PGA2.0

-->

@ethang5

Yes, I have fallen into that trap before. (^8
That is what they want in posting a wall-o-text.

It's not a question of genuine interest in my opinion but an "I gotcha" moment that is no such thing.

What about you explaining to us how it is that Jesus can say on the one hand : if he bears witness to himself, his testimony is true. Jn.8:14. YETon the other Jesus says that, if he bears witness to himself, his testimony is not true. Jn.5:31.
And please, take your time.

John 8:14 (NASB)

14 Jesus answered and said to them, “Even if I testify about Myself, My testimony is [a]true, for I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from or where I am going.

Footnotes:

John 8:14 Or valid

Now, the rest of the context:

12 Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.” 13 So the Pharisees said to Him, “You are testifying about Yourself; Your testimony is not true.” 14 Jesus answered and said to them, “Even if I testify about Myself, My testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from or where I am going. 15 You judge according to the flesh; I am not judging anyone. 16 But even if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone in it, but I and the Father who sent Me. 17 Even in your law it has been written that the testimony of two men is true. 18 I am He who testifies about Myself, and the Father who sent Me testifies about Me.”

The Jews knew that it took two or three witnesses to establish a credible testimony. They were also judging solely from a human perspective. But being God and one with the Father it was not only Him that testified about Himself but also His Father and the Holy Spirit. Being God, even His testimony about Himself was valid in and of itself for it is impossible for God to lie and because there is no greater authority than God Himself. By His godly perspective alone, He could thus say His testimony itself was valid.

***

John 5:31 (NASB)

31 “If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not [a]true.

Footnotes:

John 5:31 I.e. admissible as legal evidence

Jesus, in this case, is speaking about His testimony from a legal standpoint since the Jews were asking Him why they should take His testimony about Himself as valid. Thus, from a legal perspective, He answers them.

Under the law, His testimony was not valid because it took two or three witnesses to establish a testimony. Thus He could say His testimony about Himself was not valid evidence in a court of law. But the chapter goes on to establish other witnesses as well as His witness about Himself. Being God, there is no greater authority. Being God, it is impossible for Him to lie. But from a human viewpoint under the law it requires two or three witnesses to establish a testimony as true. So when you read the rest of the passage these corollaries from His ministry and life example witness about Him.

1. Equal with God, thus God.

2. The witness of God the Father.

3. The witness of John the Baptist.

4. The witness of Scripture.

a. The witness of Moses.

b. The witness of the prophets.

c. The witness of the Law of Moses.

5. The witness of His works of righteousness/miracles/healings/teaching, etc.

Now the rest of the passage:

Jesus’ Equality with God

18 For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. 20 For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. 22 For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, 23 so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Two Resurrections

25 Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; 27 and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, 29 and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.

30 “I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

31 “If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true. 32 There is another who testifies of Me, and I know that the testimony which He gives about Me is true.

Witness of John

33 You have sent to John, and he has testified to the truth. 34 But the testimony which I receive is not from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved. 35 He was the lamp that was burning and was shining and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light.

Witness of Works

36 But the testimony which I have is greater than the testimony of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish—the very works that I do—testify about Me, that the Father has sent Me.

Witness of the Father

37 And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. 38 You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent.

Witness of the Scripture

39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; 40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. 41 I do not receive glory from men; 42 but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves. 43 I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him. 44 How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God? 45 Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

So, John 5:31 is speaking strictly from the legal aspect of the law regarding testimony being established by two or three witnesses.

John 8:14 is speaking from the standpoint of who Jesus is; one with the Father/God, not from His subordinate role in fulfilling all righteousness of (believers in Him) humanity by becoming a man.

Anyone who clicks on the links will see that what is said is true. I could go into a lot more detailed account but that will suffice for now. I doubt Stephen will challenge it. He just wants to make noise since he has a bone to pick with Christianity and God, IMO.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

Orthodox Christianity ama

-->

@Mopac

1. Is another name for your church the Eastern Orthodox Church?

2. Do you teach that salvation is by faith and works?

3. Is the schism you refer to the breakaway in AD 879-880 or AD 1045?

4. What do you believe about Mary?

5. What do you believe about baptism and communion?

6. What is your position regarding the saints?

7. Who are the leaders of your church?

8. Are all outside from your church (all other denominations and believers) who claim the name of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior heretics, in your opinion?

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@Mopac

Skeptics annotated bible is a big one. If you get sucked into this, you'll be answering questions til the grave. No one will read the answers. If they do, they won't believe.

Yes, I have fallen into that trap before. (^8

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@ethang5

Regarding Stephen's specific list, is he serious? These verses are easily and logically explained.

Romans 9:1 (NASB)
Solicitude for Israel
9 I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit,

Concerning what is he telling the truth about? The verse by itself drops the rest of the context. It is a ploy of those who misrepresent the Bible to isolate verses or ignore the rest of the background. Does that mean that Paul has never lied? No.

Here is the rest of the passage and what Paul is referring to,

2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart.

'That' is a conjunction and joins the two sentences together in explaining what Paul is telling the truth about.

***

2 Corinthians 11:31 (NASB)
31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, He who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying.
Not lying in regards to what?

30 If I have to boast, I will boast of what pertains to my weakness.

About his boasting in the Lord Jesus Christ.

***

Galatians 1:20 (NASB)
20 (Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.)

Concerning what?

13 For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it; 14 and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions. 15 But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased 16 to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.
18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.

In context, about persecuting the church, being beyond his year in Judaism, zealous, God's grace calling him and revealing His Son to him so that Paul would preach the gospel to the Gentiles, in which he consulted no one immediately, nor go to Jerusalem to see the apostles but went to Arabia. Then three years later, he went to Jerusalem, became acquainted with Peter, and stayed fifteen days. He also confirmed he saw no one else except James and the Lord's brother during that time. That is the context to which he says he is not lying. Does that mean he has never lied? No. So the whole contradiction is just smoke. It is reasonable and logically explained by the contexts. Taking a verse out of context is a pretext in the sense that the person doing this can make it say things that it does not say in relation to the rest of the passage or thought process.

***

1 Timothy 2:7 (NASB)
7 For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

For what?

2 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. 3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

***

In all the above, Paul is speaking of specific things. In the below example Paul is speaking in terms of generalities in showing that the whole world of humanity is answerable to God, including himself.

Romans 3:7 (NASB)
7 But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner?

Now, for the context.

All the World Guilty
3 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? 4 May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written,
“That You may be justified in Your words,
And prevail when You are judged.”
5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.) 6 May it never be! For otherwise, how will God judge the world? 7 But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner? 8 And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), “Let us do evil that good may come”? Their condemnation is just.
9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10 as it is written,
“There is none righteous, not even one;
11 There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God;
12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless;
There is none who does good,
There is not even one.”
13 “Their throat is an open grave,
With their tongues they keep deceiving,”
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
14 “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”;
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood,
16 Destruction and misery are in their paths,
17 And the path of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

Thus, Paul is as guilty of anyone under the Law, for it takes one sin to break God's command. But Paul preaches the grace of God through Christ. He is the one Man who is an exception to the rule that all have lied. Even here, Jesus was identified with the transgressor in that He took their punishment upon Himself on the cross. So, yet though no sin was found in Him, He became sin in the sense that He took our punishment in exchange for us (the believer) taking His righteousness. In regards to His righteousness, He lived the perfectly righteous life before God.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/merrit01.php

-->

@ethang5

I make that almost 200 and still counting.

Sure you do. But there is a reason you people always mass dump this old tired logicless dross. You don't want to support any of them, you just want all accepted as contradictions without any critical thought of any.

I've seen you argue many of them right here on Dart and lose, yet here you are, dropping them again, though they have been soundly rebutted.

You've dropped 200 allegations, not a single contradiction. One contradiction would do, the fact that you had to post a wall of text is telling.

You got swamped. (^8

His list would take thousands of posts to respond to in detail. The first question that came to my mind is what atheist/skeptic site was it taken from?

There are various Christian sites that respond to the much-alleged contradictions. Glenn Miller does a good job (http://christianthinktank.com/), so do others such as J.P. Holding at Tektonics (http://www.tektonics.org/).

For instance,

http://www.tektonics.org/uz/wally01.php

http://www.tektonics.org/qt/rezrvw.php

http://www.tektonics.org/af/ebestart.php

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/morgand03.php

http://www.tektonics.org/af/bucknerj01.php

http://www.tektonics.org/TK-MTT.php

http://www.tektonics.org/harmonize/greenharmony.htm

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/johnsure.php

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/martincac2.php

http://www.tektonics.org/guest/300proof.html

That is just a sampling of the many pages of refutations against those who claim the Bible is in error.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

How do you know (P)...
P =/= P.
P = *P
_______
*can be (+) or( -)

You know P by knowing which direction it is moving.

What does that statement mean? "What direction it is moving?"

P =?= P --> P does not equal P?

A dog (P) is not a dog (P)? It does not have that identity?

Or are you trying to say that you can't know P is P?

***

P can be or not be P? A dog can or can't be a dog?

The dog (P) is asleep and not moving (no direction), therefore, it is not a dog?

knowledge is justifiable true belief
"Justified true belief" is graven image in the heavens: circular absurdity.

That statement of yours makes no sense.

With your equations both the negative and positive equals --> I am?
Yes: reflecting equal capacity for good/evil, leaving it as an open variable without defining, which is the problem-in-and-of-itself (ie. believing to know good and evil, thus attempting to explicitly define).

To put it more succinctly,
I know I am is not to believe I am.

More succinctly,
I believe I am is not knowing I am.

In application to self: yes. It highlights the absurdity of any/all "I believe I am..." etc. As belief is a fixed component of any/all belief-based ignorance. Therefor, a grounded knowledge of self must be absent belief, else: ignorance.

Again, the second equation depends on whether the belief is justified as true to what kind of belief it is - rational, irrational, blind.
...

What does this mean?
The tree of living leads *away from* suffering/death.

Do you mean the tree of life? If so, yes. If Adam and Eve had eaten from it they would have lived forever.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil leads towards it.

By taking from the tree of knowledge God banned them from the Garden and partaking of the tree of life.

It takes a revealed, objective, absolute, unchanging/fixed qualitative value for goodness to be known. If you don't have one, why is your subjective opinion/preference any BETTER than mine?

What is the source of your qualitative value system? Some other subjective mind, or your mind? What is good about that? Don't dictate what is good until you prove your source is good.
Such a thing exists, has existed, and will always exist.

Then what you are saying is that God exists since you have not always existed. Values such as goodness, to exist eternally, must be grounded in an eternal Being since goodness is an abstract mindful thing and requires a Mind for its existence and meaning.

It's not about better/worse: this is a comparison, and the same Cain did of himself to his brother. Are you not mindful of the scriptures? Why compare yourself to another? I am nothing: neither greater nor lesser than the next.

There has to be a comparison or else everything is flux and you have nothing to base your claim on, nor measure the degree of goodness.

So you have to have a fixed measure to compare something to. We know what an inch is in relation to one foot, and a foot in comparison to a yard, and so on. We know that we go so many inches along a measuring line to mark of this degree of measurement. The standard for the inch is the International Bureau of Weights and Measures that other measurements can be calibrated against.

What is that measure for goodness, since you say it has always existed, fixed, firm? Since it is qualitative rather than quantitative it must be a necessary Being.

If you don't know what is good how will you determine something is better (qualitatively) than something else? If your measurement of goodness keeps changing how will you know it is better? Better than what? How will you know good unless there is a fixed best?

I don't dictate what is good: it is the problem-in-and-of-itself. Good begs an evil counter-part. Whenever a person points and says "there is evil" they assume themselves good in relation. Sometimes, it is true. But, if a person does it, and it so happens they are wrong... they are dead wrong.

Evil in comparison to what? Why would a relative being think themselves better than another being unless there is a fixed measure to compare too?

It either is true or it is false but the question is how you know?

Dead wrong in comparison to what?

You have failed to answer my question. Here it is again,

"What is the source of your qualitative value system? Some other subjective mind, or your mind? What is good about that? Don't dictate what is good until you prove your source is good."

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

You are jumping from some beliefs as ignorant to all belief as being ignorant.

You experience you "are" long before you know you are. A baby gradually acquires knowledge as it becomes more aware of the world around it and can begin to conceptualize what it is that it is seeing and figure out how it knows it is the case. The principle beliefs or core/start concepts tie in more and more to a worldview belief and knowledge is acquired as it grows.

Knowledge comes from the belief and is a justified true belief. Thus Belief --> Knowledge

***

Please forgive my bluntness: your methodology is absurd, and begins with an absurd assertion.

I appreciate raw bluntness that is not hidden in political correctness, as long as it is not vulgar.

Do you have to believe something before you can believe anything else?

Knowledge does not come from a vacuum. You have to start somewhere. You first have to believe something, test it, and justify it is true before you arrive at knowledge.

In any case, the truth of the way of the living is the only method that can not be falsified.

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying. Please rephrase it.

You have to justify what is the case to know it.
You can also justify what is not the case.

This is true and so do it.

Creation has a counter-part: destruction. You can not just say is! is! is! you have to equally try is not! is not! is not! This is the balance of yang and yin: to try to believe, and to try not to believe.

And the counter to that is if you do not believe 'this' but 'that' (or not this) you still have a belief, an opposing or contrary belief. The person who says, "I believe in God" has a belief. The person who says, "I do not believe in God" still has a belief, that there is no God.

The commonality is trying either way, therefor one is in a perpetual state of trying to / not to, leaving only knowledge (absent belief, knowledge having negates any/all false belief), belief-in-trial, and knowledge of ignorance.

Leaving only knowledge, which is a true justified belief. An absent belief of one thing is a belief on the contrary or opposite thing.

I know therefore I am!
I am therefore I know!

Which comes first?
Neither: and neither are any conscious acknowledgement of self.

Neither? So you have not begun to exist yet you know you are???

Even though a baby of one day old exists is it aware or knowing it exists. It has not begun the thought process of knowing yet. It is still experiencing in its growth process yet is not reasoning its knowledge of its existence yet.

"I know I am" is acknowledgement of self.

True, yet it is also reasoning that requires a rational thought process.

I know I am is a true, justified belief.

"I believe I am" is lacking acknowledgement of self: it is belief-based.

It is not a well thought out belief.

I know I know not" is conscious acknowledgement of ignorance equivalent to any/all potential attainability to/of knowledge. Once can not attain to something they "believe" they already have.

Okay, yet acknowledgement of ignorance does not happen in a vacuum. You have to know other things before you become aware of things you do not know. That knowledge is based on a belief system that is confirmed to be the case. You can't build a house without a foundation.

If you know one thing, that you do not know anything else, how do you know this? Again, knowledge has to be built on other knowledge. You have to start somewhere with a belief that is either confirmed or denied by what is the case.

"I know I know not" has to be a knowledge in relation to something else that is not known.

I know I know not = conscious acknowledgment of ignorance (which pertains to a specific thing) = Any potential attainability to knowledge.

I know I know not = All potential attainability of knowledge.

"One can not attain to something they "believe" they already have." Knowledge = justified true belief.

believe I am in order to know I am. I believe in order to know. I do not disbelieve I am.
I know I am and therefore I believe I am. (Justified true belief)
I know I am because I know I am. (Tautology/circular reasoning)
The tautology begins with an ignorance: I believe I am. Therefor it is circularly ignorant-in-and-of-itself.

Reasonable belief is different from irrational or blind belief.

I see it as a dogma trying to equivocate belief and knowledge when, in reality, they are antithetical. It is just what religion is out to do.

A belief has to be 1) justified and 2) true to be knowledge. Thus, you will never know God without first believing He exists and thus trusting He rewards those who seek Him with knowledge of Him.

If you can justify something you believe as reasonable before it happens it is not yet true. Thus, it is not yet knowledge until it happens the way you thought it would.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

Not if the object of faith is true and corresponds to what is the case. An idol is a false belief.

Are you an empiricist/physicalist (won't believe it until you see it)? Do you believe you have to see something to believe it exists?
Any/all belief not being actively tried is an idol. Idol worship is strictly psychological: not physical as the real idol worshipers would use to hide their own. This is precisely what patriarchal religion is: idol worship to the max. The ten commandments warned about it: no graven images in the psychology (ie. heavens). Hypocrisy begins with those ten commandments: they are in stone for a reason. They prove themselves over and over and over etc.

I still can not falsify even one of them. They hold as if fixed to the fabric of creation itself: they thus have a liberating power such, to know them, and know thy self, it is practically impossible to not live in truth. It will invariably lead to the cessation of the suffering of self and shift attention towards the suffering of others: Christ consciousness not coming lest by way of knowing the same, because any all-knowing god knows the suffering of others. There is one caveat: an all-knowing god would also know any/all who suffer themselves, but attempt to blame/scapegoat their own suffering onto others. Therefor, the axiom proves itself true infallibly: know thy self, god knows you the same, and as true as you are to yourself, this becomes a fixed commonality.

Too much to respond to here.

Recall what Adam did to Eve: his own iniquity onto her.

Where do you find this revealed in Scripture or are you just reading it in?

Let me as you this question (please respond): are you aware of what the reality is behind the women who suffer having to take the blame/shame for the ignorance of men?

They were both ignorant and they were both complicit in disobeying God, yet Adam, who was created first and who was also the type or picture of Him who was to come [Jesus Christ] Adam was the One who brought judgment upon all of us as what is termed the "federal" head. That means his actions affected us, down the line.

Genesis 3:6-7

6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.

12 The man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.” 13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” 14 The Lord God said to the serpent,

“Because you have done this,
Cursed are you more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you will go,
And dust you will eat
All the days of your life;
15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel.”
16 To the woman He said,
“I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth,
In pain you will bring forth children;
Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you.”

17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;

Cursed is the ground because of you;
In toil you will eat of it
All the days of your life.
18 “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
And you will eat the plants of the field;
19 By the sweat of your face
You will eat bread,
Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return.”

20 Now the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living. 21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.

God held each of them accountable for what they did, yet because God created Adam first and Adam was a type of Him who was to come [Jesus Christ, the Second Adam] it was Adam who represented the rest of humanity in his decision.

Think about women who religiously cover themselves to ward off men. Do you believe god is not knowing of those who transgress the first warning? It would take a believer to believe that.

Again, I am not following your reasoning or how you establish this.

God is all-knowing for starters. He knows all transgressors.

"Do I believe God is not knowing of those who transgress the first warning?" What is the "first warning?"

Truly: Christ consciousness does not comes lest by way of knowing the suffering of others, which certainly requires either comprehension and/or cessation of the suffering of self. This comes with knowledge of self. Knowledge of self aligns with any all-knowing god: therefor, belief becomes of no practical use as it is progressively discovered that it is a vice, not a source of liberation.

Again, not sure of what you are trying to convey.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eisegesis

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

The thing about you is that you do not want to KNOW God. Thus, you are ignorant of Him.

To know Him you first have to take a baby step and believe He exists. You adamantly stomp your foot and say no. Thus, as you say, you know you are ignorant of Him.
I am ignorant of any/all Him gods, admitted.

The Hebrew word of 'GOD' as rendered in Genesis 1:1 is thus:

el - towardsness <-*archetype of bestowal / electricity
oh - conduit
im - sea/expanse <-*archetype of reception / magnetism

rendering: "towardness in/of sea/expanse" and a bestowal-reception principle that is echoed in Genesis 1:3:

And saying elohim <-*shared will
'Let be light,' <-*bestowal
and light was. <-*reception

which lends itself to the primordial Adam-and-Eve: bestowal-and-reception.

What are your sources? Please supply them, or is this totally a self-effort?

What you do is take the biblical revelation and read all kinds of things into it that it does not say or teach. That is called eisegesis.

Definition of eisegesis

: the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas

What you do is ignore the biblical revelation and ply into its wording all kinds of things that it does not say or teach.

Therefor, any Abrahamic creator god is most certainly not a He. It is male-female-conjunct: "I am that I am."

The biblical God is a personal Being that has revealed Himself in masculine pronouns, yet God is Spirit and does not have a physical body or male/female parts. Thus, biblical language speaks to us in terms that we as human beings can relate to. God reveals Himself to us this way.

Yet Jesus, the Son, became a human and a man in His incarnation.

Every man and woman is their own archetypal Adam and Eve.

Sure, in a sense. We are sinners by nature and take after Adam and Eve after the Fall. Adam and Eve brought sin into the world. They created a disconnect with God by their disobedience, just like we do. Thus, we need a Savior to restore us to that original relationship.

The Garden of Eden is a fixed state, thus infinite, thus can take the 'form' of whatever 'that' two beings fixate on. This is how creation works, even according to the book of genesis.

Although the Garden of Eden represented a time in which humans (Adam and Eve) had a paradisical relationship with God it was disrupted by Adam's disobedience. Nevertheless, it was a physical place that was a picture, type or symbolic of a greater reality, the heavenly state of being.

Pick a 'that', call it the mustard seed, have your partner focus on the same seed, and sow accordingly to make it manifest: thus abundance is only limited to the honoring of both mother and father: one of the ten commandments, and so it should be: less knowledge that god is a conjunct reciprocal relationship, one is certainly not knowing.

A 'that?'

I am that I am is all that exists. That is all. Else: belief, which is the currency of so-called satan.

No, I am that I am is God, and He is not all that exists. He has created a universe and all kinds of creatures, one kind of which is us human beings.

Again, you read all kinds of things into the term that applies strictly to God. He is the One who is, with no beginning or end thus transcends time and the physical reality.

If god is all-knowing, yet antithetical to satan: having the fixed characteristic of requiring belief, how can both god and satan require belief?

I would say that everyone has an innate knowledge of God that they deny or ignore in their sinful state of being.

Less belief, satan has no potency, and god is all-knowing thus satan has no hold over him.

True, Satan is just another created being, having a beginning, whereas God is eternal in nature.

The same was/is true for any in Christ: satan has no hold on them,

True, Satan has been defeated by Jesus Christ.

because they possess the knowledge-of-all-knowledges:

Yet that does not make a human being all-knowing. They possess the knowledge of God in knowing Him in as much as He has revealed Himself.

truth of the way of the living, which is infallibility and necessarily leads towards any all-knowing god, if even taking god as an unknown (best approach).

Jesus was the One who lived the perfect life before God, thus faith in Him and in His work on our behalf restores our relationship with God. Our righteousness or good standing before God is based on what Someone else has done on our behalf. We know the truth and the truth is found in Jesus Christ.

Colossians 2:2b-3

Christ Himself, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

He wanted it but a person was not required to believe him. Satan was a liar.
Satan is not a being: it is a state of being assumed by any person satisfying the following:

"expression of being bound in an ongoing state"

which includes via any/all belief-based ignorance(s) (ie. bound to believe in an ongoing state).

Rubbish.

You are wrong. Satan is revealed as having the characteristics of personhood and being. He speaks, he does things, he is called a liar and the father of lies, he does evil, he tempts, he distorts the truth, his character is dark.

The Bible discusses the very Person you are ignorant of and of whom you are such a self-proclaimed expert on.
Are you talking about Jesus? The truth, way and life? See, the truth, way and life is not a person.

Yes, I am talking about Him who you deny and misrepresent, and twist the gospel message by reading INTO Scripture things it does not teach.

This is idolatry. It is a method which infallibly orients ones self towards the source of creation. It is in-and-of-itself infallible, thus renders any/all fallibility to the being themselves, and not the method. The method is infallible, thus always true. In this way it can be said to be a knowledge-in-and-of-itself that is antithetical to any/all problem-in-and-of-themselves, of which belief-in-and-of-itself less conscious knowledge of ignorance is invariably a fixed factor of.

This is a complete BS. Jesus is a Person and a personal Being.

That is why you are not a believer in the Christian God, because you do not know Him.
...it takes one who does not know to believe. They are antithetical.

Knowledge: no degrees of uncertainty
Belief: one or more degrees of uncertainty

Belief: 1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists

2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something:

Knowledge: 1. facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject:

2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation

Knowledge = justifiable true belief.

Three kinds of belief:

1. Blind - believed with no evidence

2. Irrational -

3. Rational

This is why any/all being is either rooted in knowledge (ie. of self) or ignorance (of the same): to know ones self is knowledge, thus common with any all-knowing god. It takes belief-in-and-of-itself to believe ones self to be something they are not: including knowledgeable. This is the problem-in-and-of-itself: no conscious knowledge of ignorance. That does not mean one is ignorant in a derogatory sense, but willingness to acknowledge one does not know is a fixed component of knowing anything at all.

I'm not following your reasoning.

You are claiming that He does not exist. That is a belief because you have not proved His non-existence. You keep claiming it.
So much wrong with this.

1. I do not recognize/acknowledge your use of He to say "He" does / does not exist. I do not understand god as a "He"

The biblical God has revealed Himself as a personal Being in the masculine pronoun.

2. It is a belief that god i. exists, and ii. is a "He"

Yes, per the biblical revelation in part and in explaining anything sensibly regarding what is.

3. I claimed "it" not once

You deny the biblical God as He is revealed. You ignore Him like He does not exist. You say things that go against the biblical revelation.

If you don't know me you don't know what I know about myself. Your sentence is a bunch of BS and inconsistent nonsense.
I know (some of) what you do not know about yourself. It is implicit in your temperament: the expression 'know thy self' is axiomatic, and less this knowledge, enmity arises: the same as Cain.

I am blunt. I expose things that I do not think are true or right unfiltered. I am not angry. I just lay it down and call it as I see it. Could my language be seasoned with more grace? Definitely. Yet, I choose to put it to you in an uncompromisingly, honest, forthright way. I am exposing to you my thinking unfiltered, not maliciously or spitefully, just not hiding what I think by politically correct words. That is just the way I am.

I see things in yourself that you do not know about yourself also. You are closed-minded, stubborn, and biased, yet you think you are right. So what? Prove it.

It is human nature to not see faults in ourselves that we recognize in others, but I have examined myself in many of these areas. I know some of my faults. I know some of the problems I have. They have been identified and wrestled with by my mind.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

I am the man of prophecy. Change my mind.

-->

@Harikrish

Continuing:

Jesus came to fulfill all prophecy written about Him and bring judgment on Israel for breaking their OT oaths and covenant agreement by being adulterous to God and worshiping idols and false gods as documented through the OT.

Matthew 5:17-18 (NASB)
17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Matthew 8:17

This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: “He Himself took our infirmities and carried away our diseases.”

Matthew 13:14

In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says, ‘You will keep on hearing, but will not understand; You will keep on seeing, but will not perceive;

Matthew 13:35

This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet: “I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things hidden since the foundation of the world.”

Matthew 21:4

This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:

Matthew 26:54

How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?”

These prophecies and scriptural verses prove that you do not know what you are talking about, that you are a false teacher that misleads others because of your bias and closed-mindedness to God. Just about everything you say regarding Scripture is kooky and it would take a hell of an effort to correct almost every post you make, it is that bad. You do not use reason and logic but you collapse passages of Scripture, ignore the greater contexts, take Scripture out of context, ignore the primary audience of address, ignore time statements, and create one mess that is bizarre, not logically sound.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

I am the man of prophecy. Change my mind.

-->

@Harikrish

Terran

"Me: I exist around the timeline prophesied in reference to a rebuilding of Jerusalem in 1535 AD. 434 years and 490 years translate into 1969 and 2025 AD...483 years for the announcement of the messiah, translates into the year 2018, right now, this very moment. And here I am, in 2018, announcing myself as the man of prophecy. The timeline for me is more accurate than for Jesus, and the very estimate accurately represents my arrival to the very exact year. While the timeline is rounded, it is rounded very close and closer than with Jesus to the point of the estimate for my arrival being in total accuracy to the very year, this very moment. The rebuilding of Jerusalem in reference to my timeline, was in times of trouble as the 1000 year war between Christians and Muslims continued to escalate until Christians eventually won 400 years ago. Unlike with Jesus, after my arrival, war in Jerusalem has continued between Jews and Arabs to this very day, with no end in sight, despite the matter being the focus of the world stage and every effort from the rest of the world to establish Middle Eastern peace in futility, to the point of ISIS emerging, and the threat of a world war over how different powers are dealing with ISIS and who gets possession of Jerusalem."

***

Your reasoning is flawed.

Prophecy refers to Daniel's people. Are you a Jew?

The prophecy refers to a people following the Mosaic Covenant. Do you follow the Old Covenant law? (Demonstrate how you can)

The prophecy describes the once again destruction, not multiple destructions. That happened in AD 70. That excludes you from being the fulfillment.

If you pay attention to the audience of address, the timeline, the events during the destruction, this can all be demonstrated to have happened in the 1st century.

If Jesus heeded the warnings by Daniel that the messiah would be cut off by Romans he could have avoided his own crufixion.
so even though he quoted Daniel in his Olivet Discourses he did not heed Daniels warnings or maybe he didn't think he was the Messiah mentioned by Daniel.

Your reasoning is so lame once again, ignoring the plain message of Scripture and twisting it into an unrecognizable pretzel.

Jesus did not come to do His own will but the will of His Father, as prophesied. He became a human being to be obedient to God as a human being, thus meet the righteous requirements of God. He also became obedient to death to meet God's penalty for sin. Jesus understood the necessity of dying in the place of others, the innocent for the guilty, that He would reconcile sinners to God.

Matthew 26:39

And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.”

Luke 22:42

saying, “Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done.”

Acting in His human capacity, Jesus said:

John 5:30

“I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

Jesus becoming flesh and blood (human) came to do the will of God the Father.

John 4:34

Jesus *said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work.

Matthew 26:53-54 (NASB)
53 Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?”

John 5:43

I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him.

John 5:47

But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

John 6:38

For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

John 8:28

So Jesus said, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

PRIVATE-INFORMATION has NO-TRUTH-VALUE.
It does if it corresponds to what is the case and has been justified as true to the person thinking such things. IOW's, there are lots of things you think privately that corresponds to what is the case, thus you know them.
Do we agree that REAL-TRUE-FACTS = Quantifiable, Scientifically Verifiable, and or Logically Necessary?

[Civil Debate: Rule One]

Scientifically verifiable? What do you mean by that term? How do you scientifically verify logic? It is abstract so how do you empirically verify it?

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

-->

@3RU7AL

Only they know their inner thoughts and how they really feel about a rainy day.
This is the very definition of PRIVATE-INFORMATION (GNOSIS).

Are we speaking of Gnosticism or having self-knowledge?

For the former see,

If the latter then,

Knowledge = Justifiable true belief.

In the case of thinking every rainy day is something they like to see, that either is the case or it is not. It is either true they feel that way or it is not. Basically what the Bible says is that every reasoning person knows their own thoughts.

In the case of the latter,

1 Corinthians 2:11 (NASB)

For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.

PRIVATE-INFORMATION is unfalsifiable and can never be REAL-TRUE-FACT.

I disagree if you are using the latter definition (see above) of gnostic. The person knows. The "rainy day" analogy is a poor one since it overgeneralizes but if every time you asked someone how they are and they said, "It's raining, I love rainy days," and their mood reflected this, or they are happy it is raining, you would begin to realize the person loves rainy days.

PRIVATE-INFORMATION has NO-TRUTH-VALUE.

It does if it corresponds to what is the case and has been justified as true to the person thinking such things. IOW's, there are lots of things you think privately that corresponds to what is the case, thus you know them.

PRIVATE-INFORMATION is neither TRUE nor FALSE.

It is either one or the other, the question is whether you know what you think privately is true because you have justified it as true.

PRIVATE-INFORMATION is indistinguishable-from-OPINION.

Not all the time. Again, it depends on whether that information has been justified as true. Private information is the information that you think that I don't know about yet either corresponds to what is the case and is known or it does not.

During the rise of the early church, the Gnostics were saying they had private knowledge about Jesus which was not the case. They were actually denying Scripture. Thus, what they claimed to believe did not correspond with what Scripture said.

1 John 4 (NASB)
Testing the Spirits
4 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.

Even at the time of John's writing (i.e., before AD 70) people were denying Jesus had come in the flesh.

The Gnostics were claiming that they had private knowledge that did not correspond to biblical teaching. They denied Jesus' the physical, bodily resurrection and/or His physical bodily suffering and death, or that Jesus had become a physical, bodily human being. Their self-knowledge was counter to the biblical message. Some early church fathers fought back by exposing the heresy.

https://www.equip.org/article/the-gnostic-jesus/

But, in regards to you or I having a self or private knowledge that we think but do not express to others concerning a particular thing, that thought is either true or it is false. If it is true and justifiable by what is the case it is known by the person thinking it.

SINCERITY =/= REAL-TRUE-FACTS.

It does if it corresponds to what is the case. "I'm truly and sincerely sorry for hurting Joe's feelings in regards to what I said." That either is the case or it is not. If it is and the person thinking it is sincere, it is a true and justified belief. That person will usually express their thoughts in actions to the hurt party. They may cry or change how they treat the offended person by being more compassionate in the relationship after the point of verbal injury.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

KNOWLEDGE =/= JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF

Then you are saying what you know you can't justify as true. How do you know that?

For example, I know that people who drive old cars are terrible drivers.

This statement is (NEITHER) justified (NOR) verifiably true.

Then it is just a belief, not knowledge, whether reasonable or not and as it stands is not logical. You need to drive home the point with evidence. It is also a generalization and a hasty one at that.

Some people with old cars are safe and capable drivers and some are not.

WHAT DO YOU CALL UNJUSTIFIED/UNJUSTIFIABLE/UNVERIFIABLE/NOT-NECESSARILY-TRUE INFORMATION?

That which lacks evidence or reason.

If you don't call it knowledge, please tell me what you call it.

Either a reasonable or irrational belief or opinion.

Do you call it OPINION?

Yes. Opinion and belief. Nothing in that statement is backed up with stats and facts.

Would you prefer I said, "Private Information" instead of "Private Knowledge"?

Call it whatever you want, but unless the evidence is substantiated and reasonable it is not knowledge

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

Only they know their inner thoughts and how they really feel about a rainy day.
This is the very definition of PRIVATE-KNOWLEDGE (GNOSIS).

What I am saying is that I'm not a mind-reader. I can't know what someone is thinking in their mind unless they put it into words and express those thoughts, feelings, beliefs. Once a person says, "I like all rainy days" then I can know their thinking. They have then expressed there inner thinking to me. I can also judge whether their thinking is true of other things they say and do regarding that belief or those feelings. An experience that is contrary to that statement would be inconsistent with the statement and bring to my mind whether the person was sincere, or perhaps even delusional.

PRIVATE-KNOWLEDGE is unfalsifiable and can never be REAL-TRUE-FACT.

For the person holding the "private knowledge," what they believe is either true to what is the case or it is not. Not expressing that "knowledge" (justified true belief) to anyone else does not justify that it is the case. Just by expressing "private knowledge" means nothing to its verification.

PRIVATE-KNOWLEDGE has NO-TRUTH-VALUE.

Then it (no-truth-value) is not knowledge. Knowledge is what is true to the case. If I know I am six feet tall because I have checked and measured my height yet fail to tell you, I have the knowledge of what is the case, yet it is private to me. I think it, but the thought has not been expressed to you but contained within my mind that corresponds with what is true.

PRIVATE-KNOWLEDGE is neither TRUE nor FALSE.

Logically, knowledge is what is the case. What a person believes would have to be either true or false to the case. If it is true and justifiable to that truth it is knowledge. "Private knowledge" corresponds to what is the case or it is not knowledge.

PRIVATE-KNOWLEDGE is indistinguishable-from-OPINION.

Until someone expresses what they believe (inner thoughts and beliefs) I have no means of judging it as to its truth claim to "know."

If someone said, "I have an inner knowledge that God exists with evidence that I am not willing to express to you," then that is "private knowledge" and subject to doubt by others. All they have done is express an unjustified belief. Only if that belief corresponds to the truth, and they can justify it according to what is true, do they have knowledge.

SINCERITY =/= REAL-TRUE-FACTS.

Sincerity can = real true facts. Again, it depends on what is believed.

"I am sincerely sorry to have offended you." Either I am sorry or else I'm not being sincere at all and those words do not mean what they suggest they mean.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

If the person truly feels and believes that a rainy day is a beautiful day, or that specific rainy day is the most beautiful day ever
You are conflating sincerity with FACT.

Only they know their inner thoughts and how they really feel about a rainy day. I'm posing a hypothetical from a hypothetical. Either what they believe about the rainy day it true or it is not. That does not rule out them being deceived into thinking but if it is fact, it is fact. As you say, we can only go on what others tell us about themselves and hope they are being integral not only with us but with themselves.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

Look, I'm willing to accept your hypothetical god.

Then you must believe that He exists and is not hypothetical, that He may reward you when you diligently seek Him.

You are not going to believe a revelation of a hypothetical God. Read the Bible as God speaking to you.

It requires humility on your part. An arrogant or self-autonomous person will not open themselves to God but oppose Him.

I'm even willing to follow all of your hypothetical god's rules.

John 6:28

Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?”

John 6:29

Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”

The Bible teaches the natural man (the one who is not yet regenerated or born anew) or sinner of what Jesus Christ has done on the part of those who will believe and be saved.

Just explain the rules to me.

I don't like the term rules. It is God's love and grace in Christ that reaches out to us. The OT is a demonstration that we can't live by those rules or that covenant. That is why Jesus came to fulfill it and make a better one.

I will take that as an honest, sincerely request in my answer to you and ask God for His mercy and grace to be known in your life.

Be sorry that you have sinned against One so holy and pure, confess that you have wronged Him, ask for His forgiveness, and trust in the one means that meets all His requirements.

Ask the Holy Spirit to be born again or renewed into a living hope and into a living faith through your belief in Jesus Christ as the means to know God.

Then find out more about this Jesus and why He mets God's requirements, that you may know Him. As you read, rely on God's understanding penetrating your mind. Do not go beyond His revelation by reading in all kinds of speculative things. The Spirit guides us into the truth through the Word that expresses who and what Jesus is and has done.

The biblical revelation concerns mostly God's revelation to Israel as the primary audience of address. Thus, prophecy centers around Israel. So remember that audience but also remember that through them God is speaking to us, the secondary audience. Take note of the time frame passages and note the specific people being addressed. As you grow in your faith in Jesus things will become more clear. It takes time to grow in that understanding and there are many trials along the way that sometimes side-track us. Keep focused on what Jesus has done on your behalf!

Offer others the same forgiveness that He has granted those who believe. That is gracious. God is gracious enough to forgive you in Christ for what you have done against Him thus you should be gracious enough to apply the same standard yourself to others. Grace is giving someone what they do not deserve by their own merit (or lack of), love and friendship. If someone does not accept that grace at least your heart is relieved of the burden of hate or a grudge. Shun evil. It corrupts.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

...you cannot call it good, just preference. Not only that, you can't establish an unchanging standard like you can with quantitative measures/values UNLESS God exists.
Ok, you seem to have a rudimentary understanding of the difference between Quanta and Qualia.

We seem to agree that a dog is Quanta and good is Qualia.

You insist that good must be Quantifiable and standardized by your hypothetical god.

I claim He is necessary for making sense of goodness. I believe my faith in God is a reasonable faith for what must be the case to make sense of ultimately anything existentially. I believe I have reasonable grounds in which to justify my belief in God as reasonable, although I am aware that however reasonable a belief it, others may choose to reject it.

You insist that we must establish "moral high-ground" by referencing your hypothetical god.

One of the key problems with this approach is the problem of identifying the "perfect and unchanging rules" that your hypothetical god endorses.

The "ten-commandments" is a shockingly inadequate moral/ethical framework.

Why is that? Jesus summed them up in two commands, love God and love your neighbour as yourself.

And most of the rest of it can be summarized as "Jews who worship YHWH good, everyone else is human garbage".

No, it runs deeper than that summary.

1. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory which is God and all are responsible to Him for how they live.

2. The Fall has affected our relationship with God.

3. Knowing good and evil means you have a moral obligation to God.

4. The Bible demonstrates that humans have never been able to live up to that relationship, except for One.

So, you have a moral obligation to God to live a good life in order to have a relationship with, instead of apart from, this God. God has demonstrated to humanity that their merit (works-based salvation), through a people He chose (Israel) and who agreed to live in a special relationship with Him, is not sufficient. They demonstrated that meeting God's pure, holy, just requirements are something they were incapable of, as we also do by our lives that include many moral wrongs. God shows us what we must do to be right or morally acceptable to Him, we must believe in His righteousness (Jesus Christ) as meeting the standard and paying for our moral wrong. If those conditions are met we are justified and restored to an intimate relationship with God that was lost in Eden.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

1) Opinion: "I believe it will rain tomorrow."
I'm not sure this is 100% opinion. This is more of a prediction regarding a Quantifiable-Event.

Opinions are usually based on siding with a view you favour but they could just be offering an option that you do not believe as a devil's advocate.

It could be an opinion based on the "red sky in the morning."

"In my opinion, since it is a red sky tonight it will rain tomorrow."

It rains tomorrow. What I believed and stated turned to be what corresponded to the truth.

"In my opinion, since it is a red sky tonight it will be a beautiful sunny day tomorrow."

Tomorrow turns out sunny.

An opinion would be, "I believe if it rains tomorrow it will be the most beautiful rain any human has ever seen".

Fact: It rains tomorrow.
I agree this is a fact.

HOWEVER, the prediction (that it would rain) was not FACT -until- it was verified.

In that case. Facts are what is or what is the case. A prediction is only true once the event happens. That is why biblical prophecy is so compelling. The evidence or prediction is made long before the evident happens.

Neither is an opinion known as fact until it is verified as fact. But a fact (what is the case) is true/fact whether it is verified or not.

The prediction is merely a unverified prediction (not a fact) up-to-and-until it is verified (at which point it becomes a fact).

True. Something has to be what it is to be fact. Nevertheless, my opinion about the weather, no matter how I got it, proved to be true of the fact. Not all opinions are valid.

And in the case that you believe the rain will be the most beautiful rain any human has ever seen, well, NO AMOUNT OF RAIN WILL EVER MAKE THAT STATEMENT A FACT.

It is a relative truth for someone who believes a rainy day is a beautiful day, and especially this one rainy day. Relative truth is definitely true to that person's preference/like/dislike, nature or circumstance but it is not an absolute truth (objective, universal), which applies to everyone. Relative truth is a truth that applies to an individual such as, my name is Peter, I live at this present address, in this city (this specific location), and I am 63-years-old. Truth is always true. That particular truth is true for me now, since my name is Peter, I am 63-years old and I live in this specific city, at this specific location I am typing from, which I leave undisclosed to protect myself and my family from crack-pots. The facts comply with what is the case, yet those particular facts are not true of you.

Relative truth is not the same thing as relativism. Ronald Reagan was president of the USA from January 20, 1981, to January 20, 1989. That truth is relative to a timeframe. Even though it is not true now that Ronald Reagan is president, at that period in history it was a fact and will always be so. Thus, the fact is relative to a specific time, or a specific person or persons, or both.

An absolute, objective or universal truth is a truth that applies to all people at all times in history. It corresponds to what is the case and does not depend on my belief, likes, or taste, for it to be so. For instance, I could disbelieve it, yet regardless truth is true no matter what I think.

That opinion can never be verified or validated by facts.

The verification is hard, IMO, probably impossible for anyone but the individual to know if they can. Does the person actually, truly feel this way? Will they always feel this way? Is it a time relative truth, applying to one specific rainy day, or has that person always liked/loved every rainy day (not bloody likely)?

If the person truly feels and believes that a rainy day is a beautiful day, or that specific rainy day is the most beautiful day ever (perhaps because of some event) then that could, in fact, be the case for that person, provided no day supersedes or superseded it. It would be something that could only be verified as being the case by the person who loves rainy days and/or that particular day in specific. Perhaps they recognize it as being the case on their deathbed. It would be the case if that was the way things actually are or were to them.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

What does a taste, like, feeling, desire, pleasure, or preference have to do with what should or ought to be the case?
You can never get an "ought" from an "is" (Hume's Guillotine). [LINK] and [LINK]

The second link suggests something outside the physical universe or naturalism alone. I have no problem with such a view. The question is what that "unnatural" or supernatural view is? The problem of utilitarianism is correctly surmised, IMO. Some people enjoy pain. If someone believes their survival requires someone else to die, so be it. If there is only so much food and there is competition, yet there is no God to hold us accountable, do whatever you can get away with doing.

I think you might want to investigate the reasonableness of such a belief - no God, before you live as if anything is permissible if you can get away with it, though.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

What does a taste, like, feeling, desire, pleasure, or preference have to do with what should or ought to be the case?
You can never get an "ought" from an "is" (Hume's Guillotine). [LINK] and [LINK]

Concerning the first link, AI systems are only intelligent because they have been programmed by an intelligent being or beings. They derive or trace their existence and origins from such beings programming them. Conversely, in tracing the origin of a solely naturalistic and mechanical process, it is not a reasoning system and it is solely a physical system (no Mind behind it). Somehow, spontaneous generation (organic from the inorganic) happens? The natural process is not oriented or goal-driven. Things just happen. What survives carries on. Goal-driven requires intelligence and meaning. That would not be the case if the universe is solely natural and material.

Not only this, if humans are nothing more than physical-biological systems (but are they?) that are determined by their environment and genetic make-up they are also determined by happenstance. There is no reason why they continue or should continue as others do or as they have in the past. Thus, there is no reason why what I do should be what you do. It is determined by circumstances beyond my control. I don't have a free will or volition. Things just happen. Chemicals, physics, and biology react.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

Dog = Dog = rigorously defined, scientifically Quantifiable FACT.

Dog = Seeable, observable by the five senses. Quantifiable as fact.

Good = Good = relatively defined, personal, experiential, Qualitative OPINION.

Good = conceptual, not empirically verifiable. Qualitative.

If there is a way of verifying something quantitatively (which is obvious) by establishing a fixed standard that is empirically tested by a fixed standard, how do you do that qualitatively??? You can't use the same measure.

If you say, it is a matter of preference - whose? How do you establish something that is fixed and that is actually good? Obviously, since morality is a conceptual system it is mind necessary. Whose mind? It would be a necessary Mind since neither your mind nor mine is necessary. Both our minds are subjective. Unless you can supply what is necessary for making sense of morality - the good - you cannot call it good, just preference. Not only that, you can't establish an unchanging standard like you can with quantitative measures/values UNLESS God exists. God'sexistence supplies the fixed, unchanging, ultimate, objective, absolute, universal reference point. Otherwise, you can't make sense of goodness, all you can do is say I like, I prefer, I feel. That makes nothing morally good.

Both examples have a specific identity. They both mean a specific thing.
Only one of your examples has a rigorously defined, scientifically verifiable, SPECIFIC identity.

Then you can't know goodness.

Now you can think such a thing but can you live by it? You live inconsistently by calling something "good" if that is the case.

GOOD:

Being positive or desirable in nature; not bad or poor.
Having the qualities that are desirable or distinguishing in a particular thing.

No. Morally good in regards to better and best. Without a fixed measure, how do you ever compare, how do you ever say, "This is good?"

What, or more specifically WHO is your fixed measure for "goodness" and what makes it/them universal, objective, absolute, ultimate?

Without a "best" to measure good and better against how can you say something is good? You can't. It is always shifting. You never know when you have arrived. All you can say is "I like it" or "I don't like it." That makes nothing good. It just makes it a personal taste. These are serious flaws in your worldview in making sense of the good. I do not believe your worldview is capable of making sense of morality other than by brute force --> "You will do what I like." Hitler liked killing Jews, and others have liked killing different groups and classes of people. What is your preference?

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

I said, "thousands of years before the birth of Christ."
So, what is the inference you want me to glean? The people Christ came to were under a covenant with God that was initiated well over a thousand years before Jesus. The reference was for specific people (OT Israel) in how they should live before God, but the principles (The Ten Commandment) apply to all people.
Can you imagine a time before Abraham?

Yes.

Look, forget about all that.

Is it "good" for a wolf to eat a baby rabbit?

Good, in the sense that, for the wolf, it survives; bad for the rabbit, it dies.

The question is "Is there a moral value involved for the animals?" It just happens. The wolf understands to survive he must kill and eat. Is it morally wrong for the wolf to kill the rabbit? Does the wolf understand morality, does he contemplate and weigh the oughtness of the killing, or is it just an instinct in which he does to survive? Not, it knows what is necessary to survive. The rabbit is an opportunity to live longer.

I would say that is the difference between an animal and a human being (created in God's image and likeness). We know (and innately sense) there is a difference between killing and eating a rabbit because you are hungry and killing and eating another human being because our value systems are different from animals.

There is a difference between a qualitative and quantitative measure. They are measured differently. The quantitative measure is an empirical or physical measure. The quantitative standard has a fixed standard. The standard for lengths and weights is the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. The qualitative standard is abstract and must also have a fixed standard to measure goodness and evil against. You can't measure it through the physical method by strictly using the senses of sight, sound, touch, smell, and hearing. What does "good" look like? What does it smell like? What does it smell like? What does it taste like? How does it feel? Show me good. Let me touch, taste, feel, smell, and hear it.

Good is a concept.

Thus, there is also a difference between what is and what ought to be. How do you get from an is to an ought? Behavioural-based morality is based on the is. How do you measure the ought from the is? By preference? Whose? The question is why is what is morally good or bad? It just is. Good is not a physical thing. It is a concept based on what ought not to be done. Should a wolf not eat? Once you bring in the ought you are not longer solely speaking of what is.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

This is categorically incorrect. (IFF) an opinion corresponds to the fact or truth in question (THEN) it is not an opinion (THEREFORE) it is instead simply a FACT.
If your belief corresponds to the fact, even though it is just an opinion and not known by you, your opinion is true to what is.
OPINIONS can ONLY be (EITHER) sincere (OR) insincere.

True!

OPINIONS are not facts.

They either correspond to the facts or they don't. Sometimes the facts are not known and there is no way of verifying the opinion as true.

(IFF) a particular OPINION corresponds to FACTS (THEN) it instantly ceases to be an OPINION (AND) is from that point forward simply considered a FACT.

You don't know what you believe is actually true to a fact (hence, your opinion) but it is true to the fact.

Opinion --> a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge

An opinion has not been justified by you as a fact but you may think it is reasonable, thus you could believe it or just offer it as an option of what could be the case because it seems reasonable to you. But it does correspond to the fact, unbeknownst to you. Thus, in that case, your opinion is true to the fact but you don't know it is true to the case.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please provide an example of a statement you believe qualifies as BOTH a FACT and an OPINION.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two examples:

1) Opinion: "I believe it will rain tomorrow." Fact: It rains tomorrow.

2) "I believe there is a God." Or, to put it another way, "It is my opinion that God exists." If that opinion corresponds with what is the case then the opinion has been justified. Therefore, Fact: God exists. If you can't justify the opinion is the case it remains just your opinion, whether that opinion is reasonable to believe or not.

An opinion is different from justifying your belief as true or proving as a certainty the belief is what is the case (knowledge).

If your opinion (belief) corresponds to what is the case, then it is true, even if you do not know it to be the case.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

Post 65 continued:

No, it is not. Belief is ignorance. Knowledge is *inverse to belief: to know *not to believe.

You start by either believing you are (something), or knowing you are (not something).

You are jumping from some beliefs as ignorant to all belief as being ignorant.

You experience you "are" long before you know you are. A baby gradually acquires knowledge as it becomes more aware of the world around it and can begin to conceptualize what it is that it is seeing and figure out how it knows it is the case. The principle beliefs or core/start concepts tie in more and more to a worldview belief and knowledge is acquired as it grows.

Knowledge comes from the belief and is a justified true belief. Thus Belief --> Knowledge

***

1. There is a problem. (I.e., Why does the universe exist?)

2. You formalize a hypothesis (conjecture) on solving the problem. You choose a starting point (I.e., Nature or God as the starting point).

3. You draw implications from the hypothesis (I.e., Nature --> No intent, no purpose causes all things).

4, Then you test the implications. (I.e., You work from that premise in solving the problem by gathering evidence)

Point two: A belief based on your starting point.

Point three: If you choose the natural position alone you funnel all information through that system of belief.

Point four: You work from within the box (the universe) in solving the problem.

1. Empirical hypothesis - observation/witness of something happening and building the hypothesis on that seen occurrence. --> Belief

2. Theoretical hypothesis - a conception and speculation based on ideas about what should or has happened without seeing the occurrence. --> Belief

For something (a belief) to be known it must have 1) adequate explanation, 2) be internally coherent, and 3) be externally consistent.

Knowledge --> the observation/thought --> truly justified confirmation (rightful logical thinking) of what happened (what is the case). --> True belief

***

Let inf = 0 (as a folded circle)

A folded circle? Do you mean a half-circle??? Please clarify.

-2 (any/all) <-*infinitude
-1 KNOW
0 I AM (willing to)...(equal capacity for so-called good/evil: +/-)
+1 BELIEVE
+2 (*not to*) <-*negation
____________________________________________________________________
-(0 = 0 - 1 - 2 + 2 + 1 = 0) KNOW (any/all) (*not to*) BELIEVE
+(0 = 0 + 1 + 2 - 2 - 1 = 0) BELIEVE (*not to*) (any/all) KNOW

I'm not following your equation from the information given.

You have to justify what is the case to know it. Therefore, you have to first believe something. It is the starting point for knowledge. Knowledge rests on belief. If you disbelieve something you don't know it because you don't believe it is true.

***

I know therefore I am!

I am therefore I know!

Which comes first?

I believe I am in order to know I am. I believe in order to know. I do not disbelieve I am.

I know I am and therefore I believe I am. (Justified true belief)

I know I am because I know I am. (Tautology/circular reasoning)

How do you know (P)? You have evidence you believe (XYZ) that confirms the case (P). Therefore, you know.

Water comes from the tap. That is a belief. It either is or is not the case. You see steam coming from the water. You have never seen steam before. It is the tap marked by the red coloured symbol. You get burned by the water. Therefore, by connecting the dots you know the water coming from the red symboled tap is hot. You have a correct belief which is knowledge.

Now, if you do not rightly connect the variables, say leaving out the red tap as a reason, even though the rest of your conclusions (beliefs) are right, you still do not have knowledge of what is the case that caused your burn. If you put your hand under the tap expecting to be burned and the blue symbol has been turned on your belief is not justified. Thus, to have the knowledge you must have connected beliefs in a way that corresponds to what is the case (knowledge is justifiable true belief).

***

With your equations both the negative and positive equals --> I am?

1. KNOW =/= BELIEF (-) I am (0) equals/is to (=) [I am (0) knowing (-1) any/all (-2) not to (+2) believing(+1)] equals (=) I am (0)?

I am is to/= [I am knowing any/all is not to believe I am]

To put it more succinctly,

I know I am is not to believe I am.

2. BELIEF =/= KNOW (+) I am (0) equals/is to (=) [I am (0) believing (+1) not to (+2) any/all (-2) know (-1) equals/is to I am (0)]

I am is to/= [I am believing not to any know(ledge) is to I am]

More succinctly,

I believe I am is not knowing I am.

***

Again, the second equation depends on whether the belief is justified as true to what kind of belief it is - rational, irrational, blind.

A reasonable belief can be logically valid when put into a syllogism but it must also be logically sound.

***

Now, you put the two equations into a more coherent literal speech-language translation instead of a mathematical formula but equate them.

I.e., translate:

-(0 = 0 - 1 - 2 + 2 + 1 = 0)

and

+(0 = 0 + 1 + 2 - 2 - 1 = 0)

0- (leads to:) (inverse of) vvvvvvvv
0+ (leads to:) SUFFERING/DEATH
______________________________________
(-+) is to (lieve) TREE OF LIVING
(+-) is to (eveil) TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL

What does this mean?

It takes but a believer to believe evil is good.

It takes a revealed, objective, absolute, unchanging/fixed qualitative value for goodness to be known. If you don't have one, why is your subjective opinion/preference any BETTER than mine?

What is the source of your qualitative value system? Some other subjective mind, or your mind? What is good about that? Don't dictate what is good until you prove your source is good.

The underlined is correct. Belief has to comply with what is the case for it to be knowledge.
It is absurd.

Absurd to you whose user name suggests you only know that you do not know in relation to something (presumably God).

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

Post 65, continued:

Faith is trust in your belief in God, in who He is and what He says.
...

Not true, per the Bible. That is the Christian standard, not your words that contradict it.

The Bible, both Testaments, is a reasonable and logical belief that is confirmed by the revelation or self-disclosure of the God within, in the words, in so many ways.
The Torah-alone is (at least) 4 independent source documents redacted into (along with) a 5th: J, E, P, D and R. YHWH and Elohim reflected the division between 'Ysra'el and 'Yudah. Later, diacritical markings would be introduced, and history would repeat itself with the Qur'an: history repeats itself.

Again, why is your source valid? How do you know this as a fact? You assume this. It is a belief. You don't know this. If you did you would have proven it.

That is not to say it is not valuable literature: I respect the book of Genesis, but do not read it in a language anyone is familiar with.

That is your belief. Do you say it is knowledge? If so, prove it.

What is your reference from, and what of Satan?
I don't have 9 1/2 hours to compose a derivation for what I just gave you: if it holds, it holds, and would hold insofar as it is true regardless.

Another EXCUSE, a get out of jail free card! Everything you say is based on assertion to date.

Not biblical teaching. You are just making it up. Jesus and Satan are two different persons. They are opposites. It is just logical and common sense when reading the Bible to understand this, thus, you read into it your own private beliefs and interpretation, and do not understand the Author's meaning. IOW's you can't know because you do not understand how to differentiate between your own meaning and the Author's meaning even though it is plain. You are your own worst enemy because of your bias.
Satan is not a person. It is a 'state' that any being can themselves be in: bound to believe, for example. That is a 'state'.

No, it is a person, a spiritual being, that the Lord Jesus Christ spoke about.

Again, a believer in God IS daft enough to believe that nothing is something or something is nothing. You CAN know you are nothing KNOWING you already exist NOT. That underlined is a contradictory statement and makes no sense. What is on the other side is a biblical revelation, in as much as it has been conveyed. You either believe it or you don't.
FIXED, and I don't. I know not to believe.

Agnostic - not knowing, yet you speak of God as if you are an expert on His existence which you deny.

Do you believe that?

Yes, it is belief. You would not know it unless you first believed it. Knowledge is JUSTIFIABLE TRUE BELIEF.

You start somewhere in seeking knowledge. You start with what you perceive is reasonable or unreasonable and you try to confirm what you believe (either reasonable or unreasonable) is the case. Then you know your belief is true.
No - known.

Then prove it.

No, it is not. Belief is ignorance. Knowledge is *inverse to belief: to know *not to believe.

You start by either believing you are (something), or knowing you are (not something).

You start with the first principles that you place faith or belief in. It is only when your first principles are confirmed to what is that knowledge is gained on that subject.

You do not start with the principle that you are. A baby does not start contemplating their existence. They experience it and start to think about it as they acquire language and begin to conceptualize it.

You start to reason about being and what that means first. Once you understand what "being" and existence means then you can understand - you know if the belief is what is the case. If your first principles prove true (they are the case) you have knowledge.

One is belief-based ignorance, one is knowledge.

Knowledge is a belief in what is the case. You can't disbelieve what is the case and still know the case.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

God calls the believer to...
Satan requires belief.

He wanted it but a person was not required to believe him. Satan was a liar.

Belief-based ignorance - yes. That is not the biblical case.

Again you are making fallacious hasty generalizations when you say any all-knowing God.

I invite you to prove your CLAIM with the Christian God (thus the OT and NT).
I don't care about the bible: it is a single book among many.

The Bible discusses the very Person you are ignorant of and of whom you are such a self-proclaimed expert on.

I don't assume one as a believer does. I allow the possibility, for the sake of need to negate it (which I do).

That is why you are not a believer in the Christian God, because you do not know Him.

What am I claiming / proving?

You are claiming that He does not exist. That is a belief because you have not proved His non-existence. You keep claiming it.

I don't follow what you are trying to say.
It is how I know you know
yourself not, neither me,
neither do I know you more.

If you don't know me you don't know what I know about myself. Your sentence is a bunch of BS and inconsistent nonsense.

KNOWLEDGE has a bearing on whether you know God for you first have to KNOW that YOU exist before you seek and find ANYTHING since SEEKING-IN-AND-OF-ITSELF rewards those who diligently seek KNOWLEDGE (CONSCIENCE). As you read ANY words you come to know more and more about WHAT GOD IS NOT, therein revealed. I don't understand how your ignorance of yourself means you are ignorant of God. I can be ignorant of lots of things and know others. I do believe you come to a better knowledge of yourself and humanity once you know God, or are known by Him. He then directs your paths.
FIXED

Again, that is not what I said, but a misrepresentation of what I said.

Post 61 - "Belief has a bearing on whether you know God for you first have to believe that He exists before you seek and find Him since He rewards those who diligently seek Him (Hebrews 11:6). As you read His words you come to know more and more about God, therein revealed. I don't understand how your ignorance of yourself means you are ignorant of God. I can be ignorant of lots of things and know others. I do believe you come to a better knowledge of yourself and humanity once you know God, or are known by Him. He then directs your paths."

***

If you have not met someone but only heard of their existence, yet deny what you hear regarding their existence, you are not going to know that someone that exists unless they introduce themselves to you? Your belief is not conducive to the knowledge of that person's existence (continually dismiss that evidence) unless you actually meet them. Others can tell you about that person but that does not make you know the person, even though much has been written about that person. Knowledge of that person first has to come with the acknowledge him his existence unless you met that person personally. Faith in Jesus introduces you to God personally.

John 4:10

Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.”

John 8:19

So they were saying to Him, “Where is Your Father?” Jesus answered, “You know neither Me nor My Father; if you knew Me, you would know My Father also.”

John 14:7 (NASB)
Oneness with the Father
7 If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.”

The thing about you is that you do not want to KNOW God. Thus, you are ignorant of Him.

To know Him you first have to take a baby step and believe He exists. You adamantly stomp your foot and say no. Thus, as you say, you know you are ignorant of Him.

It depends on what the object of belief and worship is as to whether it is an idol. Jesus told the woman at the well that those who worship God must worship in spirit and in truth. The two go hand-in-hand.
Objects are idols.
Beliefs require objects.
Faith requires belief.

Not if the object of faith is true and corresponds to what is the case. An idol is a false belief.

Are you an empiricist/physicalist (won't believe it until you see it)? Do you believe you have to see something to believe it exists?

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

@AGnosticAgnostic

1. If data exists, then belief as a concept is somewhat irrelevant anyway.

2. knowledge is, irrespective of conceptual belief.

3. The beauty is that data does not necessarily have to correspond with a reality, other than it's own within it's own context.

1. CORRECT.

Any data is interpreted. It depends on whether the data is correctly or incorrectly interpreted as to whether it is known.

2. CORRECT (with note: knowledge (needs) (ie. to negate any/all) belief.

Knowledge is not obtained until the belief is a true belief and relates to what is the case.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

Good! Now is that statement a belief or disbelief/non-belief? If it is a belief you know, then I believe you, yet I have not confirmed it, so it is not knowledge for me as yet!
It's neither. It involves no belief whatsoever. Put your god-forsakes BELIEF away and stop imposing it. KNOWLEDGE comes before any/all trying to believe.

...I acknowledge belief x exists...

This is a knowledge less belief (try: to / not to)
it is the whole point of to TRY something.

I try (to / not) to BELIEVE.

eg. ...I tried to believe the bible is the word a god. I know not to believe it is because...

is a knowledge absent belief. I don't argue about such things
with those who are bound to believe because they (un)just
worship their books and idols and attempt to justify a belief
as knowledge. Such is madness.

Good! Then your knowledge is a true belief.
Knowledge is absence of belief.

belief - as containing one or more degrees of uncertainty
knowledge - as containing no degrees of uncertainty

The difference between knowledge and belief is in degrees of uncertainty. There are no degrees of uncertainty to my knowing you do not understand the difference between a knowledge and a belief, because you are trying to justify one as the other!

P^inf = 0, P
where
P = (+/-)P

+P = KNOWLEDGE
-P = BELIEF

inf = 0
0 = P - P

By saying 'belief is knowledge', is the same as saying -P = +P.

It's absurd.

How do you know?
I know I am. How do you know?

You can not infer an unknown by way of another unknown.
If you do not know yourself, you can not know anything in relation to.
If you believe yourself to be something you are not...

No idea what you mean?
I know.

Who is this addressed to, Mopac or me?

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

God calls the believer to...
Satan requires belief.

Belief-based ignorance - yes. That is not the biblical case.

Again you are making fallacious hasty generalizations when you say any all-knowing God.

I invite you to prove your CLAIM with the Christian God (thus the OT and NT).
I don't care about the bible: it is a single book among many.

I don't assume one as a believer does. I allow the possibility, for the sake of need to negate it (which I do).

What am I claiming / proving?

I don't follow what you are trying to say.
It is how I know you know
yourself not, neither me,
neither do I know you more.

KNOWLEDGE has a bearing on whether you know God for you first have to KNOW that YOU exist before you seek and find ANYTHING since SEEKING-IN-AND-OF-ITSELF rewards those who diligently seek KNOWLEDGE (CONSCIENCE). As you read ANY words you come to know more and more about WHAT GOD IS NOT, therein revealed. I don't understand how your ignorance of yourself means you are ignorant of God. I can be ignorant of lots of things and know others. I do believe you come to a better knowledge of yourself and humanity once you know God, or are known by Him. He then directs your paths.
FIXED

It depends on what the object of belief and worship is as to whether it is an idol. Jesus told the woman at the well that those who worship God must worship in spirit and in truth. The two go hand-in-hand.
Objects are idols.
Beliefs require objects.
Faith requires belief.

Faith is trust in your belief in God, in who He is and what He says.
...

Not true, per the Bible. That is the Christian standard, not your words that contradict it.

The Bible, both Testaments, is a reasonable and logical belief that is confirmed by the revelation or self-disclosure of the God within, in the words, in so many ways.
The Torah-alone is (at least) 4 independent source documents redacted into (along with) a 5th: J, E, P, D and R. YHWH and Elohim reflected the division between 'Ysra'el and 'Yudah. Later, diacritical markings would be introduced, and history would repeat itself with the Qur'an: history repeats itself.

That is not to say it is not valuable literature: I respect the book of Genesis, but do not read it in a language anyone is familiar with.

What is your reference from, and what of Satan?
I don't have 9 1/2 hours to compose a derivation for what I just gave you: if it holds, it holds, and would hold insofar as it is true regardless.

Not biblical teaching. You are just making it up. Jesus and Satan are two different persons. They are opposites. It is just logical and common sense when reading the Bible to understand this, thus, you read into it your own private beliefs and interpretation, and do not understand the Author's meaning. IOW's you can't know because you do not understand how to differentiate between your own meaning and the Author's meaning even though it is plain. You are your own worst enemy because of your bias.
Satan is not a person. It is a 'state' that any being can themselves be in: bound to believe, for example. That is a 'state'.

Again, a believer in God IS daft enough to believe that nothing is something or something is nothing. You CAN know you are nothing KNOWING you already exist NOT. That underlined is a contradictory statement and makes no sense. What is on the other side is a biblical revelation, in as much as it has been conveyed. You either believe it or you don't.
FIXED, and I don't. I know not to believe.

Do you believe that?

Yes, it is belief. You would not know it unless you first believed it. Knowledge is JUSTIFIABLE TRUE BELIEF.

You start somewhere in seeking knowledge. You start with what you perceive is reasonable or unreasonable and you try to confirm what you believe (either reasonable or unreasonable) is the case. Then you know your belief is true.
No - known.

No, it is not. Belief is ignorance. Knowledge is *inverse to belief: to know *not to believe.

You start by either believing you are (something), or knowing you are (not something).
One is belief-based ignorance, one is knowledge.

Let inf = 0 (as a folded circle)

-2 (any/all) <-*infinitude
-1 KNOW
0 I AM (willing to)...(equal capacity for so-called good/evil: +/-)
+1 BELIEVE
+2 (*not to*) <-*negation
____________________________________________________________________
-(0 = 0 - 1 - 2 + 2 + 1 = 0) KNOW (any/all) (*not to*) BELIEVE
+(0 = 0 + 1 + 2 - 2 - 1 = 0) BELIEVE (*not to*) (any/all) KNOW

0- (leads to:) (inverse of) vvvvvvvv
0+ (leads to:) SUFFERING/DEATH
______________________________________
(-+) is to (lieve) TREE OF LIVING
(+-) is to (eveil) TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL

It takes but a believer to believe evil is good.

The underlined is correct. Belief has to comply with what is the case for it to be knowledge.
It is absurd.

Again, who are you addressing this post to, Mopac or me?

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

That is ridiculous. Which believer believes they know everything unless they are delusional?
THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT.

You make a blanket and fallacious statement that no sane believer in the biblical God would believe, only a crack-pot.

Believing to know good/evil (ie. to a certainty) is the same.

Again, what is your standard and axis reference point for knowledge of qualitative values? Do you KNOW?

Delusional people cause suffering/death.

Yes, but your drawn association with delusions and true believers in the biblical God is begging the question, bare assertion unless you can establish the proof. You have no proof to date. I don't BELIEVE(reasonable belief based on what you have revealed to date) you can establish any.

The same fallacious statement could be made about the unbeliever.
"Unbelievers who think they know everything. They speak as though they are gods."
Therefor make the two one: unbelievers and believers alike can be ignorant-in-and-of-themselves.

They are diametrically opposite beliefs.

See how beautiful wisdom is? Now you can know:

Proverbs 1:7

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Theists and atheists are both capable of being ignorant-in-and-of-themselves.

True.

If you make the two one, you can not go wrong either way, because either way is the same.

Again, you can't make the two "one" since they hold opposing beliefs about a vital issue - God.

Matthew 12:30 (NASB)
The Unpardonable Sin
30 He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.

Do you believe that?

***

As I said before, there are three kinds of faith/belief that I am aware of, blind belief/faith, irrational belief/faith, rational faith/belief. The third kind leads to knowledge for it justifies the belief with facts and what is the case.
No. It is knowledge that can be attained to.

Then prove you know it.

The impasse will always exist: you believe belief comes before knowledge. With no disrespect intended, it is absurdly backwards: all knowledge begins with/as acknowledgement, which is in-and-of-itself absent belief for needing to try to / not to believe.

You have to believe something before you will know anything. There has to be a first principle that the rest hinge on that is taken by faith. If your belief is correct the principle will pan out into knowledge.

Matthew 7:24-29 (NASB)
The Two Foundations
24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. 26 Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.”
28 When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at His teaching; 29 for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.

When your starting principle is wrong the whole house is built upon a lie, on something that when light is shone on it will collapse.

Again, not necessarily ignorant if it is a reasonable belief. If I feel hot water coming from a tap that burns my skin my belief will be to be cautious when turning on the tap. With trial and error, my belief will be fine-tuned to what actually is the case. I will figure out that hot water comes from the hot tap. I will figure out it takes a few minutes for the water to heat up or move along the pipes from the hot water tank to the faucet. I will figure out that when I see the steam I know it is very hot by past experience. By combining individual beliefs about the tap, the water, the steam, the faucet, the information on these beliefs will bring to my belief system knowledge of the real case.
Necessarily ignorant as compared to knowledge. A knowledgeable belief has conscious knowledge of how it may be false.

Yes, a knowledgeable BELIEF is one that is justified as a true belief. Knowledge is that which is true to what is the case.

Idol worship involves over-emphasis of trying * to * believe less trying equally the same belief to be * not true *.

If good/evil consume ad ininitum, equal attention must be paid to proving true/untrue any/all belief-based assertions.

Faith is trust. It believes. If I have no faith in something I don't believe it to be the case, I don't trust it.
Faith involves trust - they are not wholly equivalent. A belief is objective: requires a thing. What belief is to image, faith is to likeness.

As an fyi: references to scriptures are meaningless to me. I do not believe in them, knowing they are not what many believe them to be.

I lost the first half of the responses, and am not inclined to re-type them out.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

If all knowledge is belief then the belief must come first. Belief --> Knowledge

Correct, not all belief is knowledge!
All knowledge is not belief.

Do you believe that? If not then how do you know it?

The philosophical assertion is absurd:

All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.

Try:

All knowing is by way of indefinitely trying any/all belief, but
not any/all belief is by way of indefinitely trying to know all.

I know I am willing to try to believe... (acknowledgement).

I know I believe = (conscious) knowledge

You believe and your belief is justifiably true because it corresponds to what is actually the case.

I believe I know = ignorance lacking knowledge

Could be ignorance-based on irrationality, or it could be rationally justified yet you have not justified the belief as yet.

Knowledge comes first, not belief.

Do you believe that?

Whoever caused this to become upside-down in the Western world has blood on their hands. Such stupidity.

Do you believe that or do you know it?
Known. See:

Then justify it as true belief.

That is not what it necessarily means. Knowledge is justified true belief. There are different kinds of belief - blind, irrational, rational, justified true.
Belief is belief: one or more degrees of uncertainty.

Not all belief is uncertain such as justified true belief (knowledge). I believe if I sit down in the chair in my living room it will hold my weight.

Knowledge is lacking any/all degrees of uncertainty, which is thus intrinsically distinct from belief.

Do you believe that or disbelieve it?

First, you don't know everything there is to know about yourself. You believe some things about yourself that are either confirmed or denied by facts, by what is reasonable and what is real.
Hence belief is required for ignorance.
Hence belief is required to confuse evil with good.
Hence knowledge negates belief-based ignorance.

Knowledge is justified true belief!

Do you believe you do not know everything or do you disbelieve you know everything? When you disbelieve one thing you believe the other. Nevertheless, it is a belief. If you can justify it as true belief then you have established knowledge.
I know I do not know everything.

Then that belief is based on reason and certainty.

Belief need not enter the equation.

You have to believe something to know anything. Knowledge does not happen in a vacuum.

I do not religiously suck on the belief pacifier as others do: an opiate for the masses.

You suck on the agnostic pacifier, the I don't know, don't know (AGnosticAgnostic) pacifier, ironically enough. For someone who labels themselves as an agnostic would not know about God, yet make judgments and profess all kinds of things about the God you know nothing about (no certainty). Talk about the blind leading the blind!

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

The same fallacious statement could be made about the unbeliever.
"Unbelievers who think they know everything. They speak as though they are gods."
Therefor make the two one: unbelievers and believers alike can be ignorant-in-and-of-themselves.

Okay, then, which are you? Are you a believer in God? Are you an unbeliever in God? Are you ignorant of God in-and-of-yourself?

See how beautiful wisdom is? Now you can know:

Proverbs 1:7

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Theists and atheists are both capable of being ignorant-in-and-of-themselves.

True!

If you make the two one, you can not go wrong either way, because either way is the same.

A believer and a disbeliever in God are not the same things. They do not believe the same things about God although both a believer and an unbeliever can be ignorant about some things regarding this God. One believes God exists. The other does not. Even you are not ignorant of some of the biblical teachings, are you?

Do you believe that?

***

As I said before, there are three kinds of faith/belief that I am aware of, blind belief/faith, irrational belief/faith, rational faith/belief. The third kind leads to knowledge for it justifies the belief with facts and what is the case.
No. It is knowledge that can be attained to.

Knowledge is justifiably true belief.

The impasse will always exist: you believe belief comes before knowledge. With no disrespect intended, it is absurdly backwards: all knowledge begins with/as acknowledgement, which is in-and-of-itself absent belief for needing to try to / not to believe.

Again, not necessarily ignorant if it is a reasonable belief. If I feel hot water coming from a tap that burns my skin my belief will be to be cautious when turning on the tap. With trial and error, my belief will be fine-tuned to what actually is the case. I will figure out that hot water comes from the hot tap. I will figure out it takes a few minutes for the water to heat up or move along the pipes from the hot water tank to the faucet. I will figure out that when I see the steam I know it is very hot by past experience. By combining individual beliefs about the tap, the water, the steam, the faucet, the information on these beliefs will bring to my belief system knowledge of the real case.
Necessarily ignorant as compared to knowledge.

But it is reasonable to believe. That belief could pan out to be a true belief if it holds to what is the case - thus knowledge.

A knowledgeable belief has conscious knowledge of how it may be false.

May be false or is false? If you know it then it corresponds to the truth and there is no doubt in that belief.

Idol worship involves over-emphasis of trying * to * believe less trying equally the same belief to be * not true *.

Pardon? I'm not understanding your meaning.

If good/evil consume ad ininitum, equal attention must be paid to proving true/untrue any/all belief-based assertions.

Not sure how this fits?

Faith is trust. It believes. If I have no faith in something I don't believe it to be the case, I don't trust it.
Faith involves trust - they are not wholly equivalent.

Lack of faith is lack of trust or disbelief.

A belief is objective: requires a thing. What belief is to image, faith is to likeness.

It can involve a thing (like trusting the rope will hold my weight because someone bigger just used it with no ill-effect, and the rope was firmly attached) or it can involve trust in someone. A belief has an object of trust to it

As an fyi: references to scriptures are meaningless to me. I do not believe in them, knowing they are not what many believe them to be.

How well do you UNDERSTAND and KNOW Scripture? I would bet not well. That is my belief. I can confirm it with knowledge by testing you.

I lost the first half of the responses, and am not inclined to re-type them out.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

Do you believe that or do you know it?
Known. See:

Then your belief is justified!

That is not what it necessarily means. Knowledge is justified true belief. There are different kinds of belief - blind, irrational, rational, justified true.
Belief is belief: one or more degrees of uncertainty.

Not if the belief has been confirmed true by evidence that is the case. Then it is knowledge.

If I believe in God here and now, I die, and God takes me to be with Him then my belief is true knowledge in that it is confirmed by what He said and what happened.

Knowledge is lacking any/all degrees of uncertainty, which is thus intrinsically distinct from belief.

Not distinct from true belief.

First, you don't know everything there is to know about yourself. You believe some things about yourself that are either confirmed or denied by facts, by what is reasonable and what is real.
Hence belief is required for ignorance.

It is also required for understanding. If you don't believe in God why would you seek Him? If you believe He exists then by diligently seeking Him, the biblical God has said you will find Him.

Hence belief is required to confuse evil with good.

True. An ill-founded belief confuses evil with good.

Hence knowledge negates belief-based ignorance.

True! But knowledge is justified true belief.

Do you believe you do not know everything or do you disbelieve you know everything? When you disbelieve one thing you believe the other. Nevertheless, it is a belief. If you can justify it as true belief then you have established knowledge.
I know I do not know everything. Belief need not enter the equation.

Do you believe that it need not enter the equation?

I do not religiously suck on the belief pacifier as others do: an opiate for the masses.

Then you suck on the naturalism belief pacifier or some other belief pacifier.

That is ridiculous. Which believer believes they know everything unless they are delusional?
THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT.

Then, since you KNOW this, prove I am delusional!

Believing to know good/evil (ie. to a certainty) is the same.

Is that a belief?

***

What is "good"?

What is your standard of good?

Where does good come from?

Delusional people cause suffering/death.

Yes, they can!

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

If all knowledge is belief then the belief must come first. Belief --> Knowledge

Correct, not all belief is knowledge!
All knowledge is not belief.

Do you believe that?

Yes, it is belief. You would not know it unless you first believed it. Knowledge is JUSTIFIABLE TRUE BELIEF.

You start somewhere in seeking knowledge. You start with what you perceive is reasonable or unreasonable and you try to confirm what you believe (either reasonable or unreasonable) is the case. Then you know your belief is true.

The philosophical assertion is absurd:

All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.

The underlined is correct. Belief has to comply with what is the case for it to be knowledge.

Try:

All knowing is by way of indefinitely trying any/all belief, but
not any/all belief is by way of indefinitely trying to know all.

I know I am willing to try to believe... (acknowledgement).

Good! Now is that statement a belief or disbelief/non-belief? If it is a belief you know, then I believe you, yet I have not confirmed it, so it is not knowledge for me as yet!

I know I believe = (conscious) knowledge

Good! Then your knowledge is a true belief.

I believe I know = ignorance lacking knowledge

Ignorant if the belief is not a true belief.

Knowledge comes first, not belief.

How do you know?

Whoever caused this to become upside-down in the Western world has blood on their hands. Such stupidity.

No idea what you mean?

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

Again, please type my name into the Receivers" box so that I get a notification.

It starts with belief.

Hebrews 11:6 (NASB)
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is AND that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
Until/if one ever learns to know not to believe the bible is inspired by a god. Else: belief-based ignorance.

Although a Bible believer can be ignorant that is not what should be the case. God calls the believer to worship Him in spirit and in truth, with mind soul, spirit and body.

Knowledge always negates belief-based ignorance as it tends both:
toward any all-knowing god
away from all-believing satan.

Belief-based ignorance - yes. That is not the biblical case.

Again you are making fallacious hasty generalizations when you say any all-knowing God.

I invite you to prove your CLAIM with the Christian God (thus the OT and NT).

The knowledge is contingent on how well one knows themselves. One can not infer an unknown by way of another unknown.

knowledge of
self / god
0% / 0%
6% / up to 6%
14% / up to 14%
50% / up to 50% etc.

I don't follow what you are trying to say.

so ones knowledge of any/all possible god is limited to their own ignorance(s) of themselves. This is axiomatic and belief (otherwise) has no bearing on it.

Belief has a bearing on whether you know God for you first have to believe that He exists before you seek and find Him since He rewards those who diligently seek Him (Hebrews 11:6). As you read His words you come to know more and more about God, therein revealed. I don't understand how your ignorance of yourself means you are ignorant of God. I can be ignorant of lots of things and know others. I do believe you come to a better knowledge of yourself and humanity once you know God, or are known by Him. He then directs your paths.

Faith has to have an object of belief. For the Christian, that object of belief is in Jesus Christ and what He has done on our behalf for salvation.

Works happen after belief in Jesus Christ (I believe the knowledge of and the repentance of sin is included in that belief). Salvation is granted because of our belief in Him by God. The work of God and how we respond depends on our obedience to His teachings that come after the initial belief. The work is a work ordained by God that comes after salvation, not before (IOW's you can't merit salvation by your own works. Salvation is solely dependent on the work of another - Jesus Christ).
Belief is an object, hence it is idol worship.

It depends on what the object of belief and worship is as to whether it is an idol. Jesus told the woman at the well that those who worship God must worship in spirit and in truth. The two go hand-in-hand.

Faith is the binding agency.

Faith is trust in your belief in God, in who He is and what He says.

Jesus is an idol worshiped by idol worshipers.

Not true, per the Bible. That is the Christian standard, not your words that contradict it.

The Bible, both Testaments, is a reasonable and logical belief that is confirmed by the revelation or self-disclosure of the God within, in the words, in so many ways.

Madness happens after graven images in the heavens (ie. fixed objects/beliefs in the psychology) are militarily believed in.

Do you know what satan is? Here is the Hebrew derivation:

shin - expression of being (by way of the conjunction of any/all psychology/emotion/action)
tet - bound; ensnared (ie. serpentine)
nun (final) - ongoing (ie. indefinite) state

What is your reference from, and what of Satan?

satan - any/all expression(s) of being bound in an ongoing (indefinite) state
Therefor, any/all belief in any/all falsity tends towards satan. This is how Jesus knew satan had no hold over him: he knew himself to be nothing.

Not biblical teaching. You are just making it up. Jesus and Satan are two different persons. They are opposites. It is just logical and common sense when reading the Bible to understand this, thus, you read into it your own private beliefs and interpretation, and do not understand the Author's meaning. IOW's you can't know because you do not understand how to differentiate between your own meaning and the Author's meaning even though it is plain. You are your own worst enemy because of your bias.

It takes a believer to believe nothing is something. If one knows they are nothing, they can infer what is on the other side absent belief.

Again, a believer in God is not daft enough to believe that nothing is something or something is nothing. You can't know you are nothing since you already exist. That underlined is a contradictory statement and makes no sense. What is on the other side is a biblical revelation, in as much as it has been conveyed. You either believe it or you don't.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

My inference has to do with the law of identity, although I did not state it specifically, in regards to logic.
Certainly, but your second example does absolutely nothing to inform your first example.

Okay, I meant them to be two examples of the same thing, the acceptance and violation of the law of identity.

Please explain how this relates in-any-way to the ideas of either goodness or ethics or morality.

Dog = Dog

Good = Good

Both examples have a specific identity. They both mean a specific thing. When I say "Dog" then a specific kind of animal comes to mind. If I have the wrong idea of what "Dog" is then it does not identify with what its true nature is. If there is no fixed identity then "Dog" loses its identity and can mean whatever I want it to mean or you want it to mean, thus communication and meaning become irrational concepts, just like Dog does.

The difference in this particular case is that one set is qualifiable via physical means (sight) and the other is verifiable via the senses/logic. One has a quantitative aspect or if you like, a physical measure of verification to it; the other has a qualitative aspect or measure to it. But the thing is each specific set listed (Dog = Dog; Good = Good) has its own identity, not two or more conflicting identities. It can only be that thing which it is or else it loses its identity.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

Goodness has to have a fixed reference point to know what goodness is or else you cannot say something is better than something else.
This statement is provably false.

Then do so!

Goodness as a moral issue? As such, it corresponds to a specific value (a qualitative value), that which is right or true to the standard. If that standard is changing (not fixed) then goodness can mean two different things at the same time, depending on who holds the view. That is a logical contradiction. It does NOT apply to the law of identity, the law of contradiction, or the law of excluded middle.

Thus, in if an individual 'A' hold one view and 'B' holds the opposite view, who is right? Nobody, one, or the other?

When two opposite views are held by two different cultures, which is the right or true view? You can't say either is; all you can say is "I like this," or "I like that." All you can do is express your preference - "I like ice-cream, therefore you should like ice-cream too" or "I like to torture the poor and innocent for my pleasure and you should like it too!" You are treating both opposing qualities, that are both identified as the good, as equally valid depending on how someone/you feel. What does a taste, like, feeling, desire, pleasure, or preference have to do with what should or ought to be the case? Nothing unless it corresponds to the actual case - goodness. Your natural worldview can't nail down a specific, fixed measure. It is all over the place. Societies that live without God as the ultimate, objective, absolute, universal fixed measure can't make sense of good. All they can do is say, "I like this and I hope you will too," or "I like this and you will like it too!" They don't have a fixed reference point they can fix goodness too and you can witness it in such relative societies throughout time and in the world today. One society permits or likes abortion, another does not. One permits or likes the practice of capital punishment, another does not.

In the case of a person who lives on the border between two cultures, shares duel citizenship, and one culture believes it is good and a must to have slaves, and the other culture strictly forbids it, who is actually right in their view and how should you live?

If something is morally good to a specific thing or issue, then how can "good" mean a, b, c, d, e, f...x, y, z at the same time and in regard to the same issue/matter? If it can mean all these things, or the opposite, depending on who holds the view, how can you say it is good? All you can say is "I don't like it." Try living experientially without good having a specific identity. If it has no specific identity it can mean anything. It can mean the extermination of whole groups or classes of people. It can mean the discrimination of people because they don't think the same way you do.

This is a good conversation.

Better in relation to what? Your subjective feelings? The feelings that you and those like-minded like? Subsequently, there must be a best to compare it with or else the standard is always in flux.
Welcome to reality. We call this, "planet Earth".

That is the difference between our two worldviews. My worldview has what is necessary to make sense of truth, goodness, morality, what is right. A natural or materialistic worldview does not have what is necessary to make sense of qualitative values. You keep borrowing from the Christian worldview when you speak of goodness rather than preference. To be consistent you should eliminate that word (goodness) from your vocabulary. To be consistent with a naturalistic worldview you should not object to what other cultures do to their people. They are just practicing their preferences. What is wrong with that since it does not affect you directly. But it could if that culture was to subvert your culture and you are one of those people who happen to be taboo to their likes. Then your feelings do tend to hold to "some things are objectively and definitely evil." Then you understand you have a worldview that you can't live by or at least not consistently. Then you have a choice if you live. You can either change your current worldview and adopt one that makes sense or you can live inconsistently with it. Inconsistency is a sign that something is definitely wrong with your thinking, whether you want to admit it or not.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

"Facts" are what is the case. "Opinions" are beliefs that may or may not correspond to the facts. "Opinion" is what someone believes is the case and it is only true if it conforms to what is the case.
I agree 100%.

Matters of FACT are (EITHER) verifiably true (OR) verifiably false (OR) beyond our epistemological limits.
How can something be a fact unless it is true; unless it is the case?
It is a FACT that the statement, "there are hundreds of millions of ants inside every human head" is a VERIFIABLY FALSE statement.

Yes, the fact is that the statement is false.

Another way to say it:

It is true that the statement is false. OR

It is a fact that the statement is false.

Thus, the case or fact is that the statement is false, even if you believe the statement to be true. What is fact corresponds to what is true.

Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.

***

Definition of fact

1a: something that has actual existence
b: an actual occurrence
2: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
3: the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY
I agree 100%.

Matters of OPINION are (NEITHER) true (NOR) false.
Opinions can be true or false depending on how they correspond to the fact or truth in question. Matters of opinion are either true or they are false for they cannot be both true and false at the same time regarding the same matter.
This is categorically incorrect. (IFF) an opinion corresponds to the fact or truth in question (THEN) it is not an opinion (THEREFORE) it is instead simply a FACT.

If your belief corresponds to the fact, even though it is just an opinion and not known by you, your opinion is true to what is.

Or as stated:

"Opinions can be true or false depending on how they correspond to the fact or truth in question."

Matters of opinion either correspond to the fact(s), or they do not. If they correspond to the fact(s) they are true to what is the case. If they are not true to what is the case they are wrong or false to the fact(s)/truth. An opinion cannot correspond to the fact(s) and not correspond to the fact(s) at the same time. To do both at the same time would be a contradiction or logically unsound and nonsensical.

Or as stated:

"Matters of opinion are either true or they are false for they cannot be both true and false at the same time regarding the same matter."

Imagine for a minute, that you are living on a small island thousands of years before the birth of Christ.

You have a dispute with your neighbor. Your neighbor borrowed your horse and it was seriously injured (accidentally) under their care. You try and talk it out, but you are unable to resolve your dispute. You can't consult your holy scriptures because the written word hasn't been invented yet. So you try and convince your other neighbors to take your side and talk some sense into the person who borrowed your horse. When that doesn't work, you go to the village elders and plead your case.

I'm not sure how "no fixed reference point" in any way impedes this perfectly logical and intuitive process.

Your dispute with your neighbor is a matter of OPINION.
However, once God reveals,
Hold the flip on.

I said, "thousands of years before the birth of Christ."

So, what is the inference you want me to glean? The people Christ came to were under a covenant with God that was initiated well over a thousand years before Jesus. The reference was for specific people (OT Israel) in how they should live before God, but the principles (The Ten Commandment) apply to all people.

there is a self-disclosure regarding the situation. That self-disclosure comes from loving your neighbour and doing what is right and best for your neighbour per God's written instructions.
Seriously, you have no written instructions in the hypothetical.

That is your presupposition based on an opposing worldview. It assumes what is said to be a revelation from God as not so.

Without knowing the law there is still a heart-knowledge of right and wrong.
Ok, are you suggesting that our social instincts (personal conscience) will resolve human conflicts?

Not always justly when that personal consciousness is marred by sin and desires that are contrary to His revelation, the biblical teaching.

Again, it boils down to whether the source of morality is solely subjective and relative or whether there is an objective reference point of appeal to know. Again, if it is subjective and relative why is that "good?" Because you define "good?" What about my definition that is contrary to yours? Again, at least one of the two contrary views is wrong.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

When two reference points that contradict each other both say they are the measure that something should be done by, logically one is not true since they contradict.
Not necessarily.
How so?

Good = Eat your neighbour
Good = Do not eat your neighbour
Good is a fundamentally subjective concept.

Is it?

Basically, you have said "good" is a preference. What makes it good then? I like ice-cream. Ice-cream is good! You should like ice-cream too.

What I believe you are confusing is subjective feelings with ethics/morality. You confuse what is the case - I like ice-cream, with what ought to be the case. You are also confusing two different things, goodness with preference. My subjective feelings do not make something good unless it is good, no matter what I believe about goodness. The example regarding ice-cream confuses subjective TASTE with what ought to be.

Goodness has to have a fixed reference point to know what goodness is or else you cannot say something is better than something else. Better in relation to what? Your subjective feelings? The feelings that you and those like-minded like? Subsequently, there must be a best to compare it with or else the standard is always in flux.

Good for Aztec warrior = Eat your neighboring tribe members AMONG A GREAT MANY OTHER SUBJECTIVELY GOOD THINGS.

Good, or what they enjoyed?

Good, okay, you're next! You see, your worldview becomes inconsistent when it fails the experiential test. Sure, you can think it but can you live it?

And if what you say is the case, preference, what is wrong with Hitler's Germany? That was good for Hitler and the German culture (via propaganda). Why should I believe your view is any better if better is a changing standard based on subjective preference? What about my preference that is the opposite of yours? Why is that not right? Obviously, good is an identity. Logically it can't be two contradictory things at the same time. Either killing the unborn one minute before birth is good or it is not good. It can't be both at the same time.

Eating your neighboring tribe members is not the definition of GOOD.

GOOD is a subjective property-of (Qualia) objects and or actions.

You are confusing qualitative with quantitative. They are two different measuring systems. One is physical, the other is intangible. David Hume argued you can't get an "ought" from an "is." That is the is/ought fallacy. Just because someone likes something does not make it good. It just makes it liked.

If one of these two propositions is true the other cannot be true for they both say contrary things regarding the same thing - Good, and what that means. Sometimes, depending on the two propositions, it is possible that both are wrong, but both cannot be right when they state opposites.
Neither statement can be determined to be tautologically REAL-TRUE-FACT (or even bear any truth-value whatsoever) unless you make your definitions (specifically of the word "GOOD") rigorous and explicit.

I did. Good = good. Good =/= (does not equal) bad or evil. They are contrary to each other.

Dog = dog.
Dog = cat.

One of these two statements is wrong. Both cannot be right.
You appear to be suggesting,

A = A

A =/= B

No, what I am saying is that if you identify what we call the word "dog" as a specific four-footed animal it can't be another type of animal and still make sense. It loses its identity. Thus calling something a dog fits a specific kind of animal. It can't be a different type of animal and still be a dog. Logically that is not possible because it speaks of two different animals, not the same kind of animal. It is a contradiction to call a dog a cat, yet relativism employs this kind of reasoning with goodness.

Isaiah 5:20

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

Even what some on these forums call "primitive goat-tribes" understood a principle that modern humanity is finding difficult to understand.

It either IS the case or it is NOT the case. It cannot both be the case and not the case at the same time.
Certainly, but your second example does absolutely nothing to inform your first example.

You have committed a category error (non-sequitur/conflated opinion with fact).

You've basically asserted,

(IFF) 1 + 1 = 2 (THEN) I love you.

No, I have not. You asserted that (IFF) 1+1 = 2 (THEN) I love you. I never mentioned (IFF) 1+1 = 2 (THEN) I love you. That is not my point.

My inference has to do with the law of identity, although I did not state it specifically, in regards to logic.

"It either IS the case or it is NOT the case. It cannot both be the case and not the case at the same time."

It either is the case that a dog is a dog or it is not the case, but once the law of identity is jettisoned, a dog can be a cat which makes no sense because it has a different identity and is contrary to what it actually is. Thus, Dog = Cat is contrary to Dog = Dog. It can't be both because it loses its identity, yet that is what happens with subjectivism and how different people define "good" or "right."

Dog = Dog --> law of identity

Dog = Cat --> contrary to the law of identity.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

How Does One Reconcile The Existence of God on a Debate Site?

-->

@Reece101

For one, your quote is an incorrect reference. It has to identify which letter, first or second.

So, without God, your faith or belief rests on the subjective, limited, relative opinions and views of like-minded limited, subjective, relative men. The question is which one(s)?
You’ve changed your answer.

I've expanded on the subject matter. So what?

It works one way or the other. Either you place your trust in God or humanity as the highest authority, granting the Bible is what it states. Either your highest point of authority is the God revealed in the Bible or it is some subjective human being, granting that the Bible is the Word of God. I believe it is true and I can justify my belief with reasonable and logical evidence. I do not believe you can do the same with your belief system of thought.

What if they’re christians? We’re all born having a lack of knowledge of “God”, right?

Their belief is confirmed by God. But, He gives us (both Christians and unbelievers) evidence not only with the created order of things but in His self-disclosure of Himself and our relationship with Him.

I believe we are born with an innate knowledge of God that is seen in the created order but we are not all His children since we have alienated ourselves from God by our sin and rebellion. Unbelievers suppress the knowledge of God. My belief is based not only on the biblical teaching below but on thinking over the issues for well over forty years. My belief is made sure, granting God. Surety regarding life's ultimate questions requires an objective standard/reference point and a knowledge of what actually is the case. Humanity apart from God is lacking that knowledge. Thus, they have no means of making sense of origin without first presupposing God.

Romans 1:18-23

Unbelief and Its Consequences

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [crawling creatures.

I believe only one position is correct and that position is a God-oriented perspective. Granting this universe is created the Creator would be the source and ultimate knowledge in how He created it and every detail of it.

The question is which is the more reasonable belief and does the evidence really point to a solely naturalistic view? To decide you have to unpack the two beliefs, get to their core presuppositions and find how they are able to make sense of ultimate beliefs.

Naturalism can't make sense of ultimate beliefs. Thus, if you want to hold it you are welcome to it, but you will consistently be inconsistent in what you say and what you do. You will be living a contradiction.

I have no objection to both positions being taught. What I object to is when science is hijacked so that only one paradigm is investigated and looked at, when the orientation only looks at the data from a solely naturalistic viewpoint, when the evidence for the other side is totally ignored and when anyone holding such a position is ridiculed out of the scientific endeavour.
Okay, so what about when it comes to young Earth creationism; how should radiometric dating be handled?

Carbon-14, radiometric dating is dated on the premise that the present is the key to the past (because the present is where we work from), that from the present we can figure out with some certainty how old things on earth are. The question is are they the same or can we approximate them enough to get a true measure? Since science has focused on a view of science that is strictly naturalistic the question becomes are we looking at the information from the right perspective? Are we conforming the data to what we want or expect to find? Those who favour a young earth creation would argue with a yes.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

which is the ignorance-in-and-of-itself, a product of unjustified "belief" without knowledge. It also takes "belief" to believe the self is something it is *not*. Therefor this assertion is just absolutely absurd and needs:

All knowing is by way of indefinitely trying any/all belief, but
not any/all belief is by way of indefinitely trying to know all.

and

All belief is ignorance, but not all ignorance is belief.

Do you believe that?

***

As I said before, there are three kinds of faith/belief that I am aware of, blind belief/faith, irrational belief/faith, rational faith/belief. The third kind leads to knowledge for it justifies the belief with facts and what is the case.

Definition of belief

1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion: something believed

There are three kinds of faith; blind faith, reasonable faith, or unreasonable faith. Faith is belief.

The Christian faith is based on a reasonable belief, a necessary belief to make sense of anything, ultimately. God is self-evident to your mind, even though you deny Him outwardly in what you say and do. Inwardly, you still affirm Him by what you think about Him in your denial of Him. When you argue against Him in your denial you conceptualize Him in your denial.
The definition you provided indicates belief is ignorant-in-and-of-itself (which is true; trust/confidence can be misplaced anything accepted can be false). A knowledgeable (ie. consciously jusitfied) belief is *not* ignorance-in-and-of-itself.

Again, not necessarily ignorant if it is a reasonable belief. If I feel hot water coming from a tap that burns my skin my belief will be to be cautious when turning on the tap. With trial and error, my belief will be fine-tuned to what actually is the case. I will figure out that hot water comes from the hot tap. I will figure out it takes a few minutes for the water to heat up or move along the pipes from the hot water tank to the faucet. I will figure out that when I see the steam I know it is very hot by past experience. By combining individual beliefs about the tap, the water, the steam, the faucet, the information on these beliefs will bring to my belief system knowledge of the real case.

Faith is not belief: belief is an object (ie. a belief in...) whereas faith is the binding agency of/to it.

Faith is trust. It believes. If I have no faith in something I don't believe it to be the case, I don't trust it.

Hebrews 11:1

[ The Triumphs of Faith ] Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Faith is the assurance of things hoped for. It believes.

Matthew 9:28-30 (NASB)
28 When He entered the house, the blind men came up to Him, and Jesus *said to them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” They *said to Him, “Yes, Lord.” 29 Then He touched their eyes, saying, “It shall be done to you according to your faith.” 30 And their eyes were opened. And Jesus sternly warned them: “See that no one knows about this!”

Because of their faith (trust) that He could do it, the belief was granted.

***

Faith is the opposite of doubt. Faith believes. Doubt distrusts.

Matthew 14:31

Immediately Jesus stretched out His hand and took hold of him, and *said to him, “You of little faith, why did you doubt?”

No faith = great doubt.

Mark 11:21-23 (NASB)
21 Being reminded, Peter *said to Him, “Rabbi, look, the fig tree which You cursed has withered.” 22 And Jesus *answered saying to them, “Have faith in God. 23 Truly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is going to happen, it will be granted him.

Faith in God = not doubting God but believing Him = God grants that person salvation.

God is the object of our faith or belief. Faith is believing God, not doubting Him.

John 3:36

He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

Again, the object of our faith or belief is in Jesus Christ.

John 5:24

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

John 6:47

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

Belief is a subcategory of knowledge, not the other way around:

All knowing is by way of indefinitely trying any/all belief, but
not any/all belief is by way of indefinitely trying to know all.

Take the following example.

A "believer" "believes" in holy book x. Their being is governed by a "belief" that it contains the word of god.
They try the book, and learn it is, in fact, not the word of any god. They learn of their own suffering and that of others.

A believer in naturalism believes in nature. A scientist believes in science. So what?

The belief in origins comes before the knowledge since we still have varying views that are fought over.

First, we believe God exists, then He supplies the knowledge.

Even my belief in self-evidential truths came after I thought about the issue. I had to first think the proposition was reasonable. Then once I believed that then it was confirmed with knowledge. When I thought about the law of identity (A=A) I had to believe it reasonable as I confirmed its truthfulness (or else I would have dismissed it) and it was sorted out in my mind.

Belief is a subcategory of knowledge, not the other way around. They have it backwards. See:

Knowledge --> Belief OR

Belief --> Knowledge (that is justified true belief leads to knowledge)

You have to start somewhere. That is the initial belief. You don't yet know it but it either appeals to you or seems reasonable to you. If the belief pans out to what is real it becomes knowledge. You have to associate belief with fact for it to be justified.

Knowledge involves belief. It is the mental affirmation of believing in that which is true. Belief is a positive attitude and adherence to something, towards some proposition that you or I rely on. For it to be actual knowledge it must qualify as true belief.

Knowledge involves belief is correct insofar as knowledge is attained by way of trying belief. But:

Exactly! So you first have to believe it reasonable or else you will dismiss it as untrue instead of pursuing it further. (Knowledge = justified true belief)

All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.

If all knowledge is belief then the belief must come first. Belief --> Knowledge

Correct, not all belief is knowledge!

is absolutely absurd.

Do you believe that or do you know it?

It would mean there is no better to the ignorance-prone belief-in-and-of-itself:

That is not what it necessarily means. Knowledge is justified true belief. There are different kinds of belief - blind, irrational, rational, justified true.

one can never know (any/all ignorance relating to:) self without believing the self to be ignorant?

First, you don't know everything there is to know about yourself. You believe some things about yourself that are either confirmed or denied by facts, by what is reasonable and what is real.

It would take "belief" to believe one is *not* ignorant. One can simply know they know not everything there is to know, without the need for belief.

Do you believe you do not know everything or do you disbelieve you know everything? When you disbelieve one thing you believe the other. Nevertheless, it is a belief. If you can justify it as true belief then you have established knowledge.

It would take a "believer" to believe they already do know everything...

That is ridiculous. Which believer believes they know everything unless they are delusional?

The same fallacious statement could be made about the unbeliever.

"Unbelievers who think they know everything. They speak as though they are gods."

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

Again, I ask you to please supply me with a notification by typing my name in the "Receivers" box or I might miss responding to you. Thanks!

"That snow is white in colour."

How can you know it unless you first believe snow is white? If you believe snow is red in colour your belief is not knowledge, it is not true. You could also be colour blind and what you think you know you do not because you have to believe particular propositions that are connected to other propositions that go back to a first presupposition.

Someone, in first showing snow to you, may have said, "This is snow and snow is white in colour."

You either believe what he/she is telling you or you do not. You have to start (basic presupposition) somewhere, and that starting point is presuppositional when first thinking something or in discussing origins and one time events that no one was there to see. Thus, it is a belief. You have faith in that belief, that starting point, or you tend not to believe it.

I can say, "Snow is red in colour." I can say, "I know snow is red in colour." Is that a true belief?
It is a bad example. Everything is relative to the observer: the problem collapses upon the knowledge that everything we see is 'light' reflected off any object(s) which our retinas capture, invert etc. and we "see" a projection that reflects the "matters" surrounding us.

Even so, unless we are colour blind we can distinguish between different hues or shades. The contrast between red and white is obvious to all by the word white or red. White represents one hue or shade of colour, white another. So once someone tells you for the first time "snow is white in colour" you can believe that the colour of snow is classified as white or not. Knowledge comes with the confirmation of what is true.

Thus "believing" snow is white is as incoherent as "believing" white light is white light. It is why it is important to understand what is 'light' because it is the basis of existence.

So, do you not know that snow is white? Do you believe it is red?

Thus, "knowledge is a subcategory of belief: to know something is to believe it." Van Til Apologetic, Reading and Analysis, by Greg Bahnsen, p. 159
This is false. I'm sorry but the man is confused.

knowledge-in-and-of-itself <-*of any/all *not* to "believe" due to being ignorant)
belief-in-and-of-itself <-* needed to try for knowledge
ignorance-in-and-of-itself <-* unjustified belief

Where are you getting this stuff from? Are you thinking about it by yourself, or are you using someone's ideas?

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in:

-->

@Mopac

It is not simple belief or intellectual assent that the scriptures speak of, but a faithfulness.

It starts with belief.

Hebrews 11:6 (NASB)
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is AND that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

Faith being without works being dead, and not considered faith at all.

Faith has to have an object of belief. For the Christian, that object of belief is in Jesus Christ and what He has done on our behalf for salvation.

Works happen after belief in Jesus Christ (I believe the knowledge of and the repentance of sin is included in that belief). Salvation is granted because of our belief in Him by God. The work of God and how we respond depends on our obedience to His teachings that come after the initial belief. The work is a work ordained by God that comes after salvation, not before (IOW's you can't merit salvation by your own works. Salvation is solely dependent on the work of another - Jesus Christ).

The mystery has not been revealed to all, as not all are enlightened. If the mystery was revealed to all, the scripture you quoted would not say, "but has now been manifested to His saints."

Now you are being clear! You originally said,

"No, Christianity is a faith of sacred mysteries. Mysteries as we understand it are not puzzles to be solved so much as they are experiences."

Even so, the mysteries have been explained.

Created:

5 years ago

Posted in: