Very odd disagreement here, a Christian insisting that "knowledge comes before belief".
Of course he is wrong, but how does belief before knowledge help atheism be a viable position?
God's Knowledge
- Thread starter Tercon
- Start date
Very odd disagreement here, a Christian insisting that "knowledge comes before belief".
Of course he is wrong, but how does belief before knowledge help atheism be a viable position?
Tetsugaku
Well-known member
Why are you running? I've explained that your OP argument is invalid because you have used the phrase "a form of" backwards. The purpose of the clay/statue question is to elicit your understanding of which way around the phrase works. Your refusal to answer proves that you have no idea how the phrase works. And that is why your argument fails.
What's the connection between the "clay" and "statue"? Maybe you can tell me.
Well if this is your analogy and you say it is analogous of my argument, then why can't you tell me the connection between the "clay" and "statue"? Actually you have already conceded silly.
Tetsugaku
Well-known member
I did. The clay comes before the statue, and with the input of a sculptor it forms the statue, and becomes the statue. Were you not paying attention when I explained this to you? Or have you just been evading so long that you forgot the context?
This is my last example. It is from Acts 17.
Paul started his address with this-
Then Paul stood in front of the Areopagus and said, “Athenians, I see how extremely spiritual you are in every way. 23 For as I went through the city and looked carefully at the objects of your worship, I found among them an altar with the inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.
Paul ended with this-
30 While God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”
This is the result-
32 When they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some scoffed, but others said, “We will hear you again about this.” 33 At that point Paul left them. 34 But some of them joined him and became believers, including Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.
The Athenians had to receive knowledge of Jesus before they could believe it or not believe it.
But when did "Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them" get their knowledge of God, was it before or after they believed?
Do you ascribe to empiricism Caroljeen?
Dionysius, Damaris, and the others who believed received the knowledge of "a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” AS Paul was preaching the gospel to them. They did not know about Jesus until they were taught and then they believed. They did not know that Jesus existed until they heard Paul preach.
No, I don't ascribe to empiricism.
I guess you are counting on no-one paying attention or reading your posts.
Actually you have lost the argument, because you have conceded there is a direct connection between the "clay" and "a statue", and to seal the deal you also acknowledged that your example requires "input of a sculptor", and logically entailing in other words a believing mind in order to work. So, your analogy actually supports my claim rather than disproving it silly.
Therefore; this is how and why your argument fails, because in revealing the connection between the two "clay" and "a statue" you are in fact conceding that there is a direct connection between 'belief and knowledge' as well. Understand?
You are so far behind; that you think you're first. The emperor has new clothes and they look great on you Nouveau.
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
Now you are even saying it for yourself and you still don't see it?
That's good.
Can you elaborate? I don't know what you mean by "it". What don't I see that you so clearly see?
They did not know about Jesus until they were taught and then they believed.
See "it"?
I am not judging you here, rather I am only offering my reply to you in hopes that you may receive it in the same way I offer it and that is with respect. As you seem quite intelligent.
Tetsugaku
Well-known member
I never denied a connection between belief and knowledge, and I never denied the input of a sculptor. None of this has anything to do with the invalidity of your argument due to your backwards use of the phrase "a form of". Of course, you will keep running from this simple question because you don't want to deal with your obvious mistake: 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?
You skipped over and did not highlight and important bit. "they were taught"
They did not know about Jesus until they were taught and then they believed.
"they were taught" means that they received knowledge. They received the knowledge that there was a man that God had chosen to judge the word and God confirmed it by raising this man from the dead. After receiving this knowledge they made a decision to believe the knowledge that was given to them or not to believe it. Don't feel that you have to respond. This is my last effort to persuade you.
But how did they receive any knowledge without believing it first? As you can't know about the truth and reality of God without believing Him and His mode of making Himself known to us. And any knowledge of Him without belief is impossible. What you pushing here is completely unbiblical, because according to the Bible belief is the mode He uses to make Him and His Kingdom known to believers.
No wonder you are so confused about Christianity, as you seem to be on the side of unbelievers than Christians.
What do you think; that unbelievers know more about how and why God is known to believers than a believer does?
There are two kinds of unbelievers, there is the atheist. And then there is those that are deceived enough to believe the first kind (atheists) in regards to how and why the truth and reality is known to them.
Tiburon
Well-known member
This is not an argument.
It is just a bunch of questions to which you have provided unsupported answers.
1. Does Belief come before knowledge? Sometimes.
2. Does Belief inform knowledge? Sometimes.
3. Do Beliefs form knowledge? Sometimes.
4. Does Belief become knowledge? Sometimes.
C: Therefore, Belief must be a form of knowledge. Must Follow.
No. Knowledge is a form of Belief.
1. Does Belief come before knowledge? If Sometimes, then yes it does.
2. Does Belief inform knowledge? If Sometimes, then yes it does.
3. Do Beliefs form knowledge? If Sometimes, then yes it does.
4. Does Belief become knowledge? If Sometimes, then yes it does.
C1: Therefore, Belief must be a form of knowledge. If sometimes, then it Necessarily Follows.
Also:
5. Unbelief can't come before knowledge.
6. Unbelief can't inform knowledge.
7. Unbelief can't form knowledge.
8. Unbelief can't become knowledge.
C2: Therefore, unbelief can't be a form of knowledge. Necessarily Follows.
No knowledge comes from unbelief.
Temujin
Well-known member
Your logic is faulty:
Does the moon totally obscure the sun? If sometimes then yes it does.
Is it possible to survive without eating, drinking or shelter? If sometimes, then yes it is.
Are all women infertile? If sometimes, then yes they are.
Does liquid water become solid ice? If sometimes then liquid water is a form of solid ice.
Every single one of your conclusions is baseless illogical and bonkers.
Strawman. What does the moon obscuring the sun have to do with my argument silly? I didn't make that argument, see the quotation "" marks that's you saying "the moon totally obscure the sun? If sometimes then yes it does".
Why won't you deal directly with what I am actually saying instead of building strawman bs that is completely inapplicable to the argument I actually made? What's the connection between my argument and the strawman bs you said above?
Also, if every time the truth and reality is known it had to come via a belief in reality, then every time the truth is made known it is because it was believed. And you can't deny this fundamental truth, that belief is necessary in order to make the truth and reality known 100% of the time without exception.
More strawman bs, where is the refutation to my argument in the above silly?
If that were true, then how come you can't refute the argument. Here it is again for your convenience:
1. Does Belief come before knowledge? If Sometimes, then yes it does.
2. Does Belief inform knowledge? If Sometimes, then yes it does.
3. Do Beliefs form knowledge? If Sometimes, then yes it does.
4. Does Belief become knowledge? If Sometimes, then yes it does.
C1: Therefore, Belief must be a form of knowledge. If sometimes, then it Necessarily Follows.
Also:
5. Unbelief can't come before knowledge.
6. Unbelief can't inform knowledge.
7. Unbelief can't form knowledge.
8. Unbelief can't become knowledge.
C2: Therefore, unbelief can't be a form of knowledge. Necessarily Follows.
No knowledge comes from unbelief.
Now, where is your argument that deals directly with my argument?
Tetsugaku
Well-known member
We've all done so already. Your argument is invalid because you are using words wrong. Specifically, you are using the phrase "a form of" backwards. What your premises support is not that belief is a form of knowledge, but rather that knowledge is a form of belief. I could explain this to you further to help you learn, but there's not much point if all you're going to do is shout "strawman"at everything while refusing to answer simple questions.