Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.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
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?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?
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?
I think you're on the wrong thread; ya might wanna try again.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.
To know does not require proof, all it requires is belief.
Ken
knowI'm sorry Ken we have to agree to disagree on the definition of "know" I guess.
Do you know of a dictionary that says "proof" is required for knowledge?The dictionary has many different definitions. That's the whole point of defining your terms in the context of the conversation.
Humm..... That is the act point I was trying to make! Tus far we agree.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.
True! Now just becaue you have "evidence" doesn't mean you are right.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!
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 trueSo in this sense they are using "know" incorrectly. Just say that you "believe" it since knowledge requires evidence.
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.Just to summarize: Belief WITH evidence is KNOWLEDGE, Belief WITHOUT evidence is FAITH.
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
know
5. to understand : to know how to make gingerbread.
Do you know of a dictionary that says "proof" is required for knowledge?
True! Now just becaue you have "evidence" doesn't mean you are right.
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
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.
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.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.
I define "proof" as something that has been proven/demonstrated to be true.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?
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.What *exactly* are you guys arguing about lol?
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
I agree! Excellent points.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?