This is hell for our adminstration-Pence

[Sonofason]

Why would I find you an authority on the Great Unknown?
I believe in God. It's humans like you that I find unimpressive.
Tom

You wouldn't. Because if you would, you would.
That is great. I prefer you believe in God before you believe in me.

 

[idav]

Actually, knowing does always require faith.

It needs to be broken down. One can know scriptures but believing the scriptures are true requires faith.

 

[Sonofason]

It needs to be broken down. One can know scriptures but believing the scriptures are true requires faith.

One can read the theory of evolution, but believing the theory of evolution requires faith.

 

[idav]

One can read the theory of evolution, but believing the theory of evolution requires faith.

Facts are knowledge and religion is not even close to the same realm as science in regards to knowledge.

 

[columbus]

You wouldn't. Because if you would, you would.

That is not particularly impressive reasoning.

That is great. I prefer you believe in God before you believe in me.

I do. It's religion I don't believe in. I don't think humans are smart enough to know anything important about God. I find science a much more reliable source of information about God than primitive warlords like Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad.
Tom

 

[Acim]

This thread is making wonderful progress. On what topic? I'm not sure. But wonderful progress, no doubt.

 

[Sonofason]

Facts are knowledge and religion is not even close to the same realm as science in regards to knowledge.

It requires faith to believe facts.
If something is a fact, it is truth. To know truth requires faith.
We can believe in things that are true, but we can also believe in things that are untrue. Just because you believe something is a fact does not mean that it is indeed a fact.
You saying something is a fact does not make it is fact.
Knowledge is defined as facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
Therefore just because you believe a certain piece of information is a fact, or in other words knowledge, doesn't mean that that information is actual knowledge.
It requires faith to believe in knowledge.

 

[Sonofason]

That is not particularly impressive reasoning.

I do. It's religion I don't believe in. I don't think humans are smart enough to know anything important about God. I find science a much more reliable source of information about God than primitive warlords like Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad.
Tom

You are actually incapable of showing that any information in the Bible is untrue. And science has absolutely no information with regard to the existence of God and the truth of the Bible. Therefore I find it odd that you would say that science has more reliable information than the Bible.

But for the sake of argument I would love to see your evidence about God that you have received from science that you find more reliable than that which is spoken of in the Bible about God.

 

[idav]

It requires faith to believe facts.
If something is a fact, it is truth. To know truth requires faith.
We can believe in things that are true, but we can also believe in things that are untrue. Just because you believe something is a fact does not mean that it is indeed a fact.
You saying something is a fact does not make it is fact.
Knowledge is defined as facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
Therefore just because you believe a certain piece of information is a fact, or in other words knowledge, doesn't mean that that information is actual knowledge.
It requires faith to believe in knowledge.

No, you may as well say it takes faith to know what the words in the bible are. There are things we can say we know, "knowing god" isn't one of those things. You also still avoid the fact that religion is no match for science in respect to knowledge.

 

[Revoltingest]

It requires faith to believe facts.

Nah....faith is required for that which isn't verifiable by inductive reasoning.
Facts can be verified.

If something is a fact, it is truth.

"Truth" typically means something which is an inerrant, always, & forever factual statement
Facts are opinions which are reliable, but are subject to revision.

To know truth requires faith.

This isn't correct for a priori facts, eg, mathematical structures,
ie, accepting the premises, the results are "true".

 

[Sonofason]

No, you may as well say it takes faith to know what the words in the bible are. There are things we can say we know, "knowing god" isn't one of those things. You also still avoid the fact that religion is no match for science in respect to knowledge.

Indeed it does require faith to know what the words in the Bible are. There are indeed things we can say we know, but we know them by faith.

 

[idav]

Indeed it does require faith to know what the words in the Bible are. There are indeed things we can say we know, but we know them by faith.

If you can read then you know the words. Its an interpretation which is faith based. All this is beside the point, attributes of god is the most faith based thing on the planet, which is what started this conversation, your "knowledge" of god and calling anyone who doesn't agree with you being atheist is unfounded.

 

[McBell]

It requires faith to believe facts.
If something is a fact, it is truth. To know truth requires faith.
We can believe in things that are true, but we can also believe in things that are untrue. Just because you believe something is a fact does not mean that it is indeed a fact.
You saying something is a fact does not make it is fact.
Knowledge is defined as facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
Therefore just because you believe a certain piece of information is a fact, or in other words knowledge, doesn't mean that that information is actual knowledge.
It requires faith to believe in knowledge.

In your attempt to super fluff faith into something more than it actually is, you have reduced the word faith to no meaningful purpose.

 

[Sonofason]

Nah....faith is required for that which isn't verifiable by inductive reasoning.
Facts can be verified.

That is not necessarily true. It is certainly possible that facts exists that we are so far incapable of verifying. And some things are easier to verify than others.

"Truth" typically means something which is an inerrant, always, & forever factual statement
Facts are opinions which are reliable, but are subject to revision.

Okay, I appreciate the distinction. So you are saying for example that the statement "dinosaurs existed in the past" is not a truthful statement.
While it may be true today that dinosaurs existed in the past, prior to their existence that statement would not hold true, and so therefore is not truth.

Is that what you are saying...that it is not truth that dinosaurs existed in the past?

In the same way I suppose the statement that "the universe exists" is not a truthful statement because it was not always a true statement. In such a case however, there can be no truth, because everything is subject to change. The only thing that we could consider truth is God, and anything associated with his eternal existence that was eternal with Him.

 

[idav]

That is not necessarily true. It is certainly possible that facts exists that we are so far incapable of verifying. And some things are easier to verify than others.



Okay, I appreciate the distinction. So you are saying for example that the statement "dinosaurs existed in the past" is not a truthful statement.
While it may be true today that dinosaurs existed in the past, prior to their existence that statement would not hold true, and so therefore is not truth.

Is that what you are saying...that it is not truth that dinosaurs existed in the past?

In the same way I suppose the statement that "the universe exists" is not a truthful statement because it was not always a true statement. In such a case however, there can be no truth, because everything is subject to change. The only thing that we could consider truth is God, and anything associated with his eternal existence that was eternal with Him.

I can agree with faith in degrees but it can be taken too far to the point that we question reality itself. There is a reasonable degree of certainty that should suffice.

 

[Sonofason]

If you can read then you know the words. Its an interpretation which is faith based. All this is beside the point, attributes of god is the most faith based thing on the planet, which is what started this conversation, your "knowledge" of god and calling anyone who doesn't agree with you being atheist is unfounded.

Not all people read words correctly. And not all people know the true meanings of the words the use and read. Therefore it is not a fact that simply reading words implies knowledge of the word. The use of words is indeed faith based.

 

[Sonofason]

In your attempt to super fluff faith into something more than it actually is, you have reduced the word faith to no meaningful purpose.

No, you have inflated knowledge into more than it actually is, thereby reducing knowledge to no meaningful purpose.

 

[idav]

Not all people read words correctly. And not all people know the true meanings of the words the use and read. Therefore it is not a fact that simply reading words implies knowledge of the word. The use of words is indeed faith based.

Yeah I said that by saying it's the interperation that is faith based, yours or my interperation.

 

[Sonofason]

I can agree with faith in degrees but it can be taken too far to the point that we question reality itself. There is a reasonable degree of certainty that should suffice.

I believe you should question reality itself.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is not necessarily true. It is certainly possible that facts exists that we are so far incapable of verifying.

Facts which we don't know or cannot verify are above my pay grade.

Okay, I appreciate the distinction. So you are saying for example that the statement "dinosaurs existed in the past" is not a truthful statement.

Yes, if one is using the stricter definition of "truth" I laid out.
(I added the qualifier to prevent the mistaken inference that I believe dinosaurs didn't exist.)

While it may be true today that dinosaurs existed in the past, prior to their existence that statement would not hold true, and so therefore is not truth.

That is to get into the "when" of the statement.

Is that what you are saying...that it is not truth that dinosaurs existed in the past?

Yes.
It's a well supported opinion which rises to the level of fact, but it is not "true".

In the same way I suppose the statement that "the universe exists" is not a truthful statement because it was not always a true statement. In such a case however, there can be no truth, because everything is subject to change. The only thing that we could consider truth is God, and anything associated with his eternal existence that was eternal with Him.

"The universe exists." is really compelling fact, but it is a posteriori, so I wouldn't call it "true".