Why don't you believe in God?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

6. You are now contradicting yourself. You have been holding out God as a source of perfect justice. How many times have you used that term? Well, if perfect justice is in the afterlife, then people would have no need to seek it in this world. And yet we do. All the time. Therefore believers by their actions demonstrate that justice is imperfect even under God.

No contradiction.

Any justice we pursue in this life must be imperfect. Eternal justice is justice perfected. "When that which is perfect is come, that which is in part will be done away."

We seek justice here because we are to seek good, and avoid evil: the essence of natural law. To seek justice on Earth is to participate in the eternal law as finite beings whose material bodies exist in time and space.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil [on Earth] is for good men to do nothing."

Well then atheistic and theistic justice in this world are looking pretty indistinguishable. We have the same playbook etched in natural law, the knowledge of an ultimate authority does not provide justice on earth, we still have to seek justice here because justice in the afterlife does not satisfy us, and justice is imperfect in this world.

So justice in the afterlife is just more a description of heaven in your mind, like a muslim revolutionary who believes seventy-odd virgins are waiting for him.

The reason we need to wait for justice in eternity is because humans use their free will to do their will, rather than God's, in this life.

The more you believe in eternal justice, the more significant your actions in this life become. Because death does not let you off the hook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This conversation is going in circles. After 46 pages, I think I'm going to throw in the towel.

Well said. It's been fun, but we're just ego-stroking theists desire to see themselves as rationalists at this point.

Now, now, many of the greatest human intellects were theists (Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Leonardo da Vinci, Newton, Pasteur, Shakespeare, Dante, Chesterton, Dostoyevsky, Tennyson, Dickens, Milton, Bach, Vivaldi, etc. etc.). If God exists, there is no conflict of faith and reason, because He made both.


OP here. I started this thread with my personal story, and saw many of my personal doubts articulated along the way:

Where is my own direct revelation, like Moses or Joseph? Why is God silent? I can take care of myself. I am a good person. I don't need any external authority to keep me in line. If there is a God as First Mover, Uncaused Cause, well, that could be, but He is not personal. And if He is a person, He is evil.

I also saw my intellectual progression in the thread. I came to accept natural law theory, but I hesistated to accept God was a necessary element to natural law. Because if Someone imprinted natural law on our nature, and Someone was going to enforce natural law perfectly in the end, that was an Authority beyond this life. I would have to submit to Someone else's authority, Someone who would not let me get away with anything.

So is man just material? If so, I was off the hook. If this life was all there is, then I had no eternal law to face.

But if I refused Authority for myself, because man is just material, then there was no justice for anyone. I would get away with my little failings, but so would the really, really bad guys. And I could never even say anything was objectively wrong. Law without consequence was just opinion, not fact. Just like with my kids--if I give them a rule, and they break it without consequence, it's not really a rule.

And yet everything observable in the human experience evidences natural law. Humans seek (what they at least think is) good and avoid evil. Humans seeks justice in matters large and small, even though perfect justice is a priori impossible in this life. Humans can be selfless. We compare our actions against a standard not limited by our society or our own actions.

The "wishful thinking" argument is not definitive proof that God exists.

But it is not unreasonable. And it does not prove a negative.

Rationalists, materialists, empiricists, scientists, physicists, Darwinists, skeptics all have their own moment of wishful thinking. They look at the same material universe, observe the same human experience, and choose "not proven" rather than "high probability" in regards to God's existence. They conclude "spontaneous creation" (Hawking) or "lifeless to life without direction" or "from nothing to nothing then everything" to "when I touch Him, not just when He comes to me."

That is the gift of free will. The intellect can only inform the will.

But what about perfect justice, if there is such a thing, if man is material and immaterial? Billions and billions and billions of humans have lived without thinking this through, without having this conversation, and without Divine revelation. There are only so many hours in a day, anyway. Just those poor schmucks are SOL, instead of all of us being equally SOL because death is the end?

Every human being has natural law imprinted on his nature. And their Creator knows them better than they know themselves, and does not make mistakes. No one is sent away from God. Anyone can choose to be apart from God. He stays the same; it is our reaction to Him that we choose.

So why bother to even have this conversation? If everyone will get what they are due, perfectly, right from where they stand, and everyone has good will for the most part, why bother? Blissful ignorance. Live and let live. If God exists, He will figure everything out perfectly in the end. "Wishful thinking" will be "wish fulfillment."

This issue is very personal for me. My husband comes from a family of atheists. We don't talk much about faith with them. It goes no where. We love them, and they love us, and as the video rationalist said, that's fine and dandy. Right?

Yes and no. Yes, in that if there is a God who perfects natural law, there will be perfect justice, and our loved ones will not accidentally reject God.

No, in that it is not possible for our loved ones to be happy in this life when they do not know what this life means.

I can hear the indignant screams from here: "I am happy and well! How rude!"

But to use an analogy dear to the hearts of many DCUMers: look around at all the unhealthy, overweight, sedentary tourists here. They go to the doctor--or maybe are dragged there by a concerned spouse--and the doctor tells them precisely what is necessary for them to be healthy. But they go on eating badly and not exercising and getting sicker and sicker. And you both feel sorry for them, because it would be horrible to be stuck in an unhealthy body, but you also get frustrated that they refuse to accept the facts and use some willpower. Now think of God as a Divine Physician, for the body and the soul.

I want to end with a quote from my favorite novel of all time: Kristin Lavransdatter, by Sigrid Undset, the winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, when the author was an atheist. Read it, if you are going to read anything at all about faith and justice. This passage summarizes my personal faith completely:

"Who would be so foolish that he would not willingly endure pains and torment, when this was the path that led to a faithful and steadfast bridegroom, who waiteth with arms stretched out and breast bloody and burning with love?

For He loved mankind. And therefore did He die, as the bridegroom who hath gone forth to save his bride from the hands of robbers. And they bind him and torment him unto death, while he sees his dearest love feasting with his slayers, jesting with them and mocking his torments and his faithful love...

Then did I understand that this mighty love upholdeth all things in this world--even the fires of hell. FOr if God would, He could take the soul by force--we should be strengthless motes in His hand. But He loves us even as the bridegroom loves his bride, who will not force her, but if she yield not to him willingly, must suffer than she flee him and shun him. But I have thought, too, that mayhap no soul can yet be lost to all eternity. For every soul must desire this love, methinks, but it seems so dear a purchase to give up all other delights for its sake. But when the fire hath burnt away all stiff-necked and rebellious will, then at last shall the will to God, were it no greater in a man than a single nail left in a whole house, remain in the soul unconsumed, as the iron nail is left in the ashes of a house burned down..."

.


So what does an atheist gain through skepticism? Who would want to know that we "give birth astride a grave"?

[Anonymous]

Please explain the ghosts then. They aren't living but neither with God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

6. You are now contradicting yourself. You have been holding out God as a source of perfect justice. How many times have you used that term? Well, if perfect justice is in the afterlife, then people would have no need to seek it in this world. And yet we do. All the time. Therefore believers by their actions demonstrate that justice is imperfect even under God.

No contradiction.

Any justice we pursue in this life must be imperfect. Eternal justice is justice perfected. "When that which is perfect is come, that which is in part will be done away."

We seek justice here because we are to seek good, and avoid evil: the essence of natural law. To seek justice on Earth is to participate in the eternal law as finite beings whose material bodies exist in time and space.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil [on Earth] is for good men to do nothing."

Well then atheistic and theistic justice in this world are looking pretty indistinguishable. We have the same playbook etched in natural law, the knowledge of an ultimate authority does not provide justice on earth, we still have to seek justice here because justice in the afterlife does not satisfy us, and justice is imperfect in this world.

So justice in the afterlife is just more a description of heaven in your mind, like a muslim revolutionary who believes seventy-odd virgins are waiting for him.

The reason we need to wait for justice in eternity is because humans use their free will to do their will, rather than God's, in this life.

The more you believe in eternal justice, the more significant your actions in this life become. Because death does not let you off the hook.

You wouldn't know from the actions of believers in this world, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This conversation is going in circles. After 46 pages, I think I'm going to throw in the towel.

Well said. It's been fun, but we're just ego-stroking theists desire to see themselves as rationalists at this point.

Now, now, many of the greatest human intellects were theists (Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Leonardo da Vinci, Newton, Pasteur, Shakespeare, Dante, Chesterton, Dostoyevsky, Tennyson, Dickens, Milton, Bach, Vivaldi, etc. etc.). If God exists, there is no conflict of faith and reason, because He made both.


OP here. I started this thread with my personal story, and saw many of my personal doubts articulated along the way:

Where is my own direct revelation, like Moses or Joseph? Why is God silent? I can take care of myself. I am a good person. I don't need any external authority to keep me in line. If there is a God as First Mover, Uncaused Cause, well, that could be, but He is not personal. And if He is a person, He is evil.

I also saw my intellectual progression in the thread. I came to accept natural law theory, but I hesistated to accept God was a necessary element to natural law. Because if Someone imprinted natural law on our nature, and Someone was going to enforce natural law perfectly in the end, that was an Authority beyond this life. I would have to submit to Someone else's authority, Someone who would not let me get away with anything.

So is man just material? If so, I was off the hook. If this life was all there is, then I had no eternal law to face.

But if I refused Authority for myself, because man is just material, then there was no justice for anyone. I would get away with my little failings, but so would the really, really bad guys. And I could never even say anything was objectively wrong. Law without consequence was just opinion, not fact. Just like with my kids--if I give them a rule, and they break it without consequence, it's not really a rule.

And yet everything observable in the human experience evidences natural law. Humans seek (what they at least think is) good and avoid evil. Humans seeks justice in matters large and small, even though perfect justice is a priori impossible in this life. Humans can be selfless. We compare our actions against a standard not limited by our society or our own actions.

The "wishful thinking" argument is not definitive proof that God exists.

But it is not unreasonable. And it does not prove a negative.

Rationalists, materialists, empiricists, scientists, physicists, Darwinists, skeptics all have their own moment of wishful thinking. They look at the same material universe, observe the same human experience, and choose "not proven" rather than "high probability" in regards to God's existence. They conclude "spontaneous creation" (Hawking) or "lifeless to life without direction" or "from nothing to nothing then everything" to "when I touch Him, not just when He comes to me."

That is the gift of free will. The intellect can only inform the will.

But what about perfect justice, if there is such a thing, if man is material and immaterial? Billions and billions and billions of humans have lived without thinking this through, without having this conversation, and without Divine revelation. There are only so many hours in a day, anyway. Just those poor schmucks are SOL, instead of all of us being equally SOL because death is the end?

Every human being has natural law imprinted on his nature. And their Creator knows them better than they know themselves, and does not make mistakes. No one is sent away from God. Anyone can choose to be apart from God. He stays the same; it is our reaction to Him that we choose.

So why bother to even have this conversation? If everyone will get what they are due, perfectly, right from where they stand, and everyone has good will for the most part, why bother? Blissful ignorance. Live and let live. If God exists, He will figure everything out perfectly in the end. "Wishful thinking" will be "wish fulfillment."

This issue is very personal for me. My husband comes from a family of atheists. We don't talk much about faith with them. It goes no where. We love them, and they love us, and as the video rationalist said, that's fine and dandy. Right?

Yes and no. Yes, in that if there is a God who perfects natural law, there will be perfect justice, and our loved ones will not accidentally reject God.

No, in that it is not possible for our loved ones to be happy in this life when they do not know what this life means.

I can hear the indignant screams from here: "I am happy and well! How rude!"

But to use an analogy dear to the hearts of many DCUMers: look around at all the unhealthy, overweight, sedentary tourists here. They go to the doctor--or maybe are dragged there by a concerned spouse--and the doctor tells them precisely what is necessary for them to be healthy. But they go on eating badly and not exercising and getting sicker and sicker. And you both feel sorry for them, because it would be horrible to be stuck in an unhealthy body, but you also get frustrated that they refuse to accept the facts and use some willpower. Now think of God as a Divine Physician, for the body and the soul.

I want to end with a quote from my favorite novel of all time: Kristin Lavransdatter, by Sigrid Undset, the winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, when the author was an atheist. Read it, if you are going to read anything at all about faith and justice. This passage summarizes my personal faith completely:

"Who would be so foolish that he would not willingly endure pains and torment, when this was the path that led to a faithful and steadfast bridegroom, who waiteth with arms stretched out and breast bloody and burning with love?

For He loved mankind. And therefore did He die, as the bridegroom who hath gone forth to save his bride from the hands of robbers. And they bind him and torment him unto death, while he sees his dearest love feasting with his slayers, jesting with them and mocking his torments and his faithful love...

Then did I understand that this mighty love upholdeth all things in this world--even the fires of hell. FOr if God would, He could take the soul by force--we should be strengthless motes in His hand. But He loves us even as the bridegroom loves his bride, who will not force her, but if she yield not to him willingly, must suffer than she flee him and shun him. But I have thought, too, that mayhap no soul can yet be lost to all eternity. For every soul must desire this love, methinks, but it seems so dear a purchase to give up all other delights for its sake. But when the fire hath burnt away all stiff-necked and rebellious will, then at last shall the will to God, were it no greater in a man than a single nail left in a whole house, remain in the soul unconsumed, as the iron nail is left in the ashes of a house burned down..."

.


So what does an atheist gain through skepticism? Who would want to know that we "give birth astride a grave"?

Freedom from superstition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The reason we need to wait for justice in eternity is because humans use their free will to do their will, rather than God's, in this life.

The more you believe in eternal justice, the more significant your actions in this life become. Because death does not let you off the hook.

You wouldn't know from the actions of believers in this world, though.

.

So true. Hypocrites have a special place in...hell? Purgatory?

As Peter Parker learned, with great power comes great responsibility. But power also corrupts. Pride...the original sin.

[Anonymous]

I no longer believe in god, well Im sitting on the fence these days; in a year and 2 months, the good lord has taken both of my inlaws! for freakish cancers! these were healthy people!! this came from nowhere! I lost my dad and my step dad, one to cancer (but a smoker) and one to a massive heart attack (had heart problems), in the past 5 years I have lost every male figure I looked up to and loved, I lost my grandmother, my mother in law, father in law, aunt, uncle and on and on! Its been like 2 a year, but lately hitting close and I dont understand why?! I am now suffering, my husband is suffering, we are split apart due to family stuff-lots of turmoil! I am not sure why god, would take my good life and destroy it in a blink of an eye? why does this make any sense? I know we live we die, we are only here for a short time and so on, but lately I am questioning why? why now? why like this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I no longer believe in god, well Im sitting on the fence these days; in a year and 2 months, the good lord has taken both of my inlaws! for freakish cancers! these were healthy people!! this came from nowhere! I lost my dad and my step dad, one to cancer (but a smoker) and one to a massive heart attack (had heart problems), in the past 5 years I have lost every male figure I looked up to and loved, I lost my grandmother, my mother in law, father in law, aunt, uncle and on and on! Its been like 2 a year, but lately hitting close and I dont understand why?! I am now suffering, my husband is suffering, we are split apart due to family stuff-lots of turmoil! I am not sure why god, would take my good life and destroy it in a blink of an eye? why does this make any sense? I know we live we die, we are only here for a short time and so on, but lately I am questioning why? why now? why like this?

PP, I am so sorry for your losses. After a loss of my own, that just shattered me, when I went out to the hospital parking lot and got in my car and turned it on, this song came on, and it meant a lot to me at the time. I hope you find peace.

"Learning To Breathe"

Hello, good morning, how do you do?
What makes your rising sun so new?
I could use a fresh beginning too
All of my regrets are nothing new
So this is the way that I say I need You
This is the way that I'm
Learning to breathe
I'm learning to crawl
I'm finding that You and You alone can break my fall
I'm living again, awake and alive
I'm dying to breathe in these abundant skies
Hello, good morning, how you been?
Yesterday left my head kicked in
I never, never thought that
I would fall like that
Never knew that I could hurt this bad
So this is the way I say I need You
This is the way that I say I love You
This is the way that I say I'm Yours
This is the way, this is the way
Hello good morning how you do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

2. No one is trying to prove a negative. We just don't believe in things that have no evidence. Unicorns. Three winged flying pigs. Forests of Candy Canes. You can go on and on about it but a negative can never be proven, no matter how ludicrous it is.

All of these examples are for potentially physical things. We have been discussing metaphysical things, such as God, souls, and justice.

Perhaps, rather than proving a negative, we've been affirming the consequent?

If there were no heaven, we would need to believe in one.

We need to believe in one, therefore there is no heaven.

Are you saying a thing is more plausible if by design it can't ever be observed? How would you know?

.

Oh, dear! Back to epistemology...but it is too late to describe different ways we can know things.

For now, just note that rationalists who contend we may only know what the scientific method can prove have a self-negating system, for we cannot test whether the scientific method is the only way to know things using the scientific method. And even scientists and mathematicians use logic along with empirical evidence...deduction and induction...and so forth.

And it does up generally come down to probability rather than certainty, for physical and metaphysical questions, doesn't it? God is reasonable but not obvious--that, at least, is plausible?

OK. The scientific method is pretty much the acquisition of knowledge through evidence. If you know of another way to do it, offer it up.

And probability is used in science, but not in the way that you imply. Saying that science deals in probabilities means that they carefully analyze a set of data and determine the mathematical probability that their result is due to random chance. It is not the same as saying "nothing is certain, so everything is just an opinion", or "does God exist? Well there is a lot of unexplained stuff in the world, so probably".

Just want to thank you for making any of my future posts superfluous. I would like to buy you a drink.

[Anonymous]

I'm late to the party. While I craft my answer about God, would the OP please tell us why s/he does not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? This is OP's chance to explain his/herself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm late to the party. While I craft my answer about God, would the OP please tell us why s/he does not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? This is OP's chance to explain his/herself.

.

This post makes me think of when strangers see me with my children and say, "you've got your hands full!"

I smile politely at their reflexive, unthinking stab at wit, and then I move on with my day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, dear! Back to epistemology...but it is too late to describe different ways we can know things.

For now, just note that rationalists who contend we may only know what the scientific method can prove have a self-negating system, for we cannot test whether the scientific method is the only way to know things using the scientific method. And even scientists and mathematicians use logic along with empirical evidence...deduction and induction...and so forth.

And it does up generally come down to probability rather than certainty, for physical and metaphysical questions, doesn't it? God is reasonable but not obvious--that, at least, is plausible?

OK. The scientific method is pretty much the acquisition of knowledge through evidence. If you know of another way to do it, offer it up.

And probability is used in science, but not in the way that you imply. Saying that science deals in probabilities means that they carefully analyze a set of data and determine the mathematical probability that their result is due to random chance. It is not the same as saying "nothing is certain, so everything is just an opinion", or "does God exist? Well there is a lot of unexplained stuff in the world, so probably".

Just want to thank you for making any of my future posts superfluous. I would like to buy you a drink.

The above are two very, very different statements.

Neither rationalists nor theists would subscribe to the first statement, which is either universal skepticism ("No truth is knowable") or universal subjectivism ("all truth is an opinion, i.e. dependent on the knower" ).

The second statement is religious skepticism. It claims we may know truth about the physical world by the scientific method, but since any truth about the metaphysical world cannot be subjected to the scientific method, we cannot know the truth about metaphysics.

Some rationalists then prove a negative. "There is no evidence of God, therefore there is no God." This is an a priori decision. According to their method of knowing truth, God cannot possibly be known. What we cannot know does not exist.

Some rationalists realize it is not possible to prove a negative. But since they cannot know God in the only way they can know anything, they consign "knowledge" of God very strictly to irrational belief in the unseen and untested. They call that "faith," and exclude faith from reason.

Where rationalists see "no evidence," theists see opaqueness, some light reflected back to the eye, but neither utter darkness nor transparency. Theists distinguish three different kinds of truths:

#1 truths of faith and not of reason
#2 truths of both faith and reason
#3 truths of reason and not of faith

Theists try to answer objections to propositions in #1, prove propositions in #2, and share acceptance of propositions in #3.

The fun starts when "proving a negative" atheists like Dawkins try to prove the scientific method is the only way to know truth. But that will have to wait for a later post.

[Anonymous]

I an atheist, but some of my clutch phrases are "Oh, my God/Gosh; Jesus Christ and Good Lord". They pop out of my mouth uncontrollably at times. Is this a sign? Ugh. I feel so wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm late to the party. While I craft my answer about God, would the OP please tell us why s/he does not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? This is OP's chance to explain his/herself.

.

This post makes me think of when strangers see me with my children and say, "you've got your hands full!"

I smile politely at their reflexive, unthinking stab at wit, and then I move on with my day.

Not PP here, but I think OP's response to the FSM question is actually quite illuminating. The question is, why do you not believe in some arbitrary entity. But of course, OP finds the very question insulting. After all, the FSM "brand" is no where near as much market penetration as the "God hypothesis". After all, Ben Franklin believed in "God".

Very telling that the only response to "Why don't you believe in Poseidon?" or "Why don't you believe in the FSM?" is "Don't be ridiculous!"

But that's really at the heart of the debate. And when you ask these reasonable questions that are designed to illuminate the shaky foundations of the God hypothesis, you get poetry and defensiveness.

Again, "Why don't you believe in FSM rather than the Christian god?" Or "Why don't you believe in the 'evil God hypothesis'?" which actually seems more plausible frankly. These are legitimate questions--as much as you'd like to frame them as "coarsening the debate" or some other such dodge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, dear! Back to epistemology...but it is too late to describe different ways we can know things.

For now, just note that rationalists who contend we may only know what the scientific method can prove have a self-negating system, for we cannot test whether the scientific method is the only way to know things using the scientific method. And even scientists and mathematicians use logic along with empirical evidence...deduction and induction...and so forth.

And it does up generally come down to probability rather than certainty, for physical and metaphysical questions, doesn't it? God is reasonable but not obvious--that, at least, is plausible?

OK. The scientific method is pretty much the acquisition of knowledge through evidence. If you know of another way to do it, offer it up.

And probability is used in science, but not in the way that you imply. Saying that science deals in probabilities means that they carefully analyze a set of data and determine the mathematical probability that their result is due to random chance. It is not the same as saying "nothing is certain, so everything is just an opinion", or "does God exist? Well there is a lot of unexplained stuff in the world, so probably".

Just want to thank you for making any of my future posts superfluous. I would like to buy you a drink.

The above are two very, very different statements.

Neither rationalists nor theists would subscribe to the first statement, which is either universal skepticism ("No truth is knowable") or universal subjectivism ("all truth is an opinion, i.e. dependent on the knower" ).

The second statement is religious skepticism. It claims we may know truth about the physical world by the scientific method, but since any truth about the metaphysical world cannot be subjected to the scientific method, we cannot know the truth about metaphysics.

Some rationalists then prove a negative. "There is no evidence of God, therefore there is no God." This is an a priori decision. According to their method of knowing truth, God cannot possibly be known. What we cannot know does not exist.

Some rationalists realize it is not possible to prove a negative. But since they cannot know God in the only way they can know anything, they consign "knowledge" of God very strictly to irrational belief in the unseen and untested. They call that "faith," and exclude faith from reason.

Where rationalists see "no evidence," theists see opaqueness, some light reflected back to the eye, but neither utter darkness nor transparency. Theists distinguish three different kinds of truths:

#1 truths of faith and not of reason
#2 truths of both faith and reason
#3 truths of reason and not of faith

Theists try to answer objections to propositions in #1, prove propositions in #2, and share acceptance of propositions in #3.

The fun starts when "proving a negative" atheists like Dawkins try to prove the scientific method is the only way to know truth. But that will have to wait for a later post.

I do not think you know what the term "a priori" is. "A priori" means independent of evidence.

You keep promising that you will show us new ways to know truth. Please don't make it some pitiful dummy's guide to epistemology followed by a poetic twist that somehow shoehorns faith into a redefined concept of knowledge.

Faith is not evidence. And faith is not a type of reasoning. Faith is a belief.