Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge

[GUBU]

Knowledge is simply warranted justified belief. Sure knowledge is higher then that.

No it is not. Knowledge is the understanding of something that exists. Belief is the assumption that something exists when you have insufficient evidence to know that it exists. When you know something is real you no longer have belief in it, same as when you know something doesn't exist.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Ask three theists what a God is. They will all give varied answers that perfectly fit into their fantasy of a sky daddy looking over them.
See? These are the people who actually believe in God and even they disagree with each other.
Seems to me that people just have a fantasized version of an imaginary superman that can protect them from all harms infested so deep into their minds that they will delude themselves to great lengths to hold onto it.
Furthermore theists have a common misconception that atheists do not believe in God(s) because they don't try or are closed off. They actually think that if someone tries *hard enough* they will believe in God. Well, if you *really* believe something is real, *really really hard* , you eventually delude yourself into believing it is real.

I have never seen a theist willing to put their beliefs to test. They do not engage in an open-minded discussion, they will tell you why they are right and will do so with an already made up mind that they are right. They aren't here to discuss. They're here to convince you why they're right.
To anybody that is out there still trying - Give up. You can't nullify delusion with reason.

[Neo-Scholastic]

You're forgetting another possibility -- that morality is a human construct.

Human construct? That rabbit hole can get pretty deep if you aren't careful. Some people also say that the truths of mathematics are human constructs too. Others go even further, saying that universals are conventions based on similar physical properties. Others go still further saying that the notion of physical existence is a human construct too and that all that remains are arbitrary collections of properties. Some go even further than that. They think that personal identity is constructed. Eventually you get to the point where everything in the entire universe is a construct of a construct constructed by nothing.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Ask three theists what a God is. They will all give varied answers that perfectly fit into their fantasy of a sky daddy looking over them.

So what? Ask three laymen what matter is and you'll get varied answers too. Ask three professional Christian theologians, a Catholic, an Orthodox, and a Baptist what God is and you will get remarkably similar answers. And none of them will remotely resemble you 'sky daddy' straw man.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Chad, if you had continued reading you would have seen my post where I clarified I did NOT mean all theists should leave AF; only the nasty trolls who come here to insult and nothing more. So let's not get hung up on that.

Fair enough. I overreacted to your comment. Please accept my sincere apology for calling you stupid.

[LadyForCamus]

How I showed it can't decide, is different to why it can't decide. How we know it can't decide, I've shown already. We know it's necessarily the case goodness cannot be that it's morally good to torture a child for fun. However, if Creator or we can decide what is morally right, the Creator can decide it's morally good to torture a child for fun. So even it cannot decide what it is.

What the bloody fucking FUCK?!

[Neo-Scholastic]

Regardless of numerous attempts at varied times and levels, the Roman Catholic Church still managed to skew and lead most astray from true direction and faith in God.

And so it begins.....

Jor! Please. Take your memes with you to Area 69. It took all my willpower to resist reaching for some hand lotion and paper towels.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

You're forgetting another possibility -- that morality is a human construct.

Human construct? That rabbit hole can get pretty deep if you aren't careful. Some people also say that the truths of mathematics are human constructs too. Others go even further, saying that universals are conventions based on similar physical properties. Others go still further saying that the notion of physical existence is a human construct too and that all that remains are arbitrary collections of properties. Some go even further than that. They think that personal identity is constructed. Eventually you get to the point where everything in the entire universe is a construct of a construct constructed by nothing.

Sort of like all the above was constructed?

There are 8.5 planets in our solar system, if you count Pluto. There would be that many there with or without us here to observe and discuss that. Therefore, I'm quite sure that the phyisics which caused our universe and the mathematical parameters by which it exists aren't so on account of us. Nope, math is not a contruct, nor are the laws of physics.

Moralizing, on the other hand is something we do, which bears and fish don't. They didn't do that before we existed, and they won't when we're gone. That's because moral ideas are something that we made up and decided to live by, because they make the sort of social living which humanity, and humanity alone requires in order for more of us to survive and pass on our genes. We constructed these, not the fish, and probably not any remote and absentee deity.

[Crossless2.0]

Chad Wooters: Jor! Please. Take your memes with you to Area 69. It took all my willpower to resist reaching for some hand lotion and paper towels.

Better Jor and her memes than the Schoolmen, though.

Because lotion, paper towels, and Aquinas is just . . . creepy and wrong.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Chad,..What, specifically, are your beliefs? Do you identify with a formal religion, and if so, which one? If you are Christian, how literally do you interpret the bible?

I consider myself primarily a student of Swedenborg, the 18th Century visionary scientist and mystic. For the last three years I have been exploring the commonalities between Swedenborg’s theological works and Thomism.

... these arguments only go so far as to say: "there is more to this world than can be discovered by empirical science alone." You always fall short of actually saying what you believe in.

You’re a relatively new member so I understand that my approach may seem to be less forthright as of late. I generally have not shied away from being very explicit about my positions, like moderate realism, panentheism, a kind of essentialism, etc.

As of late, though I prefer to critique the critics. These critics are the people who presume that atheism is the only rational and logical stance with respect to the question “Does God(s) exist?”. They then proceed to demonstrate the apparent philosophical fallacies and theological follies they see in religious belief. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. If their stance is as logical and/or as rational as they say then their critiques should be cogent and firmly grounded. I have found however, that when pushed, the self-identified paragons of logic retreat into incoherent and self-refuting philosophical dead-ends, like radical empiricism.

Turnabout is fair play.

Are you afraid that if you admit to being Christian you will be held accountable for bridging that gap between the ambiguity of knowledge theory and the Christian God of the bible.

No you’re right. There is a huge gap. There’s a huge gap between physics and linguistics, too, but no one says linguistics is bullshit just because it cannot be traced back to physics. If someone cannot see the general revelation of Nature than it would be pointless to discuss special revelation.

Besides, it took Aquinas about 80,000 words to bridge it to his own satisfaction and then, suddenly, he receives beatific vision and laments that all of his work was “as straw.”

... you REFUSE to admit to yourself that you can understand how philosophical theory in the absence of science might not be considered adequate evidence for a hard nosed atheist.

I’m quite aware that a ‘hard-nosed’ atheist will only accept the findings of scientific inquiry for fundamental questions. I’m only asking them to acknowledge the precommitments they have made like this one: all statements must be empirically verified before accepted as true, except this one.