What is knowing?

[childeye]

That's not my argument. Has nothing to do with what I said.

I realize that. I'm just making the point that two people can be talking about "knowing' and yet not be talking about the same thing.

Notice that if I ask, "how do you know that Nathan would have stood with the predominant view?" And you answer, "because that was the predominant view". That doesn't really answer the question. It's not a personal attack on you to call it an assumption. I actually like one point that you're making, that sometimes we can think that we have the facts and yet be totally wrong. What's also interesting, is that you pointed out that scripture would be used to support the wrong conclusion.

 

[Nathan]

I find each day that I believe in what would be classified as what is opposite to the predominant thoughts of the day.

In other words, I find my self in the minor minority, not the majority.

I've had countless people try to put me into a belief system - and somehow I cannot fit into any of them.

 

[Papa Zoom]

I realize that. I'm just making the point that two people can be talking about "knowing' and yet not be talking about the same thing.

Notice that if I ask, "how do you know that Nathan would have stood with the predominant view?" And you answer, "because that was the predominant view". That doesn't really answer the question. It's not a personal attack on you to call it an assumption. I actually like one point that you're making, that sometimes we can think that we have the facts and yet be totally wrong. What's also interesting, is that you pointed out that scripture would be used to support the wrong conclusion.

It's a safe bet. I should have said Copernicus and not Galileo. Galileo came later. But he too challenged the view that not only the Church held, but science as well.

"Galileo, far from being an atheist, was driven by his deep inner conviction that the Creator, who had “endowed us with senses, reason and intellect,” intended us not to “forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.”

Zondervan. Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science (p. 18). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. "

And
"Galileo was attacked for his theory of a moving earth, first by the Aristotelian philosophers, and then by the Roman Catholic Church. The issue at stake was clear: Galileo’s science was threatening the all-pervasive Aristotelianism of both academy and church. The conflict was far more between two “scientific” world-pictures than between science and religion. In the end, Galileo had to “recant” under pressure but still (according to the story) could not help muttering to his inquisitors, “But it does move.”"

Zondervan. Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science (pp. 18-19). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

It's doubtful that any of us would have a view that differed from the Church. And we would have argued that our position was "truth." We'd know it. But we'd be wrong.

You can't know that you don't know (understand) what you don't know. You can be fully convinced something is true or false and be wrong.

We can hold a belief to a certainty. There are things where it's doubtful what I believe is wrong as it make the most sense given the evidence. It's possible to be wrong in these cases, but not probable. For example, the existence of God. Is it possible to be wrong in the belief that God exists? I suppose anything is possible but it's not plausible. Not only do we have His written word, we have the Spirit that testifies to our spirit. But wait, what about unbelievers? They have the creation that tells them God exists. So much so that they are without excuse for their unbelief. Romans 1:20

We can be sure of many things we believe. But not all. That's a logical impossibility. Experience tells us that. We've been wrong in the past.

Case in point is OSAS: One person says yes and the other says no. There's only one correct answer. Just because you hold strongly to one side or the other doesn't make you right. Just because you believe it to to true (whatever your position is) doesn't mean it is so. The world is full of people who believe things that are completely untrue. And they don't/can't know the difference.

 

[Papa Zoom]

I find each day that I believe in what would be classified as what is opposite to the predominant thoughts of the day.

In other words, I find my self in the minor minority, not the majority.

I've had countless people try to put me into a belief system - and somehow I cannot fit into any of them.

That doesn't mean that the view you hold carry any more merit than anyone else's views. That you hold a minority view is meaningless to what is true or not.

 

[Nathan]

That doesn't mean that the view you hold carry any more merit than anyone else's views. That you hold a minority view is meaningless to what is true or not.

I agree!

I know it's true simply because I do. It's not based on merit or what others believe.

When we base what we know to be true, on someone else's knowledge, then you will always come up wanting.

Perfection can not be based on imperfection.

 

[Papa Zoom]

I've always found that when I know something I want others to know it also, but if they don't it just means they don't.

I don't have to have other people confirm to me that I know the truth.

I think a lot of people who say they know the truth, but have to be acknowledged in order to be confident, don't actually know the truth.

Where true knowledge exists there is no doubt.

There are several problems with your reasoning as I see it. When you "know" something, it may be the case that you only believe you know it, not that what you believe corresponds to reality. Is it true just because you know it? What if I "know" something that differs with your knowledge? I can make the same "knowing" claim as you. Why are you right and I'm wrong?

I don't need others to confirm to me I know the truth either. Even when I know, for example, that your position is false and mine is true. This is the absurdity of your position on knowing.

Truth exists. There is no such thing as "true knowledge" except where God is concerned. You can know many things that's true. But you can't know everything. And likely there are many things you "know" that just ain't so.

 

[Papa Zoom]

I agree!

I know it's true simply because I do. It's not based on merit or what others believe.

When we base what we know to be true, on someone else's knowledge, then you will always come up wanting.

Perfection can not be based on imperfection.

Then no one should listen to a word you say since we will come up wanting.

And it's a tautology is say you know because you know. That is not a coherent statement.

 

[Nathan]

There are several problems with your reasoning as I see it. When you "know" something, it may be the case that you only believe you know it, not that what you believe corresponds to reality. Is it true just because you know it? What if I "know" something that differs with your knowledge? I can make the same "knowing" claim as you. Why are you right and I'm wrong?

I don't need others to confirm to me I know the truth either. Even when I know, for example, that your position is false and mine is true. This is the absurdity of your position on knowing.

Truth exists. There is no such thing as "true knowledge" except where God is concerned. You can know many things that's true. But you can't know everything. And likely there are many things you "know" that just ain't so.

Your free to believe what you want. By not believing what I know, you prove my point.

It's not a matter of convincing. I don't have to convince you in order to know what I do.

I think of it like the whole bucket of crabs. When one crab gets to the top the other ones pull him down in an effort to get out themselves. Happy is the man who finds himself at the top, foolish is the man who climbs down in the bucket.

I'll never exclaim to know all truth. Only that the truth I do know cannot be shaken by another who disagrees. There are things I do not know, but if I need to know them I will.

 

[Nathan]

Then no one should listen to a word you say since we will come up wanting.

And it's a tautology is say you know because you know. That is not a coherent statement.

So can you say something is true in claiming that what I know is not?

If someone wants to listen they will. I will not say they have to, but neither will I say they should not.

If my statement is not coherent than you would also believe Christ's statement is also.

John 3:11 (ESV)
Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony.

Before anyone accuses me of trying to equate myself with Christ(even though I am in Him), I am equating simple statements.

Christ never said we would know the truth because...... He said we would just know it - no strings attached. Either you believe that Christ is telling the truth, or you believe He is not.

I know what I do because the Spirit teaches me. To deny the truth I would have to deny Him.

 

[Papa Zoom]

Your free to believe what you want. By not believing what I know, you prove my point.

It's not a matter of convincing. I don't have to convince you in order to know what I do.

I think of it like the whole bucket of crabs. When one crab gets to the top the other ones pull him down in an effort to get out themselves. Happy is the man who finds himself at the top, foolish is the man who climbs down in the bucket.

I'll never exclaim to know all truth. Only that the truth I do know cannot be shaken by another who disagrees. There are things I do not know, but if I need to know them I will.

Perhaps I don't believe what you claim to know because it's me that knows your view is wrong.

Why are you right and others wrong. I don't get how you can't see this.

 

[Papa Zoom]

So can you say something is true in claiming that what I know is not?

If someone wants to listen they will. I will not say they have to, but neither will I say they should not.

If my statement is not coherent than you would also believe Christ's statement is also.

John 3:11 (ESV)
Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony.

Before anyone accuses me of trying to equate myself with Christ(even though I am in Him), I am equating simple statements.

Christ never said we would know the truth because...... He said we would just know it - no strings attached. Either you believe that Christ is telling the truth, or you believe He is not.

I know what I do because the Spirit teaches me. To deny the truth I would have to deny Him.

Scripture teaches that the sun moves and the earth is stationary. For a time, it was a punishable offense to state otherwise.

Question: Is it possible you are wrong on your belief that a Christian can lose his/her salvation.

 

[Nathan]

Perhaps I don't believe what you claim to know because it's me that knows your view is wrong.

Why are you right and others wrong. I don't get how you can't see this.

It's not across the whole realm of knowledge Let's just make that clear.

When it comes to things I truly know, to say others are not incorrect, when they contradict what I know, means that what I know to be true could not be.

If that was the case, then I would be lying to say I know. Therefore, if I know something to be true that means whatever contradicts it is false.

 

[Nathan]

Scripture teaches that the sun moves and the earth is stationary. For a time, it was a punishable offense to state otherwise.

Question: Is it possible you are wrong on your belief that a Christian can lose his/her salvation.

Does Scripture teach that? Does the Spirit of God teach that to you?

Answer: No. Impossible. But you word it in a way that I do not agree with. I am answering based on what I think you mean.

I know a person can deny Christ and subsequently deny(lose out on) salvation.

 

[Papa Zoom]

Does Scripture teach that? Does the Spirit of God teach that to you?

Answer: No. Impossible. But you word it in a way that I do not agree with. I am answering based on what I think you mean.

I know a person can deny Christ and subsequently deny(lose out on) salvation.

Losing out on salvation is one thing. I believe in that. Having salvation and then losing it is another matter.

I John 5:…11 And this is that testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13 I have written these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.…

 

[Nathan]

Losing out on salvation is one thing. I believe in that. Having salvation and then losing it is another matter.

I John 5:…11 And this is that testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13 I have written these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.…

I'm not going there Papa.

 

[childeye]

It's a safe bet.

That's one way to put it.

You can't know that you don't know (understand) what you don't know. You can be fully convinced something is true or false and be wrong.

I still can't escape the semantically driven confusion. Even if I know that I can't know all that I don't know, it's still called knowing.

We can hold a belief to a certainty. There are things where it's doubtful what I believe is wrong as it make the most sense given the evidence. It's possible to be wrong in these cases, but not probable.

We have to be believing something at all times. I have proposed that ultimately we are either believing God is good or bad, trustworthy or untrustworthy, Holy or corrupt, Eternal or not Eternal. No one has argued otherwise.

For example, the existence of God. Is it possible to be wrong in the belief that God exists? I suppose anything is possible but it's not plausible. Not only do we have His written word, we have the Spirit that testifies to our spirit.

Scripture speaks of precept upon precept. Therefore, assuming I'm sane, I feel it's safe to say that it's how one defines the term "God", that will ultimately determine the plausibility in a person's concept of whether God exists or not.

But wait, what about unbelievers? They have the creation that tells them God exists. So much so that they are without excuse for their unbelief. Romans 1:20

I just got finished addressing whether God exists, pointing to the definition of the term as being critical. Therefore, I don't think "unbelievers" is now a sufficiently qualified term so as to be applied to Romans 1:20 as pertaining to whether God exists, since those being spoken of are described as not regarding God as God, Romans 1:21. If a person does not glorify God, their definition of the term "God", is suspect.

We can be sure of many things we believe. But not all. That's a logical impossibility. Experience tells us that. We've been wrong in the past.

This is why I addressed the subject matter by declaring that we can know that it is more right to believe than to not believe. ( I'm qualifying "belief" to ultimately mean God is good, trustworthy and therefore Eternal). Hence good conquers evil, Truth is greater than lies, Light is something and darkness is nothing. It makes no sense to argue both sides with an end result of we might know, but we might not.

Case in point is OSAS: One person says yes and the other says no. There's only one correct answer. Just because you hold strongly to one side or the other doesn't make you right. Just because you believe it to to true (whatever your position is) doesn't mean it is so. The world is full of people who believe things that are completely untrue. And they don't/can't know the difference.

If God is sifting with vanity, it makes sense that there are some things we're not supposed to know. For example, when does trusting that God will save me no matter what, become taking God for granted?

 

[Runner]

This thread is starting to sound like the old favorite, "Well, it's true for me." That, of course, doesn't mean it's ontologically true at all. You can have beliefs that are the result of proper mental functioning, plausible evidence and sound reasoning - but are 100% ontologically false. They do not correspond to reality. When Plantinga says that a belief in the existence of God is "properly basic," that a believer can legitimately hold this belief without evidence or arguments, he of course does not mean that this belief is inevitably ontologically true. It may be that the reality is that there is no God.

When it comes to metaphysical truths like the existence of God or which religion (if any) is true, this is especially tricky. Christians can claim actual "knowledge" through revelation and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but the believers of other religions can claim similar "knowledge" through their own scriptures and mystical experiences. We all "know," or at least believe we do. When two claims of metaphysical knowledge conflict, it seems to me there are two possible responses: (1) you can assert that the other person's knowledge isn't really knowledge at all because his mental processes aren't functioning properly - he's delusional; or (2) you can admit at least the possibility that your own beliefs (or even your beliefs and the other person's beliefs), might not actually correspond to reality.

None of us is capable of believing anything contrary to his own experiences, observations, study, reflection and intuition. If Christianity were contrary to my experiences, observations, study, reflection and intuition, I would be incapable of believing it. Nothing is going to make me believe Scientology or Mormonism. But even with my level of conviction regarding Christianity, with what I believe to be "knowledge" from experience of the Holy Spirit, I must acknowledge at least some small possibility that atheism or some other -ism is true. Christians who flatly refuse to acknowledge this - or, for that matter, atheists and Muslims who refuse to acknowledge this - are not being intellectually honest with themselves or others.

 

[childeye]

This thread is starting to sound like the old favorite, "Well, it's true for me." That, of course, doesn't mean it's ontologically true at all. You can have beliefs that are the result of proper mental functioning, plausible evidence and sound reasoning - but are 100% ontologically false. They do not correspond to reality.

Well, it's true for me, that Love/empathy is a verifiable and knowable reality. It can also logically be counted as of the highest value in mankind since it defines the moral good. It has proven to be a moral power worth living for and dying for, therefore transcending our temporal existence in that capacity.

When Plantinga says that a belief in the existence of God is "properly basic," that a believer can legitimately hold this belief without evidence or arguments, he of course does not mean that this belief is inevitably ontologically true. It may be that the reality is that there is no God.

We can only surmise according to those faculties with which we are bequeathed. It may be that God doesn't believe in the existence of God either, so long as there are multiple subjective definitions for the term God.

When it comes to metaphysical truths like the existence of God or which religion (if any) is true, this is especially tricky. Christians can claim actual "knowledge" through revelation and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but the believers of other religions can claim similar "knowledge" through their own scriptures and mystical experiences. We all "know," or at least believe we do. When two claims of metaphysical knowledge conflict, it seems to me there are two possible responses: (1) you can assert that the other person's knowledge isn't really knowledge at all because his mental processes aren't functioning properly - he's delusional; or (2) you can admit at least the possibility that your own beliefs (or even your beliefs and the other person's beliefs), might not actually correspond to reality.

Do you believe, that to treat others as you would want to be treated is a metaphysical Truth? Are moral and immoral impulses a reality?

None of us is capable of believing anything contrary to his own experiences, and observations, study, reflection and intuition. If Christianity were contrary to my experiences, observations, study, reflection and intuition, I would be incapable of believing it. Nothing is going to make me believe Scientology or Mormonism. But even with my level of conviction regarding Christianity, with what I believe to be "knowledge" from experience of the Holy Spirit, I must acknowledge at least some small possibility that atheism or some other -ism is true. Christians who flatly refuse to acknowledge this - or, for that matter, atheists and Muslims who refuse to acknowledge this - are not being intellectually honest with themselves or others.

I agree that none of us are capable of believing anything contrary to our own experiences....However, observations, reflections, and intuition are too nuanced to be applied so definitively. My experience is that people don't seem to share the same definition that God is Love. Whether Love is Eternal or not cannot be proven or disproven. What can be proven, is that it's more right to believe that it is, than to believe it isn't.

 

[Papa Zoom]

That's one way to put it.

I still can't escape the semantically driven confusion. Even if I know that I can't know all that I don't know, it's still called knowing.

We have to be believing something at all times. I have proposed that ultimately we are either believing God is good or bad, trustworthy or untrustworthy, Holy or corrupt, Eternal or not Eternal. No one has argued otherwise.

Scripture speaks of precept upon precept. Therefore, assuming I'm sane, I feel it's safe to say that it's how one defines the term "God", that will ultimately determine the plausibility in a person's concept of whether God exists or not.
I just got finished addressing whether God exists, pointing to the definition of the term as being critical. Therefore, I don't think "unbelievers" is now a sufficiently qualified term so as to be applied to Romans 1:20 as pertaining to whether God exists, since those being spoken of are described as not regarding God as God, Romans 1:21. If a person does not glorify God, their definition of the term "God", is suspect.

This is why I addressed the subject matter by declaring that we can know that it is more right to believe than to not believe. ( I'm qualifying "belief" to ultimately mean God is good, trustworthy and therefore Eternal). Hence good conquers evil, Truth is greater than lies, Light is something and darkness is nothing. It makes no sense to argue both sides with an end result of we might know, but we might not.
If God is sifting with vanity, it makes sense that there are some things we're not supposed to know. For example, when does trusting that God will save me no matter what, become taking God for granted?

I'm not going to address the entire post as I don't want to drag out the points being made. One thing I will say, that is that God does NOT save no matter what. If you reject Christ, your means of salvation are gone. Aside from that, there are no sins that can keep you from the grace of God.

And, just so it's said, I totally reject the idea that after a person is "saved" they can deny Christ and live however they want. The Bible doesn't teach this.

 

[Papa Zoom]

This thread is starting to sound like the old favorite, "Well, it's true for me." That, of course, doesn't mean it's ontologically true at all. You can have beliefs that are the result of proper mental functioning, plausible evidence and sound reasoning - but are 100% ontologically false. They do not correspond to reality. When Plantinga says that a belief in the existence of God is "properly basic," that a believer can legitimately hold this belief without evidence or arguments, he of course does not mean that this belief is inevitably ontologically true. It may be that the reality is that there is no God.

When it comes to metaphysical truths like the existence of God or which religion (if any) is true, this is especially tricky. Christians can claim actual "knowledge" through revelation and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but the believers of other religions can claim similar "knowledge" through their own scriptures and mystical experiences. We all "know," or at least believe we do. When two claims of metaphysical knowledge conflict, it seems to me there are two possible responses: (1) you can assert that the other person's knowledge isn't really knowledge at all because his mental processes aren't functioning properly - he's delusional; or (2) you can admit at least the possibility that your own beliefs (or even your beliefs and the other person's beliefs), might not actually correspond to reality.

None of us is capable of believing anything contrary to his own experiences, observations, study, reflection and intuition. If Christianity were contrary to my experiences, observations, study, reflection and intuition, I would be incapable of believing it. Nothing is going to make me believe Scientology or Mormonism. But even with my level of conviction regarding Christianity, with what I believe to be "knowledge" from experience of the Holy Spirit, I must acknowledge at least some small possibility that atheism or some other -ism is true. Christians who flatly refuse to acknowledge this - or, for that matter, atheists and Muslims who refuse to acknowledge this - are not being intellectually honest with themselves or others.