Yes in common usage you can say you have knowledge of Taranis and it is often accepted and people will generally understand what you mean but technically it is not true.
Again, being a bit pedantic here but you dont have knowledge of something that may or may not exist and the info you have learned may or may not be true. What you have is knowledge of the myths/claims/stories.
Same with the God and the bible.
But those books are the source of my knowledge. Same as the Bible is a source of knowledge. I have knowledge of both God's, from both creation accounts in the Genesis tales, and I have knowledge of the Christian God from the NT and the messianic writings of the later OT. I think you're hinging too much on fictional vs. non-fictional. People can - and do - have knowledge about things that are fictional. It's all good.
OM
Proof of what? That I read and learned about Taranis?
Hint: Learning about Tarnis - thus obtaining knowledge - is not the same as claiming Taranis is real.
But those books are the source of my knowledge. Same as the Bible is a source of knowledge. I have knowledge of both God's, from both creation accounts in the Genesis tales, and I have knowledge of the Christian God from the NT and the messianic writings of the later OT. I think you're hinging too much on fictional vs. non-fictional. People can - and do - have knowledge about things that are fictional. It's all good.
OM
Is the Lord Of The Rings a source of knowledge?
Saying that the Bible is a source of knowledge is stretching it a bit. Is the Lord Of The Rings a source of knowledge?
Yes, a source of knowledge on Orcs and Hobbits.
OM
You're missing the point, on purpose it seems.
Lord of the Rings is a source of knowledge about the stories continued therein it isn't a source of knowledge about elves, orcs or hobbits.
That's along the lines of what I was thinking about you as well. I never once said anything about whether something was real. The knowledge I obtained however was real.
OM
Yes you have knowledge of what is written in the Books that is NOT the same as having knowledge about God or Taranis. It isn't a matter of fictional or non fictional it is a matter of being precise.
To put it another way you have knowledge of the stories of Taranis and the Biblical version of God. Or you could say you have knowledge of what believers in Taranis or the Biblical God believe.
The only thing that one has to know about elves is that there is no proof of their existence. The same goes for gods.
One can know fiction.
He is MUCH better at it than you are, that's for damn sure...And you have been educated on logic and reason.
I will do the same towards you...The fact you chose to ignore that is your problem not mine.
However I will continue to point out you get it all backwards and make absurd claims whenever you do so.
He's doing just fine...As to the truth you are so far removed from it you cant see it from the dark corner you've backed yourself into.
No, he doesn't have to... Religion can't be proven, Quag... It doesn't make use of proofs...You want to claim the resurrection is real you must prove it
Claims ARE evidence, Quag... Evidence is any statement which supports an argument. He has provided plenty of evidence for you; you just choose to deny that evidence, which is your prerogative. You adhere to your religions; he adheres to his...You have 0 evidence to back up the claim just claims.
It could be argued that the "supernatural" is actually natural...Claims that if they have any truth behind them are far more easily explained without going to the supernatural.
That's along the lines of what I was thinking about you as well. I never once said anything about whether something was real. The knowledge I obtained however was real.
The claims you read exist, ink on a page. That doesn't mean they have any validity in the real world.
Lord of the Rings is a source of knowledge about the stories continued therein it isn't a source of knowledge about elves, orcs or hobbits.
The only thing that one has to know about elves is that there is no proof of their existence. The same goes for gods.
That's the only subject I've ever talked about.
What's the diff? None really. I obtained knowledge about a subject. That knowledge allowed me to come to conclusions.
OM
Lord of the Rings is a source of knowledge about the stories continued therein it isn't a source of knowledge about elves, orcs or hobbits.
That is not what I've been talking about. I have been discussing knowledge; I thought you were too. As a matter of fact I've even so much as mentioned that twice previously; referring to knowledge about a subject, and not whether it's valid/true or not. Anyway, back to knowledge... one can have knowledge of a subject whether it's fictional or non-fictional.
OM
Sure there is a difference
Say somehow it is proven God exists but we dont actually know the nature of God, thus there is no way of knowing of the Bible is true or not.
If you use the Bible as a guide you still dont have any more knowledge than someone who has never read it about God. What you have is knowledge of the bible. The two are NOT the same unless the Bible is proven to accurately describe God.
Do you have knowledge of a god?
The same thought about you had struck me.Sure it is. It tells me a lot about them. Not everything I need to know about elves, but certainly everything I need to know about orcs.
I'm having a hard time understanding (irony alert) why this is so hard to digest.
OM
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?