23 Mar 07
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?
23 Mar 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterWhat we can know, there should be no bar against knowing. Knowledge is never an enemy of religious faith—idolatry is.
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?
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
23 Mar 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterI would have to choose A.
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 have a problem with blind faith. I would never give up all of my knowledge for faith anyway.
23 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterWhy 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.
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?
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.
24 Mar 07
Originally posted by LemonJelloMaybe 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?
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.
24 Mar 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterA delusional lunatic "knows" he's Napoleon, Emperor of France. Should he be satisfied with this personal knowledge?
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?
24 Mar 07
Originally posted by Wayne1324You 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.
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.
24 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderAbsolutely 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.
A delusional lunatic "knows" he's Napoleon, Emperor of France. Should he be satisfied with this personal knowledge?
24 Mar 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterMake up your mind.
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.
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.
24 Mar 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterYet you have no testable facts about God.
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.
24 Mar 07
4 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterIf 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?
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?
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.
24 Mar 07
Originally posted by LemonJelloThat'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
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.
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.
24 Mar 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe 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.
Yet you have no testable facts about God.
24 Mar 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterJust ask "Napoleon".
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.