Knowing God exists

Vampireskiss

Are there any people on this forum whose faith is so strong that they not only believe in God but know God exists, I ask this because there are those in the athiest forum that have this view about their own beliefs?

antiskeptic

Vampireskiss wrote: »

Are there any people on this forum whose faith is so strong that they not only believe in God but know God exists, I ask this because there are those in the athiest forum that have this view about their own beliefs?

In the sense that:

"I believe the world is round because I trust the information/testimony of others regarding that" is belief as you mean it. And..

"I know a bird just flew by my window because I trust my own subjective observations to tell me the truth about reality" is the basis of knowing as you mean it then..

I know God exists.


I'm not quite sure what you mean about atheists knowing in the case of their own beliefs (presumably their knowing that God doesn't exist). I mean, whilst it is possible for a person to know that God exists, requiring as it does only that;

1) God exists

2) He informs the person of that fact

..it is not possible for a person to know that God doesn't exist. Indeed, even that evangelical fundamentalist secularist, Richard Dawkins, wouldn't go so so far as to say that he knows that God doesn't exist. Which is saying something about the limits of an atheists knowing.

Soul Winner

Vampireskiss wrote: »

Are there any people on this forum whose faith is so strong that they not only believe in God but know God exists, I ask this because there are those in the athiest forum that have this view about their own beliefs?

Yes, me, I know for absolute certain that God exists. And not only that but that Jesus was the fullest expression on the stage of human history of this God.

jaffa20

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes, me, I know for absolute certain that God exists. And not only that but that Jesus was the fullest expression on the stage of human history of this God.

Fanny Cradock

Vampireskiss wrote: »

Are there any people on this forum whose faith is so strong that they not only believe in God but know God exists, I ask this because there are those in the athiest forum that have this view about their own beliefs?

I'm not sure I know anything with absolute certainty. In basic terms, I'm more sure that there is a God, a Christian God, than I am that there isn't.

hatrickpatrick

I know God exists. I know simply because I have never once said any prayer which was not answered. And there have been far too many bizarre coincidences for it to just be bizarre chance. Far, far too many.

philologos

I'd personally say I regard God's existence as more probable than not.

fitz0

Vampireskiss wrote: »

Are there any people on this forum whose faith is so strong that they not only believe in God but know God exists, I ask this because there are those in the athiest forum that have this view about their own beliefs?

I highly doubt any of the regular posters in A&A have ever said that there is definitely no god. In fact its usually pointed out that nothing is ruled out completely, just that it is highly unlikely that an omnipotent being created us all.

philologos

fitz0 wrote: »

I highly doubt any of the regular posters in A&A have ever said that there is definitely no god. In fact its usually pointed out that nothing is ruled out completely, just that it is highly unlikely that an omnipotent being created us all.

It's all well and good to believe that it is highly unlikely that there is a Creator God, but I have yet to see any good reasoning for such a position on these fora.

Morbert

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055590001&highlight=poll

It seems that most atheists (on boards.ie anyway) acknowledge the limitations of knowledge.

Soulwinner, you cannot say you know with absolute certainty that God exists. You can have great conviction with that belief, but you cannot know it is necessarily true. I don't see the problem with admitting this.

Morbert

Jakkass wrote: »

It's all well and good to believe that it is highly unlikely that there is a Creator God, but I have yet to see any good reasoning for such a position on these fora.

There is nothing inherently unreasonable about atheism, and it is reasonable to not believe in God if you have not come across any evidence, personal or otherwise, that God exists.

philologos

You're kind of skirting around the topic here Morbert. I was kind of anticipating such an answer though.

I said, that I have yet to see any good reasoning as to why a Creator God is improbable in any shape or form. By that I mean an explanation as to why one comes to this position given the current state of our universe. Why couldn't it have been created?

As for it being reasonable or unreasonable, I personally find it more reasonable that this universe exists for a purpose and a reason rather than it being devoid of such.

fitz0

Jakkass wrote: »

It's all well and good to believe that it is highly unlikely that there is a Creator God, but I have yet to see any good reasoning for such a position on these fora.

And I have yet to see good reasoning (circular is not good) for the pro-god position.

But this thread is about certainty and I am not 100% certain about very many things. I just wanted to point out that VampireKiss is distorting the facts, I don't really want to get drawn into a debate here (or anywhere, I'm awful at debating) but suffice to say that if you're right, we'll find out in due course and if I'm right then we'll never know.

Morbert

Jakkass wrote: »

You're kind of skirting around the topic here Morbert. I was kind of anticipating such an answer though.

I said, that I have yet to see any good reasoning as to why a Creator God is improbable in any shape or form. By that I mean an explanation as to why one comes to this position given the current state of our universe. Why couldn't it have been created?

You presumably agree that it is highly unlikely that God is actually a super-intelligent alien from another universe that pretends to be the creator of everything, as there is no evidence for such a claim.

Similarly, atheists believe it is highly unlikely that God exists because they have seen no evidence (personal or otherwise) for such a claim.

We obviously disagree about whether or not there is objective evidence for God, but that's for another thread.

As for it being reasonable or unreasonable, I personally find it more reasonable that this universe exists for a purpose and a reason rather than it being devoid of such.

I have always found this interesting. What is unreasonable about universe without a purpose?

chozometroid

Morbert wrote: »

I have always found this interesting. What is unreasonable about universe without a purpose?

Depends on if you start with the assumption that everything has no purpose.

Morbert

chozometroid wrote: »

Depends on if you start with the assumption that everything has no purpose.

Yes, but then the question becomes "Why is the assumption that everything has no purpose less reasonable that the assumption that the universe does?".

JimiTime

As sure as I am that I exist, I am sure that God does. One can assert that I have been blessed, or that I am deluded. Either way, God is in my concience. for all intents and purposes, it 'is' knowledge. Its people outside of 'me' who will argue whether it is accurate or not. This knowledge however, does not translate into faith. After all, Satan is certain God exists, he has no faith though.

Unfortunately, there is alot of confusion over the term 'faith'. This is caused by a cack handed approach IMO to the question below:

'How do you know God exists?'

A common answer:
'Because I have faith.'

This has led folk to associate 'faith', with blindness. IMO, belief is a pre-cursor for faith. I can have no doubt in my belief, but doubt in my faith.

chozometroid

Morbert wrote: »

Yes, but then the question becomes "Why is the assumption that everything has no purpose less reasonable that the assumption that the universe does?".

I suppose this comes down to personal perception, but it seems that everything having no purpose is less reasonable given that everything does indeed exist. This is unavoidably followed by the question of origins. So, things didn't exist (as they were), then they did. Something made this change occur. You either think this is the result of an endless chain of purposeless prior causes, a solitary self-created universe (nice way to dodge invoking God), or there was intention that brought about this change.

This is OT, though, and belongs in the other thread.

Back on topic...

Definition of know:
to perceive or understand as fact or truth
to be convinced of the truth of; to be fully assured of; as, to know things from information.
to have established or fixed in the mind or memory
to be cognizant or aware of: I know it.
be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight, experience, or report
to understand from experience or attainment

---

There is this being (God), who claims to be God. So, either He is God, or there is no God as we know it, since this being gave us our idea of who God is.

If God is who He claims to be, He is this God.

If God comes through with His promises, He is who He claims to be, therefore He is God, and He does exist.

Has God always come through in the past? Yes.

Will God always come through in the future? I have no reason to doubt it.

Therefore, I believe God exists. I am certain God exists. I know God exists.

antiskeptic

Morbert wrote: »

Soulwinner, you cannot say you know with absolute certainty that God exists. You can have great conviction with that belief, but you cannot know it is necessarily true. I don't see the problem with admitting this.

Why can someone not know for certain that God exists? Consider all that is required in order for someone to know God exists for certain:

1) God existing

2) He lets someone know he exists for certain.


Note that there is no reliance placed on the ability of the person to correctly evaluate the situation - all the onus is placed on God to be able to manifest himself to a person so that they know for certain.

If you say a person can't say then you're actually saying God is unable to achieve this end. Which is a little far-fetched given what else he'd have been capable of. If you disagree, could you state which of the above two statements 1) and/or 2) you consider to be impossible.

philologos

Morbert wrote: »

You presumably agree that it is highly unlikely that God is actually a super-intelligent alien from another universe that pretends to be the creator of everything, as there is no evidence for such a claim.

Actually, on the alien front one could consider God an alien on several fronts:

extraterrestrial being: a form of life assumed to exist outside the Earth or its atmosphere
foreigner: a person who comes from a foreign country; someone who does not owe allegiance to your country

God doesn't owe allegiance to any country, and God exists outside the Earth.

As for evidence, you might be aware that a lot of us on this forum do not believe that God's existence is without evidence.

Morbert wrote: »

Similarly, atheists believe it is highly unlikely that God exists because they have seen no evidence (personal or otherwise) for such a claim.

Just because one person has not seen evidence does not mean that the evidence is absent, but merely that they have not sought it.

Morbert wrote: »

We obviously disagree about whether or not there is objective evidence for God, but that's for another thread.

Of course we do.

Morbert wrote: »

I have always found this interesting. What is unreasonable about universe without a purpose?

It seems very unlikely that humanity, and all that is in it was created without any purpose or any intention to it. If we functioned as we do for a reason (and I believe that there is one, albeit not fully in our comprehension) that would be much more sensical than a system where we are here for absolutely nothing apart from to gratify our pleasures while we are still alive. It seems more motivated by greed, and hedonism rather than being anything to do with objective reality.

ALincoln

What this debate turns around is how you define knowledge.

If you are talking about knowledge in the strictly objective sense, it is impossible to empirically prove God's existence, so no, you can't "know" that God exists.

If you are talking about personal knowledge - knowledge in the sense that you are aware of something because it goes to the very core of your being, and you "know" it to be true because subjectively it appears to you to be so, then I suppose you can know that God exists.

Of course the debate as to which type of knowledge is more valuable may be a whole other argument...

Zombrex

ALincoln wrote: »

What this debate turns around is how you define knowledge.

I think it comes down to the level of standards a person has to what point they say they "know" something. The lower the standards required to claim you know something the easier it is to claim to know it.

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

I think it comes down to the level of standards a person has to what point they say they "know" something. The lower the standards required to claim you know something the easier it is to claim to know it.

:rolleyes: Very subtle there, buddy. Some people just don't know anything, huh?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

It seems very unlikely that humanity, and all that is in it was created without any purpose or any intention to it. If we functioned as we do for a reason (and I believe that there is one, albeit not fully in our comprehension) that would be much more sensical than a system where we are here for absolutely nothing apart from to gratify our pleasures while we are still alive.

That is a some what nonsensical answer. If there is no purpose to existence then we are not here to gratify our pleasures while we are still alive any more than we are here to carry out God's plan.

Your answer wreaks of misplaced ideology, setting up a straw man that without a given purpose then we become greedy and selfish.

Jakkass wrote: »

It seems more motivated by greed, and hedonism rather than being anything to do with objective reality.

Only if you assume that without a given purpose we should act or behave a certain way, which is something one really only finds from religious people and is in fact highly contradictory (if we have no purpose why should we be greedy and selfish?)

Most things in nature exist with out any purpose. An apple falls from a tree killing a catapiller simply because that is what happens.

I see no reason to believe humans have a purpose beyond the need some people seem to have to believe such a purpose exists.

ALincoln

Wicknight wrote: »

I think it comes down to the level of standards a person has to what point they say they "know" something. The lower the standards required to claim you know something the easier it is to claim to know it.

Did you just read the first sentence of my post and then decide to disparage it without reading the rest?

You can't talk about "standards" in relation to this debate, because the setting of standards implies that there is only one objective and absolute truth. What my post pointed out was that there is more than one definition of knowledge, and therefore this subject can't be treated with the blunt approach you employed.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

:rolleyes: Very subtle there, buddy. Some people just don't know anything, huh?

No, some people have lower standards than other of what they are prepared to accept and why, as I said.

For example a lot of religious people seem more than happy to accept personal revelation, assessment and feelings as evidence for divine contact, where as others, particularly atheists, would say that such evidence is inherently untrustworthy and they require a higher standard of evidence before they can claim to know they are communicating with a deity.

Do you dispute this?

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

Most things in nature exist with out any purpose. An apple falls from a tree killing a catapiller simply because that is what happens.

The apple has the purpose of propagating the apple tree seeds, as well as providing food for all omnivores and herbivores. Gravity obviously has a purpose. The caterpillar just had it coming.

Zombrex

ALincoln wrote: »

Did you just read the first sentence of my post and then decide to disparage it without reading the rest?

I wasn't aware I was "disparaging" your post. I agree with most of it, though I don't think it is necessary to redefine "knowledge". I think theists and atheists share the same definition of what it is to know something, the difference is the standards that they put the evidence through.

ALincoln wrote: »

You can't talk about "standards" in relation to this debate, because the setting of standards implies that there is only one objective and absolute truth.

It does? Why exactly?

ALincoln wrote: »

What my post pointed out was that there is more than one definition of knowledge, and therefore this subject can't be treated with the blunt approach you employed.

I again don't see how theists or atheists are using different definitions of knowledge?

Perhaps you can explain in more detail?

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

The apple has the purpose of propagating the apple tree seeds, as well as providing food for all omnivores and herbivores. Gravity obviously has a purpose. The caterpillar just had it coming.

Why exactly?

Do you accept that in nature some things can just happen, without requiring an intelligent purpose, ie something deciding the should happen?

Or do you think everything from a bacteria eating another bacteria, to an earthquake, happens for a specific given reason?

ALincoln

Wicknight wrote: »

I wasn't aware I was "disparaging" your post. I agree with most of it, though I don't think it is necessary to redefine "knowledge". I think theists and atheists share the same definition of what it is to know something, the difference is the standards that they put the evidence through.


It does? Why exactly?



I again don't see how theists or atheists are using different definitions of knowledge?

Perhaps you can explain in more detail?

Read above. It's actually quite a simple concept.

Pete M.

chozometroid wrote: »

The caterpillar just had it coming.

So you believe in predestiny also? The caterpillar was fated to be squished? Isn't that in conflict with the belief in free will, sin & repentance etc?

Anyway, what if one recognises that they don't know (using either set of definitions), realises that it's very improbable that it's going to be proven one way or the other any time soon and doesn't bother therefore spending any significant thought on it?

Safest bet I say. There's been a lot of discussion on this topic for, well, nearly a couple of thousand years and it's no closer to being sorted out is it?

But I would say that I know that if there is a God, and I know this for sure, when, or if, The Day comes, he's going to be seriously upset about being misrepresented by so many people.

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

No, some people have lower standards than other of what they are prepared to accept and why, as I said.

For example a lot of religious people seem more than happy to accept personal revelation, assessment and feelings as evidence for divine contact, where as others, particularly atheists, would say that such evidence is inherently untrustworthy and they require a higher standard of evidence before they can claim to know they are communicating with a deity.

Do you dispute this?

No, I see what you are saying, and it is true, but it's obvious from the previous post and this one that you believe atheists have "higher" standards of knowledge claims than the religious.
I'm not sure what you believe is a higher standard is actually a higher standard, though.
If indeed, the supernatural exists, then you are missing half the picture of just about everything, while your higher standard of evidence is just fine and dandy for your limited naturalist view. It's more of a "higher" limited standard.

Zombrex

ALincoln wrote: »

If you are talking about knowledge in the strictly objective sense, it is impossible to empirically prove God's existence, so no, you can't "know" that God exists.

You can't empirically prove anything, so if that is how you define knowing something, you can't know anything. Which is why it doesn't really work, since I'm happy to say there are plenty of things I "know", without requiring that I prove they are true, which is impossible.

I am happy to say I know my house mate is sleeping in the other room. I cannot prove that. Even if I was staring right at him that wouldn't prove that. I can though accept it is true based on the evidence and the standards I have set to believe that is true.

ALincoln wrote: »

If you are talking about personal knowledge - knowledge in the sense that you are aware of something because it goes to the very core of your being, and you "know" it to be true because subjectively it appears to you to be so, then I suppose you can know that God exists.

That is the only type of "knowing" there is, which is why I said theists and atheist are not using different versions of the word. Your first version of knowing, objectively proving something, is not a real thing.

The difference between people is that standards they put up that evidence must pass before they say, subjectively, that they know something.

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

Why exactly?

Do you accept that in nature some things can just happen, without requiring an intelligent purpose, ie something deciding the should happen?

Or do you think everything from a bacteria eating another bacteria, to an earthquake, happens for a specific given reason?

When I said the caterpillar had it coming, I wasn't trying to say it needed to die for some reason. It was just the result of other purposeful things going about their business.

chozometroid

Pete M. wrote: »

So you believe in predestiny also? The caterpillar was fated to be squished? Isn't that in conflict with the belief in free will, sin & repentance etc?

I'm not sure about predestination. I can live my life the way I think I should, and whether or not that works out via predestination or my total free will, I hope I succeed.

I'm not sure the caterpillar was fated to die that way, but I am sure it never sinned and never repented. :pac:

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

No, I see what you are saying, and it is true, but it's obvious from the previous post and this one that you believe atheists have "higher" standards of knowledge claims than the religious.

Not necessarily, though in my experience a lot of them do. Most of the guys on the A&A forum would put much less weight in personal experience than the religious people on this forum would.

There is nothing inherent about being an atheist that means you will place higher standards on evidence. But doing so is certain one way you might become an atheist, since religious claims do pretty poorly when faced with these standards.

chozometroid wrote: »

I'm not sure what you believe is a higher standard is actually a higher standard, though.
If indeed, the supernatural exists, then you are missing half the picture of just about everything

Possibly, but that doesn't effect the requirement for the standards.

Missing half the picture is better than believing the wrong picture, at least in my opinion. Given that I have never encountered a supernatural religion that has passed what I would consider the standards I would need in order to believe their claims, I would just be randomly picking a "picture" to believe, and that could very easily turn out to be wrong. Particularly when the non-supernatural alternative (humans invent religions) does actually pass my standards and has testable verifiable evidence behind it.

chozometroid wrote: »

while your higher standard of evidence is just fine and dandy for your limited naturalist view. It's more of a "higher" limited standard.

Well yes, that is the point. It limits down to what you can verify and test, rather than throwing the game open to anything you can imagine.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

When I said the caterpillar had it coming, I wasn't trying to say it needed to die for some reason. It was just the result of other purposeful things going about their business.

ok, so if you can believe that some things just happen, that no one decided or wanted the caterpillar to die, it just died due to being in the wrong place at the wrong time, is there really that big a deal in believing that nothing happens for a reason, that everything just happens? to me it would seem not much of a jump at all.

chozometroid

As to your other post, thanks for the response.

Wicknight wrote: »

ok, so if you can believe that some things just happen, that no one decided or wanted the caterpillar to die, it just died due to being in the wrong place at the wrong time, is there really that big a deal in believing that nothing happens for a reason, that everything just happens? to me it would seem not much of a jump at all.

I think it is a massive jump. There is a difference in a caterpillar being in the wrong place at the wrong time and there being no purpose for anything including the universe, to exist. The caterpillar is a form of life, among many, on a planet which supports life. This life is born and dies, and is subject to premature causes of death. The fact that some small things may happen for no reason(at least apparant....maybe the caterpillar really did have to die for it's matter to be used elsewhere) in no way diminishes the fact there is this reality which contains the impossibility of life and sentient beings.

If there is no reason for any of this, and this "just happened," then it brings about more confusion and added complexity to the origins of the universe than does proposing that God is the creator. The idea that it "just happened" is greatly more imaginative and hopeful than the idea of a creator God, and it is certainly a roadblock in finding out what the real overarching truth could be. There is nothing more mysterious and magical than "just happened."

The idea of a God is certainly mysterious in itself, but it makes sense of at least our known reality. God explains how it could have happened, and that it wasn't just some nonsensical accident that just so happened to create space and time. We can say that God is necessary, if only because we know there is at least one "reason" for His existence: creating our universe. Also, because of His transcendant nature, there is a level of acceptance that can be obtained concerning what we can and cannot know, about Him, at least at present. The universe, however, does not say anything about it being all that there is. It says nothing of where it came from. God says He is the beginning and the end, and that He is the One True God. While we can't comprehend His existence, He does give an answer. The universe can be said to have created itself, which is just as, or more confusing than God's claim. Or if there is some endless multiverse system that somehow, without intention and time, gave birth to the universe, then it is much more complex than God's claim of exclusive ownership.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

ok, so if you can believe that some things just happen, that no one decided or wanted the caterpillar to die, it just died due to being in the wrong place at the wrong time, is there really that big a deal in believing that nothing happens for a reason, that everything just happens? to me it would seem not much of a jump at all.

The OP was asking theists do they know that God exists. Which is like asking a naturalist do they know that everything just happens for no reason. Do you know that everything just happens for no reason? And how do you know that the way you test your knowledge is the best one? Why is it the best one? And why does the best method have to appeal to your senses - which take in information from out side and come to know that way - in order to win out above other methods? For instance, how do you know that mediation - which recieves insight from within - is not a better way of knowing than experimentation? Because experimentation yields a better feeling of knowing?

But how do you know that that knowing is better than the knowing which mediation yields? In a universe without God there is no better way of knowing anything. Standards are relative to the frame of reference you were brought up in and nobody can say that their standards for knowing anything are better than anyone else's. What do you measure that standard by so that you can know it is a better standard? Your standard? Circular reasoning.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

I think it comes down to the level of standards a person has to what point they say they "know" something. The lower the standards required to claim you know something the easier it is to claim to know it.

Presumably this is the point where you kick the ball to empirical evidence touch? In which case, I'd ask if you could answer the following question;

Do you know what you thought 20 seconds ago? And if so, what standard do you point to for your knowing?

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

The idea that it "just happened" is greatly more imaginative and hopeful than the idea of a creator God

I'm not sure what you mean by "hopeful"?

Humans have an instinctive need to find order and meaning in natural patterns. We can and have tested and documented this. Humans will naturally create links and patterns in events that have no significance.

Given that we know we do this, I can't see how the idea that there is no reason behind the universe is more hopeful, it goes against our instincts to find pattern and significance.

And equally the idea that the universe does have purpose and events do have a given significance fits nicely and neatly into how we instinctively think the world should work.

Given that we are naturally prone to doing this I think we should be even more careful when looking at why we think the universe should have purpose.

Do we have reasons other than because we think it should and find the alternative unappealing.

chozometroid wrote: »

The idea of a God is certainly mysterious in itself, but it makes sense of at least our known reality. God explains how it could have happened, and that it wasn't just some nonsensical accident that just so happened to create space and time.

I would disagree with that some what.

I think "God did it" explains very little, it is more an excuse to stop asking further questions. Almost by definition we can't know what he did, how he did it, what actually happened. Can we model what God did in a computer?

It provides a reason, but very little else, something I find rather unsatisfactory

That is not to say that is a reason against the idea God did it (he might have and then it is tough if I find it unsatisfactory), simple that I don't think we should hold that it is more likely simply because it answers one little bit.

Given the choice I would much rather understand a non-purposeful universe than not understand a purposeful one.

maskofsanity

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I know God exists. I know simply because I have never once said any prayer which was not answered. And there have been far too many bizarre coincidences for it to just be bizarre chance. Far, far too many.

Dude you should totally pray for super powers!!

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Do you know what you thought 20 seconds ago? And if so, what standard do you point to for your knowing?

I do know what I though 20 seconds ago, and the standard I point to for "knowing" this is current understand of human biology.

Having said that the confidence level I would put to knowing this is is lower than normal today as I have a very bad head cold.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

The OP was asking theists do they know that God exists. Which is like asking a naturalist do they know that everything just happens for no reason.

I would imagine most naturalists would say they don't know that everything just happens for no reason

Soul Winner wrote: »

Do you know that everything just happens for no reason?

Nope

Soul Winner wrote: »

Because experimentation yields a better feeling of knowing?

No, because you can test the results.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Standards are relative to the frame of reference you were brought up in and nobody can say that their standards for knowing anything are better than anyone else's.

Nonsense, of course they can. You think anything anyone claims to know is as valid as anyone else?

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

I do know what I though 20 seconds ago, and the standard I point to for "knowing" this is current understand of human biology.

An understanding which is evaluated by and is contained as a collection of what ... precisely?

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

I do know what I though 20 seconds ago, and the standard I point to for "knowing" this is current understand of human biology.

Might I suggest that if you lived 2000 years ago then you'd know what you thought 2000 years and 20 seconds ago just as surely as you know what you thought 20 seconds ago.

The standard of knowing is thus, yourself - not the current understanding of human biology (which is a standard that didn't exist 2000 years ago)

Morbert

Jakkass wrote: »

Actually, on the alien front one could consider God an alien on several fronts:

extraterrestrial being: a form of life assumed to exist outside the Earth or its atmosphere
foreigner: a person who comes from a foreign country; someone who does not owe allegiance to your country

God doesn't owe allegiance to any country, and God exists outside the Earth.

As for evidence, you might be aware that a lot of us on this forum do not believe that God's existence is without evidence.

This is not related to my post. I said "You presumably agree that it is highly unlikely that God is actually a super-intelligent alien from another universe that pretends to be the creator of everything, as there is no evidence for such a claim."

I was not arguing about whether or not God can be considered an alien. I was also not arguing about whether or not there is evidence for God. I am instead arguing that it is reasonable to believe it is unlikely that God exists if there is no evidence that God exists.

It seems very unlikely that humanity, and all that is in it was created without any purpose or any intention to it. If we functioned as we do for a reason (and I believe that there is one, albeit not fully in our comprehension) that would be much more sensical than a system where we are here for absolutely nothing apart from to gratify our pleasures while we are still alive. It seems more motivated by greed, and hedonism rather than being anything to do with objective reality.

You have reiterated your claim that it would be more reasonable, but you have not actually show why it would be more reasonable. At the very most, I will agree that it is intuitive to suppose the universe has a purpose. But history has shown us that intuition is often wrong. I am asking for an argument, philosophical or otherwise, for why existing things are obligated to have a purpose. God, presumably, does not exist to fulfill some purpose imposed on Him.

Morbert

antiskeptic wrote: »

Why can someone not know for certain that God exists? Consider all that is required in order for someone to know God exists for certain:

1) God existing

2) He lets someone know he exists for certain.


Note that there is no reliance placed on the ability of the person to correctly evaluate the situation - all the onus is placed on God to be able to manifest himself to a person so that they know for certain.

I agree that God can reveal Himself to us if He likes, or instill knowledge. You can know God exists in the sense that you hold great confidence in the belief, and that belief can be true and revealed by God. But such possibilities do not imply we can know with absolute certainty. Saying you know with absloute certainty is equivalent to saying you can show that you cannot be mistaken.

If you say a person can't say then you're actually saying God is unable to achieve this end. Which is a little far-fetched given what else he'd have been capable of. If you disagree, could you state which of the above two statements 1) and/or 2) you consider to be impossible.

God could make us know for absolute certainty if He liked, but that would involve either granting us omniscience, or some system of inference demonstratably rooted in necessary truths. We have neither.

Morbert

chozometroid wrote:

Morbert wrote:

Yes, but then the question becomes "Why is the assumption that everything has no purpose less reasonable that the assumption that the universe does?".

I suppose this comes down to personal perception <snip>

BINGO!

uprising

I know that God exist's, and I also think the whole world will know soon enough that HE exists. But I was born a catholic, raised as one, and now am not one, I pray to God and God only, no exceptions, even the Lamb in Revelations tell's us to pray to God and not to him, I think catholic's have been decieved into idol worship.

Exodus 20:4-5
4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me

Isaiah 42:8
8I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

Jeremiah 7:18
18The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

2 Corinthians 11:13-15
13For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

1 Timothy 4
1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3Forbidding to marry..........................................................

Mark 7:6-9
6He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

The standard of knowing is thus, yourself - not the current understanding of human biology (which is a standard that didn't exist 2000 years ago)

That doesn't make sense. How would my standard be independent of the current understanding of biology.

Say I wake up and find that my dead grandmother is sitting beside me in bed.

Strange I say. I'm aware of no process to allow this to happen, and it is quite contradictory of my current understanding.

At the moment the hypothesis "My grandmother is actually sitting beside me" is thus failing my standards.

I remember that just before I went to bed I took a number of pills which warn that the side effects of usage can be hallucinations. So I now have a competing hypothesis, my dead grandmother is not sitting beside me in bed, but I am actually imagining this.

That hypothesis does reach the threshold of my standards. And thus I reject the first and accept the second. I "know" I am hallucinating an imagine of my dead grand mother.