Knowledge vs belief

[aik]

21 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

You are conflating two different things here, aik.

 

 

There are statistical chances that something will kill us, but these things are not supernatural.

 

This is totally different from your faith in invisible and intangible supernatural things.

 

There is real and physical evidence for the things that might kill us.

 

But there is no evidence for the supernatural things you believe in by faith.

 

 

When asked you admitted that you could present no evidence for these supernatural things.

 

So, your example is false and compares two different things.

Walter, with all my respect, but you are out of my subject here. I say "mountains" you say "let us drive it". If you go out of your house every day with fear that will something happen or not. Or maybe you sit and calculate how to go out to avoid that imaginable brick. I don't know it. But if you just open your dorr and walk out of the house without fear of being killed, then it is faith. 

 

Faith - Wikiquote

 

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Faith#:~:text=Faith is confidence or trust,human perceptual and imaginative capacities

 

Faith is confidence or trust in a person, idea, deity, religion, or any specifiable belief that is not based on proof.

 

According to this link faith can be not only in idea or religion but also any specifiable belief which is not based on proof. So you do not get proof any time you go out. You do not get proof any time you eat something, if it is poisoned or not. You just believe that everything is ok because it is written on it that it is ok. For example a food from a store. It is faith. You trust all the chain. You do not need to be hypocrite here. 

[aik]

39 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Hello aik.

 

 

It's a new day, so once again I'll ask you that question.

 

 

Which testimony is more reliable?

 

The one given by the witness who said he was at the station between 9 and 10?

 

Or the ones given by the other witnesses and the cameras that say he didn't get there until 10:30?

 

 

Which one is more reliable?

 

Which one is true?

of course the second one. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, aik said:

But if you just open your dorr and walk out of the house without fear of being killed, then it is faith. 

Not exactly.  It is a kind of faith, given that I really dont know what will happen; but it is also based on the historical data of all the days I walked out my door and didn't die.  So there is evidence, and good reason, to believe I won't die again today.

 

So, yes, you are comparing two different things, here.  This is a false analogy. 

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, aik said:

of course the second one. 

 

On Saturday I asked you this, aik.

 

And in a court of law, which witness testimonies are more reliable?

Those supported by independent sources?

Or those that aren't?

 

And you replied, saying...

 

Both have equal power before the court. 

 

 

But now you've changed your mind.

 

Now you agree that testimonies supported by independent sources are more reliable than those that aren't.

 

What made you change your mind, aik?

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, aik said:

Walter, with all my respect, but you are out of my subject here. I say "mountains" you say "let us drive it". If you go out of your house every day with fear that will something happen or not. Or maybe you sit and calculate how to go out to avoid that imaginable brick. I don't know it. But if you just open your dorr and walk out of the house without fear of being killed, then it is faith. 

 

Faith - Wikiquote

 

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Faith#:~:text=Faith is confidence or trust,human perceptual and imaginative capacities

 

Faith is confidence or trust in a person, idea, deity, religion, or any specifiable belief that is not based on proof.

 

According to this link faith can be not only in idea or religion but also any specifiable belief which is not based on proof. So you do not get proof any time you go out. You do not get proof any time you eat something, if it is poisoned or not. You just believe that everything is ok because it is written on it that it is ok. For example a food from a store. It is faith. You trust all the chain. You do not need to be hypocrite here. 

 

So why are you, a Christian, not relying on the bible to define what faith is?

 

And if you agree with this Wiki quote, how can bricks and houses not be proven?

 

 

 

https://elate.am/for-rent-five-bedroom-house-in-yerevan-armenia/RVAH2905

 

 

Do you see where you made your mistake, aik?

 

You applied faith to things that can be proven, like bricks and houses.

[TABA]

10 hours ago, aik said:

 

I am reading a story of FedupWithit and some other stories have i read, i wish to ask, wasn't there in usa only one pastor who could listen to her, to take care of her to help her to be recovered and out of this tribulation?

 

The better question might be: wasn’t there a GOD who could listen to her, to take care of her to help her to be recovered and out of this tribulation?

 

I have met so many people who had experienced confusion and torment as christians, who studied to learn god’s will, and who prayed to - begged - god to show them the way.  And no relief came.  Many here finally got relief after deciding that god either didn’t exist or didn’t care.  Renouncing christianity brought them the peace that had eluded them as believers.  
 

Certainly many people find peace and meaning in christianity, but for others it brings only torment and anxiety.  If this god existed, why would the right preacher need to be found so that god’s will can be done?  Is god incapable of acting except through certain human actors?

[aik]

5 minutes ago, TABA said:

The better question might be: wasn’t there a GOD who could listen to her, to take care of her to help her to be recovered and out of this tribulation?

 

I have met so many people who had experienced confusion and torment as christians, who studied to learn god’s will, and who prayed to - begged - god to show them the way.  And no relief came.  Many here finally got relief after deciding that god either didn’t exist or didn’t care.  Renouncing christianity brought them the peace that had eluded them as believers.  
 

Certainly many people find peace and meaning in christianity, but for others it brings only torment and anxiety.  If this god existed, why would the right preacher need to be found so that god’s will can be done?  Is god incapable of acting except through certain human actors?

There are situations when a believer is not able to hear God and there are situations when a believer hears God but cannot obey. These are different. For example you yourself also are unable to hear God, because of your heart. God is in his place, your heart is closed.

[TABA]

4 minutes ago, aik said:

There are situations when a believer is not able to hear God and there are situations when a believer hears God but cannot obey. These are different. For example you yourself also are unable to hear God, because of your heart. God is in his place, your heart is closed.

There will always be excuses for why god fails to act or to communicate clearly, in spite of the promises in scripture.  It’s always some human’s fault.  

[aik]

8 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

On Saturday I asked you this, aik.

 

And in a court of law, which witness testimonies are more reliable?

Those supported by independent sources?

Or those that aren't?

 

And you replied, saying...

 

Both have equal power before the court. 

 

 

But now you've changed your mind.

 

Now you agree that testimonies supported by independent sources are more reliable than those that aren't.

 

What made you change your mind, aik?

Your question got changed

[aik]

8 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Not exactly.  It is a kind of faith, given that I really dont know what will happen; but it is also based on the historical data of all the days I walked out my door and didn't die.  So there is evidence, and good reason, to believe I won't die again today.

 

So, yes, you are comparing two different things, here.  This is a false analogy. 

 

7 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

So why are you, a Christian, not relying on the bible to define what faith is?

 

And if you agree with this Wiki quote, how can bricks and houses not be proven?

 

 

 

https://elate.am/for-rent-five-bedroom-house-in-yerevan-armenia/RVAH2905

 

 

Do you see where you made your mistake, aik?

 

You applied faith to things that can be proven, like bricks and houses.

I see guys both you do not know what the faith is. Ok, learn then.

 

πῐ́στῐς • (pístis) f (genitive πῐ́στεως or πῐ́στῐος); third declension

1. trust in others, faith
2. belief in a higher power, faith
3. the state of being persuaded of something: belief, confidence, assurance
4. trust in a commercial sense: credit
5. faithfulness, honesty, trustworthiness, fidelity
6. that which gives assurance: treaty, oath, guarantee
7. means of persuasion: argument, proof
8. that which is entrusted

 

Faith in the new testament means confidence. If ghere is no confidence then there is no faith. Here is the link to its definition.

 

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/πίστις

 

Read it carefully. Here are given meanings for the greek word of faith used in the new testament. 

 

You can compare your thoughts with oficial data, and if you are wise enough then correct your thoughts.

[aik]

6 hours ago, TABA said:

There will always be excuses for why god fails to act or to communicate clearly, in spite of the promises in scripture.  It’s always some human’s fault.  

The human is sinful. 

 

John 14:19: "In a little while, the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you also will live."

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Yes, as I said, faith based on historical data is a kind of faith.  But it is not the same kind of faith as faith in something without any evidence whatsoever.  Perhaps the subtlety doesn't come through in Russian or Armenian. 

[walterpthefirst]

19 minutes ago, aik said:

Your question got changed

 

Here's what happened, aik.

 

On Saturday you said that eyewitness testimony and the testimony of independent sources had equal power before the court.

 

If that's so, how can the testimony of independent sources (other people and the cameras) be more reliable and true?

 

Are you saying that the testimony which is more reliable and true would NOT have more power before the court?

 

 

 

 

[aik]

23 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Here's what happened, aik.

 

On Saturday you said that eyewitness testimony and the testimony of independent sources had equal power before the court.

 

If that's so, how can the testimony of independent sources (other people and the cameras) be more reliable and true?

 

Are you saying that the testimony which is more reliable and true would NOT have more power before the court?

 

 

 

 

Well, friend, in the second case you added another witness to an independent evidence. It made it stronger. 

 

In general i understand what you are saying. Your logic here is very good. But you do not understand what i am trying to deliver to you. Believers belive in God upon many witnesses and evidences, though the evidences which we have are not qualified as evidence by you. It is ok. But it does not change anything. They are evidences for those who believed in God, and in the world there are non believers who also consider them evidence. Though they stay as a non believer. I mean they do not follow Jesus. 

 

Here we have witnesses, subjective evidence, and miracles as an objective evidence directly from God. You cannot measure a miracle but you can witness it and state that it happened. 

 

I am ok with your opinion, but i am unable to change it. May God bless you to find salvation.

[aik]

23 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Yes, as I said, faith based on historical data is a kind of faith.  But it is not the same kind of faith as faith in something without any evidence whatsoever.  Perhaps the subtlety doesn't come through in Russian or Armenian. 

Together with you i deny faith without an evidence. And the Bible denies faith without any evidence. It says that such a faith is dead. But what we call evidence is nothing to you, that's the matter. Well i am unable to change your mind, and i will not. May God bless you to find salvation, my friend.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

10 minutes ago, aik said:

Together with you i deny faith without an evidence. And the Bible denies faith without any evidence. It says that such a faith is dead. But what we call evidence is nothing to you, that's the matter. Well i am unable to change your mind, and i will not. May God bless you to find salvation, my friend.

This is inaccurate for 2 reasons.  1. The bible does not say faith without evidence is dead; it says faith is the evidence.  In other words, faith is a substitute for actual evidence (and not a very good one).  2. The bible does not say faith without evidence is dead; it says faith without works is dead.

 

May Quan Am pour eternal compassion upon you.

[aik]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This is inaccurate for 2 reasons.  1. The bible does not say faith without evidence is dead; it says faith is the evidence.  In other words, faith is a substitute for actual evidence (and not a very good one).  2. The bible does not say faith without evidence is dead; it says faith without works is dead.

 

May Quan Am pour eternal compassion upon you.

Inaccurate is to base explanation of faith on the only one biblical verse. Not only hebrews 11 speaks about the faith. The whole bible from the very start reveals to us what the faith is. You are mislead here only because you try to make an argument based upon one verse. If you thought so while you were a church attender then i start to understand reasons of your fall. 

 

2. You are right. But the works of faith are the very evidence of the living faith. If there is a work, then we can conclude about faith.

 

Compassion is very important. Yes.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

25 minutes ago, aik said:

You are mislead here only because you try to make an argument based upon one verse. If you thought so while you were a church attender then i start to understand reasons of your fall. 

This is also inaccurate.  I did not "try to make an argument based upon one verse."  I simply pointed out the inaccuracies in the post you made. 

 

Secondly, one random post on a random website tells you next to nothing about my life as a christian, nor the reasons I no longer am one.  For you to presume otherwise is both arrogant and self-righteous on your part.  Neither are fruits of the holy spirit.  

 

Don't just hear to respond; listen to learn.

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, aik said:

Well, friend, in the second case you added another witness to an independent evidence. It made it stronger. 

 

Here's what happened, aik.  On Saturday I offered you both cases, the weak and the strong.

 

Posted Saturday at 02:07 PM

 

On 7/1/2023 at 10:41 AM, walterpthefirst said:

 

A witnesses testimony on its own or one supported by independent evidence?

 

Please answer THAT question.

 

Both have equal power before the court. 

 

 

You were offered both options by me on that day and you said they both had equal power before the court.

 

Yet, yesterday you said that they did not have equal power before the court.

 

You said that the testimony supported by independent evidence was the stronger one.

 

The one which was more reliable and truthful and therefore the one with more power before the court.

 

2 hours ago, aik said:

In general i understand what you are saying. Your logic here is very good. But you do not understand what i am trying to deliver to you. Believers belive in God upon many witnesses and evidences, though the evidences which we have are not qualified as evidence by you. It is ok. But it does not change anything. They are evidences for those who believed in God, and in the world there are non believers who also consider them evidence. Though they stay as a non believer. I mean they do not follow Jesus. 

 

That's right.  None of the eyewitness testimonies in the bible are supported by independent evidence.

 

You agreed that testimony supported by independent evidence is more reliable than testimony that isn't.

 

So, if you are being consistent you shouldn't believe the unsupported testimonies in the bible.

 

You should only believe them if they are supported by independent evidence.

 

And you have admitted that you have no independent evidence to present.

 

 

2 hours ago, aik said:

Here we have witnesses, subjective evidence, and miracles as an objective evidence directly from God. You cannot measure a miracle but you can witness it and state that it happened. 

 

I am ok with your opinion, but i am unable to change it. May God bless you to find salvation.

 

If you accept eyewitness testimony , subjective evidence and miracles then the Quran has all three.

 

So why aren't you a Muslim?

[aik]

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This is also inaccurate.  I did not "try to make an argument based upon one verse."  I simply pointed out the inaccuracies in the post you made. 

 

Secondly, one random post on a random website tells you next to nothing about my life as a christian, nor the reasons I no longer am one.  For you to presume otherwise is both arrogant and self-righteous on your part.  Neither are fruits of the holy spirit.  

 

Don't just hear to respond; listen to learn.

2. I apologize here. The only thing that i wanted to say was that if a christian thinks about faith like you have demonstrated it, he will be dissapointed very soon, because it is not based on the scripture, as a result it will not stay on a scene for a long time. Everything which is not based on Jesus truth, will not stand. But what Jesus did, will stay forever. 

 

It means IF you was the one having such a faith, you could not stay with it long. Or you had to change your faith and bring it to the scripture, or you left such a faith. It does not matter what you wrre, or who you were. 

 

As well if i have something which is not based on the scripture, surely i have, it will be distroyed. And i ask God to distroy in my life everything which is not truely based on his word and to construct what he wants. It happens when you are in agreement with God. 

 

1. Ok. A dispute about inaccuracy here is no longer reasonable. 

[aik]

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Here's what happened, aik.  On Saturday I offered you both cases, the weak and the strong.

 

Posted Saturday at 02:07 PM

 

On 7/1/2023 at 10:41 AM, walterpthefirst said:

 

A witnesses testimony on its own or one supported by independent evidence?

 

Please answer THAT question.

 

Both have equal power before the court. 

 

 

You were offered both options by me on that day and you said they both had equal power before the court.

 

Yet, yesterday you said that they did not have equal power before the court.

 

You said that the testimony supported by independent evidence was the stronger one.

 

The one which was more reliable and truthful and therefore the one with more power before the court.

 

 

That's right.  None of the eyewitness testimonies in the bible are supported by independent evidence.

 

You agreed that testimony supported by independent evidence is more reliable than testimony that isn't.

 

So, if you are being consistent you shouldn't believe the unsupported testimonies in the bible.

 

You should only believe them if they are supported by independent evidence.

 

And you have admitted that you have no independent evidence to present.

 

 

 

If you accept eyewitness testimony , subjective evidence and miracles then the Quran has all three.

 

So why aren't you a Muslim?

You a little bit twisted here things, but it is ok. I understand. It is your nature for now. 

 

The evidence that God is true is the blood of Jesus Christ. 

 

Let me answer you. Islam is a garbage like a skepticism, like evolution theory, which makes a man to be a slave. A slave of his sins first of all, a slave of other men, a slave of religion, a slave of the devil at an end point. 

 

Islam could not deliver a man from the power of devil, so it decided to legalize sin and say that Allah forgives you. That is why we have jihads, multiple wives, etc. Though they look very religious but the fruit is corrupted. Though they do good things, but they approve sin and a sinful man is their leader. He thought that he was the messiah like Jesus. 

 

Jesus proved to us that he was from God, by his truthfullnes and sinlessness, by his power, by his death and ressurrection which is implementation of Gods promises according to the scripture. 

 

Muhammad was sinful, chsnged his mind at every comfortable time saying that Allah had told him, he had no power, what he said did not happen. Shortly. The only thing which happened was his death. He was killed, poisoned. So in his life he had said that if a prophet is a liar then Allah will cut his aorta. When it came that muhammad was dying, he said that he feeled pain like Allah cut his aorta. Well, whatever. 

 

 

I have read that krishna had multiple sex objects also for example, like muhammad did. 

 

They had no power over the sin and over death, only Jesus did have. 

 

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, aik said:

You a little bit twisted here things, but it is ok. I understand. It is your nature for now. 

 

No.  What is written in this thread bears me out.

 

You are the one who has compromised yourself and what is written in this thread shows that.

 

At first you said that eyewitness testimony and independently supported testimony had equal power before a court.

 

Then you said that independently supported testimony was more reliable than eyewitness testimony.

 

I have shown this.

 

 

And who are you to disparage my nature?

 

4 hours ago, aik said:

The evidence that God is true is the blood of Jesus Christ. 

 

Let me answer you. Islam is a garbage like a skepticism, like evolution theory, which makes a man to be a slave. A slave of his sins first of all, a slave of other men, a slave of religion, a slave of the devil at an end point. 

 

Islam could not deliver a man from the power of devil, so it decided to legalize sin and say that Allah forgives you. That is why we have jihads, multiple wives, etc. Though they look very religious but the fruit is corrupted. Though they do good things, but they approve sin and a sinful man is their leader. He thought that he was the messiah like Jesus. 

 

Jesus proved to us that he was from God, by his truthfullnes and sinlessness, by his power, by his death and ressurrection which is implementation of Gods promises according to the scripture. 

 

Muhammad was sinful, chsnged his mind at every comfortable time saying that Allah had told him, he had no power, what he said did not happen. Shortly. The only thing which happened was his death. He was killed, poisoned. So in his life he had said that if a prophet is a liar then Allah will cut his aorta. When it came that muhammad was dying, he said that he feeled pain like Allah cut his aorta. Well, whatever. 

 

 

I have read that krishna had multiple sex objects also for example, like muhammad did. 

 

They had no power over the sin and over death, only Jesus did have. 

 

 

Your personal opinions about Islam and other religions are irrelevant.

 

I accurately showed that like them you have no objective evidence to support your own beliefs.

 

Isn't that the truth?

 

You admitted that you have no evidence to present to support your christian beliefs.

 

Which confirms what I said.

 

[walterpthefirst]

You claim that only Jesus has power over sin and death, aik?

 

Then do what you said about reliable independent evidence having power in a court of law.

 

Show us this reliable independent evidence for Jesus having power of sin and death.

 

But you can't can you?

 

You have no such independent evidence, do you?

 

You even admitted that you do not.

 

So your claim about Jesus is dismissed because of lack of independent evidence.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

8 hours ago, aik said:

I apologize here.

All is forgiven.  Go and sin no more.

[aik]

On 7/6/2023 at 2:19 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

All is forgiven.  Go and sin no more.

You spoke about the fruits of the holy spirit, whom you deny. What are they? Can you name them to us?