How does one know anything via faith?

[Chriliman]

No, we don't know whether it makes sense to speak of "before" the Big Bang because time is supposed to have "begun" in the Big Bang (i.e., time is thought to have had a first moment). If that is correct, then asking what came "before" the Big Bang doesn't make sense because it's like speaking of a time "before" time. A common analogy is that it's like asking what is north of the North Pole.

Timelessness poses problems for an intelligent agent. In a state of timelessness, how is an intelligence supposed to think? It cannot undergo any mental transition or initiate any action. How then is it able to create anything?

It doesn't have to think because it would already know everything. God cannot learn because He already knows everything at all times. Timelessness does not pose a problem if the very entity that is timeless knows truth in its entirety, this would make that timeless entity truth itself.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It doesn't have to think because it would already know everything. God cannot learn because He already knows everything at all times. Timelessness does not pose a problem if the very entity that is timeless knows truth in its entirety, this would make that timeless entity truth itself.

But we aren't talking about knowledge. We're talking about planning, decision-making, and the ability to initiate an intended course of action. How is a timeless entity supposed to do that? You are presupposing that, at one point, there was God and no universe, and then, at another point, there was God and the universe he created. But that's a temporal sequence. It requires time, which God does not have because he is timeless.

 

[Chriliman]

What do you mean? Why should we regard that book as an authority? Did the authors possess more knowledge about cosmology than contemporary astrophysicists?

It's not enough to claim that it makes sense. You have to show that it makes sense.

What makes you think that scientists are desperate to avoid it? If it had any explanatory power, they would be eager to integrate it into cosmological models. They don't do that because, as it turns out, it lacks explanatory power.

The answer is satan is desperate to thwart the plans of God, but he doesn't realize he's actually playing right into the plans of God. Faithless scientists are being blinded by evil that has power over this world. God is not of this world, which is why when you put your trust in God you begin to see the truth about life itself. I understand you don't believe this, but what I want you to understand is that the fact that you are human means you must believe something about life, I'm just saying there is a single truth to believe in that does explain everything.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The answer is satan is desperate to thwart the plans of God, but he doesn't realize he's actually playing right into the plans of God. Faithless scientists are being blinded by evil that has power over this world.

Earlier in the thread you asked me whether I was willing to examine the question honestly. Now, you are basically accusing people who have dedicated their lives to this very question of dishonesty.

God is not of this world, which is why when you put your trust in God you begin to see the truth about life itself. I understand you don't believe this, but what I want you to understand is that the fact that you are human means you must believe something about life, I'm just saying there is a single truth to believe in that does explain everything.

This is the worst aspect of religion, in my opinion: pretending to know. The origin of the universe remains one of nature's most intractable mysteries, and yet some people have the hubris to claim that they have solved it, all without even touching an astrophysics textbook. The shallowness of their explanation is the epitome of intellectual laziness.

 

[Chriliman]

But we aren't talking about knowledge. We're talking about planning, decision-making, and the ability to initiate an intended course of action. How is a timeless entity supposed to do that? You are presupposing that, at one point, there was God and no universe, and then, at another point, there was God and the universe he created. But that's a temporal sequence. It requires time, which God does not have because he is timeless.

Einstein said the following "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." the same is true for time. We only experience time because God is merciful and gracious and wants us to come to know him. Unfortunately, our free will is the very thing that keeps us from knowing God's truth in its entirety. In time, we will all know the truth, just hope you realize the truth before your time comes to an end. As soon as you realize the truth you will realize God has been in control the entire time.

1 Corinthians 13:12
"For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."

 

[Chriliman]

Earlier in the thread you asked me whether I was willing to examine the question honestly. Now, you are basically accusing people who have dedicated their lives to this very question of dishonesty.

This is the worst aspect of religion, in my opinion: pretending to know. The origin of the universe remains one of nature's most intractable mysteries, and yet some people have the hubris to claim that they have solved it, all without even touching an astrophysics textbook. The shallowness of their explanation is the epitome of intellectual laziness.

If you don't believe in God then the truth is that we humans can never know the absolute truth about life, unless we somehow remove ourselves from our own brains. Hmm...maybe this is exactly what happens when we die, ever thought of that?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Einstein said the following "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." the same is true for time.

Einstein also regarded the concept of a personal god as childish. Do you want to quote him on that also?

We only experience time because God is merciful and gracious and wants us to come to know him. Unfortunately, our free will is the very thing that keeps us from knowing God's truth in its entirety. In time, we will all know the truth, just hope you realize the truth before your time comes to an end. As soon as you realize the truth you will realize God has been in control the entire time.

None of this actually addresses my point, which is that timelessness poses problems for your model. Without time, an intelligent agent cannot initiate a planned course of action, and therefore cannot create anything.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If you don't believe in God then the truth is that we humans can never know the absolute truth about life, unless we somehow remove ourselves from our own brains. Hmm...maybe this is exactly what happens when we die, ever thought of that?

You're rapidly shifting the goal posts. Initially, we were discussing the origins of the universe. You asked me whether I was willing to examine the issue honestly. A few posts later, you basically accused scientists of dishonesty. Why? Because they weren't seriously considering your proposal, even though there appears to be no reason why they should take it seriously. So I'll put the question to you then: are you willing to examine this issue honestly? Do you even care about the question, or are you only trying to exploit a gap in our understanding to argue for theism?

 

[Chriliman]

Einstein also regarded the concept of a personal god as childish. Do you want to quote him on that also?

Well I believe all knowledge comes from God even knowledge that comes from a man who doesn't believe in the one true God.

None of this actually addresses my point, which is that timelessness poses problems for your model. Without time, an intelligent agent cannot initiate a planned course of action, and therefore cannot create anything.

Again, you'd have to be an infinitely timeless entity in order to fully understand how it could "create" our universe. That word create is a human word that simply is not sufficient in explaining what God is. We can describe God and use reason to show that God makes sense, but thats about it, until you accept Him as truth you will be limited in your knowledge of Him.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well I believe all knowledge comes from God even knowledge that comes from a man who doesn't believe in the one true God.



Again, you'd have to be an infinitely timeless entity in order to fully understand how it could "create" our universe. That word create is a human word that simply is not sufficient in explaining what God is. We can describe God and use reason to show that God makes sense, but thats about it, until you accept Him as truth you will be limited in your knowledge of Him.

This is a very convenient excuse, but it comes at a price: if God is so profoundly mysterious that we cannot understand him, then in what sense can you claim to know that he is a Trinity, that he has a Son named Jesus, that he spoke to Moses and the Prophets, that he inspired the Bible, that he despises abortion, etc. The fact is that you do claim to know many things about God. He only becomes a "mystery" when you are faced with inconvenient questions.

 

[Chriliman]

You're rapidly shifting the goal posts. Initially, we were discussing the origins of the universe. You asked me whether I was willing to examine the issue honestly. A few posts later, you basically accused scientists of dishonesty. Why? Because they weren't seriously considering your proposal, even though there appears to be no reason why they should take it seriously. So I'll put the question to you then: are you willing to examine this issue honestly? Do you even care about the question, or are you only trying to exploit a gap in our understanding to argue for theism?

I've realized problems in many areas of existence that can only be explained with God. There's the problem at the bottom of reason which I started and thread on in philosophy on this site, go check it out if you wish. Theres' the problem of an infinite singularity (which by the way you never answered my question of whether you believe the hot dense state before the Big Bang is infinite) theres the problem of consciousness not being physical and so possibly not originating from the physical realm and then there's the problem observed in quantum physics that can be explain by applying the concept of a timeless consciousness. I know there's going to be more questions that will arise that can only be explained using God, so yes God does make a lot of sense to me and I have honestly thought about many things.

 

[Near]

So give counter examples of Religious Faith being used for positive things.

As for knowledge Religions have fought hard to limit it beyond what the hierarchy order. So how does one know anything via faith. When the faithful are told what to believe?

You're told the World is 6,000 years old. Wrong.
You're told the sons of the first people were farmers. Wrong.
You're told the World was flooded. Wrong.

And the list goes on. Today I can say these are wrong. Not so long ago, it would of got me burned at the stake for questioning it. Or for asking that the bible be in a language the ordinary people could speak. And that is what the OP is discussing.

"If you hold on faith that a particular god exists, and "I hold on faith that your particular god does not exist", how do we determine which one of us is right? We cannot both be right; one of us must be wrong. But how, using faith, can we determine which of the two of us is in the wrong?."

With all the different religions, their major sub sects, then the medium ones, then the minor ones. How can you all be right? He wrongly limits it to two. The Facts and Stats on "33,000 Denominations"

Number of different religions.

The OP as far as I can tell is asking us: how can we "know" who is right, using faith. The OP says "I hold on faith that your particular god does not exist". I believe he's using the term faith to describe his confidence a particular god doesn't exist.
He doesn't seem to be limited by religion due to his faith. Via faith he can know that Santa doesn't exist; that has nothing to do with religion.

As for denominations, not all of them are right. If there is no God, then no christian denomination is right.
If God exists, and the bible is reliable, denominations with their differing views hold essential truths, but they differ on some other things. We can't really know who's right, through faith. Faith isn't a tool used to determine between to things, which is right. One denomination may happen to be right, and they may believe they are right, but in order to know something, their faith must be justified, and true.
If you're asking which denomination is right, that'd be for another thread.

 

[Chriliman]

This is a very convenient excuse, but it comes at a price: if God is so profoundly mysterious that we cannot understand him, then in what sense can you claim to know that he is a Trinity, that he has a Son named Jesus, that he spoke to Moses and the Prophets, that he inspired the Bible, that he despises abortion, etc. The fact is that you do claim to know many things about God. He only becomes a "mystery" when you are faced with inconvenient questions.

I don't claim to "know" it I claim to believe it and therefore I am fully known by God. I read and study the Bible to confirm my beliefs and to protect myself from deception in the name of Jesus.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I've realized problems in many areas of existence that can only be explained with God. There's the problem at the bottom of reason which I started and thread on in philosophy on this site, go check it out if you wish. Theres' the problem of an infinite singularity (which by the way you never answered my question of whether you believe the hot dense state before the Big Bang is infinite) theres the problem of consciousness not being physical and so possibly not originating from the physical realm and then there's the problem observed in quantum physics that can be explain by applying the concept of a timeless consciousness. I know there's going to be more questions that will arise that can only be explained using God, so yes God does make a lot of sense to me and I have honestly thought about many things.

So basically your entire case for theism is a tremendous god-of-the-gaps argument from ignorance fallacy?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't claim to "know" it I claim to believe it and therefore I am fully known by God. I read and study the Bible to confirm my beliefs and to protect myself from deception in the name of Jesus.

And if that deception comes from the Bible?

 

[Chriliman]

And if that deception comes from the Bible?

Indeed, evil can easily use the bible to deceive. Which is why you must fully commit yourself to Jesus and be filled with the Holy Spirit in order to descern truth from the Bible.

 

[Chriliman]

So basically your entire case for theism is a tremendous god-of-the-gaps argument from ignorance fallacy?

If that's the judgment you wish to make before really considering the things I've said then that is your choice.

 

[paulm50]

He only claims to have spoken the universe into creation because this is the best way we can understand it. In order to understand exactly how He created the universe would require you to be infinite and timeless, just like God, fortunately there can only be one infinite and timeless God, which makes it possible for you to have a beginning, but no end, so you will eternally exist.

And from there, the Creation story becomes more fictional. A good could of said a huge explosion, but let's leave that for now.

Because from there it goes very wrong. It misses out billions of years, millions of species and so much that the story is obviously made up.

Of course all of this requires you to believe it, just like faithless scientist require you to believe that something other than God came before the Big Bang, even though all the concepts they've presented contradict and make 0 sense, but you have to be willing to honestly think about them to realize they don't makes sense. So are you willing to honestly think?

And not believe in evidence one can see for oneself. You can visit a museum and see creatures long gone, see how the Earth has built itself, see how it works, and see how life on Earth started on Earth. Not even from books that write down findings, all evidence the bible story is wrong.

This is about Genesis's story of Creation, constant reversing to the point after science has failed to find the answers, is proof of a lack of belief in the written bible.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If that's the judgment you wish to make before really considering the things I've said then that is your choice.

Based on what you've said, it appears that your entire case is built around multiple arguments from ignorance.

 

[Chriliman]

And from there, the Creation story becomes more fictional. A good could of said a huge explosion, but let's leave that for now.

Because from there it goes very wrong. It misses out billions of years, millions of species and so much that the story is obviously made up.
And not believe in evidence one can see for oneself. You can visit a museum and see creatures long gone, see how the Earth has built itself, see how it works, and see how life on Earth started on Earth. Not even from books that write down findings, all evidence the bible story is wrong.

This is about Genesis's story of Creation, constant reversing to the point after science has failed to find the answers, is proof of a lack of belief in the written bible.

I'm must admit it is difficult to talk to you because the only thing you focus on is genesis and how geniesis does not make sense. Personally what I try to do is look at all the evidence and concepts presented by scientists and theologins and try to determine what makes the most sense, but if I just focus on words said in one book of the bible I'm completely restricting my understanding of existence as a whole and how it all comes together. I'm not saying you're just focused on genisis and nothing else, I'm just saying your argument always comes back to genisis.

An interesting thing my argument allows me to do is cross a broad range of topics like consciousness, universe origins, quantum physics, human reasoning, problem of evil, truth, and God and while doing so I never contradict myself. You restrict yourself to why you believe genesis is wrong and I believe this is a very close minded stance.

So if we get into a debate, I predict your base argument will always come back to your belief that genisis is wrong. Unfortunately for me we actually have to go through that debate in order to show that I'm right.