Is faith a reliable path to knowledge?

[Sarkus]

Have I made my point?

If you don't want to discuss the philosophical notion that relates belief (and from there faith) and knowledge then just say so and I'll leave you to your peas. Write4U seemed to be alluding to that notion, but if you want to ignore it then please do.
You may also want to investigate the opening post of this thread where the working definition of faith was given (i.e. for the purposes of this thread).
So you can put your dictionaries away, lest your museum wonders where they've got to.

 

[Write4U]

Have I made my point?

Not to me (could be my fault).

Your example of he square wheel is complete fabrication. Elsewhere we had a lengthy discussion of the origins of the wheel. It was never called square because it began by rolling tree logs and refining the process in several steps, until we ended up with a true wheel

The wheel was NOT invented, it was developed over time.

As to the concept of round objects rolling easier than flat sided objects, shaping and rolling a round object was already practiced for millions of years by the Dung Beetle. You believe this escaped the notice of people living in areas where Dung Beetles were present?

p.s. my dirt driveway had two flat grooves also, made by round rubber wheels. Took me three truckloads of gravel to prevent a complete rut, which is very inconvenient in winter.

Webster's.
Definition of knowledge

1. 1 obsolete : cognizance
   
2. the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association
3. acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
4. the fact or condition of being aware of something
5. the range of one's information or understanding >answered to the best of my knowledge, the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition
   
6. the fact or condition of having information or of being learned <a person of unusual knowledge

Skills are acquired with "training" (repetition).
Knowledge is acquired by "learning" (observation)

 

[Michael 345]

If you don't want to discuss the philosophical notion that relates belief (and from there faith) and knowledge then just say so and I'll leave you to your peas. Write4U seemed to be alluding to that notion, but if you want to ignore it then please do.
You may also want to investigate the opening post of this thread where the working definition of faith was given (i.e. for the purposes of this thread).
So you can put your dictionaries away, lest your museum wonders where they've got to.

Lighten up

Took your suggestion and read number 1. Which I had done when I started to look at various threads.

Soooo putting my oh so serious hat on and girthing my loins I sadly sally forth.

QUOTE


1. Do you admit that your belief in God is based, at least in part, on faith?
2. What percentage of your belief in God would you put down to evidence, and how much to faith? Is there anything else I've overlooked that leads to your knowledge of God's existence?
3. Apart from your belief in God, is there any other area of your life where you rely on faith to make decisions or choices, or to believe in something? Please give an example or two if your answer is "yes". And keep in mind my definition of faith - belief even in the absence of evidence. Do you admit that your belief in God is based, at least in part, on faith?
2. What percentage of your belief in God would you put down to evidence, and how much to faith? Is there anything else I've overlooked that leads to your knowledge of God's existence?
3. Apart from your belief in God, is there any other area of your life where you rely on faith to make decisions or choices, or to believe in something? Please give an example or two if your answer is "yes". And keep in mind my definition of faith - belief even in the absence of evidence.

1. Can't. Don't believe in God.

2. 0%. 0%. Psychedelic drugs, brain damage, brain washing, low IQ, infinite high IQ (you are God and you gotta believe in yourself ya?)

Thought bubble. Why isn't 2 - 2 & 3? Moving on in serious mode.

3. Nope. At least not now.

I used to.

At about 7 I used to tie a towel around my neck and had faith I could fly like Superman. Didn't work out.

(On reflection I understand I at age 7 I had no concept of faith or evidence so it appears I had faith without knowing I had it).

A lot lot older and married I had faith marriage would last....sob sob, you know the rest. Like the towel, flying and Superman faith didn't work out.

I can see problems in collecting evidence for a marriage lasting until you know what so I am guessing marriage might be a situation where faith is always in the picture.

Can I take off my serious hat now? It's beginning to swell my head and pinch.

 

[Michael 345]

Not to me (could be my fault).

Your example of he square wheel is complete fabrication. Elsewhere we had a lengthy discussion of the origins of the wheel. It was never called square because it began by rolling tree logs and refining the process in several steps, until we ended up with a true wheel

The wheel was NOT invented, it was developed over time.

As to the concept of round objects rolling easier than flat sided objects, shaping and rolling a round object was already practiced for millions of years by the Dung Beetle. You believe this escaped the notice of people living in areas where Dung Beetles were present?

p.s. my dirt driveway had two flat grooves also, made by round rubber wheels. Took me three truckloads of gravel to prevent a complete rut, which is very inconvenient in winter.

Skills are acquired with "training" (repetition).
Knowledge is acquired by "learning" (observation)

Your example of he square wheel is complete fabrication.


Well spotted.

Guess you wouldn't go for the triangular wheel? ⛰

 

[Write4U]

Thought bubble. Why isn't 2 - 2 & 3? Moving on in serious mode.

Sorry to burst your bubble about moving on in serious mode, but (2 - 2 & 3) is not a coherent mathematical statement in and of itself.

 

[Michael 345]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but (2 - 2 & 3) is not a coherent mathematical statement in and of itself.

Mathematical?

I was being mathematical!

Well run me through a calculator?

QUOTE

2.

2. What percentage of your belief in God would you put down to evidence, and how much to faith?

3. Is there anything else I've overlooked that leads to your knowledge of God's existence?

Oh my head hurts from being serious.

 

[Sarkus]

Lighten up

My doctor advises me the same thing. Big-boned, I tell him.

I can see problems in collecting evidence for a marriage lasting until you know what so I am guessing marriage might be a situation where faith is always in the picture.

But you would have had evidence that at least the majority (I think?) of marriages last, and if your own parents' marriage lasted... you'd likely have placed some emphasis on that piece of evidence.

Can I take off my serious hat now? It's beginning to swell my head and pinch.

I find a good bowel movement often relieves the pressure.

 

[Write4U]

Mathematical?

I was being mathematical! Well run me through a calculator?

You were trying to be mathematical, but obviously you need to study the subject a little more.
But kudos for trying.

In any case that statement was garbage and meaningless in the real world.

 

[Michael 345]

You were trying to be mathematical, but obviously you need to study the subject a little more.
But kudos for trying.

In any case that statement was garbage and meaningless in the real world.

Still cannot see where I was even "trying to be mathematical".

Item 2 Which contains 2 questions

2. What percentage of your belief in God would you put down to evidence, and how much to faith? Is there anything else I've overlooked that leads to your knowledge of God's existence?

was not formulated AS:-

2.

2. What percentage of your belief in God would you put down to evidence, and how much to faith?

3. Is there anything else I've overlooked that leads to your knowledge of God's existence?

Oh I see where I misslead you.

Why isn't 2 - 2 &3? <<<<<<< I gather you took this as a mathematical entry, (2-2&3 as 2 minus 2 and 3) even though no mathmatics are present, instead of a reference to Item 2 (containing 2 questions) is not formulated as I have illustrated above.

Sorry if my post had been posted by anyone else, I would read - text only. Not - text -jump - mathematics.

Sorry

 

[Write4U]

Item 2 Which contains 2 questions

Yes, I understand it as a reference. But both are still mathematical expressions.

 

[Michael 345]

Yes, I understand it as a reference. But both are still mathematical expressions.

Please show how:-

ORIGINAL Why isn't 2 - 2 & 3?

EXPANDED Why is not item two which contains two questions framed as:-
the first question within item two just as item two and
the second question within item two becoming item three?

can be written as a mathematical expression.

Thanks

 

[Write4U]

Please show how:-

ORIGINAL Why isn't 2 - 2 & 3?

EXPANDED Why is not item two which contains two questions framed as:-
the first question within item two just as item two and
the second question within item two becoming item three?

can be written as a mathematical expression. Thanks

That's my point, Everything can be written as a mathematical expression, except God, who just uses magic.

 

[Michael 345]

That's my point, Everything can be written as a mathematical expression, except God, who just uses magic.

I must be as dense as the middle of a black hole.

You TOLD me what I posted is a mathematical expression.

I ASKED you show me how.

You DIDN'T

You posted

"That's my point, Everything can be written as a mathematical expression, except God, who just uses magic."

Which in my dumb ass, add in stupid, way I have no idea what you mean.

 

[Write4U]

I must be as dense as the middle of a black hole.

You TOLD me what I posted is a mathematical expression.

I ASKED you show me how.

You DIDN'T

I demonstrated it.

You posted,
"That's my point, Everything can be written as a mathematical expression, except God, who just uses magic."

Which in my dumb ass, add in stupid, way I have no idea what you mean.

*Miracles*, or better still *manifestations*, or better still *expression* without some mathematical functions cannot occur, or if they do, they seldom survive and decay instantly, as in the case of muons, *virtual* particles which seem to live outside the restriction of *c*. But we can detect the traces they leave behind, when one wanders into our space-time and promptly disappears again..

 

[Michael 345]

I demonstrated it. *Miracles*, or better still *manifestations*, or better still *expression* without some mathematical functions cannot occur, or if they do, they seldom survive and decay instantly, as in the case of muons, *virtual* particles which seem to live outside the restriction of *c*. But we can detect the traces they leave behind, when one wanders into our space-time and promptly disappears again..

I demonstrated it.

You DIDN'T.

The rest

gobbledygook.

I'm trying to decide if high or low quality gobbledygook.

Nope can't decide.

Been told few times not to mess with those who speak in gobbledygook.

Like ID'ers, you can't understand gobbledygook speakers internal logic, (I suspect there is none).

You almost make Brain in a Vat a shining example of a series debate.

In closing your honour I would like to say the mathematical example shown here is equal to..... well Nothing.

Nothing it is and Nothing it shall remain.

In the vast and mysterious relm of a gobbledygook of gobbledygooks this gobbledygook stands, sits, walks, runs, rolls over and plays dead and alive.

It has been a pleasure to have been the humble focus of such outstanding gobbledygookdom.

I shall never read a politicians speech without thinking

"You call this gobbledygook? I remember when....."

“Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good night!”

 

[kx000]

Faith shouldn't be used in place of theories, but faith fits in a anatomically conjunction with knowledge.

 

[Write4U]

In closing your honour I would like to say the mathematical example shown here is equal to..... well Nothing.

iS THAT NOT WHAT I SAID, IT'S CERTAINLY NOT SCIENTIFIC NOTATION, WHERE IT SHOULD BE. After all it is the coordinates of a location. This is why I suggested to watch these links. It will teach you to view things from different perspectives, which always turns out to be a mathematical function or potential.. That's the beauty of mathematics, it applies to EVERYTHING that has physical properties and perhaps at even a more fundamental level..

If you had watched the second presentation, you would have seen that even tie-knots and shoelaces are mathematical constructs and computer punch cards, and Morse codes all can be representing the word MATHEMATICS.
Example: 4/3 = 1.333333... in the decimal system. Now write 4/3 in binary language and 4/3 = 1.01010101.....

At least watch the Antonsen clip and open your mind. Perhaps then the gobbledygook will begin to make sense.

 

[Michael 345]

iS THAT NOT WHAT I SAID, IT'S CERTAINLY NOT SCIENTIFIC NOTATION, WHERE IT SHOULD BE. After all it is the coordinates of a location. This is why I suggested to watch these links. It will teach you to view things from different perspectives, which always turns out to be a mathematical function or potential.. That's the beauty of mathematics, it applies to EVERYTHING that has physical properties and perhaps at even a more fundamental level..

If you had watched the second presentation, you would have seen that even tie-knots and shoelaces are mathematical constructs and computer punch cards, and Morse codes all can be representing the word MATHEMATICS.
Example: 4/3 = 1.333333... in the decimal system. Now write 4/3 in binary language and 4/3 = 1.01010101.....

At least watch the Antonsen clip and open your mind. Perhaps then the gobbledygook will begin to make sense.

Ditto

 

[Write4U]

Ditto

That is a mathematical expression.

Ditto , NOUN
used in accounts and lists to indicate that an item is repeated (often indicated by a ditto mark under the word or figure to be repeated).

1. informal
   used to indicate that something already said is applicable a second time:
   "if one folds his arms, so does the other; if one crosses his legs, ditto"
2. a similar thing; a duplicate.

1. Powered by Oxford Dictionaries

 

[Write4U]

" Is faith a reliable path to knowledge? "
why not ?

The key word here is "reliable". And IMO "faith" is not a reliable path to knowledge.. Scripture is proof of the unreliability of faith in an *unknowable* power..