'Knowledge' of Existence

[cvanwey]

I will start with a simple analogy:

I honestly do not know if extra terrestrials in fact do exist. However, I'm pretty confident all the specific claims laid forth, for sighting a specific entity has not been sufficiently demonstrated.

I honestly do not know if God/gods in fact do exist. However, I'm pretty confident all the specific claims laid forth, for sighting a specific entity has not been sufficiently demonstrated.

I will now pose a concept:

Regardless of one's own validating methods for belief in existence to something or someone, in reference to theism specifically, is not the clutch of the issue. However, one must at least genuinely 'believe' such an specific entity does in fact exist. So if one cannot genuinely conclude their necessary 'knowledge' of such existence to a specific God, is such an individual at fault?

The conclusion:

Lack of knowledge for existence to a specific claimed entity is the starting point towards a relationship, possible love, and possible worship to such a claimed entity. So if one does not have their own sufficient evidence necessary to begin such a process, and such a claimed entity does not care to reveal existence, to the standard of such a person, is the human still liable and accountable for 'rejecting' what they sincerely do not think may not exist?

Many claim they do not believe because of lack in specific evidence. So what specific evidence exists, which concludes the one specific God claimed, verses some other God?

Again, this is in reference to existence.

Summary:

Satan had knowledge of God, and chose to rebel. My point is many state they do not know if such a claimed entity even exists. Hence, to state to such a person to pretend, and follow through with the rest anyways, by way of 'faith', and then institute (love, worship, obedience, prayer, etc...), would be disingenuous.

So why doesn't the one true God at least reveal himself in a way which leaves no shred of doubt of such existence? Many and most might still institute 'freewill' and make their choice not to obey, love, follow, and respect; (just like Satan and a third of the angels apparently did).

 

[AlexDTX]

Rom 1:18 For God's wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of those who in their wickedness suppress the truth.
Rom 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God himself has made it plain to them.
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been understood and observed by what he made, so that people are without excuse.
Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him. Instead, their thoughts turned to worthless things, and their senseless hearts were darkened.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

He does. Every day. All creation.
Everyone who seeks the truth, and keeps seeking the truth, finds Him.
Without faith, it is impossible to please God.

Do you WANT to know the Truth ?

So why doesn't the one true God at least reveal himself in a way which leaves no shred of doubt of such existence?

 

[jacks]

Excellent questions. First I would say that it isn't someones "fault" what they believe in. As you pointed out everyone has their own standards and faking it isn't the answer. Of course these standards are not concrete and are likely to change through out one's life.

I think the first question that needs to be asked is how does one "know" anything? The bottom line is that we don't. HERE are some interesting philosophical takes on this idea. This of course was the problem Descartes was trying to unravel with his famous "I think therefore I am."

So I think the first step in answering your questions is to understand, why we personally believe what we currently do.

 

[Not David]

I believe the problem is trying to create another god who reveals himself to others because they don't believe his existence. We believe that God will manifest himself in the Second Coming of Christ, so I don't think God has to reveal himself to others.

 

[bcbsr]

I will start with a simple analogy:

I honestly do not know if extra terrestrials in fact do exist. However, I'm pretty confident all the specific claims laid forth, for sighting a specific entity has not been sufficiently demonstrated.

I honestly do not know if God/gods in fact do exist. However, I'm pretty confident all the specific claims laid forth, for sighting a specific entity has not been sufficiently demonstrated.

I will now pose a concept:

Regardless of one's own validating methods for belief in existence to something or someone, in reference to theism specifically, is not the clutch of the issue. However, one must at least genuinely 'believe' such an specific entity does in fact exist. So if one cannot genuinely conclude their necessary 'knowledge' of such existence to a specific God, is such an individual at fault?

The conclusion:

Lack of knowledge for existence to a specific claimed entity is the starting point towards a relationship, possible love, and possible worship to such a claimed entity. So if one does not have their own sufficient evidence necessary to begin such a process, and such a claimed entity does not care to reveal existence, to the standard of such a person, is the human still liable and accountable for 'rejecting' what they sincerely do not think may not exist?

Many claim they do not believe because of lack in specific evidence. So what specific evidence exists, which concludes the one specific God claimed, verses some other God?

Again, this is in reference to existence.

Summary:

Satan had knowledge of God, and chose to rebel. My point is many state they do not know if such a claimed entity even exists. Hence, to state to such a person to pretend, and follow through with the rest anyways, by way of 'faith', and then institute (love, worship, obedience, prayer, etc...), would be disingenuous.

So why doesn't the one true God at least reveal himself in a way which leaves no shred of doubt of such existence? Many and most might still institute 'freewill' and make their choice not to obey, love, follow, and respect; (just like Satan and a third of the angels apparently did).

There's a difference between absolute knowledge, which you may be referring to, and knowledge which is inferred, and which we tend to rely upon in daily life concerning many things. Yes there is evidence of God based on inferences from nature.

I go though that thought process in some detail in my article on how you know God exists.

 

[jacks]

There's a difference between absolute knowledge, which you may be referring to, and knowledge which is inferred,

I don't want to derail the thread, but I was wondering if you could give an example of "absolute knowledge"? Please don't say the chair I'm sitting on....

 

[bcbsr]

I don't want to derail the thread, but I was wondering if you could give an example of "absolute knowledge"? Please don't say the chair I'm sitting on....

1+1=2

 

[jacks]

1+1=2

Thank you for the quick reply. So absolute knowledge is only knowledge in the abstract? I will have to think about that, but I like it so far.

 

[Monna]

Read William Craig, "Reasonable Faith."

Even scientists accept now that nothing can be proven with 100% certainty. You cannot prove scientifically that God exists and science cannot prove scientifically that He does not.

Craig uses this idea to approach the issue differently: he suggests that one look at all the available evidence, and theoretically plausible alternatives, and try to find the most plausible answer, or conclusion.

He also points out that there is a great difference between subjective and objective "knowledge." Those who have met God, or Jesus Christ personally have no doubt whatsoever that He lives. But that is subjective knowledge, in which then "believing is seeing" a lot of other things falling in place.

Including a lot of statements in the Scriptures ... like no one even seeks God unless God draws him/her. Or for that matter that of course there are extra-terrestrial beings - read the book of Ezekial, or Revelation,or any other passage in which angels of demons occur.

So why doesn't the one true God at least reveal himself in a way which leaves no shred of doubt of such existence?

According to the Scriptures, when you are born ("of water," "in the flesh") you are spiritually dead. As a spiritually dead being you simply cannot perceive God, no matter how much evidence He places in front of you and all around you! You are DEAD! It is only when the Spirit of God starts ingniting small sparks of spiritual life and awareness, that you can become aware. Then the question is how receptive is the "soil" in your mind and heart to those little seeds that are planted. Personally, I have come (for the time being) to the conclusion that when you are spiritually dead, you don't have free will - because to use another analogy, you are enslaved to self, to moral death, to the devil if you like. Again, it is only when God starts the process of giving you spiritual life, that your ability to exercise free will becomes real. And it will only strengthen as long as you make the right choices.

For people who haven't gone through this process, it is neither understood nor accepted nor believed. "Those that come to God must believe that He is!" (Hebrews 11:6)

 

[cvanwey]

I think the first question that needs to be asked is how does one "know" anything?

I appreciate the response. I wanted to emphasize this question before it could possibly lead to a rabbit trail.

I do not want to apply philosophical application to what we think we 'know'. My point is that it is 'common knowledge' that the earth is not flat, or that 2 + 2 = 4. Yes, one can argue the minutiae of whether anything truly exists, or how do you know your car is actually red, etc...

My main point is, if one has severe doubt something even exists, it becomes pretty hard to apply a relationship, in any genuine capacity So if Yahweh does exist, and does not even care to present (MY) needed evidence to at least 'know' He exists, then who is to blame?

On the other hand, I could receive my 'evidence', believe Yahweh is real (whether the evidence actually validates reality or not). My point is that....

1. I could believe, follow the commands, and it may very well not be true.
2. I could believe, and NOT follow the commands, and it may still very well not be true.
3. I could NOT believe, which renders the later null and void, just like I don't believe in Santa Claus. But then it is actually true, but I then go to hell, because w/o the knowledge of existence, one does not care to follow the laws from the perceived fake agent.

etc......

 

[cvanwey]

There's a difference between absolute knowledge, which you may be referring to, and knowledge which is inferred, and which we tend to rely upon in daily life concerning many things. Yes there is evidence of God based on inferences from nature.

I go though that thought process in some detail in my article on how you know God exists.

In response to your link:

The moral argument does not prove a god/gods.

The theist performs 'good' acts based upon assumed cosmic judgment, which is not demonstrably proven to any specific God.

The non-believer performs 'good' acts based upon consequences, empathy, sense of community, cooperation, culture, upbringing, homeostasis, and fear of loneliness, all which are actually demonstrably proven attributes which exist.

The moral argument ends exactly where it started. Meaning, the moral argument is there, in an attempt to prove god, but is a circular argument. Please watch the following 4 minute video, which seems to explain it best:

I would comment on the rest of your link. However, it's enough to first realize the moral argument gets us NO closer to Yahweh.

• 
  

 

[cvanwey]

Read William Craig, "Reasonable Faith."
You cannot prove scientifically that God exists and science cannot prove scientifically that He does not. Craig uses this idea to approach the issue differently: he suggests that one look at all the available evidence, and theoretically plausible alternatives, and try to find the most plausible answer, or conclusion.

I'm not willing to go down the road of, "God must exist because I do not fully understand things." Nor, am I willing to not only conclude the former, but to also infer Yahweh specifically, because this was the culture I'm surrounded upon, and was raised within

He also points out that there is a great difference between subjective and objective "knowledge." Those who have met God, or Jesus Christ personally have no doubt whatsoever that He lives. But that is subjective knowledge, in which then "believing is seeing" a lot of other things falling in place.

I"m not interested in the type of knowledge. My point is that if (I) don't even possess the 'subjective knowledge, then I will not believe it exists. So why doesn't God provide even my necessary 'subjective knowledge, and then allow my freewill to decide if I should decide to follow such an agent or not?

Including a lot of statements in the Scriptures ... like no one even seeks God unless God draws him/her. Or for that matter that of course there are extra-terrestrial beings - read the book of Ezekial, or Revelation,or any other passage in which angels of demons occur.

According to the Scriptures, when you are born ("of water," "in the flesh") you are spiritually dead. As a spiritually dead being you simply cannot perceive God, no matter how much evidence He places in front of you and all around you! You are DEAD! It is only when the Spirit of God starts ingniting small sparks of spiritual life and awareness, that you can become aware. Then the question is how receptive is the "soil" in your mind and heart to those little seeds that are planted. Personally, I have come (for the time being) to the conclusion that when you are spiritually dead, you don't have free will - because to use another analogy, you are enslaved to self, to moral death, to the devil if you like. Again, it is only when God starts the process of giving you spiritual life, that your ability to exercise free will becomes real. And it will only strengthen as long as you make the right choices.

For people who haven't gone through this process, it is neither understood nor accepted nor believed. "Those that come to God must believe that He is!" (Hebrews 11:6)

Reading the Bible to prove the Bible is about as circular as one can get. Honestly, it would be no different then reading a 66 chapter, 40 person authored 'Big Book of Science, 2000 years ago by the 'established scientific high council' of the time period, which is never later allowed to be updated or modified, to confer all absolute answers, while also without confirming outside this one and only book

 

[cvanwey]

I believe the problem is trying to create another god who reveals himself to others because they don't believe his existence. We believe that God will manifest himself in the Second Coming of Christ, so I don't think God has to reveal himself to others.

So it's okay for me to have severe doubt of God's existence, prior to postmortem? How does this work, under Christian doctrine?

 

[cvanwey]

He does. Every day. All creation.
Everyone who seeks the truth, and keeps seeking the truth, finds Him.
Without faith, it is impossible to please God.

Do you WANT to know the Truth ?

I seeked for 30+ years, and no luck.

Please provide your best piece of evidence for His specific existence

TY!

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

It is appointed unto you to live today, (once), and after you die (if He waits until after you die) , be judged.

 

[bcbsr]

In response to your link:

The moral argument does not prove a god/gods.

The theist performs 'good' acts based upon assumed cosmic judgment, which is not demonstrably proven to any specific God.

The non-believer performs 'good' acts based upon consequences, empathy, sense of community, cooperation, culture, upbringing, homeostasis, and fear of loneliness, all which are actually demonstrably proven attributes which exist.

The moral argument ends exactly where it started. Meaning, the moral argument is there, in an attempt to prove god, but is a circular argument. Please watch the following 4 minute video, which seems to explain it best:

I would comment on the rest of your link. However, it's enough to first realize the moral argument gets us NO closer to Yahweh.

It's the "rest of the link" which provides the strongest evidence.

 

[cvanwey]

It is appointed unto you to live today, (once), and after you die (if He waits until after you die) , be judged.

I stated I would like your best piece of evidence to at least demonstrate His specific existence. Were you actually going to offer as such? Or, instead assert half-threatening quotes, eluding to ' final judgement', to scare me into believing, or else....

 

[cvanwey]

It's the "rest of the link" which provides the strongest evidence.

First, do you admit the 'moral argument' lays no bearing or basis to demonstrate Yahweh, in any capacity? If so, then I will move on to the rest.

But if not, then maybe we need to address why you feel the 'moral argument' is so compelling, and necessary at all, in establishing Yahweh specifically, in any capacity.

 

[Not David]

So it's okay for me to have severe doubt of God's existence, prior to postmortem? How does this work, under Christian doctrine?

What doubts would those be?