Faith without knowledge

[dee-u]

Hi guys, I am new to this forums, I hope somebody here could shed light on the following question of mine. I am not even sure if it has been asked before, if it is then I'm sorry for bringing it up again. Is the following question even a logical one?

"I don't know but I have faith".

As the definition of knowledge is still being debated as of today, can't we claim that we "know" God exists therefore we have faith in Him? If I have no prior knowledge on the existence of God then how can I have faith in Him?

I hope you understood the question. Thank you so much!

[Impenitent]

I have faith that you don't know

then again

-Imp

[Nick_A]

Hi Dee

Perhaps you have knowledge of God but are yet to remember it as you are? Your question is part of Plato's philosophy as Meno's Paradox:

Meno's Paradox and the Immortality of Soul: how will you know what you are looking for if you first don't already know it (and thus have no reason to go looking for it)? But why look for something you already have? This is the paradox raised in Plato's dialogue called the Meno. In answer to "Meno's Paradox," Plato suggests that before we were born we existed in another realm of being (the realm of the Forms). The shock of being born makes us forget what we knew in that realm. But when we are asked the right questions or have certain experiences, we remember or "recollect" innate (inborn) truths. So if we existed before our births, there is every reason to think that we will continue to exist after our deaths.

[Jaded Sage]

Hi guys, I am new to this forums, I hope somebody here could shed light on the following question of mine. I am not even sure if it has been asked before, if it is then I'm sorry for bringing it up again. Is the following question even a logical one?

"I don't know but I have faith".

As the definition of knowledge is still being debated as of today, can't we claim that we "know" God exists therefore we have faith in Him? If I have no prior knowledge on the existence of God then how can I have faith in Him?

I hope you understood the question. Thank you so much!

Actually, that's true. Faith isn't about believing in the existence of God, it's more like believing in the legitimacy of God. Faith means to follow the commands of Jesus to be loving.

Think of it this way: if you really believed in Jesus, that He came to earth, a superhuman man with miraculous healing powers, the son of God, and said: "I have a few things I want to teach you, and a few things I want you to do"—if you really thought the whole thing was legit, you would study His teachings like you've never studied anything else, and you would do as He says like nobody has ever asked anything of you before. If it weren't out of reverence, it would be out of fear. Either way, the result is the same. If you believed in Him or had faith, you would follow the commands and study the teachings.

[sthitapragya]

Hi guys, I am new to this forums, I hope somebody here could shed light on the following question of mine. I am not even sure if it has been asked before, if it is then I'm sorry for bringing it up again. Is the following question even a logical one?

"I don't know but I have faith".

As the definition of knowledge is still being debated as of today, can't we claim that we "know" God exists therefore we have faith in Him? If I have no prior knowledge on the existence of God then how can I have faith in Him?

I hope you understood the question. Thank you so much!

If you knew god existed, you wouldn't need faith. It is because you can never confirm his existence that you need faith.

[Scott Mayers]

Hi guys, I am new to this forums, I hope somebody here could shed light on the following question of mine. I am not even sure if it has been asked before, if it is then I'm sorry for bringing it up again. Is the following question even a logical one?

"I don't know but I have faith".

As the definition of knowledge is still being debated as of today, can't we claim that we "know" God exists therefore we have faith in Him? If I have no prior knowledge on the existence of God then how can I have faith in Him?

I hope you understood the question. Thank you so much!

Nick_A raises a good question from Plato of which I forgot. [It's been years since I read this.]

To try to add another example in an update of Plato's wisdom, much of what we want or desire has to be motivated from some place, correct? How are we to know though 'that' we desire X if we never had a sample of it for knowing it even exists? This would be like asserting one is a heroin addict even if they never tried the drug. Yet, if you assert you 'know' heroin exists and that it is addictive prior to ever trying it, this merely suggests that should you act in ways to avoid it, you must be basing the concerns of its hazards on faith alone.

But for even making sense of why someone else should even assert the existence of heroin or that it is a substance that has properties that cause hazardous addiction issues suggests that even without experiencing it personally, by merely hearing others discuss it should suggest some validity to it and the possible claims made about it. Why would someone out of the blue invent such words as 'heroin' and 'addiction' as though they have meaning without trusting that at least someone must have experienced these in the past?

Yet we DO gamble (have faith in) such things spoken of from others with apparently good reason. If we all doubted the nature of heroin and its addictive properties, this might just mean you haven't witnessed heroin, not that it doesn't exist. But if one day a friend comes along and asks you if you'd like to join in with them on ingesting some powdery product they tell you is called, 'heroin', even then you have no PROOF that what that powder is is the same thing as what you've heard of that drug called it elsewhere. If I trust it is the same, (still not 'knowledge'), then if I decide NOT to risk taking it for the faith I have in hearing of the nature of its risks from elsewhere, is this decision rational prior to trying it?

The paradox (as to Meno by Plato) is to actually try it to determine for yourself. But if upon trying it, it should turn out to be precisely as addictive as you've been told, you LOSE for questioning the faith expected of you by others AND earn the addiction you questioned was possible. You'd "know" then but at the very curse of being skeptical (lacking faith) of others.

Is this what you are thinking in regards to the question of God, or claims about 'his' affects?

In light of the above, you are correct that we often don't simply make things up out of the blue which grants such ideas about some "God" likely derivable from somewhere. However, what is not clear and is just as likely probable, is that anything and everything is derived from some actual real cause, even false claims. A "unicorn" may be made up out of the blue. But even while mythical, it is derived by combining (something we can do) a horse with a type of rhinoceros horn, both real animals if you have seen them. These causes are from multiple sources combining into one collective and explains how even real original causes can rationally derive something new but not necessarily 'real'.

[Nick_A]

Scott wrote: The paradox (as to Meno by Plato) is to actually try it to determine for yourself. But if upon trying it, it should turn out to be precisely as addictive as you've been told, you LOSE for questioning the faith expected of you by others AND earn the addiction you questioned was possible. You'd "know" then but at the very curse of being skeptical (lacking faith) of others.

Is this what you are thinking in regards to the question of God, or claims about 'his' affects?

In light of the above, you are correct that we often don't simply make things up out of the blue which grants such ideas about some "God" likely derivable from somewhere. However, what is not clear and is just as likely probable, is that anything and everything is derived from some actual real cause, even false claims. A "unicorn" may be made up out of the blue. But even while mythical, it is derived by combining (something we can do) a horse with a type of rhinoceros horn, both real animals if you have seen them. These causes are from multiple sources combining into one collective and explains how even real original causes can rationally derive something new but not necessarily 'real'.

From the OP: Plato suggests that before we were born we existed in another realm of being (the realm of the Forms). The shock of being born makes us forget what we knew in that realm. But when we are asked the right questions or have certain experiences, we remember or "recollect" innate (inborn) truths. So if we existed before our births, there is every reason to think that we will continue to exist after our deaths.

We need to have the quality of inner discrimination to distinguish between suggestion and remembrance. Not so easy. Charlatans make a lot of money through the power of suggestion from those in need. However Peter experienced remembrance and the difference in quality between suggestion and remembrance.

Matthew 16: 13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.”20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

[Dalek Prime]

Plato was wrong. Our consciousness is a product of our wetwork configuration, not something preexisting in an 'aether'.

[Nick_A]

Dalek Prime wrote: Plato was wrong. Our consciousness is a product of our network configuration, not something preexisting in an 'aether'.

And now the other side

"My brain is only a receiver, in the Universe there is a core from which we obtain knowledge, strength and inspiration. I have not penetrated into the secrets of this core, but I know that it exists." —Nikola Tesla

The question becomes if our brain is a creator of consciousness or a receiver? Naturally as a believer in a conscious source of creation I agree with Plato and Tesla. Without a conscious source our brain creates consciousness as you seem to believe.

How can we know? Only a conscious being can know by experience. So as we know we can only argue.

[Dalek Prime]

What frequency is consciousness receiving at? We have senses we receive with, I agree; five of them. Are you suggesting more? Can it be measured, if you are?

[Nick_A]

"Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates."--The Kybalion.

D P wrote: What frequency is consciousness receiving at? We have senses we receive with, I agree; five of them. Are you suggesting more? Can it be measured, if you are?

What frequencies of vibration are your five senses limited to? Imagine that a machine is sending out a tone that is gradually rising in pitch or frequency of vibration. It rises to a level that you can no longer hear but a dog can. The machine keeps sending out its rising vibrations. Animals can no longer hear it. Does the tone still exist? Now a person using a new technique registers the tone through a higher quality of perception. It reveals the limitations of our five senses

The fact that frequencies of vibration associated with consciousness are higher than what our five senses operate on is not to say they do not permeate our universe. It just means that we need a greater quality of perception beyond what our five senses are limited to in order to receive them

[Dalek Prime]

"Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates."--The Kybalion.

D P wrote: What frequency is consciousness receiving at? We have senses we receive with, I agree; five of them. Are you suggesting more? Can it be measured, if you are?

What frequencies of vibration are your five senses limited to? Imagine that a machine is sending out a tone that is gradually rising in pitch or frequency of vibration. It rises to a level that you can no longer hear but a dog can. The machine keeps sending out its rising vibrations. Animals can no longer hear it. Does the tone still exist? Now a person using a new technique registers the tone through a higher quality of perception. It reveals the limitations of our five senses

The fact that frequencies of vibration associated with consciousness are higher than what our five senses operate on is not to say they do not permeate our universe. It just means that we need a greater quality of perception beyond what our five senses are limited to in order to receive them

Yes, like technology which we have to detect what our five senses can't perceive by themselves. Yet we have not detected the 'vibrations' which you seem to insist exist. So no, there are no vibrations coming in. And if you keep insisting otherwise, map them, and demonstrate them. Otherwise, I'm closer to the truth on this.

[Nick_A]

D P wrote:

Yes, like technology which we have to detect what our five senses can't perceive by themselves. Yet we have not detected the 'vibrations' which you seem to insist exist. So no, there are no vibrations coming in. And if you keep insisting otherwise, map them, and demonstrate them. Otherwise, I'm closer to the truth on this.

Why do you limit the human mind and its capacity for consciousness to what machines can detect? Why deny the potential for the human mind to receive conscious influences? We cannot measure consciousness with our machines. When a person has a conscious experience they know that they didn't create it; they received it. Their mind becomes open. We cannot communicate on this since you prefer to deny it rather than be open to the idea that what we call mind is far more sensitive than we normally give it credit for. The Hermetic principles including the study of vibrations were alive and well in ancient Egypt. Now science is becoming aware of their reality. Some scientists have open minds and some don't. It is the way of the world. I prefer those with an open mind.

[sthitapragya]

Now a person using a new technique registers the tone through a higher quality of perception. It reveals the limitations of our five senses

What person? What new technique? Where is the report of this person?

[Dalek Prime]

D P wrote:

Yes, like technology which we have to detect what our five senses can't perceive by themselves. Yet we have not detected the 'vibrations' which you seem to insist exist. So no, there are no vibrations coming in. And if you keep insisting otherwise, map them, and demonstrate them. Otherwise, I'm closer to the truth on this.

Why do you limit the human mind and its capacity for consciousness to what machines can detect? Why deny the potential for the human mind to receive conscious influences? We cannot measure consciousness with our machines. When a person has a conscious experience they know that they didn't create it; they received it. Their mind becomes open. We cannot communicate on this since you prefer to deny it rather than be open to the idea that what we call mind is far more sensitive than we normally give it credit for. The Hermetic principles including the study of vibrations were alive and well in ancient Egypt. Now science is becoming aware of their reality. Some scientists have open minds and some don't. It is the way of the world. I prefer those with an open mind.

And I prefer those with a reasonable mind that will just answer the questions I pose to them, or concede my point.

Now, try answering sthitapragya's questions. They're quite reasonable.