Summations Only

How does she reconcile it with those who "know" but with evidence that supports that knowledge and contradicts what Faith claims to know?

Yeah, I originally covered that, too, but decided to boil it down to a single point. The way I think I phrased it before deleting it was something like, "How can what you "know" that can't be proved compare with what other people know that can be proved?"Since she's using the word "proved" again, it's probably also worth reminding her that it involves testable claims, the precise definition of "proved" she endorsed at her blog (Let's Bring "Proof" Back to Reality).--Percy

By definition everyone else is wrong. Simple, really. In multiple senses of "simple".

You are correct, it's just as you say, we know but we can't prove it. It's a logically astute delineation, and I give an example:There are many people that have been executed in the past, even though they were completely innocent of murder, yet they couldn't prove their case. Now surely even Percy and his cohorts would not argue that somebody that is innocent would not know they were innocent simply because they couldn't provide a scientific proof? Nor would they argue, I presume, that the innocent person would not have wanted to prove their innocence.This is why you say, "Oh well", you say it out of honest exasperation, because it is not that you don't want to prove what you say, but that you can't. But don't worry, God has made it so that you can't. It is the same for everyone.I will also respond to Percy if you would like to read that, to give what I hope is a good biblical defense of our position. Although strictly speaking, I think that's something you are a lot "better at" than I am, I find it too hard to talk about the bible, because it's such an impossible can-of-worms to deal with, because of the hundreds of issues that come up.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

No. The knowledge is spiritual, not intellectual. Like she stated, you can know it, but not prove it because God doesn't want it proved. God only gives knowledge of Himself to us through something that is called, revelation of the spirit:You can only understand things intellectually as the "natural man", that passage goes on to say, "but the things of God are foolishness to the natural man, for these things are discerned spiritually". (paraphrase)The reason we "know" God's word is true is because "faith comes by hearing" it. We know experientially and spiritually, not scientifically, indeed it can only be known spiritually, because the "things of God" are "discerned spiritually". The problem is, from your perspective, you would use the word "faith", as a generic term, as a none-believer. For example, you would say in a sentence such as this one; "He has Muslim faith, she has faith in her mother, but I have faith in science." This is the modern terminology of faith, but the original meaning is Abrahamic-faith in the Lord God, as an exclusive spiritual substance.This is the problem you have as a none-believer, that to you, you have no way of knowing whether that quote from the bible is just made up words, or an actual reality. From your perspective, we are using the word "faith" in a generic sense, but from our perspective, we are talking about something we have experienced as a reality. To you, the bible is just words, because you don't have the spirit of God. Even what I have just said, "spirit of God" would just be words in a book to a none-believer. Therefore, how can you, as a natural man, understand what the bible says the natural man can NOT understand?We also accept the bible is the inerrant word of God ipso facto, in the same way we would accept a collection of agreeing-books to be some sort of chronicles by the same author. The stories of the Chronicles Of Narnia are in congruence, by fact of them having the same author. To find something discordant isn't possible. So then, Aslan isn't going to be a scarecrow against the theme of the book.The difficulty with the bible, is that to the natural eye, a syntax-understanding seems to prevail. Or a kind of ignorance pertaining to how God is trying to speak to man. In this sense, unbelievers scan it for errors not realizing it's language is not logical or scientific. It is like an onion, even those who are fed by it can't fully intellectualize it - it's the same if you are in a spiritual walk with God, you can't understand Him, you are reasonably even angry at Him, you are muddled up in your thinking, and then at the very same time as all of that, a peace comes into your spirit that "surpasses understanding".But the people who know the things I talk about, are only the people who have lived the experience. Nobody else, for the only way to know it, is to live it. He has made it that way, by His choice, for His own purposes.Man took from the tree. Now to "get back", He wants the heart. He wants us to, by freewill, humble ourselves and say, "okay, I was wrong, SHOW ME."And then He does. He just does, we are not pretending, we have the experience, and you don't, it's really that simple.

You are a breath of fresh air. I know when I read your posts, I shall be reading something healthy, and benevolent towards all folk. A grandiose hobbit my dear Bilbo!That's why I always get a stab of joy when I see your name and avatar, and I immediately click on your name because there is no arguing in you. In some ways you've achieved what a mikey like me can never achieve, to just be a good example of a Christian as honestly as you can.And you know what - it's so funny and ironic, that someone like you, should win by not winning. It's Bruce Lee all over again, the "art of fighting, without fighting."But people like me tend to cock it all up and think, "I've failed you God, by being a damn mikey, of all things."
Good on you Phat(But now I feel like Professor Slughorn, as though I am making an ostentatious speech. I can hear Paul K now, I can hear his thoughts, he is saying; "only mike could honour phat and polish his turd of a post like he just did, the irritating little blastocyst, I shall stomp him sir, stomp him, I shall thwart him forever, I shall blast him in to so many pieces of irrefutable peptide......blast that micro-sleuth, blast his contaminated and deceitful mikey-heart! The scoundrel, the sneak-thief, the gangster, the robber of my sound sayings as an irrefutable atheist!!!!! Does he think he is angry, well I am a mushroom cloud mother-humper, mother humper, and I shall thwart him to dust I tell thee, to dust! Bring on the miserable snozzcumber, this crocodilomorph is about to perish!!" (of course, your post was very eloquent, and not a "turd", but I was "in the moment". ) Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

I agree with the gist of your post, thanks. Maybe it can be summed up in Pascal's words, But that is likely to sound again like we have no evidence and that is not the case, I feel there is so much evidence for these things it's astonishing that unbelievers don't see it. But I remember being an unbeliever myself and not seeing it so there you have it, the fact that this is all supernatural and ordained by God.abe: Feel like adding here, I remember reading Pascal's Pensees when I was a very new Christian, maybe not even quite yet a Christian, and experiencing just about every word he wrote as if it was reading my own heart. When I read the debunkery of Pascal by unbelievers it makes me sad but what can I do but shrug it off. He's a brother in Christ I definitely look forward to meeting./abeSome good evidence has been given here from time to time, however, such as the fact of the prophetic nature of the Bible and its provable fulfillment. But they've got themselves convinced this or that timing was wrong so they just dismiss the claim of prophecy and that's the end of that.But: the heart DOES have reasons, as Pascal says, it's not without reasons as our opponents would claim, and they are good solid reasons. Most of them in the case of the inerrancy of the Bible I think we learn from using the Bible, from living in it, experiencing its truth, which just grows deeper all the time, proving itself over and over. Which is also more or less what you are saying.But Percy will answer that other religions say the same thing. You know, I don't think they do but I can't prove that either.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I called it faith, you called it spiritual knowledge, seems like the same thing. Whatever you call it, it isn't the same thing as something you know from evidence, and the evidence says the Bible was written by men and is not inerrant.Faith expresses doubt that other religions make similar claims of truth, which seems a silly thing to doubt given the nature of many religions. Here's the Quran on the truth about Jesus: --Percy

Oh they certainly do claim to have the truth but the way they claim it bears no resemblance to the Bible. That quote you give is simpleminded sophomoric reasoning. But as Mike said, the Bible can only really be known spiritually; unbelievers can't know it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There's no reasoning in that quote from the Quran, and it's precisely like the Bible: bald declarations without evidence. Yes, you're an unbeliever. Until you accept Allah you'll never know the spiritual truth.If there's anything you know about the Bible being the inerrant Word of God that is based upon evidence instead of faith, this is the time to start talking about it. Any religion can make the bald declaration that it is the one, right and true religion, and many do, but without evidence all such declarations are meritless, and as the basis of an argument are useless.--Percy

The reasoning is that Allah only needs to declare something for it to be, therefore he wouldn't beget a son (which of course they interpret in a literal fleshly way, how sophomoric can you get?). The Bible DOES declare, it is revelation, it doesn't indulge in silly carnal sophomoric reasoning from the paltry mind of man.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't think your willingness to make unsupported disparaging comments carries much weight as evidence. If you have evidence for anything you believe then now is the time to start talking about it.--Percy

Prophecy is the evidence I've mentioned that others too have mentioned. No other religion has genuine prophecy and certainly not fulfilled prophecy but I AM NOT INTERESTED IN DEFENDING THIS BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN ADEQUATELY DEFENDED MANY TIMES BEFORE AND STUPIDLY REJECTED AND I DON'T NEED THE FRUSTRATION AND ABUSE, thanks anyway.And if you can't see that the quote you gave is sophomoric reasoning and that what I presented was a valid argument, there is something wrong with you.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No Faith claims of Biblical prophecy have NOT been "adequately defended" here. More like successfully refuted.And quite frankly you're giving the impression that when you say that you're not interested in defending something it's because you can't.

Imagine my surprise that you would take a position completely contrary to my own and even try to make it sound true!