God's Knowledge

Don't know how knowledge can come before belief, when belief is necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to us. Maybe you can explain?
If you don't know a fact that can lead to a belief about said fact, then you can't have a belief about something you know nothing of. Learfning something new leads to new beliefs.

Belief isn't necessary in order to make truth and reality known. This is a huge mistake you keep making.
But how can knowledge make belief known to us when belief is necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to us?
Maybe you can explain?
See above,
Why, just because you said so?
No. Because knowledge can lead to beliefs.
But you didn't show how and why my "premises are flawed", all you did was just say they were.
That's because no matter how carefully someone explains where you go wrong, you never seem to get it. So what's the point?
1. Does Belief come before knowledge? True.
It can do, but knowledge can also come before belief.
2. Does Belief inform knowledge? True.
Not necessarily, no.
3. Do Beliefs form knowledge? True.
Utterly wrong. It seems this is at the heart of where you go wrong.
4. Does Belief become knowledge? True.
It can do.
C: Therefore, Belief must be a form of knowledge. Must Follow.
It can be under certain circumstances, but it isn't under others. I take it you think Muslims have wrong beliefs?
 
Last edited:
1. Belief comes before knowledge
Your first premise is incorrect.

How can you believe in something that you have no knowledge of?

For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? Rom 10:13-15
 
So if A precedes, informs, forms, and becomes B, then A must be a form of B.

1. Childhood comes before adulthood
2. Childhood informs adulthood
3. Childhood forms adulthood
4. Childhood becomes adulthood
C: Childhood must be a form of adulthood

Therefore, childhood must represent God's adulthood
OK. You are welcome to it, but don't expect anyone to jump on board.
Flour is a form of cake.

His birthday parties must have been fun...
 
For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? Rom 10:13-15
Which opens up a can of worms when paired with Romans 1:20 - how can the Bible say that everybody knows that Yahweh exists, and then later in the same book allow that not everybody believes?

Knowing without believing, is an absurd proposition.
 
Your first premise is incorrect.

How can you believe in something that you have no knowledge of?

For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? Rom 10:13-15

Exactly, as that's why you must believe in something's existence before you can know anything true about it in reality.

And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. (Hebrews 11:6)
 
Exactly, as that's why you must believe in something's existence before you can know anything true about it in reality.
This is a contradiction. It's an impossible state of affairs.
And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. (Hebrews 11:6)
This admits there is no good evidence for God.
 
You say this so often it loses any meaning.

Actually you do it so much it warrants saying even more. Make a deal with you, you stop strawmanning and I will stop telling you about it. Does that work for you?

This is a contradiction. It's an impossible state of affairs.

Strawman and you are projecting your unbelief again, because if I believe that belief comes before knowledge and I believe that we have to a believe in something's existence before we can know anything true about that something in reality, then that is not a contradiction of what I believe at all. Rather, the "impossible state of affairs" you are referring to is just denoting your unbelief that belief occurs first before knowledge. Understand?

This admits there is no good evidence for God.

No, that you still strawmanning and projecting your insidious unbelief.
 
Last edited:
You can't help anyone anyway, because you are too busy strawmanning everyone rather than dealing with what they actually said silly.

If it is, then how come you can't refute it then?

Strawman and evasion.

Again, what does your "clay" and "a statue" comparison have to do with the connection between belief and knowledge silly? As if your comparison is analogous, then what is the connection between belief and knowledge that applies to your "clay" and "a statue" analogy has well silly? What make it analogous in the comparison between belief and knowledge?

So, this is why your analogy fails, because in revealing the connection between the "clay" and "a statue" you are in fact conceding that there is a connection between belief and knowledge. Understand? You are so far behind; that you think you're first. The emperor has new clothes and they look great on you Nouveau.

You tell me, as it is your argument. So, can "clay" "be used to form a statue"?

Does your "statue" "form" and make itself or does someone form and shape the "clay" into "a statue"?

Come on Nouve; show me your new clothes. lol
Sigh. Still waiting for an answer. Please make an effort to be reasonable, Tercon.

Again, if clay can be used to form a statue, is the clay a form of the statue, or is the statue a form of the clay?
 
Exactly, as that's why you must believe in something's existence before you can know anything true about it in reality.

And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. (Hebrews 11:6)
No one can believe until someone has told them about Jesus.
That is knowledge before belief. Hearing the gospel (knowledge of the death, burial, and resurrection) of Jesus Christ comes BEFORE faith.

Here is more of the passage that does not support your claim that belief comes before knowledge.

Romans 10:14 But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him? 15 And how are they to proclaim him unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!” 16 But not all have obeyed the good news, for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?” 17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.
 
No one can believe until someone has told them about Jesus.
That is knowledge before belief. Hearing the gospel (knowledge of the death, burial, and resurrection) of Jesus Christ comes BEFORE faith.

Here is more of the passage that does not support your claim that belief comes before knowledge.

Romans 10:14 But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him? 15 And how are they to proclaim him unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!” 16 But not all have obeyed the good news, for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?” 17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.

Hey, cj. I just made an OP in the Bible Questions forum, and I'd be interested in your take on the subject. We have proven to each other in the discussion about water baptism that we can be civil in our disagreements. And I do value your viewpoints.
 
Sigh. Still waiting for an answer. Please make an effort to be reasonable, Tercon.
Again, if clay can be used to form a statue, is the clay a form of the statue, or is the statue a form of the clay?

Strawman.

No, if we can use "clay" "to form a statue", then in the same way we can use beliefs to form knowledge.

So, belief can be a kind of knowledge.

Form or Forms:
a: a type or kind of something
Coal is a form of carbon.
A rare/deadly form of cancer
A popular form of entertainment

b. one of several or many different ways in which something is seen, experienced, or produced.
The medicine can be taken in the form of a liquid or pill. = The medicine can be taken in pill or liquid form. His essays are now available in book form. [his essays have been published in a book]
the written/spoken form of the language
 
Strawman.

No, if we can use "clay" "to form a statue", then in the same way we can use beliefs to form knowledge.

So, belief can be a kind of knowledge.

Form or Forms:
a: a type or kind of something
Coal is a form of carbon.
A rare/deadly form of cancer
A popular form of entertainment

b. one of several or many different ways in which something is seen, experienced, or produced.
The medicine can be taken in the form of a liquid or pill. = The medicine can be taken in pill or liquid form. His essays are now available in book form. [his essays have been published in a book]
the written/spoken form of the language
It wasn't a Yes or No question, Tercon. I was asking you to choose between two options. Please try again. Which of these two is the correct way of using "a form of" with respect to the statue made from clay?

Is the clay a form of the statue? Or is the statue a form of the clay?
 
Last edited:
Hey, cj. I just made an OP in the Bible Questions forum, and I'd be interested in your take on the subject. We have proven to each other in the discussion about water baptism that we can be civil in our disagreements. And I do value your viewpoints.
I'll check it out tomorrow.
 
It wasn't a Yes or No question, Tercon. I was asking you to choose between two options. Please try again. Which of these two is the correct way of using "a form of" with respect to the statue made from clay?

Is the clay a form of the statue? Or is the statue a form of the clay?

Evasion, try again and this time read for comprehension. Stop running away and deal with what is being said to you.

No, if we can use "clay" "to form a statue", then in the same way we can use beliefs to form knowledge.

So, belief can be a kind of knowledge.

Form or Forms:
a: a type or kind of something
Coal is a form of carbon.
A rare/deadly form of cancer
A popular form of entertainment

b. one of several or many different ways in which something is seen, experienced, or produced.
The medicine can be taken in the form of a liquid or pill. = The medicine can be taken in pill or liquid form. His essays are now available in book form. [his essays have been published in a book]
the written/spoken form of the language
 
Evasion, try again and this time read for comprehension. Stop running away and deal with what is being said to you.

No, if we can use "clay" "to form a statue", then in the same way we can use beliefs to form knowledge.

So, belief can be a kind of knowledge.

Form or Forms:
a: a type or kind of something
Coal is a form of carbon.
A rare/deadly form of cancer
A popular form of entertainment

b. one of several or many different ways in which something is seen, experienced, or produced.
The medicine can be taken in the form of a liquid or pill. = The medicine can be taken in pill or liquid form. His essays are now available in book form. [his essays have been published in a book]
the written/spoken form of the language
Please just answer the question. I'm quite happy to go into more detail and address your above mistakes after you do so. Which of these two is the correct way of using "a form of" with respect to the statue made from clay?

Is the clay a form of the statue? Or is the statue a form of the clay?
 
Hey, cj. I just made an OP in the Bible Questions forum, and I'd be interested in your take on the subject. We have proven to each other in the discussion about water baptism that we can be civil in our disagreements. And I do value your viewpoints.
I've only read the title but I belief the reason for the atonement was multifactorial, not just one or even two causes. If you like the Christus Victor view, Greg Boyd is a strong advocate for it.

 
Back
Top