Belief

[Edwardo Piet]

Well, Evie does take everything on faith (as does everyone).

Not according to Evie I think ...but we should check what he says.

I think that I never intentionally take anything on faith (if I can help it).

Of course not according to Evie He defines faith in the way i define a large amount of faith, and evidence as i define justification for belief

Only in the way you put it.

Can you find another way to put it?

I think that, yes, there is. Because I think that if you define 'faith' as simply belief without evidence, then by definition that's a different way of 'putting it' than how you 'put it'.

If something is all knowing, then it must have belief in everything it knows. Simply: knowledge is the assumption that we are right, which we must take on faith.

Omniscience requires astounding faith :S

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.

EvF

[Amphora]

The dictionary definition of belief is as follows..

confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof:

Therefore it follows that if you know something to be true you don't believe it as it is a fact and not subject to opinion or conviction. Instead, you know it.

Does it then follow that God is an atheist?

That would be a fair site to see. It would make far more sense that he or she is an atheist. One would only hope.

---

Surely god is in our team! we don't believe in him and he also doesn't believe in his creator. Makes sense!

You're right. God is an atheist, he has no belief in a god who created him.
Also he is a non-believer because all he does is know. Yet he demands quite agressively blind faith from his followers.

And not only that.

He is a very jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generations of those who hate him, but showing love to a thousand generations of those that keep his comamandments. Exodus 20:4

What an arrogent bastard he is then.

[Violet]

I think that, yes, there is. Because I think that if you define 'faith' as simply belief without evidence, then by definition that's a different way of 'putting it' than how you 'put it'.

But the way you define 'faith' (as simply something 'without evidence' [which is subjective]) is the same way i define having a LOT of faith

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.

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), 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.

*braces self to chase Evie's tail around and around and around and around and....*

---

I was trying to tease out of you your thinking regarding faith and knowledge. The 'knowledge' of course is independently added (to a computer) - that it will then use to reach conclusions. If this is not cogitation then are people suggesting that the brain does not and cannot function in this way??

How can a computer 'assume'? Data presented to it has to be accurate so it cannot produce an inaccurate conclusion. It's either yes, no, or tied. There is no need to assume.

That is it's assumption

If we don't assume the data to be accurate: we get nowhere That's why we need to take what we think there is enough evidence of on faith, thus creating knowledge

Everyone needs faith in at least something Otherwise they wouldn't be able to do anything at all, and then they'd be doing nothing, which would be something, and ZOMG!

[fr0d0]

Our interpretation of what we input is assumed - but to the computer it is always black and white.. which is what I meant.

Interesting anyway. Thanks

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

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.

, 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!)

*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

[Meatball]

Sorry to back this thread up, but...

You're right. God is an atheist, he has no belief in a god who created him.

A deity is not defined as a creator and theism is not defined by believing in a creator.

I would say that we can't make a claim within the context of the bible that God is an atheist. He mandates that his people not worship "other gods". Does he ever make an explicit statement regarding other gods being false? Does he ever explicitly acknowledge his own power? Belief in yourself as a god is still theism.

What about Satan? Satan fits a lot of definitions of a deity and we know for certain that God acknowledges his existance.

Again, my position is that within the bible we don't have enough support to say God is an atheist. If anything there is more support in the opposite direction.

[Purple Rabbit]

You're right. God is an atheist, he has no belief in a god who created him.

A deity is not defined as a creator and theism is not defined by believing in a creator.

The god of christianity is defined in that way. So the god of christianity is an atheist.

I would say that we can't make a claim within the context of the bible that God is an atheist. He mandates that his people not worship "other gods". Does he ever make an explicit statement regarding other gods being false? Does he ever explicitly acknowledge his own power? Belief in yourself as a god is still theism.

I would say we can. For the christian god makes it very clear there is no other god. He is the only one. So he does not belief in a god who may have created him. He is the so called first cause according to the bible. So he clearly is an atheist about other gods (the Hindu gods for example) and about a god who might have created him.

Its comparable to the assertion that every christian is an atheist about other gods than the christian one (whatever that may be).

---

I mean absolute as in what it says in itself - "all knowing"

So his all-knowing is not dependent on logic?

[Meatball]

Is the christian god not aware that he is god?

[fr0d0]

I would say we can. For the christian god makes it very clear there is no other god. He is the only one. So he does not belief in a god who may have created him. He is the so called first cause according to the bible. So he clearly is an atheist about other gods (the Hindu gods for example) and about a god who might have created him.

some of the Gods mentioned in the Bible:

Adrammelech II Kings 17:31 Sepharvite God.
Anammelech II Kings 17:31 Sepharvite God.
Ashima II Kings 17:30 Samaritan Moon Goddess.
Ashtoreth I Kings 11:05 Canaanite Goddess.
Baal I Kings 18:19 Canaanite God ("Lord") of fertility, vegitation, and storms.
Baal-berith Judges 8:33 A regional variation/aspect of Baal.
Baal-peor Numbers 25:03 Moabite regional variation/aspect of Baal.
Baal-zebub Luke 11:19 Philistine/Ekronian regional variation/aspect of Baal.
Baalim I Kings 18:18 Canaanite Gods ("Lords"), a collective of the different aspects of Baa.
Bel Isiah 46:01 Assyrian/Babylonian/Sumerian God ("Lord").
Chemosh I Kings 11:07 Moabite war God.
Dagon I Samuel 05:02 Philistine/Ekronian/Babylonian God of agriculture.
Diana of the Ephesians Acts 19:35 Ephesian moon and nature Goddess, ("Divine/Brilliant").
Jehovah Exodus 6:03 Hebrew God
Jupiter Acts 14:12 Roman God (possibly derived from 'Zeus-pater', Father Zeus).
Lucifer Isiah 14:12 ("Light-Bearer")
Mercurius Acts 14:12 Otherwise known as the Roman God Mercury, God of communication and travel, and messenger of the Gods... which is probably why Paul was called this at Lystra.
Milcom I Kings 11:05 Ammonite God
Molech I Kings 11:07 Ammonite God, also called Moloch, most probably Baal-Hammon of Carthage.
Nebo Isiah 46:01 Assyrian/Babylonian/Chaldean God of wisdom and writing, also called Nabu.
Nergal II Kings 17:30 Cuth/Assyrian/Babylonian war and underworld God, also called Meshlamthea.
Nibhaz II Kings 17:31 Avites God
Nisroch II Kings 19:37 Assyrian God
Rimmon II Kings 05:18 Babylonian/Syrian storm God involved (as Ramman) with the Deluge, according to Hebrew texts; also known as Ramman/Rammon.
Succoth-benoth II Kings 17:30 Babylonian fertility Goddess ("She Who Produces Seed"), also known as Zarpanitu/Zerpanitum.
Tammuz Ezekial 8:14 Assyrian/Babylonian God
Tartak II Kings 17:31 Avites God

...not referring to any Deities not mentioned by name (for instance, the golden calf is not here), or only alluded to


People make their own gods all the time. Materialism is our god of choice, for example.

I mean absolute as in what it says in itself - "all knowing"

So his all-knowing is not dependent on logic?

/sidesteps sophistry

[Purple Rabbit]

some of the Gods mentioned in the Bible:

Adrammelech II Kings 17:31 Sepharvite God.
Anammelech II Kings 17:31 Sepharvite God.
Ashima II Kings 17:30 Samaritan Moon Goddess.
Ashtoreth I Kings 11:05 Canaanite Goddess.
Baal I Kings 18:19 Canaanite God ("Lord") of fertility, vegitation, and storms.
Baal-berith Judges 8:33 A regional variation/aspect of Baal.
Baal-peor Numbers 25:03 Moabite regional variation/aspect of Baal.
Baal-zebub Luke 11:19 Philistine/Ekronian regional variation/aspect of Baal.
Baalim I Kings 18:18 Canaanite Gods ("Lords"), a collective of the different aspects of Baa.
Bel Isiah 46:01 Assyrian/Babylonian/Sumerian God ("Lord").
Chemosh I Kings 11:07 Moabite war God.
Dagon I Samuel 05:02 Philistine/Ekronian/Babylonian God of agriculture.
Diana of the Ephesians Acts 19:35 Ephesian moon and nature Goddess, ("Divine/Brilliant").
Jehovah Exodus 6:03 Hebrew God
Jupiter Acts 14:12 Roman God (possibly derived from 'Zeus-pater', Father Zeus).
Lucifer Isiah 14:12 ("Light-Bearer")
Mercurius Acts 14:12 Otherwise known as the Roman God Mercury, God of communication and travel, and messenger of the Gods... which is probably why Paul was called this at Lystra.
Milcom I Kings 11:05 Ammonite God
Molech I Kings 11:07 Ammonite God, also called Moloch, most probably Baal-Hammon of Carthage.
Nebo Isiah 46:01 Assyrian/Babylonian/Chaldean God of wisdom and writing, also called Nabu.
Nergal II Kings 17:30 Cuth/Assyrian/Babylonian war and underworld God, also called Meshlamthea.
Nibhaz II Kings 17:31 Avites God
Nisroch II Kings 19:37 Assyrian God
Rimmon II Kings 05:18 Babylonian/Syrian storm God involved (as Ramman) with the Deluge, according to Hebrew texts; also known as Ramman/Rammon.
Succoth-benoth II Kings 17:30 Babylonian fertility Goddess ("She Who Produces Seed"), also known as Zarpanitu/Zerpanitum.
Tammuz Ezekial 8:14 Assyrian/Babylonian God
Tartak II Kings 17:31 Avites God

...not referring to any Deities not mentioned by name (for instance, the golden calf is not here), or only alluded to

So does this prove that the christian god believes in these deities or just that he believes that these peoples have false beliefs?

People make their own gods all the time. Materialism is our god of choice, for example.

You may speak for yourself but not for me. I feel no urge whatsoever to ascribe supernatural powers to natural things.

I mean absolute as in what it says in itself - "all knowing"

So his all-knowing is not dependent on logic?

/sidesteps sophistry

Not defining "all-knowing" and still using it in debate is sophistry. Since you are not able to define it, I declare it devoid of meaning.

fr0d0 is the name, dodging is the game.