Christian Pride.

I am not saying belief is the same as knowledge. I never have. Not once.Faith by definition is not belief without empirical evidence. At least not in the Bible: faith is the evidence of things not seen.Faith is knowledge without sight, for one has the evidence to provide the knowledge (all knowledge requires evidence it may be said). If you hold that knowledge can only be attained through 5 senses then argue so - the assertion that that is so is becoming wearysome. And forget the demonstrable requirement bit - knowledge doesn't require that it be demonstrable. Whether they take my word for anything is not the point. I know I saw a fox. That is knowledge that I cannot demonstrate nor do I need to in order to know I did see one. I know God exists - that too is knowlege I cannot demonstrate nor do I need to. For ME to know he does exist I mean. Where is your problem with my knowledge exactly. Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant to that knowledge.

quote:

---

I am not saying belief is the same as knowledge. I never have. Not once.

---

You have equated emperical knowledge with faith.

quote:

---

Faith by definition is not belief without empirical evidence. At least not in the Bible: faith is the evidence of things not seen.

---

No.According to the bible, faith is hope in things not seen."Hope" is not the same as "evidence".

quote:

---

Faith is knowledge without sight,

---

No, faith is hope in things unseen."Hope" is not "knowledge".

quote:

---

for one has the evidence to provide the knowledge (all knowledge requires evidence it may be said).

---

Yes, all knowledge requires evidence.Not hope, not faith.

quote:

---

If you hold that knowledge can only be attained through 5 senses then argue so

---

I have done so, at all times.Show me any knowledge that has been attained through any other means.Demonstrate it. Do something with it. Share it so that I may know it too, without me having to believe anything without evidence.If you know it, rather than believe it, this should be no problem.Here, let me give you an example to get you started.There is a great deal of evidence supporting the idea that germs cause disease. I can demonstrate this idea to you throug any manner of experiment. You do not have to take my word for it that germs cause disease before the experiment for the experiment to "work". You do not need any sort of special transformative revelation that only you feel inside your heart and that nobody else can experience to conduct the experiment and see the results. The results are not dependent upon your individual, personal feelings at all.Now, can you do the same?

quote:

---

- the assertion that that is so is becoming wearysome. And forget the demonstrable requirement bit - knowledge doesn't require that it be demonstrable.

---

Only if you expect anybody else to believe you or take you seriously.Why should I believe you, rather than any other of the billions of believers on the planet who all say that THEY have it right, when all of you have exactly the same thing as the means to convince me?All each of you has is faith and personal assurances.

quote:

---

Whether they take my word for anything is not the point.

---

Then why are you here, telling everyone that you are "the messenger" of "the Truth(tm)" if you don't want to be taken seriously and listened to?

quote:

---

I know I saw a fox. That is knowledge that I cannot demonstrate nor do I need to in order to know I did see one.

---

But you can demonstrate to an extremely high probability that foxes exist in plentiful numbers in your part of the world.Nobody needs to take anybody else's word for it that foxes do, in fact exist, as there are ways of actually seeing, touching, smelling, and hearing, foxes. I don't have to believe in foxes without emperical evidence of their existence in order to experience them.

quote:

---

I know God exists -

---

No, you believe that God exists.You cannot see, touch, smell, or hear God.

quote:

---

that too is knowlege I cannot demonstrate nor do I need to.

---

Like I said, only if you want others to believe you or take you seriously.Do you take seriously the people who "know" that Zorkon the alien visits them in their bedroom?Why not? They have exactly the same kind of belief as you do.

quote:

---

For ME to know he does exist I mean. Where is your problem with my knowledge exactly. Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant to that knowledge.

---

You bristle when told your faith is "blind", and argue when anyone makes a distinction between "knowledge" and "faith". You have even tried to claim that empiricism and faith are the same thing.I think you need to come to grips with the fact that you have faith, with is "hope in things unseen", and that this is incompatible and unrelated to "knowledge", which is "gained through the 5 senses and is demonstratable to a disinterested observer".You want to have it both ways, Ian, but you cannot.Is your faith so weak that you need to call it something else?

I thought you heeded the words of Paul. I'm shocked to see that you're willing to twist even those to fit your failing argument.Look at what the man says:

quote:

---

faith is the evidence of things NOT SEEN

---

(emphasis is mine)if you haven't seen (experienced) things then you have faith.if you have seen (experienced) things then what do you have ?It's quite simple Ian, no matter how you squirm you have to admit that faith IS belief without empirical evidence.I repeat: Faith IS belief without empirical evidence.I think so, Paul thinks so, hell even Merriam-Webster thinks so: now would be a good time to do the decent thing and retract your position

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Actually, a model close to what society's model is. You having a model that varies widely from that doesn't stop most people from thinking you are inordinately proud. Nice turn of phrase, but as you said to Legend, that presumes that you can believe what your eyes see and ears hear. You can't claim subjectivity for the observations of others and claim objectivity for yourself unless you can provide some corroboration. Why are your lone observations of the fox or God considered objective while the observations of several people, who are in agreement about what they observed, considered subjective?
Do you "know" you saw a fox or do you just believe you saw a fox. From your argument, no amount of evidence can take you from believing to knowing. So does the guy in the asylum who tries to convince his captors that he is Napoleon. He "knows" he is the ruler of France. What makes your "knowledge" different from his delusion? Or....is he deluded?

me? hah! how about rather than suggesting what position is mine you simply read what I write, and maybe address what is written? So it is a one off situation? because earlier you said... "all the way along there"
I read this as meaning 'All along the way to the point where he is face with the ring of fire"
so... a man faced with these apparently numerous chances to accept/reject God, makes a decision each time... to accept or reject. If he accepts and the voices in his head are real... (god), then he has acted to bring about his own salvation.has he not? Edited by AdminJar, : fix opening quoteEdited by Creavolution, : No reason given.Edited by Creavolution, : spelling n grammar

I would be interested in which version of the Bible you use. Whilst they differ in terms of words used (conviction and proof instead of evidence for instance) the layout is the same in any version I've seen. And it is this Faith, (note the comma above) the evidence of things not seen. Not the hope of things not seen. The evidence of things not seen. The Bible says that one does not have to see 'things' (I take this as all 5 senses not just sight)in order to have evidence of them. One can have knowledge of a non- classically empirical type. But it is empirical - for evidence means one has solid reason for the knowledge. Sight, smell, hearing are not the only ways for evidence to come into your possession. Faith is the evidence. Faith is the 6th sense if you likeIt is interesting to compare the two descriptions. Substance is allied with evidence and hope with things not seen. Now things not seen are evidenced so hope is evidenced. It is not a hope that something will happen that may or may not. For if we hoped for something and it didn't happen then we would be dissappointed. One can hope in something that is going to happen for that hope has substance and evidence supporting is. As Paul says in Romans: Q.E.D. Empiricism speak. The only knowledge possible must be demonstrable. Thats a philosophical demand which my viewing of a fox 2 nights ago demolishes. As is the claim that the only knowledge obtainable by anyone (even if not demonstrable - like my fox) can be obtained through the 5 sense. We can arrive at stalemate if you like. I cannot demonstrate what I say. And neither can you. I point to my unprovable Bible you point to your unprovable philosophy (and whatever funny version of the Bible it is you use )I'm a bit tight for time Schraf - going to see a supposed heritic present his theology tonight. EvC has armed me well!Edited by iano, : No reason given.

My own position is as top. Your response to this was to insist that man makes a decision that he does not have to make - thus saving himself. I suggest the man has no choice (at this point). If I have misrepresented you (at this point: the one we were discussing - not what happens on the way to this point) then by all means clarify what you do mean. I said for example because there are various positions a man can be in where the effect is the same. I am not talking about the path to the summit but how the summit will be views by a man once he is brought there. All men on the summit will turn to God in this same, no-other-choice way. He doesn't have to percieve or view it as "the wrath of God" per se. It matters not what he views so long as he has no choice but to turn. Every saved person will have a different testimony about what it was that caused them to turn. With me it was despair. Yes this is it Not "the man accepts" or "the man rejects". "Man rejects" or "Man makes no decision" he does nothing. God places a man in a position of his accepting something. God has convinced the man. All Gods work. If man remains there he has done nothing at all. Now you could say he decides to accept. But that is just another way of saying he decides not to reject. Which is what I have been saying all along.Acceptance involves no action on the part of a man - thus he has done anything if he is saved. God places him in the accepting position.Rejection involves action on the part of a man - he must decide not to stay where he has been placed. Man places himself in the rejecting positonEdited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

well.. you'd best sort out what it is you are trying to say and stick with it, rather dodging and weaving like this.At any point along the path to the summit, a man can turn around or away, and move on a different course. it is this decision that is man's, and it is this decision that he may wish to take credit for.
thus setting up the conditions for a prideful christian. people do a lot of strange things out of despair, I generally would not trust the thinking of a desparate person. I know I don't necessarily make the best decisions if I am desparate. A lot of people sem to go for the easiest, most comforting option, one which absolves them of responsibility.
the mind is a powerful thing.

quote:

---

creavolution writes:

​

"all the way along there" I read this as meaning 'All along the way to the point where he is face with the ring of fire"

​

Yes this is it

---

wait a minute, you just said make up your mind. regardless... man makes a choice... a choice that will decide whether he is saved or not wrong.. he has decided not to reject. whether it be on the path to the summit or at the summit. he makes the decision. now you got it.

Your hope is charming. Miriam Webster is, as far as I am aware, not included in the canon of scripture. This is because it is not considered to be inspired writing presumably. Scripture has a rather different view on faith. Have a look at my reply to Schraf above msg 172Consider that a "put up"Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

That's right! Faith is not empirical evidence. No, you lose. Iano, you have your hat handed to you on this very issue by no fewer than 5 posters in this thread alone. You have had your had handed to you on this issue in countless other threads. You are repeating assertions that have been addressed over and over again.Faith is not empirical evidence. If you cannot demonstrate your "knowledge" and it cannot be known by others then it is not knowledge, it is faith.Why is is so important to you to that your Christianity be based on "knowledge" rather than faith?

Iano, this is clearly a play on words. It doesn't change the definition of faith.Substance WITHOUT substance (hoped for).
Evidence WITHOUT evidence (not seen).Faith!

How can you expect anyone to engage you in debate when word mean different things to you?

quote:

---

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" -St Paul

---

is English really your first language or do you just like playing with words ?"...things hoped for"you don't hope for things that you know will happen!you hope for things that you don't know will happen but would like'em to."...the evidence of things not seen"He says faith comes into play is when you don't or can't see (experience). If you can't see then your only evidence is faith.
If you can see then you have empirical evidence, you don't need faith.Paul says that, not just me.there's no way to explain it further without this venturing into 'English for beginners' territory.you're rejecting the definition of faith by nearly every poster here.
you're rejecting the definition of faith by the world's lexicons and dictionaries.
you're rejecting the definition of faith as presented in the Bible, by your own spiritual leader.you're not doing your credibility or that of your cause any good.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

quote:

---

Empiricism speak. The only knowledge possible must be demonstrable.

---

Yes, exactly.

quote:

---

Thats a philosophical demand which my viewing of a fox 2 nights ago demolishes.

---

Does someone who claims that Zorkon the space alien visits him in his bedroom at night "know" that this happens, or do they "believe" that this happens?Is there a difference? How might we go about finding out if Zorkon really does exist or if the dude just has an active imagination and only has faith that Zorkon visits his bedroom?Why shouldn't the same methods apply to your claims?On the other hand, if you think knowledge and faith are more or less interchangeable, or at least should be treated equally, why shouldn't we license physicians who say that they can pray over people and cure them? Why shouldn't we allow scientists to include their personal feelings about whatever it is they are studying to carry as much weight as the statistical analysis of their data when making conclusions? Why shouldn't we allow engineers to build structures with only the "feelings of deep personal conviction in their hearts" to let them "know" that the bridge or building will be structurally sound? Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

"The only knowledge possible must be demonstrable" is right when it is shown to be the case. I don't recall you ever doing so. Its a philosophical position which cannot be empirically demonstrated one way or the other. Thus, according to yourself, you cannot know "Thats right!" to be the case. It is your belief - and a blind one at that.So what then if the evidence of faith is not empirical evidence? If I have evidence then what do I care whether the nature of it makes it unavailable to you. I mean in terms of knowing something myself. None I suggest. And this is the quality of response I have recieved from yourself and some others when faced with me stating I can know something without being able to demonstrate it. I pose a problem and you ignore it. Take a second bite of the cherry above if you like ( on me knowing I saw a fox without being able to demonstrate that I did). Scrafs dodge of this was to wander off into talking about Zorkon the Magnificent and such tripe. See if you fare better. Come back and state with a straight face"There is no knowledge unless you can demonstrate it" Oh I see you did below... So I do not know I saw a fox. It was clearly a fox (red, bushy tail, and all the other features that come with foxes) But I can only take it on faith that I saw a fox. This is your position.Words fail me. Well they would if I didn't glance at the post title above