Difference between knowing and experiencing?

[billwald]

In what way does God know everything? Pragmatically, if something is known to the depth that God is said to know . . . then can it also be said that this depth of knowledge is the equivalent of personal experience?

 

[TeddyKGB]

I suppose if it can be said of anyone that his beliefs are both justified and true, it would have to be said of God.

 

[billwald]

Then How could Jesus have been tempted by . . . anything? Humans can be tempted because humans can't see the end from the beginning.

 

[Aceofspades77]

Knowledge comes from experience. However God knows all therefor God surpases experience.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Then How could Jesus have been tempted by . . . anything? Humans can be tempted because humans can't see the end from the beginning.

Well, you're asking me to take a position - that of the Trinity - which I find inherently absurd. Jesus being tempted is one of those things I call a contradiction, but which perhaps more likely indicates a disconnect glossed over by a certain Council eager to portray Jesus as more-than-man.

 

[dlamberth]

Knowledge comes from experience. However God knows all therefor God surpases experience.

I have a different image of God.

I see God as having knowledge of all because God experiences all.

I see what God experiences as being the total sum of all of the experiences that have ever been experienced, are being experienced right now and that will ever be experienced in the future.

This is based upon an image of God who is united, whole and One with all there is.

I do not understand the image of a God who is apart, separate and judgmental of His own Creation.

.

 

[dlamberth]

Then How could Jesus have been tempted by . . . anything? Humans can be tempted because humans can't see the end from the beginning.

A human being can not be a human being with out also knowing temptation. That's a true aspect of the Human condition that we all know and experience. Jesus, being human, knew temptation. God, through Jesus (the human being) also knows the experience of Human temptation. Jesus saw through human temptation and kept His eyes firmly planted on the Divine that He is. We should also keep our eyes firmly planted on the Divine.


.

 

[Aceofspades77]

A human being can not be a human being with out also knowing temptation. That's a true aspect of the Human condition that we all know and experience. Jesus, being human, knew temptation. God, through Jesus (the human being) also knows the experience of Human temptation. Jesus saw through human temptation and kept His eyes firmly planted on the Divine that He is. We should also keep our eyes firmly planted on the Divine.


.

Excellent point dlamberth! Jesus was both fully God and fully man submitting to the Fathers will in perfect obedience. Jesus taking on the form of man was both in harmony with God's desire for a perfect sacrifice and the requirments of a Godhead in the flesh.

 

[plmarquette]

God gave man a free will ... a potential to succeed or fail, according to his choice
God knows 2 seconds after we do some thing what is up, not before we do it...otherwise we have no free will, it then becomes fate...

Jesus became our example, to walk in our dirt suit, with all its draw backs and situations and keep the Law given Moses.... except Jesus could fail and fall the whole gospel is meaningless...

the fact that he was a man and rose above the temptation of the devil and the foolishness of men is awesome...

 

[billwald]

There is no test for free will.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Experience may form the basis for knowledge, but it is not knowledge. Knowing is a conceptualization of experience. And so God cannot be said to have knowledge of everything simply because he might experience everything.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[funyun]

Experience may form the basis for knowledge, but it is not knowledge. Knowing is a conceptualization of experience. And so God cannot be said to have knowledge of everything simply because he might experience everything.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Well put.

 

[NotreDame]

Experience may form the basis for knowledge, but it is not knowledge. Knowing is a conceptualization of experience. And so God cannot be said to have knowledge of everything simply because he might experience everything.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I agree, to an extent, but unless God is brain dead, or there is some other impediment to conceptualizing, then if God experienced everything, then he has knowledge of everything he experienced.

I think experience is knowledge but not all knowledge is experience is probably the strongest qualified pronouncement to be made on this subject. (of course this is made within the context of entities not being brain dead, with the phrase "brain dead" quite possibly having broad applicability.)

 

[funyun]

I think experience is knowledge but not all knowledge is experience is probably the strongest qualified pronouncement to be made on this subject.

Experience in and of itself can never be knowledge. Just as importantly, conclusions drawn from experience in and of themselves can never be certain knowledge (i.e. induction is a valid basis for drawing methodological conclusions but is never a justifiably certain basis for drawing ontological conclusions).

Imagine you saw a leprechaun in your yard. Not just glimpsed by a trick of the light, but saw. You stared at it for a minute, and it didn't go away. You were absolutely convinced you saw a freakin' leprechaun. The next day you have a splitting headache that won't go away. You go to the doctor and find out you have a brain tumor, and the doctor asks you if you have had any visual hallucinations lately.

In this scenario your "experience" has failed you as a source of knowledge. Was the leprechaun real, or was it a hallucination? Induction is required to reach a conclusion. Essentially, the proposition that you saw a real leprechaun is unfalsifiable. Therefore it can also never be certain that you did not see a real leprechaun. But with the added (empirical) evidence showing you have a tumor, more sturdy logic points to the conclusion that it was a visual hallucination than points to the conclusion you saw a real leprechaun. So it is more sound reasoning to conclude it was not a real leprechaun but a hallucination. Note that this is not an ontological conclusion in the strictest sense but rather a methodological one-- you can't claim certainty, but rather more evidence and more sound reasoning points to the latter conclusion than it does the former. As I said before, there is no way to know beyond the shadow of every possible doubt, in the Cartesian sense, that it was in fact a hallucination. But not all possible doubts are reasonable, and you have addressed all reasonable doubts. This is essentially the epistemological outline followed by the scientific method; it settles with ontological agnosticism with regards to unfalsifiable claims, and methodologically just ignores them.

Of course, some might counter: "How do also we know the doctor and his CAT scans are real?" Objections like this are the basis for extreme empirical skepticism, subjective idealism, and, of course, solipsism.

 

[NotreDame]

Experience in and of itself can never be knowledge..

I disagree. When one has sexual intercourse, then they have knowledge of what "sexual intercourse" is and feels like.

Are there examples where it can fail you? Sure, you illuminated some examples where under certain conditions experience can fail as knowledge but what your entire argument assumes is there are no so situations where such failure is not present.

However, we do know there are some people on this planet who have had sexual intercourse, rather than perceiving they did by some brain abnormality, and for them as a result of their experience they have "knowledge" of sexual intercourse.

So, as I stated previously, experience is knowledge, and your aberrational examples do nothing to erode the general nature of my claim.

 

[TeddyKGB]

I disagree. When one has sexual intercourse, then they have knowledge of what "sexual intercourse" is and feels like.

He or she knows what sexual intercourse feels like to him or her. Is that really knowledge? Is it something I can pass on that adds to the collective body of things known?

 

[funyun]

I disagree. When one has sexual intercourse, then they have knowledge of what "sexual intercourse" is and feels like.

However, we do know there are some people on this planet who have had sexual intercourse, rather than perceiving they did by some brain abnormality, and for them as a result of their experience they have "knowledge" of sexual intercourse.

What about wet dreams? If one were to have an extremely vivid, realistic, and authentic wet dream, would one then have knowledge of what sex "is and feels like", under the conditions of your view, even though they have not experienced "real" sex per-se?

So, as I stated previously, experience is knowledge, and your aberrational examples do nothing to erode the general nature of my claim.

I've already demonstrated to you why experience does not qualify as knowledge in certain cases, which you accepted. Whether you agree or not that the same holds true for all cases, any cases where it does not qualify as knowledge invalidate the general claim "experience is knowledge."

 

[mpok1519]

this the way i look at it; God might be expanding; God might actually be growing; what was once a hundred percent, might be a fraction compared to what it can be later.

Perfection in my eye denotes ability to learn and grow.

 

[NotreDame]

He or she knows what sexual intercourse feels like to him or her. Is that really knowledge? Is it something I can pass on that adds to the collective body of things known?

Yeah...what something feels like, what some experience feels like, is knowledge. There is a difference between having knowledge of sexual intercourse, the mechanics, and then experiencing the mechanics. Someone never having had sexual intercourse before does not have knowledge of how it feels, does not have knowledge of the emotional connection some people feel as a result of sex or even during sexual intercourse. What does sexual intercourse feel like? Sure, you can explain to them what it feels like, what occurs, how it makes you feel (all of this lovely descriptive information surely does contribute to the collective body of things known) and they can possibly visualize what you are talking about, internalize it, but from a physical point of view, they lack the knowledge of HOW it feels.

To use another example, I unfortunately watched in my pre-Jesus days, a question from American Pie. "What does third base feel like?" They attempted to explain it to him. Yet, while they explained it to him, he is still lacking exactly what it feels like. He only knows what it feels like through the lense of other people, their accounts, but does not have knowledge of the occurrence, of how it feels, himself.

We are all familiar with the phrase, "You have no idea how X makes you feel." Sure, they can explain it to you but you are still lacking knowledge of how the experience makes you feel, affects you, impacts, having never gone through it.

Rape victims have knowledge of this tramatic episode you do not possess, unless of course you have been raped. Yes, they can contribute to the body of knowledge of how it affects a person, emotionally, mentally, psychologically, but what other people are missing who read this account is the experience itself, they have no knowledge of the experience.

There is a difference between having knowledge of what someone else experienced and knowing the experience yourself.

If you have never used methamphetamine, then you do not have knowledge of the high experienced from it. Sure, people can try and explain it to you, but the fact is you do not have knowledge of the experience. All you have knowledge of is someone else's experience but you do not have knowledge of how it feels.

A good example, from a movie, is Good Will Hunting. At the pond, Robin Williams scolds Will and mocks him by stating if he asked will about love, he may quote a poem, something from Shakespeare, but this is the limit of his knowledge on the subject, because he has never personally experience love and therefore, does not have one clue what it is or what it means.

He used the example of the Sistine Chapel, and mocked Will stating he would probably quote someone's review of it, what they felt, saw or smelled, but how this is inadequate because Will had not personally experience it, and therefore had no knowledge of it.

I can explain to you the thrill, the excitement, the euphoria of riding Top Thrill Dragster at Cedar point, a ride which reaches speeds of 120 mph in four seconds, sends you 408 feet up into the air, and the rush one gets, but you have no knowledge of what it is like riding it because you have not experienced it. Your knowledge is limited to my account of it and consequently, you do not have knowledge of riding it.

Sure, you can have knowledge on some subject without seeing it personally or experiencing it but this knowledge is limited to what you read about it, it is limited to accounts from other people, and to an extent your knowledge is limited to their accounts. This is one kind of knowledge, book or informational knowledge. Then there is knowledge acquired from personally experiencing something, from personally doing something, and the two are not the same.

Justice Scalia, in his book "A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law," writes about the intellectual thrill and excitement of his first year in law school. Havard Professor Gordon Wood laments having never "experienced" this intellectual euphoria in law school and quite simply has no personal knowledge of it.

Now, is this something you can pass on to a collective body of things known? I was not aware knowledge had such a provincial purpose. I reject your assumption it is not knowledge unless it can be passed on to the collective body of things known. However, fortunately, my examples above can be passed on.

Thousands of books have been written by people in regards to the above examples, expounding upon what it looked liked, how it felt, and some have even made poems, books, movies, seeking to capture the experience, and relaying to the rest of us what it looks like, how it felt, smelled, and so forth.

You do not have knowledge of what it feels like walking on the moon. This is an experience in which you have no knowledge. But others do have this knowledge and they can dissemminate their experience to a collective body of things known by sharing it. Yet, despite their recount of the experience, you do not have knowledge of walking on the moon.

 

[funyun]

To use another example, I unfortunately watched in my pre-Jesus days, a question from American Pie. "What does third base feel like?" They attempted to explain it to him. Yet, while they explained it to him, he is still lacking exactly what it feels like. He only knows what it feels like through the lense of other people, their accounts, but does not have knowledge of the occurrence, of how it feels, himself.

In this argument you are highlighting the limitations of human communication, not demonstrating that experience is knowledge. His friends have subjective accounts and so his being told what it is like is deficient both in terms of his friends' personal skills of communication and the inherent limitations of language as a means of communication.