Knowledge springs from faith

@bigdogg said
I think it's the opposite.

Knowledge springs from putting faith aside, and giving yourself and fellow smart humans a little credit for being able to slowly figure out how things actually work.

Absolutely!

@kellyjay said
Even AI knows better:

The word “faith” has a rich etymology that traces back to ancient languages. Let’s explore its origins:

Latin (Fides):
The Latin word “fides” encompasses concepts of trust, faith, confidence, reliance, and belief. It serves as the root for the English word “faith”.
The verb “fidere” in Latin means “to trust”.
This Latin root is derived from the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) root “*bheidh-”, which signifies trust, confide, and persuade.

Faith is your bag sir. Stop trying to envelop everyone in it.

Faith fills the gaps, where there is a lack of knowledge.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Absolutely!

Exactly how do you figure things out if you cannot first have something already figured out as in what is true, you believe you can use your mind, you believe the universe you are in is intelligently understandable, you think you know rates and causes. If faith doesn't come before reasoning what exactly are you reasoning with?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Faith is your bag sir. Stop trying to envelop everyone in it.

Faith fills the gaps, where there is a lack of knowledge.

Faith justifies the things we acknowledge as true and it can also point to possibilities on those things not known or understood. If you didn't believe what you acknowledged as your starting position was valid because you believed in it, how would you look at anything with understanding? If we don't trust someone or something we are not going to put our faith in them or it on anything of importance or value.

@kellyjay said
Exactly how do you figure things out if you cannot first have something already figured out as in what is true, you believe you can use your mind, you believe the universe you are in is intelligently understandable, you think you know rates and causes. If faith doesn't come before reasoning what exactly are you reasoning with?

Faith is a heart thing. It has very little to do with the brain. - What I know is based on accumulated knowledge that I have confidence in, based on reasoned argument and evidence.

I am confident a rock exists because it is a tangible thing that I can touch and study. I don't have faith that the rock exists. - You have faith that God exists, something that can't be touched or evidenced in any tangible way. That's the difference.

This is just another example of you having an idea fixed in your head and being blinkered to anything said to you in response.

@kellyjay said
Exactly how do you figure things out if you cannot first have something already figured out as in what is true, you believe you can use your mind, you believe the universe you are in is intelligently understandable, you think you know rates and causes. If faith doesn't come before reasoning what exactly are you reasoning with?

You are attempting to make this a 'chicken or egg' question, and to put faith before knowledge. Knowledge and faith are not equivalent things, merely with different levels of certainty attached to them. One does not come before the other, and even if it did (chronologically, in the development of children's 'theory of minds'--see Piaget), it would establish nothing about an order of epistemological priority between them.

You evidently think science is merely an alternative belief system which has Nobody in the place where you think God should be. It isn't like that. Not a bit.

Knowledge springs from evidence, something tangible in the collectively real world. Faith springs from the heart, something personal. Trying to compare the two and to base the one on the other is merely your way of trying to buttress your literalist interpretation of the Book of Genesis. Your need to justify your faith in the face of massively coherent scientific evidence which contradicts your literalist interpretation of the Book of Genesis is transparent, and massively mistaken about what constitutes knowledge based on scientific evidence.

@moonbus said
You are attempting to make this a 'chicken or egg' question, and to put faith before knowledge. Knowledge and faith are not equivalent things, merely with different levels of certainty attached to them. One does not come before the other, and even if it did (chronologically, in the development of children's 'theory of minds'--see Piaget), it would establish nothing about an o ...[text shortened]... transparent, and massively mistaken about what constitutes knowledge based on scientific evidence.

I'm simply pointing out we are creatures of faith and that is how we have been operating since the beginning. Redefining the word faith to make it exclusive to religious notions doesn't alter what we do and why we do them. Reliability, fidelity, trustworthiness, or faith is how we understand before we can even begin to process anything. If what we think we know at the start is unreliable, untrustworthy, or faithless then the fruit of that is meaningless. You have to start from a place where how you define right from wrong is faithfully true, if you don't have that you cannot reason, reasonablity, which I might add you do quite a bit when you say, it just is.

@kellyjay said
I'm simply pointing out we are creatures of faith

'We' being Christians.

You simply can't apply that to everybody else. I am not a creature of faith. I am a creature of science and verifiable knowledge.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
'We' being Christians.

You simply can't apply that to everybody else. I am not a creature of faith. I am a creature of science and verifiable knowledge.

We being people, you are no different than anyone else! Attempting to disconnect part of the human race from another is simply you putting your worldview’s faith into practice, your coloring the world as you see it.

@kellyjay said
We being people, you are no different than anyone else! Attempting to disconnect part of the human race from another is simply you putting your worldview’s faith into practice, your coloring the world as you see it.

You are mistaken, there is a big difference between us. You use faith to paper over the gaps in your knowledge. In contrast, I seek to fill the gaps with verifiable knowledge and accept the gaps for what they are until we are able to fill them.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
You are mistaken, there is a big difference between us. You use faith to paper over the gaps in your knowledge. In contrast, I seek to fill the gaps with verifiable knowledge and accept the gaps for what they are until we are able to fill them.

I don’t believe that you can produce proof of anything without faith, you first have to believe in the truthfulness of what you are using to prove your points before your justification can begin!

I have positive reasons beyond paper while you have to just accept somethings on blind faith, the beginnings of the universe and life, I have reasons for my beliefs, you do not, you have denial and sometimes scoffing denial.

If you care to put that to the test we can, but I think you will disappear before to long.

@kellyjay said
I don’t believe that you can produce proof of anything without faith, you first have to believe in the truthfulness of what you are using to prove your points before your justification can begin!

I have positive reasons beyond paper while you have to just accept somethings on blind faith, the beginnings of the universe and life, I have reasons for my beliefs, you do not, ...[text shortened]... enial.

If you care to put that to the test we can, but I think you will disappear before to long.

This post by you is so absurd (and back to front) it is not even worth responding to.

Take that as a victory if you will. Belligerent nonsense over common sense.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
You have unnecessarily inserted the word faith.

Faith isn't knowledge based. Faith is believing something without substantial knowledge. My knowledge doesn't come from faith. It comes from verifiable evidence.

I kind of get what you are trying to say, but 'faith' is entirely the wrong word. (Although I see why you are trying to use it). Perhaps 'confidence' wo ...[text shortened]... that the science I have learned is correct, although remain open to future discoveries, corrections.

You are reading my mind again, but incompletely. I would have put it as confident opinions. I believe that a confident opinion is more suitable than faith, as KellyJay intends to use it.

Faith is blind and does not require much thinking. In seeking out knowledge that cannot be known, some profound and extensive thinking is required. Opinions result from serious and appropriate contemplative thinking, or let us call it reasoning, and common sense. At least if we are discussing absolute knowledge. For instance, knowing absolutely whether the universe came to be or if it had no beginning is not possible, currently. Only opinions can be given, where some can be better adduced than others.

Knowledge, in my opinion, is perfectly equal to truth. But perfection is only possible with absolutes. Therefore, knowledge which is less than absolute can only be equal to a correct opinion if we are seeking absolute knowledge.

The absolute knowledge of infinity? What is infinity? Is there such a thing as infinity? With opinions only can an answer be given. If infinity, as defined and generally accepted, exists and I express an opinion that infinity exists, then I have expressed a correct opinion. But the absolute knowledge on infinity is not possible, unless one of us can reach infinity and then return to tell us it does exist. But logic would tell us that our traveler would be lying to us, as far as we can understand what is meant by reaching absolute infinity.

Questioning faith in beliefs can lead to more possible opinions. The more opinions there are, the better the odds of accidentally coming to a correct opinion. Still, one cannot reasonably assume that correct opinions are absolute knowledge. Even correct opinions are based on doubts.

An opinion: Absolute knowledge and absolute faith will meet only when absolute truth is reached.

@kellyjay said
The knowledge of good and evil together is not sin, before the knowledge of evil entered into man everything about us and around us was called very good. Evil was to be avoided, with the warning once it was introduced into human existence we die, nothing about goodness carried that warning. The knowledge of good and evil is the contrast between them (knowledge of good AND ...[text shortened]... ut ever touching knowledge of evil, but we touched it, ate it, and made it a part of our very being.

I'm surprised that you, who take every word said to have been spoken by God in the Bible is truth, that you have not considered and put more thought in the text where God says he only visits the sins committed by our parents (forefathers) to the 3rd and fourth generation only.

The idea you hold that that we are all damned because of what Adam and Eve did is baseless. You actually don't understand that God is using a story to make it clear that if we are to be in the image of Himself, as he has made us, he actually intended man to bite and digest the knowledge of what is good and what is evil. For good to standout and be known by man it has to have a contrast. That contrast is evil. You obviously don't understand God's good-natured humorous side. Like making the woman from a man's rib. In English slang, to "rib" someone means to tease or make fun of them, often in a playful or good-natured manner.

Look at it as in the art of painting, and instead of good and evil use light and darkness. The chiaroscuro technique, which uses shadows and a single light source to create depth and drama, brings out the most realistic images of reality in painting.

The bible teaches that fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin. This means that while the sins of the fathers can influence the lives of their children, each person is ultimately responsible for their own actions.

Do you think that God, the Father, would seriously put his only naturally begotten Son to death for something he intentionally made Adam and Eve do?

I suppose you were already only into Christian gospel music when the Pet Shop Boys came on the musical scene with this song.

YouTube

@moonbus said
Five questions, one right after the other? What is this, the Spanish Inquisition ??

Any inquisition stems from having an inquisitive mind. Minds ask questions and usually minds answer them. I'm conducting a Greek inquisition.

I'm told the term "inquisitive" is etymologically related to "inquisition" through their shared Latin root, "inquirere," which means "to seek, to search, to ask." The word "inquisition" itself comes from the Latin"inquisitio," which refers to a judicial investigation or inquiry.This Latin term is the noun form of the verb "inquirere," which is used to describe the act of seeking or inquiring into something.

YouTube