Evidence for God from Science

stuartcr wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I believe if a person rejects God they must go outside logic,reason and reality and believe by imagination and so there knowledge is flawed from the start.

When a person accepts God though that person remains in logic,reason and reality and their knowledge can be trusted because they know all things have a cause and all things that have a cause are caused by something else but as soon as a person rejects God this fact of the world around us goes out the window to assume this is not true in some cases based on blind faith and imagination.

Is your belief about rejection considered knowledge? If so, how do you know your knowledge is not flawed?

Because it is based on logic,reason and reality and a person who rejects God must go outside logic,reason and reality and must believe things that defies logic,reason and reality.This is before we even get into evidence

Byblos wrote:Seriously kenny, how many times are we supposed to answer this assertion?

Currently, I'm looking for a first time.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Nicki wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Nicki wrote:
I agree, but I think 'knowledge' that isn't actually true is just what you think, not what you know.

You don't agree then, for what you just said contradicts.

Question: Can someone be wrong in their knowledge.

I meant I agreed with most of what you said.

I still think only what we know for sure can be termed 'knowledge'. When we disagree with what particular scientists say we refer to it as what they think, not what they know.

But just because a person "knows something for sure" doesn't mean they are going to be correct! Using theism as an example; you can 2 people worshiping different Gods, yet they both know for sure that their God is the real one; obviously but they both can't be right.

Ken

Then at least one person doesn't actually know - they just think they know!

An everyday example - I was sick yesterday and my husband unloaded the dishwasher in the morning. This afternoon I couldn't see my most-used chopping boards in their usual place and thought he must have put them somewhere different. I asked him of their whereabouts and he said he'd put them in their normal place. Looking again I found them hiding there behind a cutting mat. Now I'd been quite convinced he'd put them somewhere else because when he unloads the dishwasher he usually doesn't know where half the stuff goes, but since I was wrong in my belief I can't really say I knew they were elsewhere.

Nicki wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Nicki wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Nicki wrote:
I agree, but I think 'knowledge' that isn't actually true is just what you think, not what you know.

You don't agree then, for what you just said contradicts.

Question: Can someone be wrong in their knowledge.

I meant I agreed with most of what you said.

I still think only what we know for sure can be termed 'knowledge'. When we disagree with what particular scientists say we refer to it as what they think, not what they know.

But just because a person "knows something for sure" doesn't mean they are going to be correct! Using theism as an example; you can 2 people worshiping different Gods, yet they both know for sure that their God is the real one; obviously but they both can't be right.

Ken

Then at least one person doesn't actually know - they just think they know!

An everyday example - I was sick yesterday and my husband unloaded the dishwasher in the morning. This afternoon I couldn't see my most-used chopping boards in their usual place and thought he must have put them somewhere different. I asked him of their whereabouts and he said he'd put them in their normal place. Looking again I found them hiding there behind a cutting mat. Now I'd been quite convinced he'd put them somewhere else because when he unloads the dishwasher he usually doesn't know where half the stuff goes, but since I was wrong in my belief I can't really say I knew they were elsewhere.

I guess it depends on how you define "know". I was defining the term the way the dictionary defines the term.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Know?s=t
As you can see, according to the dictionary, proof, or actually being correct is not necessary for us to know something. Otherwise it is almost impossible to know anything. Do you know your birth name? Your age? Who your birth parents are? There could almost always be a scenario of the possibility of you being wrong.

Ken

Nicki wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Nicki wrote:
I agree, but I think 'knowledge' that isn't actually true is just what you think, not what you know.

You don't agree then, for what you just said contradicts.

Question: Can someone be wrong in their knowledge.

I meant I agreed with most of what you said.

I still think only what we know for sure can be termed 'knowledge'. When we disagree with what particular scientists say we refer to it as what they think, not what they know.

Good points.

Certainly opens a can o' worms about what counts as justified belief and therefore knowledge.

Foundationally, all sides need to embrace truth.
Then it's a matter of imo, who is the most logically coherent, has the best reasons and evidence.
So then, if you disagree with this or that scientist, or practitioner of logic and reason, or even theologian, then you ought to be able to offer up your own rational justifications.

If you falsify another's knowledge, then it becomes replaced.
In reality, I think I lean towards knowledge never ever really being fully found false.
Rather, knowledge ought to evolve and we get closer to the truth.

We might say Newtonian Physics failed, but in reality it is quite reliable.
Even if General Relativity might explain things better more fully.
And then their is Special Relativity...

Good points,Nicki and Kurieuo,

When I'm not dabbling in philosophy? The thing to do is to go by evidence to the best of our abilities when deciding what to accept as truth especially if it is coming from man,no matter the subject.Too many people seem to give the benefit of the doubt if it is something that sounds right or is popular but this does not equal truth,evidence does and we should focus on evidence instead of just going along with popular ideas or theories.

Now just because there may not be enough evidence to say something is true or not and this does not mean it is not true but it still should not be accepted as truth until there is enough evidence.

It is important to not just accept something because it sounds right.There is a difference between truth,opinions,theories,indoctrination,propaganda,etc and the lines between these can be blurred and this is why evidence is so important for establishing truth. A person can be aware of Some opinion or belief that most believe is true and be aware of and know all about it and yet not accept it as truth until enough evidence comers forward to back it up as truth.

This should be very important to Christians because Jesus warned about great deception in the last days with false teachers and prophets.

In vast majority, practically, belief has little to do with knowledge and more to do with the emotional state of the person. I doubt a lot of people research their beliefs. And to be more precise. Personal experiences count a lot for what people believe or don't believe in. So again its not the academics which are more important but how said knowledge is experienced in real life. That is why the Muslim thinks Allah is God and The Hindu thinks Krishna is God.

They don't research but having the knowledge of their faiths they act out on it and often get results.