"Knowing" God exists... is this possible?

[Smidlee]

How much bigger?

Bigger then all those multiverses man dreams up.

 

[Kylie]

Bigger then all those multiverses man dreams up.

Source please?

 

[Smidlee]

Source please?

http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo33/proving-grounded.php

 

[Davian]

Bigger then all those multiverses man dreams up.

How big? Show me some numbers, and how you measured.

 

[katerinah1947]

Can Christians truthfully answer that question?

The popular atheist thinker, Richard Dawkins, created a scale that identifies theistic beliefs. He lists peoples’ beliefs from 1-7.

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

Where do you lie on this scale? Most Christian’s default answer is “1”.

Personally, I lie somewhere in between 1 and 2. I would say I am a 1.8. Yes, you understood me correctly. I do not know 100% if there is a God; moreover, a Christian God. Does this make me blasphemous? Maybe to some, but I don’t believe it does.

Firstly, let’s define absolutism as it relates to a theistic belief:

Being absolute is being 100% in something. Perfect. Without error. Knowing without any doubt. Infinite.

Words that are associated with absolutes: never / always

Secondly, let’s take a look at the words “never” and “always”.

We live in a finite world. God created it this way. In our finite world, can something always be “always” and never be “never”? Without going into philosophy, the answer is “no”. There is nothing in our world that is absolute.

The existence of God can be argued ad nauseum, and there will never be a 100% conclusion. The fact remains; you cannot disprove or prove something that that is metaphysical (not empirical). Both sides of the argument have an equal share but both lack evidence (because empirical evidence is impossible as both are unfalsifiable claims). Even Dawkins does not claim to be a 7 because he acknowledges that he cannot definitely prove that there isn’t a God.

So, what does being a 1 or 7 claim? Simple. It claims omniscience. Saying that you are a 1 or 7 is implying that you know all things in their truth. For atheists, this isn’t logically honest, and for theists, this is an equivocation of yourself to God.

Omniscience is unobtainable; therefore, claiming you know that God 100% exists is dishonest.

There is a key word in scripture that defines this point – faith.

Faith is defined as: firm belief in something for which there is no proof; complete trust.

This means that you cannot have faith in something if you believe it to be 100% true.

Now, let’s take a look at what the Bible has to say about faith:

2 Cor 5:6-7
6 Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord— 7 for we walk by faith, not by sight—

We walk in Christianity not because of what we see but because of what we believe and trust. This is the cornerstone in the acceptance of Christ.

Eph 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

Through God’s grace and our faith in Him we are saved. It is by having faith in something that we can’t see or touch that we are saved. Without faith – a fraction of not knowing for sure – we could not be redeemed.

Rom 1:17
17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “ BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.”

Living by faith – a subtle unknowing – is crucial to being righteous. Why do we need faith? So God can work in us. If we had absolute knowledge, then we would depend on ourselves; simply because, we would know. Since we do not have absolute knowledge, we are forced to depend on God because His absolute knowledge is what guides our lives.

As a Christian, I believe, you cannot claim to know 100% that God exists. This would destroy faith and the need for it. You would no longer need to trust God or rely on Him.

So, claiming absolute knowledge of God is actually denying Him. Remember, since you are not omniscient, you cannot rely on yourself but have to rely on God.

Pro 3:5-6
5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart
And do not lean on your own understanding.
6 In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He will make your paths straight.

Thoughts?

Hi,

So many words. So many ideas that do not fit my existence.

On the Dawkins scale, because it says 100% probability, that does not fit me. Nor, if Jung Knew would it fit him.

I know God is Real. There is no probability about that, in my life.

Yes that destroyed belief in the existence of God, so you are right there.
Yes eventually it felt bad.

Yes eventually God fixed that problem in me.

You said God cannot be proven. That position of yours has been falsified. I have done the proof. Others have done a portion of that proof.

What God did to me, roughly 7 years later from Knowing He is Real, was to give me a faith item. Remember, Abraham was given an item also. Abraham knew God. He talked to Him.

You have guessed that you cannot know God. That is not so.

LOVE,
Mary., .... .

 

[Percivale]

I have seen many and wildly varied descriptions and claims about gods.

As for a robust, coherent definition - nothing yet.

If you insist on a word having only one definition, you'll never get anywhere. You've got to tell by context which definition is being used. I'm sure you are aware that there is a huge difference between polytheistic god concepts and monotheistic ones, and most of what that difference is.

No, I do not know. The only "beings" that I am aware of that are conscious and intelligent are biological in nature - and that consciousness and intelligence processes appear to be - in the absence of evidence to the contrary - products of brains. How you got to a "conscious, intelligent being" that could exist prior - if that is even the right language to use - the instantiation of the cosmos I have no idea.

You seem to be confusing knowing what the concept is with knowing whether it exists. I have a clear understanding of what a pink unicorn is, or of the ways of Tolkien's Elves, despite having no belief or evidence that they exist. I do not believe that your lack of experience with intelligent beings without brains makes you unable to comprehend the concept.

No, that is not my position. In these forums, "truth" appears to be synonymous with "religious opinion". So, I avoid that word, and seek accurate descriptions of reality. Now, if you have a better tool for exploring reality than science, let me know.

To me truth is an accurate description of reality. Science is clearly the best way to learn about physical reality, but when it comes to understanding sentient beings, it's not so clear. The difference between today and Aristotle's time is way more pronounced in physics than in psychology.

Better to say that those conclusions are held tentatively, and are subject to change with new information; that they remain relatively unchanged can be viewed an indication of increasing degrees of accuracy. I do not think it likely that semiconductor theory will be falsified in the near future.

From what I have seen in these forums, the holding of religious beliefs is the opposite of tentative.

I agree with you, the less based on evidence and more on emotion a belief is, the more firmly it usually is held. To say that since the majority of people have faulty foundations for their beliefs those beliefs must be wrong is a faulty appeal to the people.

It's not about teaching the controversy, it is a comment on how we should qualify our beliefs, if we desire that they comport with reality.

I agree with that, but the first frame said it is about teaching the controversy.

Can someone tell me how to format replies so I can insert responses? I just underlined my responses above.

 

[paulm50]

Fundamentalists can only believe, knowing is for science.

 

[katerinah1947]

I agree with that, but the first frame said it is about teaching the controversy.

Can someone tell me how to format replies so I can insert responses? I just underlined my responses above.

Hi,
Yes
This is your response. The way it looks, de activated, by using "" marks around those [[[ brackets.

""[""QUOTE="Percivale, post: 68173357, member: 302279"]I agree with that, but the first frame said it is about teaching the controversy.

Can someone tell me how to format replies so I can insert responses? I just underlined my responses above.[/QUOTE""]""

If you remove the "" marks around those brackets, [], , it looks like this:

I agree with that, but the first frame said it is about teaching the controversy.

Can someone tell me how to format replies so I can insert responses? I just underlined my responses above.

LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

 

[katerinah1947]

Fundamentalists can only believe, knowing is for science.

Hi,
Scientist here. I know, some things about God. One is, that He is Real. Also, I have the proof, the scientific one. It is falsifiable, and it only takes ten years or so, from start to finish to do that proof.
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

 

[Davian]

If you insist on a word having only one definition, you'll never get anywhere. You've got to tell by context which definition is being used. I'm sure you are aware that there is a huge difference between polytheistic god concepts and monotheistic ones, and most of what that difference is.

I made no mention of which or the number of definitions; what is lacking is robust, coherent definitions that are testable and falsifiable.

You seem to be confusing knowing what the concept is with knowing whether it exists. I have a clear understanding of what a pink unicorn is, or of the ways of Tolkien's Elves, despite having no belief or evidence that they exist. I do not believe that your lack of experience with intelligent beings without brains makes you unable to comprehend the concept.

To briefly suspend disbelief for the purposes of enjoying a story or movie. Perhaps. To then allow for it to be asserted as reality without some convincing evidence does not work for me. Belief is not a choice.

To me truth is an accurate description of reality. Science is clearly the best way to learn about physical reality,

Science does not do truth claims.

but when it comes to understanding sentient beings, it's not so clear.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, science is the worst way to investigate reality, but all the others have been tried.

The difference between today and Aristotle's time is way more pronounced in physics than in psychology.

I agree with you, the less based on evidence and more on emotion a belief is, the more firmly it usually is held. To say that since the majority of people have faulty foundations for their beliefs those beliefs must be wrong is a faulty appeal to the people.

I am not saying that.

I agree with that, but the first frame said it is about teaching the controversy.

Can someone tell me how to format replies so I can insert responses? I just underlined my responses above.

How I do it:
- Click on the "+Quote" button at the lower right of the post you wish to reply to;
- right-click on the "Reply" button and open the reply page in a new window (so you can see the old window and the original post, so you can make sense of their comments in context.
- See image below; make a space where you want to insert the comment in their text
- Inside of square brackets, add a /quote and a quote to demark the top and bottom of where you want to insert your text;
- (lazy bit) Copy and paste two "quote" lines and the lines between them into each place you want to insert your text in theirs
- go back and add your pithy comments between each of the two "quote" lines
- preview
- reply to post
View media item 52832

 

[paulm50]

Personally, I lie somewhere in between 1 and 2. I would say I am a 1.8. Yes, you understood me correctly. I do not know 100% if there is a God; moreover, a Christian God. Does this make me blasphemous? Maybe to some, but I don’t believe it does.

I'm 100% sure and after watching countless programs on evolution and religion. I know the Christian god is a man made creation. Even some Christians believe this.

To be a Christian one has to believe the bible's version of how we arrived here, Genesis, and that's wrong. So wrong it's a wonder some still believe in creation as written in the bible. Some fall back to the Big Bang, because it's their only haven of safety. Stating if the Big Bang happened, it's proof of a god.

Revealing the true job of a god, to answer questions we haven't learnt the truth about.

As for the creation of life, we passed that part of knowledge a long time ago. Bacteria, mold are living. Give it a million years and who knows what it would evolve into. Give a troop of mammals a million years with only the Alpha Males passing on their genes and see the result in the bones of our ancestors. Give them 4 million years and welcome to Modern Man in 500,000 BC. Give them 496,000 years and some will pick up weiting materials to try to answer the question "Who am I and what's it all about?"

 

[paulm50]

Hi,
Scientist here. I know, some things about God. One is, that He is Real. Also, I have the proof, the scientific one. It is falsifiable, and it only takes ten years or so, from start to finish to do that proof.
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

OK point me to pages online that start to prove the existence of god as described in the bible.

How evolution works, a speeded up process, is in the food we eat, our house pets and our gardens. We took Wolves and from them we have all the dogs, including wolves, we keep as pets. Same with cats, mice, guinea pigs, etc. The food we eat and flowers in the garden are all produced by the same process. Evolution proven.

Now try proving creation.

 

[Percivale]

I'm 100% sure and after watching countless programs on evolution and religion. I know the Christian god is a man made creation. Even some Christians believe this.

To be a Christian one has to believe the bible's version of how we arrived here, Genesis, and that's wrong. So wrong it's a wonder some still believe in creation as written in the bible. Some fall back to the Big Bang, because it's their only haven of safety. Stating if the Big Bang happened, it's proof of a god.

Revealing the true job of a god, to answer questions we haven't learnt the truth about.

As for the creation of life, we passed that part of knowledge a long time ago. Bacteria, mold are living. Give it a million years and who knows what it would evolve into. Give a troop of mammals a million years with only the Alpha Males passing on their genes and see the result in the bones of our ancestors. Give them 4 million years and welcome to Modern Man in 500,000 BC. Give them 496,000 years and some will pick up weiting materials to try to answer the question "Who am I and what's it all about?"

Your position relies on multiple false dichotomies. God can exist, and Jesus be divine, without the Bible being true. Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive.
The idea that religion was only invented to explain the things that science can now explain does not fit the facts. Polytheistic religions attributed things like lighting to gods in a poetic rather than literal way, and philosophers speculated about natural causes for the same things long before they could scientifically test those ideas. The things religion does focus on are forever outside the reach of science. Christianity says the ultimate origin of all things is God, science can never find the ultimate origin, just the steps between here and there. As in your own comic, science doesn't explain why when all other animals just eat survive and reproduce, man is interested in ultimate meaning, beauty, art, etc. These things are not survival advantages, but do enrich life, so divine design is a better explanation of them than natural selection.
Hume was totally wrong in saying miracles contradict the universal experience of mankind. In reality, mankind universally reports that miracles sometimes happen. With such a vast amount of testimony, the burden of proof is on those who deny miracles happen.

 

[JustHisKid]

Can Christians truthfully answer that question?

The popular atheist thinker, Richard Dawkins, created a scale that identifies theistic beliefs. He lists peoples’ beliefs from 1-7.

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

Where do you lie on this scale? Most Christian’s default answer is “1”.

Personally, I lie somewhere in between 1 and 2. I would say I am a 1.8. Yes, you understood me correctly. I do not know 100% if there is a God; moreover, a Christian God. Does this make me blasphemous? Maybe to some, but I don’t believe it does.

Firstly, let’s define absolutism as it relates to a theistic belief:

Being absolute is being 100% in something. Perfect. Without error. Knowing without any doubt. Infinite.

Words that are associated with absolutes: never / always

Secondly, let’s take a look at the words “never” and “always”.

We live in a finite world. God created it this way. In our finite world, can something always be “always” and never be “never”? Without going into philosophy, the answer is “no”. There is nothing in our world that is absolute.

The existence of God can be argued ad nauseum, and there will never be a 100% conclusion. The fact remains; you cannot disprove or prove something that that is metaphysical (not empirical). Both sides of the argument have an equal share but both lack evidence (because empirical evidence is impossible as both are unfalsifiable claims). Even Dawkins does not claim to be a 7 because he acknowledges that he cannot definitely prove that there isn’t a God.

So, what does being a 1 or 7 claim? Simple. It claims omniscience. Saying that you are a 1 or 7 is implying that you know all things in their truth. For atheists, this isn’t logically honest, and for theists, this is an equivocation of yourself to God.

Omniscience is unobtainable; therefore, claiming you know that God 100% exists is dishonest.

There is a key word in scripture that defines this point – faith.

Faith is defined as: firm belief in something for which there is no proof; complete trust.

This means that you cannot have faith in something if you believe it to be 100% true.

Now, let’s take a look at what the Bible has to say about faith:

2 Cor 5:6-7
6 Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord— 7 for we walk by faith, not by sight—

We walk in Christianity not because of what we see but because of what we believe and trust. This is the cornerstone in the acceptance of Christ.

Eph 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

Through God’s grace and our faith in Him we are saved. It is by having faith in something that we can’t see or touch that we are saved. Without faith – a fraction of not knowing for sure – we could not be redeemed.

Rom 1:17
17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “ BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.”

Living by faith – a subtle unknowing – is crucial to being righteous. Why do we need faith? So God can work in us. If we had absolute knowledge, then we would depend on ourselves; simply because, we would know. Since we do not have absolute knowledge, we are forced to depend on God because His absolute knowledge is what guides our lives.

As a Christian, I believe, you cannot claim to know 100% that God exists. This would destroy faith and the need for it. You would no longer need to trust God or rely on Him.

So, claiming absolute knowledge of God is actually denying Him. Remember, since you are not omniscient, you cannot rely on yourself but have to rely on God.

Pro 3:5-6
5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart
And do not lean on your own understanding.
6 In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He will make your paths straight.

Thoughts?

I'm a 1

Hebrews 11:1King James Version (KJV)
11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

[katerinah1947]

OK point me to pages online that start to prove the existence of god as described in the bible.

How evolution works, a speeded up process, is in the food we eat, our house pets and our gardens. We took Wolves and from them we have all the dogs, including wolves, we keep as pets. Same with cats, mice, guinea pigs, etc. The food we eat and flowers in the garden are all produced by the same process. Evolution proven.

Now try proving creation.

Hi,
The proof I did years ago, as I was finished with that proof in the year 2000, is done by me first proving The Bible is wrong anywhere, and without my making any mistakes.
Thus, I had to understand all things on every point that I attempted, including the meaning of the words and the understanding of those words in context.
I also had to understand totally, the position that I was coming from.
So, with me understanding my field, I read and looked for anything I could prove wrong. Then if I found something, I had to make sure that I was right.
Going online was not possible then.
For you to say, in the scientific way, that evolution makes the Bible wrong, means that you personally have the understanding of Evolution and you personally have the understanding of the Bible.
Now, that is the way I had to work. If I failed at work being wrong, I would be fired, simply because I am not capable for some reason or another.
And for me to do anything in science, yes I had to sometimes know all there is to know about a subject and which of it is wrong.
If you want to do the work Scientifically, prove your point, then present your proof to the world. In the scientific world no one is smarter than everyone else, if we are talking about humans, so the presentation of a proof only allows one to continue to be employed, should no one be able to prove the proof wrong and also, what you proved is actually useful.
I did not find anything scientific contrary to the Bible, as long as I understood both of them.
A test I used on self understanding, is whether or not I could teach that item to someone else.
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

 

[bhsmte]

Hi,
Scientist here. I know, some things about God. One is, that He is Real. Also, I have the proof, the scientific one. It is falsifiable, and it only takes ten years or so, from start to finish to do that proof.
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

Congratulations.

You would be the first person to come up with this falsifiable proof of a God and many have tried before you to do the same.

Care to share this proof, that is falsifiable?

 

[bhsmte]

Hi,
The proof I did years ago, as I was finished with that proof in the year 2000, is done by me first proving The Bible is wrong anywhere, and without my making any mistakes.
Thus, I had to understand all things on every point that I attempted, including the meaning of the words and the understanding of those words in context.
I also had to understand totally, the position that I was coming from.
So, with me understanding my field, I read and looked for anything I could prove wrong. Then if I found something, I had to make sure that I was right.
Going online was not possible then.
For you to say, in the scientific way, that evolution makes the Bible wrong, means that you personally have the understanding of Evolution and you personally have the understanding of the Bible.
Now, that is the way I had to work. If I failed at work being wrong, I would be fired, simply because I am not capable for some reason or another.
And for me to do anything in science, yes I had to sometimes know all there is to know about a subject and which of it is wrong.
If you want to do the work Scientifically, prove your point, then present your proof to the world. In the scientific world no one is smarter than everyone else, if we are talking about humans, so the presentation of a proof only allows one to continue to be employed, should no one be able to prove the proof wrong and also, what you proved is actually useful.


I did not find anything scientific contrary to the Bible, as long as I understood both of them.
A test I used on self understanding, is whether or not I could teach that item to someone else.
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

This is your proof?

Please tell me you are joking.

Did you submit this for peer review?

 

[Winepress777]

Can Christians truthfully answer that question?

Thoughts?

Yes. Of course. He Lives in me. How could that happen without me knowing? lol

(2Co 6:16)... for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

(Isa 30:21) And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left.

(Heb 13:5) ...he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

(Mat 28:18) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth...(20) and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

(Joh 14:18) I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

(1Jn 2:27) And as for you, the anointing which ye received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any one teach you; but as his anointing teacheth you concerning all things, and is true, and is no lie, and even as it taught you, ye abide in him.

(Col 1:27) To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is CHRIST IN YOU, the hope of glory:

 

[katerinah1947]

1.) This is your proof?

2.) Please tell me you are joking.

3.) Did you submit this for peer review?

Hi,
1.) Yes.

2.) Please show me, how that is in error.

3.) Yes it has been through peer review, for years now.

LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

 

[bhsmte]

Hi,
1.) Yes.

2.) Please show me, how that is in error.

3.) Yes it has been through peer review, for years now.

LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

The problem, I don't believe you proved, that you are correct, with any level of objective verification.

Do you have a copy of the paper that was submitted to peer review and how it did in the process?