How i know that God does exist.

[drifter5]

a) because we can see God's handiwork all around us. b) because God reveals Himself to Christians, graciously, by The Holy Spirit.

 

[phsyxx]

Sorry. What part of "knowing" does belief participate in?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

a) because we can see God's handiwork all around us.

How do you distinguish between God's work and the rest of the universe?

b) because God reveals Himself to Christians, graciously, by The Holy Spirit.

If he would reveal himself to non-Christians, you might have a point.

 

[phsyxx]

If he would reveal himself to non-Christians, you might have a point.

And isn't the Holy Spirit part of God's "3 in one" magic-ness like a brilliant metaphysical washing-up powder?

So if God reveals himself through an aspect of himself to people - then surely he should be able to reveal himself to everyone?

(this was a continuation of MrGoodBytes' post)

 

[DailyBlessings]

How do you distinguish between God's work and the rest of the universe?

Definitively, the universe is God's handiwork. Presuming monotheism, if anything is God's then everything is. Monolatrically, everything is at least made by some sort of God. Atheistically, the universe came into being... well, there is no convincing explanation for that one, but it is generally assumed that everything that was made, was made under the same general, rational principles.

If he would reveal himself to non-Christians, you might have a point.

He does... perception, names, and definitions are the only things at stake.

 

[NavyGuy7]

Yes, for one he reveals himself through his handiwork, the universe. That's one way, at least.

 

[NavyGuy7]

Sorry. What part of "knowing" does belief participate in?

One could say the same thing about the title of DoubtingThomas' thread, where he attempts to explain his reasons for how he "knows" there is no God. I'd say that's a belief, too, in believing there is no God. But he says he "knows", insinuating that the belief is part of the knowing. So one must ask your same question so that it applies to everything, now. Well... not EVERYTHING... but you get the idea.

 

[phsyxx]

Definitively, the universe is God's handiwork.

insert refutation and obvious reasons for refutation here.

Presuming monotheism,

Yes - PRESUMING.

if anything is God's then everything is.

Well. Ok.
But is it necessarily YOUR God?

Monolatrically, everything is at least made by some sort of God.

Please use real words.
The entire internet keeps telling me "did you mean Monolithically? There are no entries for "monolatrically".

Atheistically, the universe came into being... well, there is no convincing explanation for that one, but it is generally assumed that everything that was made, was made under the same general, rational principles.

No - Atheistically - the world did NOT come INTO being DUE TO A GOD.
The answer that atheists would probably be satisfied with has not been discovered yet; and I also believe that you are using the term "atheistically" to be synonymous with "science".

He does... perception, names, and definitions are the only things at stake.

Except the lives and souls of every human being ever created.

 

[DailyBlessings]

insert refutation and obvious reasons for refutation here.

Okay. "I don't think so! Because that doesn't make sense to me! There's no reason to believe that! WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE!?"

Yes - PRESUMING.


Well. Ok.
But is it necessarily YOUR God?

That's completely beside the point. I was remarking on the sheer oddity of Mr. Goodbyte's statement, which seems to assume two essentially different causes of the origin of the universe. The intended gist of my post is that whatever one regards as the origin of the universe, one generally considers it to be universally applicable. You aren't going to find a Christian who thinks that some things are God's handiwork and some are not, save for a a few monolatrists (see below) who ascribe parts of creation to Satan but nevertheless maintain the same cosmology in talking about origins.

Please use real words.
The entire internet keeps telling me "did you mean Monolithically? There are no entries for "monolatrically".

Er... no. Are you suggesting that whenever someone uses a word you do not know, they are making it up? Try looking up the root form, monolatry. You really should have been able to figure out what I meant from context, anyhow.

No - Atheistically - the world did NOT come INTO being DUE TO A GOD.
The answer that atheists would probably be satisfied with has not been discovered yet; and I also believe that you are using the term "atheistically" to be synonymous with "science".

Well, okay, they aren't even in the conversation then. I was just trying to be inclusive. And pointing out that if someone thinks the universe came into being by some yet unknown but scientifically explicable process (and yes, I've known plenty such people, call them atheists or rationalists or whatever term you'd like- so far as I know, there is no good collective term for the cosmologies and philosophies that have arisen from the cultural constructions around atheism and personified science), they like the monotheists form their entire philosophy of origins from the same cosmological principles: not mixing and matching as the person I was responding to seemed to suggest Christians ought to.

And no, atheism is most certainly not equivalent to science.

Except the lives and souls of every human being ever created.

Let's stick to the actual topic being addressed. The existence of God, the fate of men and souls are different conversations.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Definitively, the universe is God's handiwork. Presuming monotheism, if anything is God's then everything is. Monolatrically, everything is at least made by some sort of God. Atheistically, the universe came into being... well, there is no convincing explanation for that one, but it is generally assumed that everything that was made, was made under the same general, rational principles.

So how can we know that a certain thing is made by God if nothing is ever not made by God? What are your criteria to determine that the universe is made by God, when there are no other, non-God-made universes to compare this one to?

He does... perception, names, and definitions are the only things at stake.

Sorry, I didn't understand that.

 

[redmartian89]

a) because we can see God's handiwork all around us.

your unstated premise: the universe is not an end in itself

What if the universe is eternal (in elements, not structure)?

Point A seems to contradict the law on conversation of mass and energy.

How do you account for this (apparent) contradiction between your faith and basic physics?

b) because God reveals Himself to Christians, graciously, by The Holy Spirit.

another unstated premise: Christianity is the true religion

What of the claims that Hindus, Moslems, Sikhs, Jains, and others who claim supernatural revelation?

How do you judge the validity of a revelation claim?

 

[Tiberius]

a) because we can see God's handiwork all around us. b) because God reveals Himself to Christians, graciously, by The Holy Spirit.

In other words, your proof of God is:

• I see things which I assume are the work of God.
• I feel things which I assume are the work of God.

Your assumptions do not make proof. Try again.

 

[phsyxx]

In other words, your proof of God is:

• I see things which I assume are the work of God.
• I feel things which I assume are the work of God.

Your assumptions do not make proof. Try again.

I concur.

 

[Skavau]

a) because we can see God's handiwork all around us.

Except that what you see as God's handiwork, others see as simply being natural without the need for a God to implement it.

This is subjective and not objectively conclusive.

b) because God reveals Himself to Christians, graciously, by The Holy Spirit.

Muslims also say that Allah reveals himself to them. It is not very convincing and entirely forgettable.

This is subjective and not objectively conclusive.

Atheistically, the universe came into being... well, there is no convincing explanation for that one, but it is generally assumed that everything that was made, was made under the same general, rational principles.

Atheistically, this need not apply. There is the possibility of the universe never coming into being and eternally existing.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I hate driveby posting.

 

[Vene]

a) because we can see God's handiwork all around us. b) because God reveals Himself to Christians, graciously, by The Holy Spirit.

Eris exists because a) we see her handiwork all around us (no, don't ask me to explain where it is and why it has to be her, it just is) and b) she reveals herself to all Discordians, through the pineal gland (those who don't feel her influence just aren't trying hard enough).

This 'proof' doesn't work. You don't explain how we can tell that the universe is actually the work of a deity (much less your god), nor do you even define the holy spirit.

Your reasoning fails.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Except that what you see as God's handiwork, others see as simply being natural without the need for a God to implement it.

Natural? Interesting adjective use. What is the nature of the universe, and more importantly, why does it have one?

This is subjective and not objectively conclusive.

That's not really the kind of claim that theists tend to make.

Atheistically, this need not apply. There is the possibility of the universe never coming into being and eternally existing.

Nevertheless, as has been remarked, my point is that no one throws dual cosmologies about when discussing origins, If you believe that the universe always existed for whatever "natural" reasons, you probably believe that all of it did so.

 

[DailyBlessings]

So how can we know that a certain thing is made by God if nothing is ever not made by God? What are your criteria to determine that the universe is made by God, when there are no other, non-God-made universes to compare this one to?

There aren't any. This is why I tend to see arguments about the existence of God or his role in Creation as somewhat pointless.

 

[Skavau]

Natural? Interesting adjective use. What is the nature of the universe, and more importantly, why does it have one?

I do not know the 'why' or the 'how' of the universe in its entirety. As Bertrand Russell said: "The universe is a brute fact."

That's not really the kind of claim that theists tend to make.

Correct. Theists make subjective statements assuming they are objective.

Nevertheless, as has been remarked, my point is that no one throws dual cosmologies about when discussing origins, If you believe that the universe always existed for whatever "natural" reasons, you probably believe that all of it did so.

Yes.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

There aren't any. This is why I tend to see arguments about the existence of God or his role in Creation as somewhat pointless.

What is your claim that the universe is "definitely God's handiwork" based on, then?