Knowledge is impossible, therefore faith is all there is. Whatever that faith may be in, a literal Old Testament god, a materialist universe, a pantheist universe, no universe at all.... etc.

"Knowledge is impossible, therefore faith is all there is."

+1

I don't give a +1 quite so quickly there, Thucy.

You have just made a rather lofyy claim in stating that "Knowledge is impossible."

You're going to need to back that up with...something, at least, before I consider that stance, that all knowledge is utterly impossible, not even inscrutible or unknowable, which would be hard enough to prove and a lofty point by itself, but to claim knowledge is impossible at ALL?

'splain, please, because I can't even begin to construct a counterargument...when there has yet to even be an argument put forth, just one unsubstantiated phrase.

Not trying to sound like a jerk or anything, just saying that your claim is a pretty big pill to swallow or even consider, so you really need to give me a coherent, premise-by-premise argument for the logic of that claim, it's so grand in it's claim, that's up there with saying God is Dead, saying Knowledge is Impossible...

In my opinion, faith is the way in which we rationalize that which we don't understand. I personally hold great value in the faith that I have in God. However, the claim that knowledge is impossible is a contradiction. If you believe in that statement, you have given yourself the "knowledge" that knowledge is impossible, therefore proving that knowledge is not impossible.

Knowledge is simply the way we understand everything, whether it be the very basic motor functions or complex calculus or theoretical physics. All human beings are capable of knowledge to some degree.

As for obiwan's initial question, I would have to say that while faith is all well and good, the knowledge that God exists far outweighs anything else, even faith in him. Having the knowledge means having the proof that we either can be happy that we have done good in our lives or be sad because we were jackasses in our lives.

I do have a "however" for an if God does exist situation:

If God does indeed exist, then faith moves to an entirely new level. We now know that God exists, so our lives will change accordingly (mostly). I would say that faith now morphs into trust, a distant relative word with a similar meaning. When we know something exists, we trust in this individual, without needing to "believe." (I use that term a bit loosely).

All things considered, I would definitely go with Knowledge!

I agree with the conclusion you reach in Knowledge being superior, and agree with the first part of that statement, czechmate12. (Nice name and play on words, btw.)

But the second part, when you apply it to God, a bit foggier there..are you saying that faith changes knowledge or takes the place of it in that circumstance?

Let me try this way:

Faith is belief. If you have knowledge, then you have no need for belief, and along that line, no need for faith. However, we do need to trust this all powerful and omnipotent being to do what he said we will do. Some people would say you need to have faith that it will happen. But In the grand scheme of things, the word faith becomes obsolete as you say. What meaning of it remains is in the meaning of trust.

Does that clear it up?

Yes, that sounds like my reasoning mostly; I disagree we "need" to trust God or an all-powerful being, indeed, something that powerful I'd think we should either question heavily, as it's so powerful that it requires an incredible amount of knowledge, then, to create a logical, knowledge-based trust between ourselves and that entity, the alternative being the religious route, taking faith and foregoing the immense uncertainty and discomfort that would go along with living with an all-powerful being like God and not knowing it's intentions, the religious, faith-based rotue allows for the answer "I know because I believe, I believe because I have faith, and I have faith becasue I, in my heart, know." It's circular logic, but that is fine in the context of the argument it's used, as a faith-based argument doesn't appeal to logic, at least not primarily, it appeals to the notion that a logical hiccup can be explained away by that which is not yet explained, in much the same way that you might have an unfinished jigsaw puzzle and more pieces in the box, and believe, never solving this puzzle before, that all the pieces are there and accounted for and will fit the open spaces to complete the puzzle, ie, fiath attempts to appeal with an answer that doesn't need logic and favors instead suppostions. Circular logic is acceptable in the mind of a faith-based person, at least in regards to what they have a powerful but unsubstantiated belief in, in that the feeling is that the belief that their answer is right and to work towards it is acceptable without actually proving their answer to be right, it's right "enough" to have faith in, and as faith can act as a bridge to the next phase of conception, the faith-driven person this opportunity to proceed further to create for themselves or immerse themselves in generally more grandiose ideas than the knowledge-driven thinker.

To demonstrate that, consider: for a knowledge-based thinker logic allows for arguments for the existence of a creating force, but if this is to be called a god, gods, THE God, or something else entirely is still up for debate, not enough is known, and so logically the knowledge-driven thinker can only establish that the existing of a creating force is a logical possibility, and beyond that it's unknown, and more knowledge is needed, hence the quest for knowledge. FAITH-driven thinkers, on the other hand, by skipping the actual proof of their position and letting it stand via dogma and puzzle-piece thinking, ie, the design argument thinking, "there is a missing piece in explaining how the human eye is so advanced, even with its imperfections, and as we have no other puzzle pieces to plug in there that could work, plug in God, even though He Himself is not proven, for He solves the problem neatly if we only suppose He exists" and so can construct more elaborate systems of thought by skipping the proof; where the knowledge-based thinker can only speculate there might be some logical groundings to the claim of some sort of higher power, the faith-based thinker can go ahead, use that to assert God, and, treating the unproven God as either proven via puzzle-piece logic as shown above or denying the need to logically prove a being they assert, proven in existence and attributes or not, is beyond logic, and thus beyond the need to be proven logically, and proceeding as such, skipping logical proofs, the faith-based thinker can use the God idea as a foundation for whole systems predicated on the God premise that are far more elaborate than merely saying there's a chance a higehr power exists- these are our religions.

That´s the dumbest discussion ever started by you obiwan :-)
Now i understand why creationists have so much influence in the USA, thank you obiwan.

Circular argument indeed, obiwan. I think its safe to ask that if this all powerful deity does in fact exist, why the hell is he putting us through this? lol

I would like to pose this question:

Assume for a moment that this "God" person does exist. He created all life just as the Bible and whatever other religious document claims he did. Say its all true.

Why then, I ask, does he not reveal himself to the universe? Why does he sit seemingly idly by allowing us to wreak havoc on each other?

"Knowledge is impossible, therefore faith is all there is. Whatever that faith may be in, a literal Old Testament god, a materialist universe, a pantheist universe, no universe at all.... etc."

Is knowledge of so loose weave,
Of a morning,
When deciding whether to leave
Your apartment be the door,
Or the window on your second floor?

Knowledge is defined as properly justified, true belief. (Aside from the fact that knowledge is then just a subunit of faith and that there is no question at this point...)

Do I need to run through the whole "how do we know anything" shtick, or can I just say that I was employing epistemological skepticism?

@Miro Klose:

And that's the dumbest comment you've ever left me, Miro, as I'm not a creationist and have in fact argued AGAINST that...and I didn't even bring up creationism in this, so was that a huge swing and a miss on your part or merely a pot shot, because if it's the latter, hey, shoot away, but stick to the topic and my views, at least, plenty of ammo there...

@czechmate12:

First, to reiterate what I just said above, I'm not a creationist, nor am I a Christian or Muslim or...well, Jewish by birth/culture but not by theological beliefs, so if you or Miro are looking for answers from someone who believes in the "Good Book" as it was written, I would suggest maybe asking Crazy Anglican, as evidenced in the name... ;)

But to give my answer (and to clarify my view for the record I am a mitigated skeptic, not taking any religion to be correct in their account but also not of the belief that any atheist argument for the non-existence of a god or creating force is 100% bullet proof, especially as we're imperfect beings ourselves so there really is a question to be raised how much we can hope to prove or disprove what is allegedly perfect when we have yet to even triumph over and fully comprehend the imperfect, seems like going from reading Dr. Seuss to Shakespeare with no books or growth between and expecting to understand "Hamlet" as well as, say, an Oxford professor would) to your question:

I have the exact same question. :p

@President Eden:

You don't have to run through that whole course of discourse...

But I would ask whether you think that your answer is congruent with mine in regards to knowledge/belief, as I stated that knowledge is the absolute or at the very least reasonable proof of an idea that was once supported only through a hypothesis, ie, faith (like my example with the bridge, after driving over it I have the knowledge that the brige is stable, which I would ahve preferred before I drove over when I only had the belief and could also conceive of the bridge crumbling under the weight of the car and I falling into the river with the bridge's remains in my car, so yes, driving over affirms the belief and transforms it into knowledge, but my point was that I would have preferred the knowledge FIRST, my post is which you would PREFER, and this is relevant to the whole God thing above in that, well, would you rather know/have a certain proof of God's existence or merely faith...while "He says" to just "believe" as he stays hidden...just saying, option #1 seems a lot better, I'm much more likely to drive over a bridge I know is sound than one where I have no logical justification for believing it is totally sound and thus must believe it is...and hope I don't fall to my death. The Bridge of Knowledge seems favorable to The Bridge of Belief, be ye man or deity, that's my point.)

Also, really...

Will any of this matter when, in the Year One Million and a Half, Humankind is enslaved by giraffe? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4HkP7r1O_g

;)

You all give faith short shrift. Faith is more than simple belief. Otherwise we would just use the word belief instead of faith. Faith is belief that motivates action. Knowledge only sometimes creates action.

Is it better to know God exists, do nothing about it and go to hell; or only have faith He exists, and live your life helping others and go to heaven? I prefer the latter and I think most would agree. Therefore, faith is better than knowledge.

@czech:

"if this all powerful deity does in fact exist, why the hell is he putting us through this?" - If life was such torture you would see mass suicide across the world. Since we do not, we know that life is valuable and a gift not torture.

"Why then, I ask, does he not reveal himself to the universe?" - That would render faith unnecessary, and get rid of the whole reason we are all here - to learn, grow, and prove whether we are good or bad independent of God's influence.

"Why does he sit seemingly idly by allowing us to wreak havoc on each other?" Would you really rather have a God that controls everyone on puppet strings? What would be the point of that? God, being smarter than you, apparently realizes that freedom to choose is a vital part of life and allows us to have it.

May I say first, to obiwan, that if I offended you, I apologize. I was not intending to label you in any way. I was merely asking that consider one possible option.

@nosuchthing:

What you responded is my point precisely, my friend. Assuming this God (no matter what faith you come from) does exist, we were given mandates of how to live our lives. Though we were given those mandates, it is our choice whether or not to live by those rules. It is just like in primary school; if you break the rule, you get a negative consequence. According to any faith, you will be judged for your sins.

My premise, however, is simply that whether or not this God exists, are we to just roam freely, doing whatever we choose, with no consequences? In my mind, no! We are to live our lives the right way: respecting others simply because it is respectful, helping someone in need...etc We don't do this because we might get into some sort of afterlife. We do it because it is right.

In response to your question, no I would not want a God who controls everything, and in fact, I believe that he has put us here to make the decision. That sole fact is the very core of my own personal belief system. I do not believe in the Bible word for word. In fact I think that much of it has gone to waste over the generations. However, whether or not the Bible is truth or fallacy, we must use what we know is good from it. Not word for word belief (what I call "blind following"). We read the stories for the lesson, not to do exactly what happened in it. I know of many people who joined the military simply because they read one verse out of the bible that said the whole eye for an eye thing. Take the lessons.

@everyone who reads:

I am not here to judge anyone for what they say, This is supposed to be a discussion. I apologize if I have offended anyone. But my personal belief system takes God completely out of the picture. Whether he is watching or not, I choose to live my life by a certain standard. I do not NEED faith or knowledge. What I choose to use to make my decisions is my own intuition. I listen to advice, look at all the factors, weigh all the options, before I make my decisions. Choose to believe in God or not.

@nosuchthing:

Life is valuable, my friend, but only if you choose to do what is right. The minute you sway to do something to someone or something else just to make yourself better is indeed wrong (why do I play this game....??). But every life is valuable, if the one who is living it realizes that.

I kind of have a combination. I know, using logic, that if this universe is real and not some dream of mine, that God exists, but I have faith that this universe is real and not a dream of mine.

Can I just skip back to Obiwan's original statement? "I'd rather know that bridge is stable and drive across"

How do you 'know' it is safe? Did you design it, or do you have faith in the designer, and if you did design the bridge do you have faith in the builder and the labourers and the cement supplier etc, etc.

I think we have more faith in our fellow man doing their jobs than we have care to admit.

Obiwan - I would seriously challenge your comment that faith "can construct more elaborate systems of thought" than knowledge. Cutting edge quantum physics, cosmology, evolutionary biology, technology, material science are pretty complex, and full of hypotheses based on observation and some pretty elaborate mental constructs (branes, string theory, etc)

Knowledge (and admitting that we don't currently know) just plain common sense (to me).

@Maniac - It's faith, but it's faith based in knowledge - we know (or I know) that bridge designs are based on engineering principles, calculations and (hopefully) a rigourous design process and construction process. We know these things exist. Our 'faith' is the expectation that these have been complied to - it isn't faith in concrete or keystones, or steel

Obi:

This is how I will prove that knowledge is impossible:

Give me a statement you claim to know, and tell me why you think you know it.

doesn't the statement that knowledge is impossible presuppose that knowledge does in fact exist?? if knowledge is impossible, how can we know that knowledge is impossible?

I know I'm hungry.

I know that if the sides of a triangle are of equal length, that angles produced by that triangle will be equal.

@thucy - I know how to spell knowledge. I have seen it spelt that way many times, it follows spelling rules and it is easily understood that when I type/write knowledge in this way that the people i am corresponding with know what I mean.

I know that the sum of the angles in any polygon are equal to 180 * (n-2) where n is the number of sides.

I know that your "knowledge Is impossible" statement is drivel. How else are we able to communicate if the knowledge of language is impossible?

Knowledge corrupts. Absolute knowledge corrupts absolutely.

I believe that was taken out of context. He meant knowledge of the existence of God, not all knowledge. But I sometimes forget just how pedantic this group can be.

He was talking about the stability of a bridge. Is God a bridge? Wow!!