EvF Wrote:I certainly don't think faith applies in any definition to absolute knowledge. And Omniscience is absolute knowledge (and of course, of everything) I believe.
(January 12, 2010 at 2:27 am)Saerules Wrote: It would have to, because to have that 'knowledge' you have to assume that you are right (because the assumption that one is right is knowing)
No that's subjective "knowing" as in "I know"... absolute knowledge you either have or you don't. Whatever you subjectively "assume" to (subjectively) 'know' is different to absolute knowledge.
Absolute knowledge would=Belief AND the belief is based on reality.
E.G... : IF God exists... then those who believe he exists do actually properly definitely (by definition) have knowledge of God's existence in the philosophical sense.
You don't need to know in order to believe, but you must believe in order to know.
An omniscient God would by definition absolutely know everything...... if it didn't then it would by definition not be an omniscient God. It's beyond an assumption in that case.
Quote:, which means that without faith: it would be entirely circular, which should require all the more faith.[...]
One has to have faith, or else they couldn't make the assumption that they know anything... let alone that they know everything.
You're using "faith" as to mean basically the same thing as 'trust' here...
Yes I agree in the sense of trust.., because whether a belief has evidence or not you must 'trust in' it in a sense, in order to have it. Whether that's trust in evidence or trust in 'having faith.'
You can trust in evidence and you can trust on faith. You can trust with or without evidence. But since Faith is defined as how I understand it as belief without evidence: Then by definition you can't have faith in evidence!! (because then your belief would be evidence-based so you by definition can't have faith in it because faith is by definition without evidence using the definition I'm using!)
Quote:*braces self to chase Evie's tail around and around and around and around and....*
It's very simple as far as I'm concerned, Ill put it the following way and you can try to argue your way out of it if you want but I don't see how you can:
When faith is defined as belief without evidence then... BY DEFINITION faith can't be with evidence
(It's a tautology!!).EvF
