# Is exhaustive knowledge required for knowledge?



## knight4christ8 (Feb 16, 2006)

Having seen this skimmed over in past threads, I wnated to ask it directly.
Is it true that exhaustive infinite knowledge or access to a being who has such is required in order for one to know truth?

It often seems that this is an assumed belief, but has not been justified to my satisfaction. For exemplary discussion I offer Adam's naming of the creation in Genesis. He named them . . . he did not ask God to distinguish and know the creatures and tell him what to name them so as to have an infinite and omniscient being as a source, but rather God told Adam to name them and this could only be done through the use of Adam's finite powers given him by God. He worked like you and I do, naming the creation through a processional discovery using the powers latent within himself given him by God. 

This is knowledge isn't it?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 16, 2006)

No one can have ontological knowledge of anything. We cannot even know ourselves completely, because as we examine ourselves, the part of us that is examining ourself is not being examined. *Knowledge is familiarity*, or the lack of marvel at something extended in space. Adam, by naming the animals of Creation, was becoming familiar with the animals, as prior to him having observed the animals and giving them attributes (phenomenological observation, not decreeing what they are, creating, or making them into something, but simply by convention giving them an observable or discernable characteristic - a name), they were merely forms extended in space. They had no meaning, no familiarity, whatsoever to Adam. They were unknown.


----------



## knight4christ8 (Feb 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> No one can have ontological knowledge of anything. We cannot even know ourselves completely, because as we examine ourselves, the part of us that is examining ourself is not being examined. *Knowledge is familiarity*, or the lack of marvel at something extended in space. Adam, by naming the animals of Creation, was becoming familiar with the animals, as prior to him having observed the animals and giving them attributes (phenomenological observation, not decreeing what they are, creating, or making them into something, but simply by convention giving them an observable or discernable characteristic - a name), they were merely forms extended in space. They had no meaning, no familiarity, whatsoever to Adam. They were unknown.



What do you mean by ontological . . . Truth? Reason is ontological. It applies to all being . . . all being is being and not non-being. 
I would definitely dispute the vague definition that you gave to knolwedge in "familiarity". Many people become familiar with God, but they don't know him. The pharisees were this way.
It seems in the end though that we agree. Meaning is attained progressively and is done so through rational inquiry. Reason is used as a tool to test and categorize meaning.

This doesn't get to the heart of the matter though. Is all we know absolutely dependent on God as the direct source? Can we know something if the Bible does not speak specifically towards that something? As finite beings, is an infinite omniscient source necessary for knowledge? Is knowledge in part, knowledge?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 17, 2006)

You think people can become familiar with God Himself? Then He is no longer God. 

[Edited on 2-17-2006 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## knight4christ8 (Feb 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> You think people can become familiar with God Himself? Then He is no longer God.
> 
> [Edited on 2-17-2006 by WrittenFromUtopia]



I do not agree at all with your definition of knowledge or familiarity. You would have to justify your use of those definitions before I would consider anything that you have said to have weight. 

We can have knowledge of God. Scripture affirms this time and again. See specifically Isaiah 11:9 and Habbukuk 2:14.
So, your definition of knowledge must obviously not be that of which Scripture speaks. A being is known by its act. If you think that Adam's responsibility to name the creation was a vaccuous task, that would be a pretty shallow view. Adam was to know God through understanding creation - filling and subduing the earth. Adam was able to know God through indirect and finite means. His knowledge did not have to be parsed out to him by God's direct impartation of knowledge, but he could dervie it from the act of God. Thus, man can know through a finite source. He does not need exhaustive knowledge in order to know something absolutely. Just my 
This was what I was trying to instigate through my Q.


----------



## Civbert (Feb 21, 2006)

We know God by understanding and believing his Word. This is revealed truth from God, that is believed and understood by the power of the Spirit. It is verbal in form, propositional and rational.


----------



## knight4christ8 (Feb 21, 2006)

Is creation, as an act of God, a source of which we should come to know Him?
Creation is also revealed truth from God. All beings make themselves known through their act. By surveying their actions, one can come to know the attributes from which those actions proceed. 
Of course, creation can only be believed and understood by the power of the Spirit also. As no one is willing to look into the Scriptures for knowledge (i.e. salvation, God's mercy and grace, etc.) without the Spirit, no one is willing to look at creation and recognize God's holiness or omnipotence, which would drive them to seek salvation, without the Spirit.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 21, 2006)

Of course we can know things about God that He has revealed to us by special revelation, but we still can only understand and interpret that knowledge of special revelation according to our experience. By analogy. But, we can never "know" God, in an ontological sense, because then He would cease to be God. On the other side of the coin, were we to know ourselves in the same sense, we would then BECOME God, in a sense.


----------



## JohnV (Feb 22, 2006)

Let me see if I understand this; tell me if I'm wrong. When you, either Gabriel or Anthony, say that God cannot be known ontologically or He ceases to be God, you are shifting the so-called exhaustive necessity onto the ontological aspect rather than on knowledge. That is, in other words, knowing God, to come into actual contact with God in the knowledge, as opposed to knowing about God intellectually apart from God is more than man can hope for concerning knowledge of God. 

Do I have this right? 

I'm trying to do two things here. First, I'm implementing my own advice on myself, trying to understand another's position from his standpoint of what bedrock knowledge is, with respect for the other's sense of certainty. And second, trying to pinpoint where either or both of us are wrong. Not that I can do that, but maybe my questions will help.

[Edited on 2-22-2006 by JohnV]


----------



## Civbert (Feb 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> 
> Is creation, as an act of God, a source of which we should come to know Him?


No.




> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> 
> Creation is also revealed truth from God.


No. "God created all things" is the revealed truth. A rock can not tell you it was created, much more who created it. 



> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> 
> All beings make themselves known through their act. By surveying their actions, one can come to know the attributes from which those actions proceed.


You could survey 1000 paintings by _X_ and never know what _X_ believes about Limited Atonement. 




> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> 
> Of course, creation can only be believed and understood by the power of the Spirit also. As no one is willing to look into the Scriptures for knowledge (i.e. salvation, God's mercy and grace, etc.) without the Spirit, no one is willing to look at creation and recognize God's holiness or omnipotence, which would drive them to seek salvation, without the Spirit.



The Spirit may help us see how God's holiness or omnipotence is confirmed by God's creation, but the "creation" itself is mute about God. God himself gives all men knowledge of himself which takes aways the excuses men give themselves for disobedience. And even with the universal knowledge of God's existence and character, still men suppress this truth - and do not seek after God.

Saving knowledge of God comes by the Scriptures and the power of the Holy Spirit. Damning knowledge is innate in all men, for God has "shown" it to them, but they suppress this knowledge.


----------



## Civbert (Feb 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Of course we can know things about God that He has revealed to us by special revelation, but we still can only understand and interpret that knowledge of special revelation according to our experience. By analogy. But, we can never "know" God, in an ontological sense, because then He would cease to be God. On the other side of the coin, were we to know ourselves in the same sense, we would then BECOME God, in a sense.




I think there is a "special revelation" that men know because it is innate knowledge. I don't think men need any experiences to understand that there is a God. A blind, deaf, and dumb man knows that truth, infants know it, retarded people know it. But apart from Scripture, they can not justify what they know. Innate knowledge of God is suppressed so that many men deny God.


----------



## Civbert (Feb 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Let me see if I understand this; tell me if I'm wrong. When you, either Gabriel or Anthony, say that God cannot be known ontologically or He ceases to be God, you are shifting the so-called exhaustive necessity onto the ontological aspect rather than on knowledge. That is, in other words, knowing God, to come into actual contact with God in the knowledge, as opposed to knowing about God intellectually apart from God is more than man can hope for concerning knowledge of God.
> 
> Do I have this right?
> ...



My view is that "knowing God" means to know things about God - to believe propositions about God, his power, his majesty, his perfection. This is knowledge all men have, are born with, and often suppress. Then there is "saving" knowledge (or saving faith) which comes from believing the propositions of the Gospel. This is saving knowledge of God. Again, it is not exhaustive knowledge of God, but is limited to the propositional truths of the Gospel found in Scripture. We still need the Spirit to understand these things correctly, but we can know them and be saved.

I don't understand exactly what you mean by "to come into actual contact with God in the knowledge" means. I'm not taking about physical contact. But all knowledge might be said to be spiritual contact with God. The spirit/mind knows God by knowing about God. The saved spirit/mind knows even more, it knows the Gospel. I suppose this could be described as greater contact with God. But it is impossible to be out of contact with God in that sense. All knowledge that any man has, comes from God ultimately and often directly. So you can not exist and not be in contact with God in that sense.


----------



## JohnV (Feb 22, 2006)

Anthony:

The words "to come into actual contact with God in the knowledge" was meant to elicit from you a clear distinction between "knowing God" and "knowing about God". You are saying that the former is impossible, that only the latter is possible. If you were to hold the two as distinct, instead of equating them ( i.e., "knowing God" would have to mean "knowing about God", but "knowing about God" does not necessarily mean "knowing God" ), would you say that "knowing God" is possible?

You say "contact with God" means being merely intellectually perceptive of the propositions about God. You say, "The spirit/mind knows God by knowing about God." 

What I would like to know, then, is how is this is possible? Are not the same propositions known to unbelievers just as they are to believers? I have met some who know some of these propositions better than I. This was especially the case when I was younger, when as a young believer I would meet an older person who had left the church, who had translated his distrust for the fallible local church into distrust for God. This has been the case when I met people who were unhappy with the spiritual ineptness of the local church, and became entranced by the "spiritual vitality" of these charismatic churches. They blamed the lack of spirituality on the doctrines, rather than seeing that the church was not really believing in the doctrines anymore, and therefore was spiritually lamed. 

I have met people who know their Bible rather well, and yet thought I was courting the devil because I had a Webster's Dictionary on my shelf that had all the appearances of being well used. They were right, I was using it a lot; so these people were not jumping to false conclusions about that. I have met some people who were quite put out by the fact that I prayed the Lord's Prayer petition along with all the other members of the same church, put out because I was an Amillennialist, and therefore did not believe in the kingdom of Christ, nor wanted it to come, so he believed. He accosted me with the charge that I was sinning by praying what I did not believe in or even wanted. 

All these knew at least the same propositions that I knew when I officially and publicly professed to be a Christian. And some knew more than that. I will not say that I was not a Christian at the time, but rather that I have gained in knowledge since then. But I cannot say that each of these "knew God" in the sense that I "knew God". Yet we could all claim about the same knowledge about God. 

If knowing God is merely knowing about God, how do you account for these differences, assuming the same propositional exposure to the truth? ( Did I mention that all the above examples represent people who *have* made the same profession of faith that I did, from the very same creeds and confessions? )


[Edited on 2-22-2006 by JohnV]


----------



## knight4christ8 (Feb 22, 2006)

I think that you are straying far from the confession Civbert. 

Chapter 1.1 Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation. 

Chapter 21.1 The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might.




> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> 
> Is creation, as an act of God, a source of which we should come to know Him?


No.




> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> 
> Creation is also revealed truth from God.


No. "God created all things" is the revealed truth. A rock can not tell you it was created, much more who created it. 



> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> 
> All beings make themselves known through their act. By surveying their actions, one can come to know the attributes from which those actions proceed.


You could survey 1000 paintings by _X_ and never know what _X_ believes about Limited Atonement. 
[/quote]
Okay, so far you have provided no text. 
I am not implying that someone can have exhaustive knowledge of God just by seeing his creation. This too is a limited revelation. You may not know a being completely by its painting, but I was thinking more along the lines of our act. When we violate the moral law, it is evidence that we are inconsistent sinful beings, and when we love the Lord it is also evidence that we are being sanctified from that dreadful state of sinfulness. 

If rocks cannot reveal the nature of God, then what does it mean to say that the earth is full of his glory "The whole earth is full of his glory. (Isaiah 6:3; Psalm 8; Psalm 29)" and since the creation of the world his invisible attributes have been shown clearly by what has been made (Romans 1)?



> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> 
> Of course, creation can only be believed and understood by the power of the Spirit also. As no one is willing to look into the Scriptures for knowledge (i.e. salvation, God's mercy and grace, etc.) without the Spirit, no one is willing to look at creation and recognize God's holiness or omnipotence, which would drive them to seek salvation, without the Spirit.



The Spirit may help us see how God's holiness or omnipotence is confirmed by God's creation, but the "creation" itself is mute about God. God himself gives all men knowledge of himself which takes aways the excuses men give themselves for disobedience. And even with the universal knowledge of God's existence and character, still men suppress this truth - and do not seek after God.

Saving knowledge of God comes by the Scriptures and the power of the Holy Spirit. Damning knowledge is innate in all men, for God has "shown" it to them, but they suppress this knowledge. [/quote]

I understand that much of this is your presuppositionalism coming out, but many of the things here that you are saying are directly contrary to Scripture primarily and the Confession secondarily. When Paul speaks of men's accountability is is because God "has made it clear to them by the things that are made". You may think supplementally as most Van Tillians do and attribute innate knowledge in addition to the creation, but you cannot do as you have done and discount the revelation of creation altogether.

Some of my new text is in the main quote, please be sure to read my specific replies. I am not sure how to exclude in-line text with the quote.

[Edited on 04/04/2005 by knight4christ8]


----------



## Civbert (Feb 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Anthony:
> 
> The words "to come into actual contact with God in the knowledge" was meant to elicit from you a clear distinction between "knowing God" and "knowing about God".
> ...



Let me try to be clearer. An unbeliever can _not_ know the proposition "Jesus is the Son of God" because to "know" entails believing the proposition. All things we say we "know", are also things we "believe". Now an unbeliever can understand the "content" of the proposition "Jesus is the Son of God" and understand it's implications. Some unbelievers understand the Bible's content better than believers - but they do not believe these propositions are true - in particular, they do not believe the Bible is God's inerrant Word, or that all the propositions of Scripture are truth revealed to man by God.

So when I say knowing God is knowing about God, I mean that we believe propositions about God, and we can give an account for the truth of those propositions. The account is very simple. First by asserting that the Scripture is the Word of God (the propositions of the Scriptures are true). From this we deduce "Jesus is the Son of God" ...is true. So we account for the knowledge about God from Scripture. (That was a bit over simplified, but it's the basic justification process for showing that Scriptural knowledge is "justified true belief".

So, for the unbeliever - he can understand much of the Scriptures. He can understand many of the propositions about God which the Christian believes, but the unbeliever doe not "know" much about God. He knows innately about the existence of God, but he can not even account for that much.

And for the believer, to know God is to know things about God from the Scriptures, including the Gospel.

As for a "profession of faith", evidently they deceived themselves. They did not truly believe the things they confessed. They did not "know" the things they said they knew. They did not even believe them. 

These are the definitions I am using:


*Understanding* - knowledge of the relationship between propositions, knowledge of the meaning of terms in propositions, but not necessarily assenting to the propositions and the meanings of terms. You can understand the Theory of Evolution and not believe it.

*Belief* (or faith) - mental assent to a proposition understood. If you believe in Theory of Relativity, you are saying you understand it and believe the Theory of Relativity is true. You are not saying you can prove it is true, or you can account for it being true.

*Knowledge* - assent to understood true propositions with the ability to account for the truth of the propositions (justified true belief). To know something entails understanding, belief, truth, and accountability. If you know things about God, you know God, because you understand propositions about God, you believe they are true propositions, and you can account for the truth of those propositions (by Scripture).

So the main difference I see is how we are using the term "know". I'd say the examples you gave are not people who "knew" the same propositions you did. They were people who might have "understood" the same propositions, but could not "know" them because they did not "believe" them.

I think what many seem to call "mere intellectual knowledge" or "head knowledge" is not really knowledge. It does not rise above the level of "understanding". And probably I should not use the phrase "to know about God" because that is easily misunderstood as meaning to understand the meaning of the propositions regarding God, which is not my intention. I mean that to "know God" very specifically means to "know" true propositions regarding God, to believe and understand truths about God that can be accounted for by Scripture.


----------



## JohnV (Feb 22, 2006)

This will take a bit of care to sort through.

In effect, you are still denying that knowing God is knowing the persons of the Trinity. We cannot "know" Christ as a person, but we can know about Him and believe in what we know about Him, because we can justify what we know about Him from Scripture. Likewise, we can justify what we know about the Scripture because we believe it to be God's Word. 

In short, what you are saying is that to "know God" means believing what we understand about God, but also because we can account for it via Scripture. We "know God" because we "know Scripture to be true". And how do we know Scripture to be true? Because we "know God". And "knowing God" means that we understand the propositions about God, believe the propositions about God, and know the propositions about God. 

So if I may reduce these: Whence do we know ( understand, believe, and account for ) these propositions? From Scripture. And whence do we know Scripture? From God. And whence do we know God? From Scripture. 

Is it possible to understand and know something without believing it? For example, I might understand the theory of Evolution just as well as an Evolutionist, and say I don't believe it to be true. Does that mean that I don't know it? Or is it possible that I might know it better than the Evolutionist, and that is the reason I don't believe it?

Or, another example: what if I knew the Theory of Relativity better than Einstein? And what if I said that I did not believe it because of certain flaws in it that Einstein never saw? And what if I could demonstrably prove these flaws? Would you say that I did not know the Theory of Relativity because I did not believe it or could not account for it? Woujd it not be the case, rather, that I would know it better than Einstein? 

So it is possible, is it not, to know some things, that is to believe and account for things which lead to a negative proposition about those things? Knowledge can also entail accounting for the unaccountability of some propositions, can it not? Or, to say it more plainly, I can also "know" that some things are not true, and that I understand them to be not true, can I not?

Now, I understand that this negativity is merely the opposite form of saying the positive. I can know that the theory of Evolution is not true because I can know the positive propositions concerning creation. But still, I can know the theory of Evolution without believing it; and it may be possible that I can know the Theory of Relativity without believing it. Yet you say that "knowing" is believing plus making an account of it. 

I also understand that "No one who understands what God is can conceive that God does not exist." ( Anselm. ) And all men know what God is. So all men understand _that_ God exists, and all men believe _that_ God exists, even though they deny it, and all men know _that_ God exists, even though they deny it. Yet not all men "know God". Yet you say that because men do not believe God, they cannot "know God". That is, they may know the propositions about God, but not know God. But may I suggest, then, that they also do not know the propositions about God if they do not believe them? Is that not entailed in your position?

[Edited on 2-22-2006 by JohnV]


----------



## Civbert (Feb 22, 2006)

If the knowledge of God, that makes us inexcusable, is based on our observations of the natural world, then we must say that a blind deaf mute is excused - he is saved by his ignorance of the empirical evidence from which men know God.

But then what does this mean:


> For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
> (Rom 1:18-19 NKJV)



God reveals this knowledge to them. 



> For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
> (Rom 1:20-21 NKJV)



They "knew" God. They did not discover God, or find God, but they knew what God had revealed to them. We are the things made which understand and know of God because God manifested that knowledge in us.

This is far from being a proof of empirical knowledge of God, rather it is support for innate knowledge from God. We can not understand Rom 1:20 without seeing it in light of Rom 1:19 which says this knowledge is not discovered, but is manifest _in us_. Not external, but internal.

The "things made" are not the natural world, but it is man himself. From the creation of man, man has known the attributes of God, for God has shown man these things.

Paul is saying that although the Gentiles did not have the Scriptures, they still knew God becaue God has given them that knowledge directly. The issue is the Gentiles not having the Law of God, the Scriptures. The answer is God made himself known to the Gentiles too by "special revelation". 

[Edited on 2-22-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## JohnV (Feb 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> If the knowledge of God, that makes us inexcusable, is based on our observations of the natural world, then we must say that a blind deaf mute is excused - he is saved by his ignorance of the empirical evidence from which men know God.
> 
> But then what does this mean:
> ...



So you are saying that man can know ( understand, believe, and account for ) God and yet not believe Him?


----------



## Civbert (Feb 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> So you are saying that man can know ( understand, believe, and account for ) God and yet not believe Him?



No. Knowledge requires belief. Everything you know, you believe. All men believe in God. When I use the term unbelievers, I mean those who do not know the Gospel. They do not believe in Jesus. 

[Edited on 2-22-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## JohnV (Feb 22, 2006)

Then how do you account for this passage by your own meanings,

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened." ( Rom 1:18-21 )?

It is clear that those who have become futile in their thoughts and darkened in their hearts, then, would not have known God, because they did not believe Him. Yet it is said that, though they knew God, they did not glofify Him. That is, they did not believe Him. How, then, could they have known God. It does not say "knew about God", but "knew God", which in your definition is the same, because "knowing" included understanding, believing, and accounting for. Are you using the term the same as God's Word here? If so, how can it be that they "knew God" but " did not glorify Him as God"?


----------



## Civbert (Feb 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Then how do you account for this passage by your own meanings,
> 
> "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
> ...



The verses do not say they did not believe in God. They do believe in God - that agrees with my definition of belief and the Scriptures. "They knew God" entails they believed in God. And we can account for that knowledge because Scripture says they knew. So the knowledge of God includes understanding, believing, and accountability.

[Edited on 2-22-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## JohnV (Feb 22, 2006)

So, then, a person who is an unbeliever can believe in God, and know Him, ( that is, they can account for Him ), and yet not be a believer? That is, they do not "know God", even though they "know God"?

Don't get me wrong, Anthony; I'm trying to get a handle on this. After your answer, lets leave it for a day to think about these things. OK?


----------



## Civbert (Feb 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> So, then, a person who is an unbeliever can believe in God, and know Him, ( that is, they can account for Him ), and yet not be a believer? That is, they do not "know God", even though they "know God"?
> 
> Don't get me wrong, Anthony; I'm trying to get a handle on this. After your answer, lets leave it for a day to think about these things. OK?



Please understand. The Bible makes it clear that all men believe in God, they all know God. This is not a question. The question is do they know the Gospel. Knowledge of God does not save (in fact it damns). Knowledge of the Gospel does save. 

The "believer/unbeliever" question regards belief in the Gospel, not just God the Creator. Knowledge of God does not make one a Christian - and that is what I mean when I say "believer" - it is a person who knows/believes the Gospel. All men believe in God, they know He exists and he is powerful and the creator of all things. But they don't know Christ - that Jesus is God's Son who died to save the elect.


----------



## JohnV (Feb 23, 2006)

> _from Civbert_
> The Bible makes it clear that all men believe in God, they all know God. This is not a question. The question is do they know the Gospel. Knowledge of God does not save (in fact it damns). Knowledge of the Gospel does save.



Maybe if we switch our focus from "knowing" to the object of knowledge we are talking about, namely God, then we might be able to understand each other. 

Would you not say that to know someone personally is better than to know about someone? I mean, I can know about the Queen of England, and even know a lot about her, just by reading everything I can get my hands on that relates to her. But that is a different kind of knowledge than knowing my friend, whom I am able to observe often enough to build a kind of trust with him, an unspoken and non-verbal knowledge. It can be propositionalized, and perhaps we do that from time to time, but most often we do not put our knowledge into propositional form. But the fact of it is, that we learn all about our friends, and learn to trust them, by experience, and only afterward consider what may be propositionalized. 

If such knowledge is greater, through experience, would you say that one's knowledge of God is enhanced more by experience than by proposition? At first we learn about God, through His Word, but then we grow to know God by living what He has told us through His Word, by constant prayer to Him as a person but as God, and by trusting that He is indeed right there as He promised so as to protect and guide us in all circumstances? Is not such knowledge greater than and also prior to propositions about His character? Is not the propositional revelation from the Word a result of Christ's and the Spirit's communion with the Father, and desiring to inform us of this relationship, and of His love for us?

And, lastly, how do we love in return if our knowledge is confined to propositional knowledge? I am not suggesting the what we know may not always be put into porpositional form, but rather that we know things before we are able to put them into propositional form; and that this is more reflective of the relationship of the Father to Son and the Spirit, which is not time-bound as propositions are, and which the Father wishes with us in eternity.


----------



## Civbert (Feb 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> > _from Civbert_
> ...



I'd say that to know what the person thinks and believes is better than to know what they look like, or how they walk, or if they have an accent. The kind of knowledge one gains by being in the physical presence is very limited. More is learned from speaking to them, learning how they think about things. For instants, from our conversations, you know me in more depth than many of my co-workers who see me daily. If you could read the personal dairy of the Queen, and she could reads yours, even if you never met in person, you'd have a deeper and more complete knowledge of the Queen than most people who spend time with her.

Trust is not developed through direct observations. It must be combined with hearing your friends words and comparing them to his actions. And even that does not require direct observation, but can be achieved through a reliable mediator.



> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> If such knowledge is greater, through experience, would you say that one's knowledge of God is enhanced more by experience than by proposition? At first we learn about God, through His Word, but then we grow to know God by living what He has told us through His Word, by constant prayer to Him as a person but as God, and by trusting that He is indeed right there as He promised so as to protect and guide us in all circumstances? Is not such knowledge greater than and also prior to propositions about His character? Is not the propositional revelation from the Word a result of Christ's and the Spirit's communion with the Father, and desiring to inform us of this relationship, and of His love for us?


Yes and no. The knowledge does not increase through experience, but our understanding and feelings of trust might. But then, there are times when our feelings of trust can be lost for a time. We can go through times where our trust is hindered because we go through a painful experience. God is still no less trustworthy, but our emotions can overcome our reasoning, leaving us with a sense of uncertainty.

The sole source of knowledge we have of God is Scripture. We grow in knowledge and faith by better understanding God through his word. Our personal experiences can either hinder or aid our emotional response to this knowledge. But the experience itself does not gain us anything we can reliably call knowledge. In fact, I think the situation needs to be reversed. We need to interpret our "experience" in the light of Scripture to better understand our experiences. We do not interpret or better understand Scripture in terms of our experiences.



> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> And, lastly, how do we love in return if our knowledge is confined to propositional knowledge? I am not suggesting the what we know may not always be put into porpositional form, but rather that we know things before we are able to put them into propositional form; and that this is more reflective of the relationship of the Father to Son and the Spirit, which is not time-bound as propositions are, and which the Father wishes with us in eternity.



Our knowledge is propositional, but that does not mean it is always verbalized. But there is no knowledge that is non-propositional. We can know things and not verbalize them - but we know God's laws through propositions. And we can not love God, unless we know the Law. Love is a duty we are given by God. We are commanded to love - and we do so by obeying God's laws and doing good to our neighbors. Without knowledge of the Scriptures, we can not love God or anyone else. So in answer to your question "how do we love in return if our knowledge is confined to propositional knowledge?" - the only way to love God is by knowledge of the propositions of Scripture.


----------



## knight4christ8 (Feb 23, 2006)

I lost my last post. 

I will make this short. It seems that you both have gone a seperate direction, or may be getting a bit more detailed than would allow me time to participate.

Civbert,

You stated that a blind and deaf mute would be excusable from the standpoint that Creation is what convicts. However, mere existence of a being attests to their creation and they are thus inexcusable atleast at this point. Even more so though, a human limited so greatly in their abilities would undeniably have a greater affirmation of their finitude, and thus this would attest to their having been created by an infinite Creator - Romans 1 states his eternal power and divine attributes are known by what has been made and physical inabilities do not hinder this.

Please do not take this wrong . . . I may be misunderstanding you. It seems that you arguing against Scripture as an Arminian argues against Romans 9 or Ephesians 1, etc. - the most clear passages on election. Creation undeniably has a purpose in holding man accountable. Most Van Tillian presuppositionalists refer to it as a supplemental source of accountability, but you must atleast affirm this supplemental nature in your beliefs, though you may not believe that it is Creation and Creation primarily that leaves men inexcusable. If you do not do this, you are fighting Scripture blatantly.


----------



## JohnV (Feb 23, 2006)

Gregory:

I'm sorry if this took you off your topic. I was attempting to get to the bottom of the assertion that one can not know God ontologically. If you read back over the posts between Anthony and I, you will find that we are slowly moving to the position that only the terminology is different, but our position is similar. Anthony is showing that his propositional knowledge is the in the main similar to what you and I would call ontological knowledge. In fact, no categorical difference exists anymore once you embrace Anthony's terminology. So I am working toward that end, to show that this is difference over words, not over substance; and then working toward the substance. 

But for the most part, I think, we are exploring the thing that you began with, namely whether our knowledge of God or of things need to be exhaustive in order for us to say "we know with certainty." Anthony's point, which I think is the most valuable contribution to this discussion so far, is that we can know based on the authority of One who does know exhaustively, and since He says it is so, then we can also be certain within ourselves that it is so, and so also assert that certainty to others. Not that we have that authority in and of ourselves, but that the One who does have that authority dwells within us. 

I hope this ties things together a bit. I didn't mean to derail your thread. Please forgive me.


----------



## knight4christ8 (Feb 23, 2006)

It does . . . I think. 

I do not agree though that knowledge solely is attained by God's spoken or written word. This is my problem. I believe that we are also to know God through his act in creation. Though it is not sufficient for salvation, everlasting life is to know God the Father and the One whom he has sent (John 17:4). Going down these lines, I believe that we should strive to know God in creation and thereby establish the basics that were to have condemned us, thus coming to a greater knowledge of our self-absorbed nature in sin. It concerns me that more Christians do not think in this way. The confession seems to emphasize the knowledge that can be obtained from creation, but few really try to explore what it means that the earth is full of his glory (Isaiah 6:3).
Can we really even understand the depth of our foolish sin and what Scripture has to say to us unless we have the more basic knowledge of Creation understood? I am implying that we often try to understand the less basic without understanding the more basic first. Scripture assumes that we know who God is in Gen. 1:1, yet few of us really seek God as he has intended to reveal himself in Creation.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 23, 2006)

Are you all talking about knowledge _of_ God, or _knowing_ God (ontologically). If the latter, then I still have major issues with saying that one can "know" God. We know ABOUT God through special revelation, and are able to understand that revelation according to the wisdom given to us through our fear of God and our experiences, but to say someone can "know" God is, I believe, an extraordinary statement. It makes YOU God.


----------



## JohnV (Feb 23, 2006)

> _The Belgic Confession of Faith, Article II
> By What Means God Is Made Known unto Us_
> We know Him by two means: First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe; which is before our eyes as a most elegant book, wherein all creatures, great and small, are as so many characters leading us to see clearly the invisible things of God, even his everlasting power and divinity, as the apostle Paul says (Rom. 1:20). All which things are sufficient to convince men and leave them without excuse. Second, He makes Himself more clearly and fully known to us by His holy and divine Word, that is to say, as far as is necessary for us to know in this life, to His glory and our salvation.



There are aspects of our condemnation which lie hidden, but revealed in Scripture. Such as the depth and utter lostness of our situation, without hope. These are only hinted at in the creation, when we can find no hope in it, but only see the problem; but we do not see that no hope will be found in it. There is a difference between our not finding hope in our limitation, and knowing that even outside our limitation there is no hope to be found in the creation. 

We also know our own finitude, and know that we need help. But we cannot know that there is no help outside of Christ. We still might search elsewhere our whole life, not realizing that there is no hope. But only when we turn to the Scriptures do we come to grips with the why and how of the question concerning that we are lost, namely that of guilt of sin through the fall our forebearer, Adam; and that we daily increase our guilt. We find that it is not that we are not big enough, or smart enough, or informed enough, but that we are guilty, personally guilty and cut off. 

And then, when we turn to the Scriptures, we find that a solution to this is given, and that it is trustworthy. We find many proofs that the Bible is truth, and that it truly gives hope, and that the salvation from guilt is real. We have historical witnesses, historical affirmations, present witnesses, and present affirmations. The Bible does what it promises in actual experience. 

Thus here we are again, the before Scripture and the after Scripture, as it were, references to the creation as a revelation of God. 

This is how I understand this very important article of the Christian faith.


----------



## JohnV (Feb 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Are you all talking about knowledge _of_ God, or _knowing_ God (ontologically). If the latter, then I still have major issues with saying that one can "know" God. We know ABOUT God through special revelation, and are able to understand that revelation according to the wisdom given to us through our fear of God and our experiences, but to say someone can "know" God is, I believe, an extraordinary statement. It makes YOU God.



How does knowing God make me God? I know my wife, and yet I am not her. It is not merely knowing the propositions about her, but knowing her as a person, the very thing the propositions are about. Why is it not the same, and greater, with God? 

We are not disobeying any distance between God and us by knowing Him, for we cannot know Him unless He first knows us. And this is what He indeed does. He can see inside our hearts, beyond the propositions. And we too can get to know God when He interacts with us through His Word and the Spirit, and when we pray to Him through the Spirit uttering our petitions which are too deep for words.

Rom 8:26 Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. 

That's how God knows us, in ways too deep for words. And we have an inkling of what that means because we know and love our loved ones in ways too deep for words. Why is not knowledge and love of God greater?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 24, 2006)

I have huge philosophical problems with the way everyone in this thread is using the word "know." I guess I'll just stay out of the discussion.


----------



## Civbert (Feb 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I have huge philosophical problems with the way everyone in this thread is using the word "know." I guess I'll just stay out of the discussion.



I wish you wouldn't. I think if you gave your definition of "know" or "knowledge", we might be able to figure out why our views are different and how they may be similar. Clearly my understanding of the word "know" is stricter than John's, which explains a lot of our differences, and helps us see areas of agreement. Much useless disagreement comes down to what we mean by common terms. If you mean something different than I do by "know" - we will have a hard time coming to common ground, or clarifying our differences, until we define our terms.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 24, 2006)

> I heard one of the common people say, "he knew me right away." Then I asked myself: What is it that the common people take for knowledge? What do they want when they want "knowledge"? Nothing more than this: Something strange is to be reduced to something _familiar_. And we philosophers - have we really mean _more_ than this when we have spoken of knowledge? What is familiar means what we are used to so that we no longer marvel at it, our everyday, some rule in which we are stuck, anything at all in which we feel at home. Look, isn't our need for knowledge precisely this need for the familiar, the will to uncover under everything strange, unusual, and questionable something that no longer disturbs us?
> *Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Aphorism 355, pp. 300-301*


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 24, 2006)

The amount of "knowledge" we have of God is extremely limited. I don't think we can say that we "know" God. What we know _of_ God is by means of His voluntary condescension through a covenantal agreement, by way of Mediation (through Jesus Christ), and by facility of the Holy Spirit. To know _about_ someone or something is vastly different than to *know* someone or something, in the way I understand the terms.



> The distance between God and the creature is go great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He has been pleased to express by way of covenant.
> *The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), Chapter VII, Article I*





> *Romans 1:19* For what can be known *about* God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.


----------



## knight4christ8 (Feb 24, 2006)

I definitely discourage any text that you bring from Nietche. He was a confused and very lost man. I am confused as to why you would think that he is justified in such a definition, and why you would equate his definition of "know" to the Bible's definition of "know". Paul says again and again that we were saved by the "Knowledge" of Christ, and he definitely doesn't imply that we become more familiar with him so as to lose our marvel for him. Neither is this the way "knowledge" is used in Isaiah 11:9 or Habbakuk 2:14. 
This clearly is the reason for your misunderstanding of us. In no way would we, or the Bible, mean 'familiar', so as to not marvel, when the word "knowledge" is used. As I come to know my wife better and the intimacy intended in this relationship by Christ, I come to marvel more and more at what a wonderful thing it is. With knowledge marvel must increase.
I would be interested to hear from any one else as to whether Christians should put more effort into showing that the glory of God is clear in creation. If it is what convicts (Rom 1), should we be able to show it as redeemed people of God?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 25, 2006)

Gregory, you are still using knowledge to mean "knowing about" or "awareness" of God.


----------



## JohnV (Feb 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> The amount of "knowledge" we have of God is extremely limited. I don't think we can say that we "know" God. What we know _of_ God is by means of His voluntary condescension through a covenantal agreement, by way of Mediation (through Jesus Christ), and by facility of the Holy Spirit. To know _about_ someone or something is vastly different than to *know* someone or something, in the way I understand the terms.





> The distance between God and the creature is go great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He has been pleased to express by way of covenant.
> *The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), Chapter VII, Article I*





> *Romans 1:19* For what can be known *about* God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.


 [/quote]

So you can say that you know about God, but you do not know God, in that sense? And from that you can ascertain that I cannot know God either?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



So you can say that you know about God, but you do not know God, in that sense? And from that you can ascertain that I cannot know God either? [/quote]

In the context of this discussion, no, you cannot "know" God. You know about God, you know what He has revealed to you in Revelation (Scripture), but you do not "know" God. If you did, you would be God.


----------



## mgeoffriau (Mar 14, 2006)

It seems that whatever you may be gaining in precision, you are losing in the common usage. We have to be careful not to make the term "knowledge" meaningless.

I think you are neglecting the fact that God has not simply disclosed certain facts about Himself, but He has also entered into a relationship with His people.


----------



## Civbert (Mar 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> It seems that whatever you may be gaining in precision, you are losing in the common usage. We have to be careful not to make the term "knowledge" meaningless.



Good point, and I think that's one of the common problems of philosophers, their definitions and terminology gets so detailed and complicated, that they loose site of the whole point - which is to clarify and understand language and meaning and thought. Sometimes they need to step back and ask if they have gotten so far from the normal use of language so that they are no longer talking about something that makes sense in the real world.




> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> 
> I think you are neglecting the fact that God has not simply disclosed certain facts about Himself, but He has also entered into a relationship with His people.



Your view comes with a lot of philosophical history - and it's not one that has a clear foundation in biblical thought. Ask yourself how often does scripture use the term or concept "relationship". And certainly there are some similarities, but it not in the modern sense of the term. 

However, "knowledge" and "wisdom" are all critical concepts in the Scriptures. I'd even say that these ideas better explain the meaning of biblical "relationship" then the modern meaning does. The modern meaning is mystical and "experiential" and is antithetical to the intellect and spirit. But the biblical relationship we have with God is built by knowing his Word. And we can say knowing God's Word is knowing Christ - who is God's "Word". 

The biblical relationship is not separate from belief and understand of Scripture - it is found in our faith in the truths of Scripture. God's "disclosure" of facts (Scripture) is the source of our relationship with God (knowing God). Knowing God means knowing God's Word.


----------



## Puritanhead (Mar 14, 2006)

Wisdom is preferable to knowledge in everyway. A man can be puffed up with knowledge and it will only corrupt his heart and lead him astray. Knowledge is not discerned properly without wisdom.


----------



## mgeoffriau (Mar 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> The modern meaning is mystical and "experiential" and is antithetical to the intellect and spirit. But the biblical relationship we have with God is built by knowing his Word. And we can say knowing God's Word is knowing Christ - who is God's "Word".



Agreed. When I say "relationship," I intend not some amorphous, feeling-driven stomach-ache. I intend in a more denotative sense -- that is, in what way God relates to us (as Creator/creature, King/subject, Father/son, Savior/reprobate, etc.). 

I would argue that we may need to separate between _how we learn_ about our relationship with God, and the relationship itself. I do not think that our relationship with God can be boiled down to our comprehension and acceptance of factual statements in Scripture.

What I mean is that Scripture is God's communication of His relationship to us, but it is not the relationship itself. It is God's explanation of the relationship, and the means by which I come to know of God's condescension to us.

I guess I'm just trying to point out that Scripture is the means by which I apprehend the object, but it is not the object itself. God's love and mercy for worthless sinners is the object, the substance of the relationship.



> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> The biblical relationship is not separate from belief and understand of Scripture - it is found in our faith in the truths of Scripture. God's "disclosure" of facts (Scripture) is the source of our relationship with God (knowing God). Knowing God mean knowing God's Word.



Agreed.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> ...



This is just silly.


----------



## mgeoffriau (Mar 14, 2006)

OK.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 14, 2006)

Which "normal use of language" definition of "know" are you using, then, when you assert that one can, in fact, "know" God?



> know
> v. knew, (n, ny) known, (nn) knowÂ·ing, knows
> v. tr.
> 
> ...


----------



## mgeoffriau (Mar 14, 2006)

Anyway, I would argue that unless you can present a credible argument for fixing the definitions of words, that the only option that keeps words from becoming meaningless and absurd is common usage.

You can choose to use the term "knowledge" in a different manner than is common, but in doing so you expand the definition and are complicit in making the word meaningless.

In any case, I'm still not sure I understand what exactly the distinction is that you are making, so feel free to explain further.


----------



## mgeoffriau (Mar 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Which "normal use of language" definition of "know" are you using, then, when you assert that one can, in fact, "know" God?
> 
> 
> ...



Several of them apply in different ways, but the ones I bolded I think apply most fully when I say that I can know God.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> In any case, I'm still not sure I understand what exactly the distinction is that you are making, so feel free to explain further.



We are not *absolutely* familiar with God, therefore we do not, and cannot *EVER* "know" God. Even in a glorified state, God will still be God and we will still be "man." God will always be a marvel before us, always a mystery, and always outside of our ability to *absolutely* predict His ... "actions", for lack of a better word. If we *knew* God, then we would know everything about Him. We would know what He "thinks" about everything, and therefore, we would be on the same level as God. We would be God. We would have Him, by convention perhaps, "in a box", which we could say "look, here is God and this is exactly how He is and who He is, as He is no longer a mystery to us."

My proposition, therefore, is that we can (as Paul asserts in Rom 1:19), know "about" God, but we cannot have any type of absolute knowledge "of" God; that is, of His being. To claim such would be to restrict God and remove Him of His Godliness and sovereignty altogether. We would become God, practically speaking.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 14, 2006)

Also, being in communion with God is different than "knowing God", in the way I am using it in this discussion. Of course we commune with God (by way of Mediator) through His means of grace, but this doesn't give us absolute knowledge of God. Completely different, in my opinion.


----------



## Civbert (Mar 14, 2006)

Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English:


> Knowledge
> 
> 1. A clear and certain perception of that which exists, or of truth and fact; the perception of the connection and agreement, or disagreement and repugnancy of our ideas.
> 
> ...


----------



## mgeoffriau (Mar 14, 2006)

Why have you introduced the modifier "absolutely"? 

To borrow a previous example, I know my wife. I am familiar with her. This does not mean that there are not things about her that I do not know. Instead, it refers to a general familiarity.


----------



## Civbert (Mar 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Which "normal use of language" definition of "know" are you using, then, when you assert that one can, in fact, "know" God?



The point is that whatever definition you use, if it is too obtuse and technical (as is common in philosophy), no one is going to understand you, and you are not going to understand them. The goal of philosophy is not create new meanings for terms, but to understand or what terms mean as used.

I'd never say that to "know" God means to "know" everything God knows - such that we are of one mind with God - or all things that can be predicated of God. But we can know things univocally about God (without equivocation). You know math if you know the answers of your multiplication tables - even if you don't know what the square root of 78 equals. So total or exhaustive knowledge is not implied by "knowing" God.


----------



## JohnV (Mar 14, 2006)

I have been reading the posts in this and several other threads. At the present time I am going through Warfield's "Apologetics". This is with reference to comparing Van Til's 1932 Syllabus to his "My Credo". There are many things that are very intriguing at this time. 

It would not be helpful to the flow of the discussions to add my thoughts at this present time. But I wonder which of the views expressed in these threads represent Presuppositionalism? Or are they all Presuppositional, but of different schools? I know there is a difference between Dooyweerdian presuppositionalism and Van Tillian presuppositionalism, and also that Van Til and Clark had their differences. But the question at hand, namely concerning knowledge, and the various answers given to it, undercuts all these differences and makes a new path, it seems to me. While the "self-attesting Christ of Scripture" was the starting point for Van Til, it seems to be that it now means no more than "the Scripture-attesting Christ of Scripture" In other words, I'm seeing a disparity of thought here with the earlier Van Til.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> Why have you introduced the modifier "absolutely"?
> 
> To borrow a previous example, I know my wife. I am familiar with her. This does not mean that there are not things about her that I do not know. Instead, it refers to a general familiarity.



So you know about your wife.


----------



## mgeoffriau (Mar 15, 2006)

No. I know my wife.

I'm still wondering why you stipulate that one must be _absolutely_ familiar with something in order to know it. 

Under this definition, one could never say that we know _anything_, which would indeed make the common usage of the term "knowledge" meaningless.


----------



## JohnV (Mar 15, 2006)

What if I had a teacher who had a PhD? That is, he is an authority on his subject. And he tells me some basic or fundamental tenets of the subject he has his degree in. It is considered authoritative by almost everyone. If he says its so, then its so, right? Do I know, then, that what he tells me is the truth, based on his authority? I mean, I know and trust his authority on the subject; and based on that authority which I trust, he has told me something that I can take to be absolutely true. I am not an authority on that subject, but he is; and therefore now I know something authoritatively true based on the fact that an authoritative person has told me it is true. 

Do I, then, know something with as authoritatively true? 

What if God told me something as true? Do I know, then, that it is true?


----------



## Civbert (Mar 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> What if I had a teacher who had a PhD? That is, he is an authority on his subject. And he tells me some basic or fundamental tenets of the subject he has his degree in. It is considered authoritative by almost everyone. If he says its so, then its so, right? Do I know, then, that what he tells me is the truth, based on his authority?


No. This is an "appeal to authority" - there is no logical connection between a persons credentials, expertise, or authority and the truth of any statement he makes. Those are completely independent. Even in his field, a PhD can be, and quite frankly is often, flat out wrong in what he claims. Name the top 50 evolutionists, and I will show you 50 people who assert false propositions. 

...



> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> What if God told me something as true? Do I know, then, that it is true?


That's a different situation. Although we only know God's word is true if we accept that God's Word is true on faith. And if we start with the axiom "God's Word is true" then we can deduce "Jesus is Lord" from the Axiom. The logical justification for knowing Jesus Christ died for the forgiveness of sin" is to infer it from the Axiom, for all propositions of Scripture are true. This is essentially the way God speaks to us. 

I think where you are going is that we know God because he speaks to us through His revelation (Scripture). That's true. I only had a problem with the route you were taking with the "appeal to authority" argument. Right conclusion, wrong argument. 

[Edited on 3-15-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## JohnV (Mar 15, 2006)

What if God told someone something, and that someone told me? Do I then know something to be true? Let's say that the person whom God told was trustworthy in my estimation. Obviously he would be trustworthy in God's estimation too, if He deigned to tell him something. 

Let's say this person was a minister of the gospel. If God told him something, and this person told me, then do I know something as true?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 15, 2006)

We can know "things", but we cannot know "persons." We can know _about_ persons, or know _of_ persons, but we cannot *know* them.

I may know many things about my girlfriend, and feel intimately connected to her on some level (communion, perhaps?), but I do not "know" her. I can't predict what she will do in every situation, or what she will say before she says it. I may be able to guess well, but there will always be "marvel" between us. Mystery. That is the difference I am trying to emphasize. When the Bible says we "know" God, it means we are in communion with Him. Romans 1 speaks of knowing "about" God, which is different, in my opinion.


----------



## mgeoffriau (Mar 16, 2006)

I think that if you are concluding that we cannot know people, then you have destroyed the common usage of the word.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> I think that if you are concluding that we cannot know people, then you have destroyed the common usage of the word.



I dunno, I feel like I'm discussing "is exhaustive knowledge required for knowledge" and how that applies to God or persons or "things." I am not sure what common usage has to do with anything in a Philosophical discussion.


----------



## mgeoffriau (Mar 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_I am not sure what common usage has to do with anything in a Philosophical discussion.


As I stated before, I think it is all but impossible to make language intelligible without relying on common usage. You could, I suppose, fix the denotative definitions of words, but that is ultimately self-defeating, as you would be required to use other words to fix the definitions.

If you have another possible way for keeping language from becoming absurd, please explain.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_I am not sure what common usage has to do with anything in a Philosophical discussion.
> ...



How much time do you spend every week in philosophical debate? How you utilize language is an extremely important aspect of philosophical dialogue. Simply relying on "common usage" of words will get you nowhere with any serious students of philosophy, in my opinion and in my experience. You have to be very "careful" with how you use words. For example, how would you interpret the word "power" or "progress"? In "common usage", these words would seem to have obvious meanings, but in philosophy, they are LOADED words, and cannot be thrown around flippantly.


----------



## mgeoffriau (Mar 16, 2006)

Still wondering what your theory of language is.


----------



## JohnV (Mar 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> We can know "things", but we cannot know "persons." We can know _about_ persons, or know _of_ persons, but we cannot *know* them.
> 
> I may know many things about my girlfriend, and feel intimately connected to her on some level (communion, perhaps?), but I do not "know" her. I can't predict what she will do in every situation, or what she will say before she says it. I may be able to guess well, but there will always be "marvel" between us. Mystery. That is the difference I am trying to emphasize. When the Bible says we "know" God, it means we are in communion with Him. Romans 1 speaks of knowing "about" God, which is different, in my opinion.



So we have to know persons exhaustively in order to know them at all, but we do not have to know things exhaustively in order to know them? Do I have this right?


----------



## Civbert (Mar 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> What if God told someone something, and that someone told me? Do I then know something to be true? Let's say that the person whom God told was trustworthy in my estimation. Obviously he would be trustworthy in God's estimation too, if He deigned to tell him something.
> 
> Let's say this person was a minister of the gospel. If God told him something, and this person told me, then do I know something as true?



I'd say.....yes....and no.... you might learn something potentially, that is, it may be a justified true belief, but only in-so-much as it's justified by Scripture. 

One issue of "justifying" is do you personally have to justify it by deducing it from Scripture, or does it mean it has to be justifi_able_ from Scripture. Maybe something in between.... OK, I'll say you can learn through the words of another - if what they are telling you is the "Gospel" truth. It's may be somewhat uncertain, but technically, certainty is not part of knowing - certainty is a desired effect of justifying what we know. In this case, the knowledge is justified, but not by the hearer, but by the fact it's Gospel. (I imagine that was confusing...but there you are...and I'm not certain about it either.. )


----------



## Civbert (Mar 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> We can know "things", but we cannot know "persons." We can know _about_ persons, or know _of_ persons, but we cannot *know* them.



I don't disagree really. But I don't say you can't know a person, I'd say that to know a person means to know *about* the person. What you know may be his words, his history, his favorite food, his character..etc. 

In generally, we think about "knowing" people only because we have spent time with them, but I think that's not required. Sometime people will say they know someone just on the basis of having met them, and being able to recall his name and face - "yes, I know Fred. I met him at that Christmas Party two months ago". And so that's what I often assume when they say they know Fred. 

But at other times people mean they have spent much time talking to that person and observing how he does things - "I know Frank, he's my uncle, and I lived with his family and went on vacations with them, and he taught me how to fish, and I helped him write his dissertation". 

Either way, it amounts to knowledge "about" that person - often amounting to familiarity due to such an accumulation of knowledge that is based on memories, but it's still propositional. We might never express that knowledge in propositional form, but it's still the same thing - knowledge about him. 

But the best way to know a man, is for him to talk to you about what he believes, what he thinks is true, about what he his ethics and morals are, what his plans are, his goals, his desires, his loves. You can spend years with a person and not know much about them, and spend an hour chatting to a stranger on-line and know more about him then his friends do.

And so God speaks to us about himself through Scripture and we know Him. We know Him like a true lover, because we know what He thinks about the deepest and most important things. We know God because we know what he wants from us, obedience, and what He did for us by His sacrifice on the cross. We know God because he gave us the Spirit to make us understand his Word and believe it. We know God better then we know ourselves because we a mutible and incossitent where He is perfect, immutible, and clear in the Word.


----------



## Civbert (Mar 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_I am not sure what common usage has to do with anything in a Philosophical discussion.
> ...



Maybe even more important then knowing the common usage of a word, it to understand how a person is using the word in a particular instance. And even more, how the Bible is using the word in a particular verse. We start with knowledge of the different usages of a word (common, philosophical, colloquial, metaphorical(?), what ever it can mean) and then try the figure out how the word is being used at the time we encounter it in a conversation or piece of text. Does he mean "certainty, familiarity, justified true belief, or even in the marital sense used often in Scripture. Adam knew Eve.

Interesting, when God *knows* His people, it is often like being exposed to a bright light for the people He knows. It's more like a action than a state of having knowledge. When God knows you, He reveals himself to you. But I'm not sure that works both ways. ... Just something to think about.


----------



## mgeoffriau (Mar 16, 2006)

Absolutely. I should explain that when I say "common usage," I am not simply saying whatever definition is most common. It obviously should include consideration for the speaker, the context, the audience, etc. In fact, ordinary language theory isn't all that different from good biblical hermeneutics when you think about it.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> Absolutely. I should explain that when I say "common usage," I am not simply saying whatever definition is most common. It obviously should include consideration for the speaker, the context, the audience, etc. In fact, ordinary language theory isn't all that different from good biblical hermeneutics when you think about it.



Hermeneutics is a branch of Philosophy, which deals with just this: language usage in context.


----------



## JohnV (Mar 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JohnV_
> ...



How do I know this. Is this not your opinion? Or is it verified in the Word of God? 

In other words, who is it that tells me what God says to be true? Must I read it for myself, and that only? Or may I trust another to tell me what God says too? And who may that be? Is it someone especially sent by God ( ordained ), or someone who is in himself an expert in the field of epistemolgy?


----------



## Civbert (Mar 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Civbert_
> ...


It's my opinion so far. I think it's pretty good opinion, but I'm kinda iffy on some parts. Some of it may not be "knowable" based on my criteria for testing knowledge for epistemic justification. 



> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> In other words, who is it that tells me what God says to be true? Must I read it for myself, and that only? Or may I trust another to tell me what God says too? And who may that be? Is it someone especially sent by God ( ordained ), or someone who is in himself an expert in the field of epistemolgy?



That part we can agree on I think. The Holy Spirit tells us - do you agree? Who to trust, that's still a quesiton of faith. We are so completely dependenant on God, that everything we believe, true or false, be they propositions we find in in the Bible, or the ones we hear from other men, depend on the Holy Spirit for us to know them correctly. We do our best to reason correctly, and understand fully, but it all comes down to God's will for us to know - and so faith always comes before knowledge.


----------



## JohnV (Mar 16, 2006)

Then, do I believe you?


----------



## ChristianTrader (Mar 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> We can know "things", but we cannot know "persons." We can know _about_ persons, or know _of_ persons, but we cannot *know* them.
> 
> I may know many things about my girlfriend, and feel intimately connected to her on some level (communion, perhaps?), but I do not "know" her. I can't predict what she will do in every situation, or what she will say before she says it. I may be able to guess well, but there will always be "marvel" between us. Mystery. That is the difference I am trying to emphasize. When the Bible says we "know" God, it means we are in communion with Him. Romans 1 speaks of knowing "about" God, which is different, in my opinion.



It seems that you are using the word "know" to imply something infallible. That is not the usual way the word is used in philosophy or elsewhere. Infallibly know is the top of the range of the word's use but not the only use. You can know your girlfriend and still make mistakes in predictions about what she will do in situation X.


----------



## Ron (Mar 17, 2006)

> You can know your girlfriend and still make mistakes in predictions about what she will do in situation X.



Knowing who she is and supposing how she might act are two different things, CT.

Ron


----------



## Civbert (Mar 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Then, do I believe you?



Believe what I say?? Why not?


----------



## ChristianTrader (Mar 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> > You can know your girlfriend and still make mistakes in predictions about what she will do in situation X.
> ...



Where exactly do I imply that to know who a person is and how they might act are synonomous?

Also to be fair, "knowing who she is" is one of the most ambigious statements that I have seen you use. I'm kinda shocked.

I used the phrase, "know a person". That does not unpack into, "know who she/he is". I know Brad Pitt is a movie star but I would never say that I know Brad Pitt.

For the time being, it may be helpful to let me interact with Gabe and then I can converse with you and your esoteric view of knowledge and related issues at a later point.


----------



## JohnV (Mar 17, 2006)

Why should I not believe you? Because you are no authority. The only authority I can believe is Scripture. You even do not have an exception for ministers who are ordained to preach the Word. You think it might be OK, but you do not defend it like the Word of God commands it. 

All you have authority for is to give me your opinion. I would not be very wise if I gave your opinion more credit than you do.


----------



## Civbert (Mar 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Why should I not believe you? Because you are no authority. The only authority I can believe is Scripture. You even do not have an exception for ministers who are ordained to preach the Word. You think it might be OK, but you do not defend it like the Word of God commands it.
> 
> All you have authority for is to give me your opinion. I would not be very wise if I gave your opinion more credit than you do.



Of course not. What's your point. What am I not defending exactly?

We were talking about how we know God. No mans words are justified true statements (i.e. knowledge) on the basis of his position, title, or office in the Church. Be he a minister or elder, his words are only justified by adherence to Scripture - not title or position. This does not mean you can not trust him, but you may not blindly assume his words are Gospel. And your trust should not be based on his authority, but only his record for teaching God Word as fact. Men will always disappoint you, you can only depend on God.

(You're not Catholic are you? If you are, we need to do some back-tracking.)

[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## JohnV (Mar 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JohnV_
> ...


No, I am not Catholic. But I have been accused of it before, as well as of other things. 

What I meant by not defending the ministry of the gospel was that you defend Scripture as your authority, but you do not believe what it says about that authority. The Spirit also works through the preaching of the Word: that is what that same Word says about the men whose position is that of being as the mouth of God to the people. That is how God is made known to His people.

That is what makes some of these things so odious to me. I am forever cured of any danger of being a Presuppositionalist in the sense of post Van Tillian presuppositionalism. And the ones who cured me were the most ardent followers of it. The very things that turned Dr. Van Til so vehemently against the "traditional method" have turned me from the present formal Presuppositionalism, and it is his ardent followers that made that known to me. 

I want to bring back some of Dr. Van Til's first notions, the grounds that produced Presuppositionalism. I have already done so a little bit, with subtlety, but no one has noticed. 

What I am saying is that it is one thing for you to say to me that I need not trust Dr. Van Til, because he is not the Bible; it is another to assert that Dr. Van Til is the grounding upon which we stand, and then not stand on it. You give me no other grounding than the Word of God; and even Dr. Van Til makes no authoritative claim for his own views other than that he was led to believe them. He makes no claim to special revelation from God to supercede the Church's authority. And the churches have not granted his views that kind of authority either. Yet it has happened that I have been accused of sin for no other wrong than that of not being a presuppositionalist formally, not to mention being physically alienated from the temporal and visible church over the very issue of authority. 

No, I am not Catholic. And there is no present danger that I will become so, nor to become the modern equivalent of it. The very things which Dr. Van Til claims to have driven him to Presuppositionalism have driven me from it: self-asserting authority; turning apologetics into cold hard factualism; leaving behind the self-attesting person of Christ; undermining the sufficiency and pespicuity of Scripture; and many more. Just refer to "My Credo", and look at the nine ( or so ) items on the list that he finds deficient in the "traditional method", and see if any apply to the modern, and even your, presuppositional method. If it doesn't scare you, then you have not yet reached the conclusions that you claim to have reached. 

My parents and grandparents would not have understood the issues of our day, being only educated to primary levels. But they would clearly have understood the declaration, "God is logic" and been aghast at it. I share that shock with them. Similarly, they would not have understood all the things talked about in this thread, but they would have been stunned at the assertion that we cannot know God. I share that sentiment with them.

[Edited on 3-18-2006 by JohnV]


----------



## Civbert (Mar 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> What I meant by not defending the ministry of the gospel was that you defend Scripture as your authority, but you do not believe what it says about that authority. ...


Not sure that follows. If I say I believe in the authority of Scripture, then I believe in the authority that Scripture ascribes to itself.



> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> ... The Spirit also works through the preaching of the Word: that is what that same Word says about the men whose position is that of being as the mouth of God to the people. That is how God is made known to His people.



Yes, through the preaching of the Word. Not the preaching of the words of men, but the Gospel. Unless you are speaking of some sort of extra-biblical revelation given through men - I don't know of any. Does Scripture support this idea, that anything can be added to the revelation of God in the Bible?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JohnV_
> ...



*Excuse this interuption*

We ARE Catholic! We are NOT Roman Catholic!

*Back to the scheduled program*

[Edited on 3-18-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Civbert (Mar 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> My parents and grandparents would not have understood the issues of our day, being only educated to primary levels. But they would clearly have understood the declaration, "God is logic" and been aghast at it. I share that shock with them. Similarly, they would not have understood all the things talked about in this thread, but they would have been stunned at the assertion that we cannot know God. I share that sentiment with them.
> 
> [Edited on 3-18-2006 by JohnV]



Would that be because they are more familiar with the "Word" is God? If you think about it, that's just as strange a concept, but we've grown familiar with it, comfortable. But the word is Logos, which can be translated Logic just as well as Word as far as the verse making sense. Sounds strange, but it's not more than implying the a word is God. If John meant to say Jesus was God, why not use his name. But he used the term Logo. I think that means the there's much more to the term Logos than the word "word" in English connotes. And logic seems closer to the Greek logos in meaning.


----------



## Civbert (Mar 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Civbert_
> ...



OK. Point taken.  I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church. But I bet _Roman_ Catholics don't mean the same thing I do when they confess that.




[Edited on 3-18-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## JohnV (Mar 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JohnV_
> ...


( I took you to mean Roman Catholic, Anthony. I thought about it as I was responding, realizing what Scott has added. I'm glad he clarified that for us. I fully agree. )
It would be for another reason, Anthony. They had a completely different mindset. The Bible reveals God to them, to they thought about God. The Scripture was true, and it was true about God and us, about the history of man and God's relation to man, about God's becoming man to die in our place. It was not about true propositions, but true propositions about the person of Christ and how He revealed the Father to us. It was about the witness of the third person of the Trinity in our hearts. There was nothing impersonal about it. It was personal through and through. It was a religion of loving God and our neighbour. Not just loving things about God, but loving God. 

I have a unique background. My parents were immigrants, starting life all over in a strange land of a strange tongue. They, along with others, gathered as a church of believers. They had no formal education, no trained men for the eldership, no established church to join, but started out all on their own. The one thing they had was a well-grounded catechetical training, along with the memorization of the Psalms, and knowing the doctrines of the church, along with a good familiarity with church order. They all came with two trunks, and no more than $200, and their faith. They had a short time to live in a field house in order to find jobs and a place to settle, and then they had to get out to allow the next family to use the field house to settle themselves. In other words, they had to come with their sleeves rolled up, and they had nothing but the sure and certain assurance that God would keep them and uphold them. This faith kept them strong. It is this church that had no pretenses but the need to worship and work; these taught me the way of God. 

That such a God was logic, as if "God is love" could easily be replaced by "God is logic" was unthinkable. Not that God wasn't completely consistent in truth; they surely believed He was fully consistent. But the word "logos" meant "word" in the personal sense, not "logic" in the impersonal sense. Such was not possible to them; not the God who walked with them through the hard times of living in a new land and making new roots for their children. 

The difference is not in the translation of the word "logos" that they preferred, but in the manner of religion which they practiced.


----------



## Ron (Mar 17, 2006)

> CT Stated: You can know your girlfriend and still make mistakes in predictions about what she will do in situation X.



Ron Replied: Knowing who she is and supposing how she might act are two different things, CT.

CT Replies: Where exactly do I imply that to know who a person is and how they might act are synonomous?[/quote]

*Your full quote was:* 


> It seems that you are using the word "know" to imply something infallible. That is *not* the usual way the word is used in philosophy or elsewhere. Infallibly know is the top of the range of the word's use but not the only use. _You can know your girlfriend and still make mistakes in predictions about what she will do in situation X_.



Your implied point was that knowledge can be fallible, which was underscored by your statement that one can "œknow" his girlfriend and still make mistakes about what she might do. From your statement, you communicated that one can know something false (hence fallibility of what is known). Yet you equivocated by moving from a knowledge of a person to a false belief about a person´s future action, which makes my last remark most appropriate for it stated that to know a person and to know how that person will act are two different things. Nonetheless, you decide. Were you equivocating over that which is known (person or action), or were you suggesting that a person may know something false, which undermines all divine prophecy and purpose. Maybe a combination of the two?



> For the time being, it may be helpful to let me interact with Gabe and then I can converse with you and your esoteric view of knowledge and related issues at a later point.



My esoteric view of knowledge? You believe that one can know something false and / or you equated knowing a person with foreknowing a person's actions, even falsely! We can get into whether essential properties of personhood are static or dynamic if you like; if they´re dynamic, then to not foreknow a future action has nothing to do with the real-time person at the time the foreknowledge is supposed.

Ron


----------



## Ron (Mar 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Actually, we're catholic, not Catholic. 

Ron


----------



## ChristianTrader (Mar 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> > CT Stated: You can know your girlfriend and still make mistakes in predictions about what she will do in situation X.
> ...



*Your full quote was:* 


> It seems that you are using the word "know" to imply something infallible. That is *not* the usual way the word is used in philosophy or elsewhere. Infallibly know is the top of the range of the word's use but not the only use. _You can know your girlfriend and still make mistakes in predictions about what she will do in situation X_.



Your implied point was that knowledge can be fallible, which was underscored by your statement that one can "œknow" his girlfriend and still make mistakes about what she might do.
[/quote]

No my implied point is that someone can claim knowledge and in fact be wrong about it and move the point into the category of "not knowledge". Very few things can one infallibly know (or the way that you use the term knowledge).

On top of that one can know a person but not exhaustively knowing them. Which just implies that you can make mistakes when you venture beyond your range of knowledge.



> From your statement, you communicated that one can know something false (hence fallibility of what is known).



No I didn't.



> Yet you equivocated by moving from a knowledge of a person to a false belief about a person´s future action,



As I said, knowledge of someone doesn't imply exhaustive knowledge. Unless you want to make that claim, then I do not see where your argument is here.



> which makes my last remark most appropriate for it stated that to know a person and to know how that person will act are two different things.



I never implied otherwise, in my full or partial statement. They are related statements but not identical.



> Nonetheless, you decide. Were you equivocating over that which is known (person or action), or were you suggesting that a person may know something false, which undermines all divine prophecy and purpose. Maybe a combination of the two?



I obviously made the distinction between knowing a person (fallibly or infallibly) and knowing what they might do in the future (fallibly or infallibly). 

As I have made crystal clear to you, one can claim knowledge about something not true, then find that the statement was not true, and recant the claim of knowledge.



> > For the time being, it may be helpful to let me interact with Gabe and then I can converse with you and your esoteric view of knowledge and related issues at a later point.
> 
> 
> 
> My esoteric view of knowledge?



I do not stutter when I write.



> You believe that one can know something false and / or you equated knowing a person with foreknowing a person's actions,



Again how can I equivocate with a word, when I do not imply that I am using it the same way in different parts of my statement?



> even falsely!



There is a difference between claiming knowledge and having it. One must do a certain "duty" before claiming it but does not need to claim infallibility.



> We can get into whether essential properties of personhood are static or dynamic if you like; if they´re dynamic, then to not foreknow a future action has nothing to do with the real-time person at the time the foreknowledge is supposed.
> 
> Ron



Why would I want to get into such a discussion?

CT

[Edited on 3-18-2006 by ChristianTrader]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 21, 2006)

I would like to make one closing post in this thread, if I may.

As to the notion that philosophers tend to neutralize the effectiveness of language in the removal of words from their common usage, I would have to -- still -- strongly disagree. I presumed, perhaps wrongly, that in a thread within a "Philosophy" forum, the normal way of discussing philosophical problems would apply.

A major "branch" of Philosophy, which almost all fields of the discipline will concede, is Hermeneutics; that is, the proper contextual use of language. In this case, we have the word "knowledge" to deal with. I concede fully that, in "normal usage", knowledge has a different meaning or usage than how I would like to see it being used within this discussion. When someone, in normal conversation, tells me that they "know" something, or that they "know" a person, I don't quibble over words and engage in philosophical debate -- at least, not always  (Sometimes just for fun...).

However, in the context of philosophical discussion, one is obligated -- in my opinion -- to "play by the rules" and be courteous in how they both use language and understand another person's usage of it. How they interpret what someone says. Both parties in philosophical dialogue are obligated to respect one another, while at the same time, keep each other accountable insofar as how one uses words and how they apply those words and their meanings in dialogue.

In philosophical dialogue, words such as "good" or "power" carry a lot of linguistic "baggage". One cannot simply "throw around" such words in philosophical interactions and expect to "get away with" being flippant in their usage. They will get into a dry, analytical debate and lose the focus of whatever it was both parties intended to discuss in the first place. Because of such a philosophical environment that we face in our day and age (analytical and post-analytical, however you may see it), it is both beneficial and courteous to be "selective" in how one uses language.

In normal conversation, I would understand perfectly well what someone means, were they to state, "This is a good person." However, in philosophical dialogue, this statement would raise many questions. For example, how are you using the word "good." Utlity? Upright behavior? Attractive? Kind? What is it that makes such a person "good"? This, incidentally, is why I avoid the "good" and "evil" distinction in philosophical dialogue, when speaking in reference to Christianity. I prefer the terms righteousness and sinfulness. But, I digress...

In this discussion, I tried to bring across why I did not believe, philosophically speaking, one can "know" God; that is, that one can be "familiar" with God in the sense that we no longer marvel at His attributes or character. To put God into a box of knowledge is to either 1) Destroy God nihilistically (as Nietzsche would claim many "herd" Christians do, or 2) Make US on par with God or "a" God (or worse, more powerful than God, to know Him better than He knows Himself!).

Finally, I will close with a few selections from the second chapter of Louis Berkhof's _Systematic Theology_, where he states:



> The Scholastics distinguished between the _quid_ and the _qualis_ of God, and maintained that we do not know what God is in His essential Being, but can know something of His nature, of what He is to us, as He reveals Himself in His divine attributes. The same general ideas were expressed by the Reformers, though they did not agree with the Scholastics as to the possibility of acquiring real knowledge of God, by unaided human reason, from general revelation. Luther speaks repeatedly of God as the _Deus Absconditus_ (hidden God), in distinction from Him as the _Deus Revelatus_ (revealed God). In some passages he even speaks of the revealed God as still a hidden God in view of the fact that we cannot fully know Him even through His special revelation. To Calvin, God in the depths of His being is past finding out. "His essence," he says, "is incomprehensible; so that His divinity wholly escapes all human senses." The Reformers do not deny that man can learn something of the nature of God from His creation, but maintain that he can acquire true knowledge of Him only from special revelation, under the illuminating influence of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> [...]
> 
> ...


----------



## Civbert (Mar 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I would like to make one closing post in this thread, if I may....



Even if I disagree with you on some points - that was very well said. 

Well done!


----------



## ChristianTrader (Mar 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Ron_
> 
> 
> > No my implied point is that someone can claim knowledge and in fact be wrong...
> ...



You can know your girlfriend and still make mistakes about what she will do in certain situations, unless you want to claim that knowing a person implies exhaustive knowledge. Without exhaustive knowledge, mistakes can be made. So as written in the post above, I stand by this statement. 

CT


----------



## Civbert (Mar 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Ron_
> ...



You're not wrong - not matter what other's say. You're just using a different definition of "know".

It's a common in philosophy to say that given the definition of knowledge as "justified true belief", the no false proposition is knowledge.

But the problem is it seems to be contray to a common understanding of what "know" means; that is - what we know are things we believe are reasonably true. With this definition, we can be mistaken, and claim to know something that is actually false. And who is Ron or myself to say you didn't know something just because we think it's false. Maybe we're wrong and you're right. And that would mean you know and we don't. Or I just think I know. Or I know, but I don't know I know. 

The problem with saying you can not know a falsehood is that makes it hard to know what you think you know. What you think you know, you may not, in fact, know. Know what I mean? Given that human reason is faulty, then how can we tell when we are mistaken about what we think we know? It gets kind of disturbing if you only think you know something when you don't actually know something!  Oy vey!!

So I am sympathetic with you view of know and knowledge. I'm not sure I agree with it, but that does not mean my definition is wrong and your's is right. But if no falsehood is knowledge, then maybe knowledge and knowing are two separate things. Because it is self-evident that what we _think_ we know can be false. And if we can't be sure about what we know, why bother saying we know what we think we know? Ya know?


----------



## Ron (Mar 22, 2006)

> You can know your girlfriend and still make mistakes about what she will do in certain situations, unless you want to claim that knowing a person implies exhaustive knowledge. Without exhaustive knowledge, mistakes can be made. So as written in the post above, I stand by this statement..



Which brings us full circle, CT. Context is everything. Your first statement was:


> "œIt seems that you are using the word "know" to imply something infallible. That is *not* the usual way the word is used in philosophy or elsewhere. Infallibly know is the top of the range of the word's use but not the only use. _You can know your girlfriend and still make mistakes in predictions about what she will do in situation X._"



As I originally pointed out, you´re equivocating over what is said to be known. You simply wanted to make the point that one can know X without infallibly knowing X. You then went on to try to make this point by saying one can know his girlfriend yet fallibly because he does not know her actions infallibly. Well, that´s to equivocate over that which is said to be "œknown." Your girlfriend is X and her actions are Y. *Consequently, you do not demonstrate that one does not know his girlfriend infallibly because he doesn´t know her actions infallibly! The reason being, the actions are not the girlfriend!* If someone doesn't know his girlfriend's actions, it means just that: he doesn't know his girlfriend's actions. This does not imply that there's a want of knowing the girlfriend or that one knows his girlfriend fallibly. 

You're _now_ saying most clearly by your most recent statement that you can know X and be wrong about Y but this is not what you originally argued, which was you can know your girlfriend-X and be wrong about _her_ --your girlfriend -- _X_, which is not her actions. So, *in trying to show that one can be wrong about X, you pointed not to X but to Y, the actions of X.*

Ron


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...


----------

