Absolutely. Claiming to have knowledge without proof should only convey to another what that person holds to be true. If I say that I have had prayers answered. I don't expect a non-believer to believe that; I don't actually expect another believer to believe that (at least in as much it's not another's burden to *have* to believe it). It's information about me and my experience that I'm conveying to others. Let's simplify it. You see a deer cross the road; you have no cameras around. You can't prove to another person that you saw a deer cross the road; others may hear your statement and choose to believe you or not, but they can't know it the way you know it. Gotcha. I think we are seeing the words in roughly the same way; I think we just disagree on whether or not one can "know" God (see my example of a prayer being answered above). Obviously if you are not convinced that God exists, you are going to have a hard time believing that someone can make a connection with Him. I have no problem with anybody taking that position, it's a logical pause. There are plenty of ways faith comes into play in addition to knowledge, but I recognize that all of it looks like faith from the outside. I have no problem with it all being called "faith" by non-believers. I appreciate you sharing your view. That's an interesting way to phrase it (last two statements). If we want to go all Matrixy on this, then technically, everything is taken on faith (at least from the perspective of others). You never know at any given moment that a power plug won't be pulled on our giant computer simulation. Or that we weren't just created minutes ago with all of our existing memories immediately implanted into our heads to make us feel like we've been around for a while. Faith builds knowledge, and it creates the paradigm within which we operate. I would propose a replacement word that may, perhaps, blend the two ideas: confidence. Can you have confidence in something that you have faith in? Can you have confidence in something that you know? Anyway, I appreciate the dialog. Go GATORS! ,WESGATORS
I think that is a problematic example, because many people have seen a deer cross the road. It’s not the type of claim that many would find hard to believe possible. Whether they think you actually saw it is largely based on what your story was, but seeing a deer cross the road is fairly routine stuff. Good point, and I phrased things as carefully as I could to try and avoid this becoming part of the conversation. I understand why you brought it up, though. I’d counter this, however, even if we are in The Matrix, in the context of this constructed world, God is intangible and unknowable by practical standards. The other problem with that approach is the question of whether God created the Matrix or is God an invention of the Matrix. If God created the Matrix, then everything we already discussed is still valid. If he didn’t, then God doesn’t exist. Matrix comparison hurts the theological side more than it helps.
I’ve never met a person who was a kind and decent human being because of his or her religion, but I’ve met plenty who were the opposite despite it. I’ve read many, many books about why there is something rather than nothing. I’ve come away with this conclusion: employing logic only results in the logicians chasing their tails. They remain as far from an answer as those who assert without a shred of verifiable evidence that there is a “god” (by which they mean their God).
Logic can point us to God but we will never experience God through logic alone or prove His existence empirically. We have to believe first and then we see. That's the only way it can work and the way God intended it. Sort of like this:
I heard an explanation once where they hypothesized that before the big bang there was no time(since time and space appear to be interwoven).
You're overthinking this. My point is simply that you *know* you saw the deer cross the road whereas others are left to *believe* that you saw a deer cross the road (or not, of course). You cannot convey your experience to them the exact same way that you understand it. The believability of the event is irrelevant as no amount of belief of this event will equal to your knowledge of this event. You're putting a constraint on what is essentially an all-powerful entity; do you know this constraint exists or do you believe it exists? Or do you simply lack belief that it doesn't exist? Or perhaps the key limitation here is "practical standards?" Is it possible for God (as creator of the matrix) to make a connection with an individual within such a Matrix? If not, why not? I'm not sure what you mean by "invention of the Matrix." The idea of a matrix is that it was designed and intentionally put into play. But maybe we're imagining different types of matrices. Go GATORS! ,WESGATORS
I dont think you understand how offensive this is to many people. That or you do and and simply don't care and chose to hit "post reply" anyway. If you do than perhaps you are the one being the...well...you know..
I shared my opinion on a thread about god & religion on TOO HOT. Note. No super bowl ad, billboards or cold calls. God is 1 of the most unpleasant characters in all of fiction IMO & all around me I see him celebrated as loving, just & forgiving. To me, that is very offensive. I'm not gonna be school-marmed into silence on a thread about god & religion on TOO HOT. It's not like I'm asking for a tax free chapel to preach my views to the masses.
School-marmed is a term I invented. Plagiarism is a sin. Come back to tax-free church. There’s always room for one more hypocrite!
Thank you! It needed to be said. If some turbo Christian’s take offense? So sad, too bad. They are the ones who are busy dividing the country. That’s what’s incredibly offensive.
