Evidence for God from Science

Is belief the same as knowledge?

No.

Kurieuo wrote:No.

Does a belief require proof?

Belief requires evidence.

At least the biblical kind of belief/faith.

If that's the kind of belief you're referring to.

RickD wrote:Belief requires evidence.

At least the biblical kind of belief/faith.

If that's the kind of belief you're referring to.

Yes, thank you

stuartcr wrote:

RickD wrote:Belief requires evidence.

At least the biblical kind of belief/faith.

If that's the kind of belief you're referring to.

Yes, thank you

It is good to be clear on terms.

Belief can be blind belief.
Knowledge is belief that has justification.
"Official" definitions aside, it is good to start with each person's own understanding.

Some place such a high bar on knowledge as to say that which counts as knowledge is only that which is true.
Consider that it seems right, at least to me, to say someone's knowledge might be wrong, however it doesn't make sense to say someone's truth is wrong.
THAT is, unless you're a completed product of a "highly rigorous" Western-European education wherein each society and culture and even individuals can have their own "truth" -- i.e., "what is true for you isn't true for me."
For such, "truth" and "knowledge" appears to be interchangeable, such that truth is even relative to a subject and not objective.

In terms of the biblical belief, "knowledge of God" and "belief" thereof could be interchangeable.
Consider that Thomas "believed" Jesus was raised according to what is recorded after placing his finger in Christ's hand.
This is just one of many instances in Scripture that Christian Evidentialists put forward for a "biblical faith" not being blind but based upon evidence.
Such is opposed to the blind kind that "faith-healing" groups proclaim we must have, and if we weren't healed, well we "didn't have enough faith".

Hope that provides a more helpful response than my previous "No".

Kurieuo wrote:

stuartcr wrote:

RickD wrote:Belief requires evidence.

At least the biblical kind of belief/faith.

If that's the kind of belief you're referring to.

Yes, thank you

It is good to be clear on terms.

Belief can be blind belief.
Knowledge is belief that has justification.
"Official" definitions aside, it is good to start with each person's own understanding.

Some place such a high bar on knowledge as to say that which counts as knowledge is only that which is true.
Consider that it seems right, at least to me, to say someone's knowledge might be wrong, however it doesn't make sense to say someone's truth is wrong.
THAT is, unless you're a completed product of a "highly rigorous" Western-European education wherein each society and culture and even individuals can have their own "truth" -- i.e., "what is true for you isn't true for me."
For such, "truth" and "knowledge" appears to be interchangeable, such that truth is even relative to a subject and not objective.

In terms of the biblical belief, "knowledge of God" and "belief" thereof could be interchangeable.
Consider that Thomas "believed" Jesus was raised according to what is recorded after placing his finger in Christ's hand.
This is just one of many instances in Scripture that Christian Evidentialists put forward for a "biblical faith" not being blind but based upon evidence.
Such is opposed to the blind kind that "faith-healing" groups proclaim we must have, and if we weren't healed, well we "didn't have enough faith".

Hope that provides a more helpful response than my previous "No".

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

Nicki wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

stuartcr wrote:

RickD wrote:Belief requires evidence.

At least the biblical kind of belief/faith.

If that's the kind of belief you're referring to.

Yes, thank you

It is good to be clear on terms.

Belief can be blind belief.
Knowledge is belief that has justification.
"Official" definitions aside, it is good to start with each person's own understanding.

Some place such a high bar on knowledge as to say that which counts as knowledge is only that which is true.
Consider that it seems right, at least to me, to say someone's knowledge might be wrong, however it doesn't make sense to say someone's truth is wrong.
THAT is, unless you're a completed product of a "highly rigorous" Western-European education wherein each society and culture and even individuals can have their own "truth" -- i.e., "what is true for you isn't true for me."
For such, "truth" and "knowledge" appears to be interchangeable, such that truth is even relative to a subject and not objective.

In terms of the biblical belief, "knowledge of God" and "belief" thereof could be interchangeable.
Consider that Thomas "believed" Jesus was raised according to what is recorded after placing his finger in Christ's hand.
This is just one of many instances in Scripture that Christian Evidentialists put forward for a "biblical faith" not being blind but based upon evidence.
Such is opposed to the blind kind that "faith-healing" groups proclaim we must have, and if we weren't healed, well we "didn't have enough faith".

Hope that provides a more helpful response than my previous "No".

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 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.

Kurieuo wrote:

Nicki wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

stuartcr wrote:

RickD wrote:Belief requires evidence.

At least the biblical kind of belief/faith.

If that's the kind of belief you're referring to.

Yes, thank you

It is good to be clear on terms.

Belief can be blind belief.
Knowledge is belief that has justification.
"Official" definitions aside, it is good to start with each person's own understanding.

Some place such a high bar on knowledge as to say that which counts as knowledge is only that which is true.
Consider that it seems right, at least to me, to say someone's knowledge might be wrong, however it doesn't make sense to say someone's truth is wrong.
THAT is, unless you're a completed product of a "highly rigorous" Western-European education wherein each society and culture and even individuals can have their own "truth" -- i.e., "what is true for you isn't true for me."
For such, "truth" and "knowledge" appears to be interchangeable, such that truth is even relative to a subject and not objective.

In terms of the biblical belief, "knowledge of God" and "belief" thereof could be interchangeable.
Consider that Thomas "believed" Jesus was raised according to what is recorded after placing his finger in Christ's hand.
This is just one of many instances in Scripture that Christian Evidentialists put forward for a "biblical faith" not being blind but based upon evidence.
Such is opposed to the blind kind that "faith-healing" groups proclaim we must have, and if we weren't healed, well we "didn't have enough faith".

Hope that provides a more helpful response than my previous "No".

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 believe to know simply means to be convinced beyond any shadow of doubt. So yes; a person can be wrong in their knowledge.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Question: Can someone be wrong in their knowledge.

I believe to know simply means to be convinced beyond any shadow of doubt. So yes; a person can be wrong in their knowledge.

And I'd agree with you.
Our knowledge can change, grow and even perhaps shrink.
For example, scientific knowledge such as Newtonian Physics and General Relativity and even further Special Relativity.

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?

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.

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

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