Define your terms!

[Ken-1122]

Biblically, "knowledge" is highly relational and experiential. Adam "knew" his wife and they conceived.

When the bible said "Adam knew his wife" what it really meant was that Adam had sex with his wife. Obviously sex has nothing to do with knowing but for whatever reason, when english speaking people decided to translate the bible from Hebrew to English, they decided to use the term "know" to represent sex even though the words have nothing to do with each other.

K

 

[Sectio Aurea]

When the bible said "Adam knew his wife" what it really meant was that Adam had sex with his wife. Obviously sex has nothing to do with knowing but for whatever reason, when english speaking people decided to translate the bible from Hebrew to English, they decided to use the term "know" to represent sex even though the words have nothing to do with each other.

K

Thats right, I have also noticed in the bible the words "lay" and "sleep" in lieu of the word "sex", its unfortunate that people have manipulated the meaning of these original words because they apparently tried to avoid using the correct word.

 

[quatona]

I'm okay with your stuff on belief, knowledge, and evidence. I understand what you mean by "faith" but your definition is very different from the meaning of the biblical word (which would be closer to "trust"). Trust is very different from belief as an intellectual assent. To believe that your father exists, for example, is very different from trusting your father. "Faith" as it's used in Christian theology refers to the latter.

So, when Christians here keep telling me that it requires faith to believe in god´s existence, they are using the word "faith" biblically and theologically wrong?
Why, then, do I so rarely see other Christians correct them?

 

[Clairvoyance]

So, when Christians here keep telling me that it requires faith to believe in god´s existence, they are using the word "faith" biblically and theologically wrong?
Why, then, do I so rarely see other Christians correct them?

Good point. That's the whole problem. They shift definitions in mid discussion. When they tell me why they believe they say they have "faith" meaning they have personal or testimonial EVIDENCE; but when they tell me I should believe on FAITH they mean I need to believe it first without evidence.

 

[brightlights]

So, when Christians here keep telling me that it requires faith to believe in god´s existence, they are using the word "faith" biblically and theologically wrong?
Why, then, do I so rarely see other Christians correct them?

For the most part, yes. Most modern people have all kinds of trouble with word meaning. Christians are not immune.

 

[JGL53]

posted in wrong thread. Sorry.

 

[Ken-1122]

Can god become an atheist?

Well, if he can't then he is not omniscient. Thus he is not god and thus there would be no god.

If he can, then by not believing in his own existence, he would then by his power of non-belief, become non-existent. Thus there would be no god.

QED god does not exist. That's called logic.

I think you're on the wrong thread; ya might wanna try again.

K

 

[Sectio Aurea]

To know does not require proof, all it requires is belief.

Ken

I'm sorry Ken we have to agree to disagree on the definition of "know" I guess.

 

[Ken-1122]

I'm sorry Ken we have to agree to disagree on the definition of "know" I guess.

know

1 /noʊ/ Show Spelled [noh] Show IPA verb, knew, known, know·ing, noun
verb (used with object) 1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully.

2. to have established or fixed in the mind or memory: to know a poem by heart; Do you know the way to the park from here?

3. to be cognizant or aware of: I know it.

4. be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight, experience, or report: to know the mayor.

5. to understand from experience or attainment (usually followed by how before an infinitive): to know how to make gingerbread.


I think you will have to disagree with the dictioary as well.
K

 

[Clairvoyance]

The dictionary has many different definitions. That's the whole point of defining your terms in the context of the conversation.

As far as religious discussion goes, "know" means that you have so much evidence for something that it would be very surprising to find out that it's not true.

Knowledge is a subset of belief. It's simply very strong belief presumably because a lot of evidence has been presented in favor of it.

So when religious people say they "know" God what they really mean is while they don't have any evidence for it, they really really strongly believe it!

So in this sense they are using "know" incorrectly. Just say that you "believe" it since knowledge requires evidence.

Just to summarize: Belief WITH evidence is KNOWLEDGE, Belief WITHOUT evidence is FAITH.

 

[Ken-1122]

The dictionary has many different definitions. That's the whole point of defining your terms in the context of the conversation.

Do you know of a dictionary that says "proof" is required for knowledge?

As far as religious discussion goes, "know" means that you have so much evidence for something that it would be very surprising to find out that it's not true.

Humm..... That is the act point I was trying to make! Tus far we agree.

Knowledge is a subset of belief. It's simply very strong belief presumably because a lot of evidence has been presented in favor of it.

So when religious people say they "know" God what they really mean is while they don't have any evidence for it, they really really strongly believe it!

True! Now just becaue you have "evidence" doesn't mean you are right.

So in this sense they are using "know" incorrectly. Just say that you "believe" it since knowledge requires evidence.

No they are not using the term incorrectly; because if they are wrong (as you say) they would be very surprised that what they believed was not true

Just to summarize: Belief WITH evidence is KNOWLEDGE, Belief WITHOUT evidence is FAITH.

As I said before; just because you have evidence doesn't mean you are correct. Using my previous scenerio, my birth certificate is "evidence" of my age, birthdate and parents; but if that birth certificate is a part of the conspariacy to keep me ignorant of the truth, I would still be wrong; but until such information comes to light, I will still claim that I know my name, age and who my parents are.


K

 

[Sectio Aurea]

Then you didnt actually know something was true, you just incorrectly believed so.

To know simply means to be 100% convinced beyond any shadow of doubt. You don't need to have evidence, you don't need proof, you don't even need to be right! All you need to know something is to be convinced. Example; If you ask me, I know my age, name, and who my parents are. I even have a birth certificate as proof! But if some new found evidence came up that showed I was actually adopted by the people I currently know to be my parents, and that I was born on a different day than I thought, and the birth certificate was all a part of the conspariacy to keep this information away from me, I will accept this new found information and recognize that I was wrong. But until such evidence surfaces, I will continue to know my age, name, and who my birth parents are.
To know does not require proof, all it requires is belief.

Ken

So, let's use your hypothetical adoption analogy, you assert that you knew who your parents were, then later after a conspiracy was revealed you recognised you were wrong. Regardless of your error, you still assert that you knew who your parents were. That is your argument.

know

5. to understand : to know how to make gingerbread.

Can one really know how to make gingerbread before realising a crucial ingredient is absent?

Did that person really know how to make gingerbread?

I think they just incorrectly believed so.

 

[Clairvoyance]

Do you know of a dictionary that says "proof" is required for knowledge?

I don't know how you define "proof" but I define knowledge as requiring evidence which is any piece of objectively verifiable information.

How can you say you know something if you don't have any evidence for it?

True! Now just becaue you have "evidence" doesn't mean you are right.

I know. I've made that exact point in my previous post.

No they are not using the term incorrectly; because if they are wrong (as you say) they would be very surprised that what they believed was not true

But that's not the only requirement for knowledge. First it has to have evidence behind it before they can be surprised to learn that it's not true.

You skipped a step.

As I said before; just because you have evidence doesn't mean you are correct. Using my previous scenerio, my birth certificate is "evidence" of my age, birthdate and parents; but if that birth certificate is a part of the conspariacy to keep me ignorant of the truth, I would still be wrong; but until such information comes to light, I will still claim that I know my name, age and who my parents are.

I never said that knowledge meant 100% certainty. In fact, I made it very clear that knowledge is just a higher degree of belief with evidence. This is the definitions that people really mean when they are talking about such things.

We are often wrong about things that we "know"; and knowledge to a 100% certainty is impossible because everything within the grasp of our understanding contains at least a small degree of error. We can never understand anything with complete accuracy.

So you are actually disagreeing with my definitions for the wrong reasons. I never said anything about certainty, just that knowledge must require evidence otherwise it's just faith.

If we define knowledge any other way then it makes the term useless. You seem to want to define knowledge as "really strong faith" but that's just mixing up definitions which I'm trying to avoid.

 

[pjnlsn]

What *exactly* are you guys arguing about lol?

 

[Ken-1122]

So, let's use your hypothetical adoption analogy, you assert that you knew who your parents were, then later after a conspiracy was revealed you recognised you were wrong. Regardless of your error, you still assert that you knew who your parents were. That is your argument.





Can one really know how to make gingerbread before realising a crucial ingredient is absent?

Did that person really know how to make gingerbread?

I think they just incorrectly believed so.

If going back to the definition I gave in post #29, notice they gave 5 different ways the term is used. #1 and #3 are the definitions that apply to the conversation at hand, #5; the one you used about gingerbread is a different way the term is used.

K

 

[Ken-1122]

I don't know how you define "proof" but I define knowledge as requiring evidence which is any piece of objectively verifiable information.

How can you say you know something if you don't have any evidence for it?

I define "proof" as something that has been proven/demonstrated to be true.
The problem with "evidence", often what can be mistaken for evidence can be something completely different. A person may have an emotional experience in church and they will see this as "evidence" that God is woriking with them; thus their God is real, when in reality their emotions simply got the better of them.
Also I am not convinced evidence is required for a person to "know" (to precieve or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty) anything.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

What *exactly* are you guys arguing about lol?

Going back to post #19 we began to disagree on what it means to know something; if evidence is required, if accuracy is required, etc.

K

 

[Clairvoyance]

Also I am not convinced evidence is required for a person to "know" (to precieve or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty) anything.

Ken

Sure, if you are using that particular dictionary definition of knowledge. But I'm trying to define these words in the context that people actually use them in religious discussion.

When someone says they "know" something about God they are saying that they saw a perceived miracle, heard an moving testimony, or felt a very strong emotional experience. These things are forms of EVIDENCE. As I stated before, they aren't very good evidence and yes, evidence can be misunderstood or even just plain wrong. But it's still evidence.

If they say they "believe" something usually it's a matter of "faith" which is belief WITHOUT evidence.

These definitions are the only consistent ones I can think of that don't confuse the issue. To summarize:

Belief - accepting a claim to be true.
Evidence - information to support the claim.
Knowledge - Belief with evidence.
Faith - Belief without evidence.

The crux of the problem is that people change their definition of evidence. In my OP I stated that we should only use the scientific definition of evidence since it's the only one that really allows us to verify the truth of a claim.

Things like anecdotal stories and personal testimony are TECHNICALLY forms of evidence but they are very unreliable and often contradictory forms of evidence. But it would be valid for someone to say they "know" that God exists if they have heard a large amount of this type of evidence.

However, this doesn't speak to the accuracy or truth of the claim. We can be wrong about things we "know." My whole point was that religious people should stop saying they "know" things about God based only on those weak forms of evidence and instead only say they "know" things for which we have scientific evidence.

 

[Ken-1122]

These definitions are the only consistent ones I can think of that don't confuse the issue. To summarize:

Belief - accepting a claim to be true.
Evidence - information to support the claim.
Knowledge - Belief with evidence.
Faith - Belief without evidence.

The crux of the problem is that people change their definition of evidence. In my OP I stated that we should only use the scientific definition of evidence since it's the only one that really allows us to verify the truth of a claim.

Things like anecdotal stories and personal testimony are TECHNICALLY forms of evidence but they are very unreliable and often contradictory forms of evidence. But it would be valid for someone to say they "know" that God exists if they have heard a large amount of this type of evidence.

However, this doesn't speak to the accuracy or truth of the claim. We can be wrong about things we "know." My whole point was that religious people should stop saying they "know" things about God based only on those weak forms of evidence and instead only say they "know" things for which we have scientific evidence.

I agree! Excellent points.

Ken