wife—as she grows and changes in the life-process of becoming—than to cling to the memory in my head (or a list of facts) of who she was yesterday, or last year, or when

Originally posted by knightmeister
Imagine for one moment that....

a) I could prove God (Christian God) to you scientifically and objectively with 100% certainty . You would then know (or have knowledge) that God exists for sure and no further proof would be needed. There's one catch though. Although you would have 100% certain intellectual knowledge that God exists you would be prev ...[text shortened]... rough the eyes of faith.

QUESTION - Which kind of knowing would you choose and why?

I would have to choose A.

I have a problem with blind faith. I would never give up all of my knowledge for faith anyway.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Imagine for one moment that....

a) I could prove God (Christian God) to you scientifically and objectively with 100% certainty . You would then know (or have knowledge) that God exists for sure and no further proof would be needed. There's one catch though. Although you would have 100% certain intellectual knowledge that God exists you would be prev rough the eyes of faith.

QUESTION - Which kind of knowing would you choose and why?

Why would I care about certainty when it comes to knowledge? Unless we are talking about tautologies, analytic truths, etc., I am more than content to just possess beliefs that accord with the preponderance of evidence, even if the evidence is defeasible. Also, you make yourself look silly when, in b), you equate 'faith' with what you suppose on the other hand to be fallibilist knowledge.

Which kind of knowing would you choose and why?

It doesn't really work like that, KM. A more interesting question is whether b) (the 'faith' you describe) is constitutively viable as knowledge at all. If you think so, then I would be interested in hearing your views on a potential model for theistic belief that is both (a) warranted and (b) evidentially challenged, or even simply completely lacking, when it comes to de facto support for theism.

EDIT: Of course, it's possible (and from the thread title, probably likely) that you are equivocating on the word 'knowledge' -- in which case, I'll need clarification on what you're actually trying to say.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Why would I care about certainty when it comes to knowledge? Unless we are talking about tautologies, analytic truths, etc., I am more than content to just possess beliefs that accord with the preponderance of evidence, even if the evidence is defeasible. Also, you make yourself look silly when, in b), you equate 'faith' with what you suppose on ...[text shortened]... edge' -- in which case, I'll need clarification on what you're actually trying to say.

Maybe if I simplify things. Is it enough to prove God exists and what does this mean? If he is proved but not known personally then of what value is that knowledge? If I am able to prove scientifically that my wife loves me but could never experience it , what then? Which kind of knowledge is most important? Why do we in the West glorify scientific "knowledge" over and above personal knowing?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Maybe if I simplify things. Is it enough to prove God exists and what does this mean? If he is proved but not known personally then of what value is that knowledge? If I am able to prove scientifically that my wife loves me but could never experience it , what then? Which kind of knowledge is most important? Why do we in the West glorify scientific "knowledge" over and above personal knowing?

A delusional lunatic "knows" he's Napoleon, Emperor of France. Should he be satisfied with this personal knowledge?

Originally posted by Wayne1324
I would have to choose A.

I have a problem with blind faith. I would never give up all of my knowledge for faith anyway.

You wouldn't have to give up all your knowledge it would be just that you would be unable to prove objectively that God exists , you would still have objective evidence but it would be subject to your own interpretation. Your faith would not be blind , you would have many , many valid reasons to believe it would just be that to others who were looking for "proof" it would be unsatisfying. To yourself God would seem perfectly plausible (particularly since you would have a personal relationship with God) but you would not be able to prove it to anyone.

Originally posted by no1marauder
A delusional lunatic "knows" he's Napoleon, Emperor of France. Should he be satisfied with this personal knowledge?

Absolutely not. His knowledge should be testable and and be grounded in some facts. Personal knowledge is not enough on it's own , one still needs evidence but this evidence may or may not be convincing to others. If his "knowledge" that he was Napoleon did not fit the facts then he should abandon it.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Absolutely not. His knowledge should be testable and and be grounded in some facts. Personal knowledge is not enough on it's own , one still needs evidence but this evidence may or may not be convincing to others. If his "knowledge" that he was Napoleon did not fit the facts then he should abandon it.

Make up your mind.

KM: You would no longer have objective "factual knowledge" of God's existence as a certainty , you would have to see him through the eyes of faith.

Though our lunatic may not have objective "factual knowledge" of his being Napoleon as a certainty, he sees himself as Napoleon through the eyes of faith.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Absolutely not. His knowledge should be testable and and be grounded in some facts. Personal knowledge is not enough on it's own , one still needs evidence but this evidence may or may not be convincing to others. If his "knowledge" that he was Napoleon did not fit the facts then he should abandon it.

Yet you have no testable facts about God.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Yet you have no testable facts about God.

Actually I dispute that. The 3 O God is testable and it fails every test. In fact, it is internally contradictory.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Maybe if I simplify things. Is it enough to prove God exists and what does this mean? If he is proved but not known personally then of what value is that knowledge? If I am able to prove scientifically that my wife loves me but could never experience it , what then? Which kind of knowledge is most important? Why do we in the West glorify scientific "knowledge" over and above personal knowing?

If your question -- at bottom -- is just something like 'if God were to exist, would it be better to know only of his existence or to know Him personally'; I frankly don't care about that question, particularly when there are no reasons to think He does exist in the first place. To answer your question, I think God would probably be a great drinkin' buddy if He did exist*. So what?

My main objection (which I see now is off-topic somewhat) is that you were just supposing that this "personal experience" you refer to can produce knowledge (or less stringently, warranted belief) even in an intellectual environment that is lacking in de facto support for theism. That's not something I would just grant you without your bringing some argument to support it, along with some clarification on what sort of personal experience you're talking about.

---------------
*Well, maybe not. He's kind of a dirtbag at places in the OT.

Originally posted by LemonJello
If your question -- at bottom -- is just something like 'if God were to exist, would it be better to know only of his existence or to know Him personally'; I frankly don't care about that question, particularly when there are no reasons to think He does exist in the first place. To answer your question, I think God would probably be a great drinkin' budd ...[text shortened]... out.

---------------
*Well, maybe not. He's kind of a dirtbag at places in the OT.

That's not something I would just grant you without your bringing some argument to support it, along with some clarification on what sort of personal experience you're talking about. LEMON

You are too caught up in over intellectualising to see the simplicity of what I am saying. You are making it too hard for yourself . Take a deep breath, relax and then think about it. To know God personally or to have knowledge about God. All the proof in the world can never replace intimacy.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Yet you have no testable facts about God.

The Bible says his love is faithful, that he will fulifill his promises to us , that he will answer our prayers and makes us new creations....it's also full of prophecies that have come true. That's just a few things for starters. Now these testable elements of Christianity are not open to testubes or electron microscopes but they are available to those who choose to seek and have faith. Your interpretation of the word testable is different from mine that's all.

Originally posted by knightmeister
That's not something I would just grant you without your bringing some argument to support it, along with some clarification on what sort of personal experience you're talking about. LEMON

You are too caught up in over intellectualising to see the simplicity of what I am saying. You are making it too hard for yourself . Take a deep breath, relax and ...[text shortened]... sonally or to have knowledge about God. All the proof in the world can never replace intimacy.

Just ask "Napoleon".