Are YOU Destined To Burn For Eternity?

Saquist said:
You see...according to this definition "belief"
"I know he exist." There is quite a difference. But it's not the only one.

Evolutionist "believe" in evolution but do they "know"? In any case they all express it in terms of belief, which merely trust without the substance facts or the proven. The difference is so profound to slight even yourself with the word "belief" in anything when you're absolutely sure, betrays your own doubt.
Click to expand...

What you call knowing is actually believing, you cant know.
 
Saquist:

Evolutionist "believe" in evolution but do they "know"? In any case they all express it in terms of belief, which merely trust without the substance facts or the proven.
Click to expand...
This old misconception again? No, we know evolution happened for a demonstrable fact. It's the precise mechanisms that are in question.
 
Saquist said:
Why? How can you say that you know that I don't know if what you know is believing?
Click to expand...
But if you say you know that I know that you don't know, then how do you really know that I do or don't know, based on whether or not I say you or I know or don't know? Hmmm???
 
superluminal said:
But if you say you know that I know that you don't know, then how do you really know that I do or don't know, based on whether or not I say you or I know or don't know? Hmmm???
Click to expand...

You almost made me smile....almost.

I know based on many things but knowing is not subject to you not knowing. Similarly you knowing is not based on me not knowing either. However you and other like you, your compatriots if you will constantly express your knowing as believing therefore subconsciously you've told me that you don't actually know. You don't know yet you behave as if you do know despite relating knowing in terms of belief, belief being the intregal intermediate proceedure to knowing however most don't know that ascending from belief to knowing is intregal to making a mental acknowledgement of that truth, thus allowing a space of doubt, which is not knowing but actually believing.

However, doubt or no doubt, knowing is about knowledge. I've taken in more than enough knowledge to know the difference and recognize belief and knowledge when I see it, in others as well as in my self. I guess I'm famility with the "ring of truth."
 
Truths change. As we seek to understand the world around us during the eons we have has many "fact" totally thrown out as nonsense or "facts" overturned by new ways to examine a subject matter. What was a fact yesterday could easily be a lie today. Look at Pluto as a small example, it was a planet and now its not!
 
Saquist said:
You almost made me smile....almost.

I know based on many things but knowing is not subject to you not knowing. Similarly you knowing is not based on me not knowing either. However you and other like you, your compatriots if you will constantly express your knowing as believing therefore subconsciously you've told me that you don't actually know. You don't know yet you behave as if you do know despite relating knowing in terms of belief, belief being the intregal intermediate proceedure to knowing however most don't know that ascending from belief to knowing is intregal to making a mental acknowledgement of that truth, thus allowing a space of doubt, which is not knowing but actually believing.

However, doubt or no doubt, knowing is about knowledge. I've taken in more than enough knowledge to know the difference and recognize belief and knowledge when I see it, in others as well as in my self. I guess I'm famility with the "ring of truth."
Click to expand...

That didn't really help..

What if I told you that I KNOW that God doesn't exist ? What then ?
 
Enmos said:
What if I told you that I KNOW that God doesn't exist ? What then ?
Click to expand...

lol, but... there is no possible way you could KNOW that. It is like saying that you KNOW that aliens aren´t out there; I mean, you cannot possible have visited all the planets in the Universe in order to find that there is no life other than in Earth.
 
Wisdom_Seeker said:
lol, but... there is no possible way you could KNOW that. It is like saying that you KNOW that aliens aren´t out there; I mean, you cannot possible have visited all the planets in the Universe in order to find that there is no life other than in Earth.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Saquist.
I can KNOW God doesn't exist just as well as Saquist can KNOW God does exist. :shrug:
 
Very Good.
And now...you know. However you can't know what I know. Therefore you can't know that I don't know that God exist.

I know. I don't believe. If I believe then I'm not sure. Therefore I know. I know because it's been proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt. Why express it any other way? Why is it for you to know you must prove me wrong and vise versa. If you know, then nothing but the most overwhelming evidence should convince you otherwise. However. If you knowing has nothing to do with the knowledge you take in...If knowing involves a reason and avoidance or fear, if your purpose is to process everyone in the same thinking, then do you really know? No. Knowing is internal. While expressing yourself is natural, the act of force and control to alter all other perception to your own measures just how secure you are in what you know. If these are the conclusions of human behavior then one, namely I, can without doubt see that it is an action of belief threaten by percieved internal inferiority.

Knowledge is internal. It is the one thing no one can take from you. It therefore is the threat many fear. People with too much knowledge can change the world.
 
Saquist said:
Very Good.
And now...you know.

I know. I don't believe. If I believe then I'm not sure. Therefore I know. I know because it's been proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt. Why express it any other way? Why is it for you to know you must prove me wrong and vise versa. If you know, then nothing but the most overwhelming evidence should convince you otherwise. However. If you knowing has nothing to do with the knowledge you take in...If knowing involves a reason and avoidance or fear, if your purpose is to process everyone in the same thinking, then do you really know? No. Knowing is internal. While expressing yourself is natural, the act of force and control to alter all other perception to your own measures just how secure you are in what you know. If these are the conclusions of human behavior then one, namely I, can without doubt see that it is an action of belief threaten by percieved internal inferiority.
Click to expand...
What is your knowledge of God and how did you acquire it ?
We cant both KNOW opposites, one of us is bound to be wrong. 'Knowing' therefore is not necessarily infallible.

Saquist said:
Knowledge is internal. It is the one thing no one can take from you. It therefore is the threat many fear. People with too much knowledge can change the world.
Click to expand...
I thought that was dignity..
 
However, belief frequently applies to something you are either unsure about or for which there is insufficient proof. For instance, I might say, "I believe that the single currency is a good thing", or "I believe that Wales will win next Saturday". These things may very well be false: the single currency may prove disastrous, and Wales - judging on recent form - may very well lose.

Knowledge, on the other hand, in its strict sense, only applies to things that are true. Therefore, it may be inappropriate to say, "I know that Wales will win" or that "I know which horse will win the 3:30 at Kempton", because there is an element of doubt involved (unless I have some proven psychic ability, such as Mystic Meg).
Click to expand...
http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/tok/knowledge2.htm

If someone believes something, they think that it is true, but they may be mistaken. This is not the case with knowledge. For example, suppose that Jeff thinks that a particular bridge is safe, and attempts to cross it; unfortunately, the bridge collapses under his weight. We might say that Jeff believed that the bridge was safe, but that his belief was mistaken. It would not be accurate to say that he knew that the bridge was safe, because plainly it was not. For something to count as knowledge, it must actually be true.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

Thus, for a belief to be knowledge, it must be the case that the belief is, in fact, true, and the believer must have justification for the belief. A belief that is true but for which we have no evidence cannot be described as knowledge.
Click to expand...
http://www.ils.unc.edu/~losee/b5/node9.html

You believe: you don't KNOW.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top