Is Jesus Christ a man or a god?

[Immanuel Can]

Actually I believe there is a standard that is very much in evidence. "For the believer, no proof is necessary. for the non-believer, no proof is enough." Most are somewhere in between.

I would add only the words "naive" before believer, and "obdurate" before non-believer. Both are very, very common indeed, but pretty obviously dysfunctional.

Why the naive and the obdurate are the preferred poles is hard to say, except I think it has something to do with a phenomenon called anomie -- literally "a" + "nomos'" the "absence of laws, rules, guidelines" -- the state in which the individual experiences looming terror that he/she is missing something essential, and does not know where the "rules" or means for getting out of his/her state of angst are.

So mostly what I find is this: people who have little or no real information about the topic, but who have found something sufficient to allow them to dismiss the other possibilities and come to some sort of personal equilibrium that saves them from thinking further. And then they defend that with the most ardent zeal, since it's the only wall that stands between them and the creeping horror of having to think again.

I think that's pretty much human nature on the extremes of both sides. And yes, it's always a relief to find people who prefer to operate in between those poles. We would hope here would be a good place. But "most," I fear, would be a sunny diagnosis of the general human situation, at least.

[thedoc]

Is Jesus Christ a man or a god?

The question in the OP of this thread sets up a false dichotomy, the word "or" in the question creates the idea that it has to be either-or, and this is not necessarily the case. Jesus could have been both, so the question fails on that count.

[Immanuel Can]

Ah yes...the old "false dichotomy." One of the most common fallacies. Well spotted.

[ReliStuPhD]

Is Jesus Christ a man or a god?

The question in the OP of this thread sets up a false dichotomy, the word "or" in the question creates the idea that it has to be either-or, and this is not necessarily the case. Jesus could have been both, so the question fails on that count.

Interestingly enough, the question "fails" before that. By referring to "Jesus Christ," the OP effectively answered his question before he even finished writing it. It's interesting how few people seem to understand the theological implications of referring to "Christ."

[Immanuel Can]

It's interesting how few people seem to understand the theological implications of referring to "Christ."

Yes indeed.

[thedoc]

Sometimes going back to the source, settles all the questions that have come up since.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, and it can't be "a god," can it?

If He's the Christ, as per the Christian view, it means he IS God, the One with a capital "G," the monotheistic God, not the small-g "gods" like Zeus, Set or Thor. Those "gods," since they are not unique or ultimate, and because they do not possess traits like all knowledge, are actually contingent beings.

Zeus, for example, is said to have sprung from the head of Chronos, so he has an origin; and Thor is said to perish in the Ragnarok at some point in the future, so he's not eternal. They're neither omniscient, omnipotent nor omnipresent, nor are they the ultimate origin or explanation for anything.

So "a god" isn't "the God."

And if this is right, then the question we have been given above not only is self-refuting but actually contains an inherent contradiction with it's own premise.

[SpheresOfBalance]

What you're forgetting, is that a so called god made everything, that's the basic premise, that one entity created the universe. If in fact that would be the case, then nothing would be anything other than, what it wanted it to be.

This would be a natural assumption if one has a Deterministic view of God. If one takes a more Libertarian view, however, and believes that God wants freedom of choice to exist in the universe, then Determinism would be incompatible with this project, by definition. I'm not a Determinist, of course, and I don't think God is either.
And so 'you' assume, but you err, because any manipulation by god, however slight, as in the teachings of Jesus, any sort of direction whatsoever, is in fact determinism, negating freedom of choice. So why do you contradict yourself?

Why would you want to tell me, anyone else, or even yourself what constitutes "smart" in the eyes of a god? Do you believe yourself as smart as a god?

I'm afraid I'm missing the direction of your question here. Can you clarify?
Previously I said:
SOB: "It would surely seem that the fact that he allowed himself to be crucified, speaks more of a human entity, and the subsequent story to make it seem otherwise, than it does a godly entity."

To which you replied:
I M: "On the surface, perhaps. But might we be rushing to judgment to think so? Is it conceivable that God Himself was a bit smarter than we are, and may have known things about that situation we did not? Could it even be that He might condescend to offer us an explanation of some sort, however partial it might have to be for our limited human brains?"

Not only are you saying that it is smarter that Jesus be killed as he was, but that you are just as smart as your god, as you agree with him. So here you are trying to elevate yourself to the heights of your god. So in your interpretation of those events, you are telling everyone what "smarter is in the eyes of a god," as if you as a puny human could possibly know for sure. And again you betray your god as being deterministic, that he has not allowed "free will," becasue you allude that what was done, god wanted so he made it that way. Or was that a coincidence. But unless he said otherwise, how could you know what he thought was "smarter" as you allude that you know?

I never say what a god is, if it exists and it wants me to know, it shall tell me, or not hold me accountable for me not knowing. And please don't you dare try and speak for him, because I'll just laugh! Thinking, "it sounds just like a man to me!"

I would not, of course. But I shall ask the question that is obvious here, and it's my own. What if God had already spoken? And what if you even had a pretty good idea of where to look to find out what He had said, but were simply uninterested in doing that? Could He then hold you accountable for not knowing? I'm just interested in what sort of answer you would give to that hypothetical.
First, there would be a very slim chance that your hypothetical would apply to my case. Because I have always tried to understand with an open mind. Which in fact is why I consider myself an agnostic, out of a sense of fair play. My kindergarten (4-5yo here in the U.S.) teacher sent a note home with my report card, writing poetry about me, something to the extent of me being a "cool spring rain on a hot summer day" with respect to my wanting to learn. I was constantly asking questions about everything, while other children at that age seemed disinterested, and preferred to play. I have always been an observer, in those days, somewhat of an introvert, up until I was, well to some extent to this very day. Though I no longer care if I step on toes, so as to make my case.

Second, I believe your "knowing" and mine, are two completely different things. To me knowing, requires some amount of proving, i.e., "justified true belief," where "justified" requires proof positive, and "truth" requires all if not the absolute.

But if your case as presented above were true of anyone, then of course I would have to agree with you, if it were possible to prove that an entity like a god does indeed exist in the first place.

As I've said, 'loving all, he would surly not give unfair advantage to any one or few.' As surely, giving anyone the exclusive ability in the telling, 'does exactly that.' As an all knowing god, he knows men can't be trusted amongst other men, which is exactly what his message supposedly tries to mediate.

I really have to apologize again...I'm not grasping your point here. Could you clarify?
Simple: God loves all of his creation, yet the "deterministic" god found that man was straying from his (gods) deterministic (certainly not free of will) course, so he decides to be deterministic, not allowing free will, and intervenes either as or through Jesus, and the rest of the biblical characters. He confides in them and them alone, or so the story goes. So they can "spread" the word. But he knows men lie cheat and steal, which is why he's intervening in the first place, i.e', to stop them from lying, cheating and stealing, (did I mention that this act, nay the very act of him letting anyone know that he exists at all, is in fact deterministic, not allowing true free will, sure I did (sorry, couldn't resist the sarcasm, because it's pointedness is so self-evident)), yet he trusts them to get his word out, (ever play the game of telegraph as a kid?). Of course you shall say that those initial people he told he knew were not liars, but how about the people they told, and then the ones they told, etc, etc, etc. Such that the good people at the end of this chain are treated unfairly as they get 1000th hand BS, and as such those initially told of his plan, and his existence, then have unfair advantage. That's not an all loving god that is fair and just. To be fair and just, is to tell everybody of his existence, and his love, AT THE EXACT SAME TIME, giving each the ability to hear the REAL STORY FROM HIS LIPS ALONE, not from lying men, that have selfish agendas! So god acknowledges in his telling them they must change. Did I explain how this very act is deterministic on gods part, removing mans free will?

Do you understand now? I believe it was self evident the first time! But there you go.

And thank you for your reply, I hope I wasn't too pointed, that I poked you, far too much.

No, no, a certain amount of jocularity is fine, so far as it isn't merely dismissive without thought. I'm not thin of skin.
Good then, I hope the same thing for this reply, as I see it as being just as benign. At least from my perspective.

I'm an agnostic, believing no man can prove they know either way.

Agnosticism can be rational. But only if it stays modest, saying "I don't know," and not jumping to the irrational assumption, "Therefore no one else can know either." Apply that logic to any other situation -- to a known truth -- for example, and its wild irrationality is evident. For example, I do not know if you own a car; does it in any way follow, therefore, that no one -- including you -- can know whether or not you own a car? That's clearly poor logic, no?

So I assume you don't go there. You probably don't say, "I don't know God, so no one can." And if you did, others could surely ask you upon what basis you knew that.
Of course I do, and you know that I do. I can prove I have a car, by showing it to you. Prove there is a god! YOU CAN'T. IT"S IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO "PROVE," "BEYOND A SHADOW OF DOUBT" (court lingo) THAT GOD EXISTS.

So I'm agnostic because no man can "KNOW" that there is a god. Of course he can "BELIEVE" there is a god, but "knowing" requires PROVING! You can't even begin to prove it, all you can do my friend, is try and rationalize his existence due to books written in a time when men bled sick people to make them healthy. Do you want me to come over and bleed you? I thought not. As such as those beliefs, so their belief in a god. After all their god was meant as a leveling ground, to level the playing field, so bigger and stronger men could not rape and kill them. If they could convince all the people that their god would get them, then they could have a bit of peace, it was also to do with their fear of dying, that they created a god. So said my professors at university, and I agree 100%. It stands to reason when understanding those archaic peoples in their time of antiquated resolve.

I hate men's 'he' god, for all the things men have done in his name.

I understand the reaction. I share your antipathy to how that Name has been abused at times. Yet would it really make sense to hate a God, male or otherwise, because of what mankind (of all genders) have done using Him as an excuse? I would think not...
Yet you don't understand, with so many gods, and ways of gods, which is right and which is wrong? In truth in that time they took what was thought to be a very good idea, of the possibility of there being a god, and made it fit their agenda, namely to save themselves, against the fear of survival.

In my book, no true loving creator would give unfair advantage to any one or group of it's creations,...

This claim seems to be an important one for you. I'm still not sure, quite, what is meant by "unfair advantage," but I think I can agree with you that God would not be "unfair."

Maybe you'll have more to say on that.
I did above, hopefully it spells it out, if not just ask, and if I can find the time, I'll explain.


Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Sure, likewise!

You seem to be like many here. You see my simple word usage to be of a man that is simpleminded yet in truth there is much more contained in my words than many realize.
One, because I take some things as self-evident, expecting that you do as well, so there's no need to rehash.
Two, I often speak in metaphor, expecting people to know how it applies.
And Three, I can't touch type at all, my keyboard has sticky keys, it's one of those cheap plastic keyboards, I suck at initial composition, having to rewrite, and correct spelling, tense, and otherwise, such that to be honest, I really don't want to give that much time away. It literally takes me hours to do a post this long.

Due to these things, to be completely honest, I cut corners, believing that contextually what I say, one can only take one way. I was not in any way interested in becoming an English major. As if I had to tell you that. This is why I hate forums, and prefer one on one conversations in the flesh, as any misconception can be immediately nipped in the bud, so to speak. I can talk many times faster than I can type. Many people ask me to slow down, because I can sometimes talk so fast. It all depends on whether I'm truly invested in the subject or not. In other words, my mind cannot wait for me to type.

Not that I necessarily believe in such things, but according to the experts, (PhD's), I have a fairly high IQ. I believe that IQ's speak more of memorization than they do problem solving, so I discount them. Anyone, if they put forth the effort can be a parrot, a clone, such that if they are ever caught in a trap they've never seen before, they are forever trapped. By contrast, one that doesn't rely on verbatim memory, that can work the problem, no matter how long it takes, can almost always defeat any new trap. This is the true mark of genius in my book. To create the new, not simply recite the old!

So not to be mean, but some of your rebuttals and your questioning my meaning, caused me to wonder why I confused you, because what I read of yours, and everybody elses here, is usually clear as day. If not, I reread until it is. And I see mine as the same, contextually speaking.

[Immanuel Can]

And so 'you' assume, but you err, because any manipulation by god, however slight, as in the teachings of Jesus, any sort of direction whatsoever, is in fact determinism, negating freedom of choice. So why do you contradict yourself?

Non sequitur. It's not an assumption at all; it's a simple fact. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. To illustrate, if I offer you alternatives, I'm not "determining" which you will take. Nothing there "negates" your freedom of choice...you just get additional information by which you may better inform a free choice. That is arguably better than if I did not add to you any information, since you would be more "determined" by an uniformed choice than by an informed one.

Not only are you saying that it is smarter that Jesus be killed as he was, but that you are just as smart as your god,

Non sequitur again. If I say I believe Einstein's Relativity to be accurate, that does not imply I'm as wise as Einstein.

you betray your god as being deterministic

Definitely not true, but if it were, so what? That would not prove determinism was not actually true. Personally, I think it's not; but your argument here won't prove that.

But if your case as presented above were true of anyone, then of course I would have to agree with you, if it were possible to prove that an entity like a god does indeed exist in the first place.

A fair and an honest answer. Well done.

he decides to be deterministic, not allowing free will, and intervenes either as or through Jesus, and the rest of the biblical characters

Again, if your first supposition at the top of this message is wrong, then so is all of this argument. Personally, I think it's wrong. It certainly does not follow as logically necessary. You'd have to provide some proof that God is, in fact, operating deterministically. I see none here.

You seem to assume that God owes everyone complete knowledge in precisely the same instant. I can't see how you're getting that assumption, and it's certainly very far from "self-evident."

Good then, I hope the same thing for this reply, as I see it as being just as benign. At least from my perspective.

No, that's fine. We're just discussing an idea, not picking on each other in a petty or personal way. We're doing dandy.

Of course I do, and you know that I do.

Then you've departed the rational on that point. To put it simply, "How can the fact that Tom doesn't know X prove Ellen doesn't know X?" Moreover, "How can the fact that Tom doesn't know X tell us anything about whether Ellen *can* know X?" Clearly, Tom's ignorance tells us nothing definitive about Ellen's knowledge or possibility of knowledge.

knowing" requires PROVING!

To whom? If Ellen can prove to herself that she knows the sum or 6+9, why does she need to be able to prove it to Tom in order for it to be true? What if Tom is a mathematical ignoramus, or if he just so hates maths that he refuses to think about it? Does Tom's obstinacy mean that Ellen cannot know 15?

Yet you don't understand, with so many gods, and ways of gods, which is right and which is wrong?

This is an excellent question. But far from being a problem for the concept "God," it's merely a starting point for better inquiry. If all gods are not God, then let's go find out which one IS God. That's the rational thing to do.

In truth in that time they took what was thought to be a very good idea, of the possibility of there being a god, and made it fit their agenda, namely to save themselves, against the fear of survival.

This may be true, at least in some cases. But it's not an argument against the existence of God, but an argument against leaving human beings to interpret God according to their personal wishes or desires or needs. I could not possibly agree with you more, in that case.

Two, I often speak in metaphor, expecting people to know how it applies.

I would advise against this. My reasoning is that metaphors are comparisons, and thus are never precisely the thing to which they allude. Moreover in metaphorical language people often take a different meaning than you intended -- which is fine for poetry, but useless for philosophy, as it puts you arguing different tracks and merely produces mutual frustration.

Thanks for the considerable effort put into your response. You have indeed clarified your position to me a bit.

[bobevenson]

The following is the answer to the title of this thread:

HOLY TRINTY
Holy Spirit
Jesus Christ
Ouzo Cross

UNHOLY TRINTY
Satan
False Prophet
Beast

Details can be found in "The Ouzo Prophecy" at http://church-of-ouzo.com.

[SpheresOfBalance]

And so 'you' assume, but you err, because any manipulation by god, however slight, as in the teachings of Jesus, any sort of direction whatsoever, is in fact determinism, negating freedom of choice. So why do you contradict yourself?

Non sequitur. It's not an assumption at all; it's a simple fact. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. To illustrate, if I offer you alternatives, I'm not "determining" which you will take. Nothing there "negates" your freedom of choice...you just get additional information by which you may better inform a free choice. That is arguably better than if I did not add to you any information, since you would be more "determined" by an uniformed choice than by an informed one.
Straw man!! As to your god no man knows any facts. If you're hearing voices, may I suggest schizophrenia, please see your doctor. If you're not going to give me the same respect I give you, then I see no need to continue. You either purposely or by not giving my words enough thought, have not addressed what I said, instead providing a straw man argument. So I shall take you by the hand, this once. I expect your attention to my words to increase, thus your arguments.
The sequence follows:

SOB: "What you're forgetting, is that a so called god made everything, that's the basic premise, that one entity created the universe. If in fact that would be the case, then nothing would be anything other than, what it wanted it to be."

IM: "This would be a natural assumption if one has a Deterministic view of God. If one takes a more Libertarian view, however, and believes that God wants freedom of choice to exist in the universe, then Determinism would be incompatible with this project, by definition. I'm not a Determinist, of course, and I don't think God is either."

SOB: "And so 'you' assume, but you err, because any manipulation by god, however slight, as in the teachings of Jesus, any sort of direction whatsoever, is in fact determinism, negating freedom of choice. So why do you contradict yourself?

You assume he's non deterministic just as much as you say that I assume he's deterministic, as neither of us can know your gods intent, even though you think otherwise. That's for him alone to know. So we equally assume as to his intent! however I used simple logic based upon his actions, not what's in his mind that suggests determinism, not free will. The bible "threatens" hell and not heaven if one does not follow the word of god. For believers that's like someone sticking a gun to their head. They want to live forever, the main crux of faith, in most followers minds. I'd call that very deterministic, and not promoting free will at all.

You come to me and ask me which you should choose, if I tell you what I believe you should do, it lends to determinism, If I ask you what you believe you should do, that lends to free will, thank god psychologists see it the same way. Some supposedly have lead the patient during hypnosis and have been denounced for doing so. Here is something on wikipedia as to determinism:

"Determinism rarely requires that perfect prediction be practically possible."

I argue that for an all powerful entity to "TELL" a puny entity how to live, is more deterministic than it harbors free will. Especially with threats of retaliatory consequence. Didn't god supposedly burn Sodom and Gomorrah to the ground and turn some onlookers into salt? I'd say that's pretty "god damned" deterministic!

Not only are you saying that it is smarter that Jesus be killed as he was, but that you are just as smart as your god,

Non sequitur again. If I say I believe Einstein's Relativity to be accurate, that does not imply I'm as wise as Einstein.
Straw man again!! Obviously I spoke of belief, as how could one "know" otherwise. Come on IM some things are just no brainers. This is the last time I'll take you by the hand, you should be able to keep track as I have done. You use some words used in logic, but show no logic in your argument.

Certainly it does. Many people want to belong, it's natural, humans are said to be social animals. Some anyway, me... (another topic for sure) If in fact the greater percentage of people believe something is true, and amongst those are the so called brightest, the so called authorities on the matter, the less knowledgeable tend to go along with the crowd, they don't want to be left out, after all the mob rules, or so they believe: physically, of course; mentally: not necessarily! So by proxy they believe themselves brighter than the minority: those that disagree, having other less popular ideas. But it's not only those that actually know no better, the so called brighter ones believe so as well.

Come on IM, get with it. One could only BELIEVE such things, as it is virtually impossible for them to KNOW of such things, because logic dictates "belief" in this matter.

you betray your god as being deterministic

Definitely not true, but if it were, so what? That would not prove determinism was not actually true. Personally, I think it's not; but your argument here won't prove that.
I say otherwise, see above!

But if your case as presented above were true of anyone, then of course I would have to agree with you, if it were possible to prove that an entity like a god does indeed exist in the first place.

A fair and an honest answer. Well done.
You only say this because you want to believe I've given in some how, did you actually read the rest. Your selective retorts are starting to become very telling of your aim.

he decides to be deterministic, not allowing free will, and intervenes either as or through Jesus, and the rest of the biblical characters

Again, if your first supposition at the top of this message is wrong, then so is all of this argument. Personally, I think it's wrong. It certainly does not follow as logically necessary. You'd have to provide some proof that God is, in fact, operating deterministically. I see none here.
See above, there is plenty of logic that certainly dictates, at least more so than yours. Hey where is yours anyway? You seem to be simply refuting my propositions, with none of your own that would counter.

You seem to assume that God owes everyone complete knowledge in precisely the same instant. I can't see how you're getting that assumption, and it's certainly very far from "self-evident."
If he be "fair," as you initially agreed he would be, of course it's self-evident! Hearsay is not allowed in a court of law for this very reason. It's only logical, if you've ever played that childhood game of telegraph, then you'd understand.

Good then, I hope the same thing for this reply, as I see it as being just as benign. At least from my perspective.

No, that's fine. We're just discussing an idea, not picking on each other in a petty or personal way. We're doing dandy.
Good, I hope you can feel the same after this one, because I've shifted into a higher gear.

Of course I do, and you know that I do.

Then you've departed the rational on that point. To put it simply, "How can the fact that Tom doesn't know X prove Ellen doesn't know X?" Moreover, "How can the fact that Tom doesn't know X tell us anything about whether Ellen *can* know X?" Clearly, Tom's ignorance tells us nothing definitive about Ellen's knowledge or possibility of knowledge.
Straw man! Your generic does not necessarily address the specific. In this case I speak of "KNOWING" not "BELIEVING." Knowing can be proven, believing cannot!

knowing" requires PROVING!

To whom? If Ellen can prove to herself that she knows the sum or 6+9, why does she need to be able to prove it to Tom in order for it to be true? What if Tom is a mathematical ignoramus, or if he just so hates maths that he refuses to think about it? Does Tom's obstinacy mean that Ellen cannot know 15?
Straw man yet again! "NEED" is not at issue here. If one knows, one should be 'capable' of proving, which is not always true of belief.

Yet you don't understand, with so many gods, and ways of gods, which is right and which is wrong?

This is an excellent question. But far from being a problem for the concept "God," it's merely a starting point for better inquiry. If all gods are not God, then let's go find out which one IS God. That's the rational thing to do.
It was rhetorical, meant to get you to think, because of you previous reply!

In truth in that time they took what was thought to be a very good idea, of the possibility of there being a god, and made it fit their agenda, namely to save themselves, against the fear of survival.

This may be true, at least in some cases. But it's not an argument against the existence of God, but an argument against leaving human beings to interpret God according to their personal wishes or desires or needs. I could not possibly agree with you more, in that case.
Thank you, you admit that as to god one can only interpret what they believe to be the case, as there is no necessary proof to be had.

Two, I often speak in metaphor, expecting people to know how it applies.

I would advise against this. My reasoning is that metaphors are comparisons, and thus are never precisely the thing to which they allude. Moreover in metaphorical language people often take a different meaning than you intended -- which is fine for poetry, but useless for philosophy, as it puts you arguing different tracks and merely produces mutual frustration.
You have a very good point here. I have noticed it, with those of vastly different lives. But to be honest, I do so on purpose so as to locate those of similar mind, as surely they shall get it. Plus I'm an art lover, at university I dwelled in the humanities, for that matter philosophy is considered as such. So I'm admittedly somewhat flamboyant in my delivery, it's the poet - singer/songwriter in me trying to escape, much to the chagrin of the onlookers.

Thanks for the considerable effort put into your response. You have indeed clarified your position to me a bit.
Maybe, but I'm sure this one shall give you so much more!

[Immanuel Can]

Hmmm..."straw man" seems to be your favourite accusation. But I think you've only yourself to blame for it. For I read the meaning of the words you give me, and if you mean them metaphorically, then you are misleading. Then you cannot then be surprised that my response misses the secret idea you were carrying inside your head when you wrote something completely different on the page.

You excuse that as "artistic flamboyance." That may be. But my degrees do not include mind-reading.

I fear that unless you can shape a proposition the words of which you believe accurately reflect your intention, I am powerless to respond to you in a way you find relevant to your actual concerns.

May I recommend a shorter, clearer and non-metaphorical question or claim, the wording of which you are fully committed to literally? Then I will be quite happy to respond in a way you cannot deem a "straw man" argument.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Hmmm..."straw man" seems to be your favourite accusation. But I think you've only yourself to blame for it. For I read the meaning of the words you give me, and if you mean them metaphorically, then you are misleading. Then you cannot then be surprised that my response misses the secret idea you were carrying inside your head when you wrote something completely different on the page.

You excuse that as "artistic flamboyance." That may be. But my degrees do not include mind-reading.
Out of context!


I fear that unless you can shape a proposition the words of which you believe accurately reflect your intention, I am powerless to respond to you in a way you find relevant to your actual concerns.

May I recommend a shorter, clearer and non-metaphorical question or claim, the wording of which you are fully committed to literally? Then I will be quite happy to respond in a way you cannot deem a "straw man" argument.

OK, I obviously got far too strong for you, but that you stoop to this ploy, was unexpected, I thought you were thick skinned.

If you thought I was looking for answers, I apologize. I was just telling you my side of belief in this matter. I'm agnostic, no man can "know" your god, they can only have "faith" (believe) in him. And nothing that anyone can say shall change that. It shall take the creator itself to set me straight, I trust no man as to faith (belief), been there and done that, getting older and wiser, finally.

[Immanuel Can]

OK, I obviously got far too strong for you, but that you stoop to this ploy, was unexpected, I thought you were thick skinned.

Ha. I am.

It's not a "ploy." If it were, it would be insincere and unnecessary, and I'm sincere and actually think it is necessary. I'm inviting you to be clear and literal, which in a philosophical discussion is very, very helpful indeed to lucid conversation without metaphorical misunderstandings. Quite simply, the "metaphorical" thing wasn't working as a means of getting your meaning across to me, so I needed to give you a better alternative.

And now I can understand you better. So it works, no? No hard feelings at all.

If you thought I was looking for answers, I apologize. I was just telling you my side of belief in this matter. I'm agnostic, no man can "know" your god, they can only have "faith" (believe) in him.

This is an epistemological ambiguity. I can't quite tell what you mean by "know" and "faith". People use these words in different ways, of course, but you'll need to specify before I understand you aright: can you give me a thing you believe you "know" and a situation in which a person is having what you consider to be "faith"?

Interestingly, unless I misunderstand you, you seem to think you "know" what another person can or cannot "know." So that paradox needs to be explained as well. How can one "know" what anyone else can possibly "know"?

And nothing that anyone can say shall change that.

Is that a literal claim that no evidence is any longer involved in your judgment? Or am I to understand something metaphorical from it? I'm guessing it's hyperbole, offered more for effect than literality.

It shall take the creator itself to set me straight, I trust no man as to faith (belief), been there and done that, getting older and wiser, finally.

Fair enough.

[uwot]

How can one "know" what anyone else can possibly "know"?

Because what is knowable is the same for everyone. I note that you acknowledge that people use words like know and faith ambiguously; there are contingent and tautological facts, for instance, but in the sense of knowing beyond even unreasonable doubt, there is an entire thread dedicated to the two irrefutable facts that philosophers have found in two and a half millenia.
Whatever knowldge you are party to, and that the rest of us do not know, it is contingent and cannot be described as knowledge in the sense that it cannot be seriously doubted.