'Knowledge' of Existence

[Sanoy]

The more you know, the less you believe.
The less you know, the more you believe.

Education's purpose is to overcome ignorance, not to instead reinforce it.



The search for truth does not equal a 'hardened heart.' All assertions can always be challenged. One then weighs the evidence accordingly, and without bias.



Indoctrination and bias does not equal truth. Evidence, investigation, and lack in a bias, however, can and will lead to a truth. Doubt and skepticism are some of the pillars to demonstrate lack in bias and presupposition.

Nothing you said justifies what you are asking for or diminishes the presentation I gave. Most of what you said had nothing to do with salvation. The rest was just slogans that were wrong, like "the more you know the less you believe". My belief in God increases the more I learn about science.

The request in your OP remains challenged. It is your heart that will condemn or excuse you on that day when God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. You will have no excuse.

 

[cvanwey]

Nothing you said justifies what you are asking for or diminishes the presentation I gave. Most of what you said had nothing to do with salvation.

I was never referring to 'salvation' in any capacity. I'm referring to evidence, which leads one to the 'knowledge of existence.'

The rest was just slogans that were wrong, like "the more you know the less you believe". My belief in God increases the more I learn about science.

I would be very curious to know what specific 'science' leads you to God? Or maybe you are instead referencing pseudoscience.

The request in your OP remains challenged.
It is your heart that will condemn or excuse you on that day when God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. You will have no excuse.

This response could not reinforce one of my prior replies more vividly, even if you tried. Humans possess a natural propensity to apply 'intentional agency' and invoke 'false positives.' Once one learns how the human brain is wired for survival, and employs such methods to other facets as well, it then becomes pretty self explanatory, as to why so many would think this way.

And on a side note, if I had a nickel for every time someone responded with 'repent before it is too late'...

And I do have an excuse. I have been presented no evidence to believe it's real. You cannot make yourself believe something you do not believe. Otherwise, I can make myself believe I'm the richest person on the planet, and mean it. God would 'know' what evidence I need. If He does not present it, then he deliberately intended not to provide it, rendering me with a legitimate excuse to intellectually be honest in concluding that I'm in doubt

 

[Sanoy]

I was never referring to 'salvation' in any capacity. I'm referring to evidence, which leads one to the 'knowledge of existence.'



I would be very curious to know what specific 'science' leads you to God? Or maybe you are instead referencing pseudoscience.



This response could not reinforce one of my prior replies more vividly, even if you tried. Humans possess a natural propensity to apply 'intentional agency' and invoke 'false positives.' Once one learns how the human brain is wired for survival, and employs such methods to other facets as well, it then becomes pretty self explanatory, as to why so many would think this way.

And on a side note, if I had a nickel for every time someone responded with 'repent before it is too late'...

And I do have an excuse. I have been presented no evidence to believe it's real. You cannot make yourself believe something you do not believe. Otherwise, I can make myself believe I'm the richest person on the planet, and mean it. God would 'know' what evidence I need. If He does not present it, then he deliberately intended not to provide it, rendering me with a legitimate excuse to intellectually be honest in concluding that I'm in doubt

I am referring to salvation and condemnation. You can ''wish" to have more knowledge if you want but it does not, itself, lead to salvation, but condemnation for many, likely even yourself.

Those things on their own, like the big bang, consciousness, cosmic microwave background etc can lead toward types of theism as they very much do, take Antony Flew as a prominent example. While already being a Christian they remove all doubt for me. I have no fear of studying any subject as each one I study further solidifies my beliefs.

That propensity toward agency, that you confirm we naturally have, is a part of God's general revelation to all mankind, which you deny without reason. You will stand with no excuse of knowledge.

 

[Chriliman]

I am consciously aware of what the people who purport to speak on Yahweh's behalf have claimed are his characteristics and attributes. That's all. I did not intuit them, nor did I receive them from any 'revelation', nor did I glean them from observing his purported 'creation'. I got them from his spokespeople.

So if that's all Paul is asserting - that I am are aware of what has been claimed on behalf of Yahweh, by his spokespeople - then I agree. I can't help but be aware of that. His spokespeople are quite loud about it.

If it's more than that, then someone is wrong. Either Paul, or you and your interpretation of his words.

I don’t think it’s more than that. You have a sufficient idea of who God is to be without excuse, regardless of how you received the information. The important thing is that you did receive the information, even though you didn’t accept it as true.

 

[Chriliman]

Just curious....? Below is a simple test. (I 'bold typed' some of the perspective default answers). The answer, not 'bold typed' and underlined are the ones I would like for you to answer.

Does God's moral character ever change? (yes or no)
Has God ever commanded for individuals to kill others in war? (yes or no)
When these people were commanded to do so, did the person whom was commanded also agree with God's command, at the time it was commanded? (yes or no)

Where these people actually being commanded from God to kill others in war? (yes or no)

Now....

Has God ever commanded a parent to kill their child (yes or no)?
Did the person commanded know why they were being commanded to do as such ahead of time? (yes or no)
Did they think the command was from God? (yes or no)

Where these people actually being commanded from God to kill their child? (yes or no)

Now also fill in this riddle for me, as per your previous response above....

Do people today state that God told them to do this, that, or the other (yes or no)

How does one actually evaluate such a conclusion?????

These are good questions and honestly I don’t feel equipt to answer them. I look at Jesus and can’t fathom how he could command anyone to kill someone else, it’s just not his character, he allowed himself to be killed instead of retaliating. I think this points to the true heart of God that desires to overcome evil with good, not more evil. Thankfully, that desire lives on, beyond the death of Jesus.

 

[cvanwey]

These are good questions and honestly I don’t feel equipt to answer them. I look at Jesus and can’t fathom how he could command anyone to kill someone else, it’s just not his character, he allowed himself to be killed instead of retaliating. I think this points to the true heart of God that desires to overcome evil with good, not more evil. Thankfully, that desire lives on, beyond the death of Jesus.

Off topic, God/Jesus ordered the killing of many, in the OT, - (regardless of the reasons). So one must reconcile that such a God did order killing.

 

[Chriliman]

Off topic, God/Jesus ordered the killing of many, in the OT, - (regardless of the reasons). So one must reconcile that such a God did order killing.

Well, either there was no other option at the time or the scripture claiming to be God commanding killings, wasn’t actually God. There’s more than a few OT scriptures that just don’t sound like God at all, makes me wonder.

 

[cvanwey]

Well, either there was no other option at the time or the scripture claiming to be God commanding killings, wasn’t actually God. There’s more than a few OT scriptures that just don’t sound like God at all, makes me wonder.

Wow. This is brutally honest! Thank you! Which now begs the question...

(Again off topic, but I have to ask; in light of your surprising response).

When you state 'there was no other option,' where you stating God had no other option? Wouldn't this demonstrate a limitation?

Also, how are you able to discern which passages were from God, and which ones were simply man-made? And remember, when 2 timothy 3:16 was written, it specifically referenced the OT, as the NT was not formally yet in existence, in an organized way.

 

[cvanwey]

I am referring to salvation and condemnation. You can ''wish" to have more knowledge if you want but it does not, itself, lead to salvation, but condemnation for many, likely even yourself.

*** I'm not sure why you even bring up 'salvation'? This is a rhetorical question, and I do not wish to receive another answer, related to 'salvation.' ***

"Knowledge of existence" would remove any and all doubt of not only an actual creator, but which creator, and even more so, if there is only one creator, as opposed to many. And, even further, that this creator is indeed worthy of a two-way relationship.

In a sense, it would be like 'knowing' you had parents somewhere, but never met them. But then someone wrote a book, stating it came from your parents, with a list of specific instructions. And if you happen to follow this list of 'commandments'/instructions, you will be rewarded with meeting them in a few years (only if you follow the book which was instructed by your parents). Yes, you 'know' someone 'birthed' you, but you do not know if you are following the correct rule book to reach the desired destination of meeting your birth parents, by only following the book. Furthermore, what if you read many asserted rules from this book, and they do not appear to jive with your 'known' reality, using the very SAME 'intuitions' you use to 'know' the rest of your reality

I will place a hypothetical back to you.... Say it was somehow 'revealed' to you that you were created by the 'Muslim God', and Jesus was not the true messiah? Wouldn't you at least want to know? This seems like a reasonable request. Also, would you decide to still know and worship such a God, or would you instead go to hell for spite? You see, even if I were to acknowledge a creator, I need to know which one? Doesn't seem like an unreasonable request. Nor, should I require to prepare my mind in 'some specific way', to receive Him (i.e) faith, belief, and prayer. Because like I stated elsewhere, God does have the ability to make His presence known at any given time, whether the individual wants it or not. They could then have NO choice to doubt the specific God's existence!

Those things on their own, like the big bang, consciousness, cosmic microwave background etc can lead toward types of theism as they very much do, take Antony Flew as a prominent example. While already being a Christian they remove all doubt for me. I have no fear of studying any subject as each one I study further solidifies my beliefs.

I please ask that you at least explore 'intentional agency' and 'false positive', as they also relate to theism, any theism; not just Christianity. Just like I did when you mentioned
'intuitive theism', and I read such articles as:

ttps://www.cs.umb.edu/~marc/tics/kelemen.txt

Humans have a natural urge and tendency to 'draw connections' and 'meaning' where none may exist. Hence, the 'false positives'. Hence, the desire to conclude 'intentional agency.' Hence, the reason a remote tribe, absent from any external talk of any God(s), will still invoke their own gods, and believe it wholeheartedly until death. The unknown, in practically any situation, drives such 'connections', 'agency', and belief.

***************

You still have not given me a specific example of a scientific discovery, which leads directly to Yahweh; instead only broad scientific subjects. I'm curious, because the 'knowledge of existence' is what I'm after, in this thread.

That propensity toward agency, that you confirm we naturally have, is a part of God's general revelation to all mankind, which you deny without reason. You will stand with no excuse of knowledge.

How do you know? What is your actual source(s) for this specific assertion? How does the Bible get you specifically to Yahweh, and not instead some absent or no-longer-existent deity/deities? You see, 'knowledge of existence' is key. When you say I'm 'denying', this would imply that I'm either a liar, or being intellectually dishonest. I assure you I'm neither

Seems odd that such a question is even still posed, in spite of the claimed almighty powers of God. One does not see countless forum exchanges, (like here for example), for the argument for and against the existence of most tangible things. And yet, we have philosophers fiercely divided to this day, in regards to a God

 

[cvanwey]

Here's another extreme example, in favor for 'knowledge of existence'.

You are told to read and follow an erroneous set of writings labeled 'The Big Book of Absolute Truth and Morals'. You are told this book is written by the 'almighty creator'. You are told that if you do not accept the tenets of this book, and do not believe the entity whom wrote it actually exists, and you do not worship this entity, you will be tortured forever.

What would honestly be one of the FIRST questions you would ask? <answer> 'How do I know this entity is even real?' Because if it's not real, how can this entity get you

And let's say you received your necessary 'evidence' to conclude it IS real.

However, you do not agree with some or many things within this book.

Would you follow them anyway, attempting to then reconcile their apparent truth (in spite of your differences in opinion), because you 'know' this claimed agent actually exists and claims perfect truth and perfect morals? Most likely.... You would almost have NO choice but to reconcile that your own opinions, based upon culture and discovery, may be misguided. And would then set out to rationalize why the ones written by this entity favor over your own. And if you still could not reconcile a 'satisfactory' conclusion, either choose to rebel, or submit. - In light of the fact you have 'knowledge of existence' and can make an informed decision.

But what if you were instead skeptical of the existence to the author of this book?.?.?.? You would then disguard the book, as no different than any other book written by humans.

Why deprive such an individual (me) of the necessary evidence to obtain 'knowledge of existence?' Makes no sense really... If God knows what (I) need to believe, and does not grant such evidence, even after decades of inquiry, is it MORE likely this God is deliberately avoiding me, or, does not exist.?.?

This is the only two answers I can conclude, and neither one is very favorable...

 

[Sanoy]

*** I'm not sure why you even bring up 'salvation'? This is a rhetorical question, and I do not wish to receive another answer, related to 'salvation.' ***

"Knowledge of existence" would remove any and all doubt of not only an actual creator, but which creator, and even more so, if there is only one creator, as opposed to many. And, even further, that this creator is indeed worthy of a two-way relationship.

In a sense, it would be like 'knowing' you had parents somewhere, but never met them. But then someone wrote a book, stating it came from your parents, with a list of specific instructions. And if you happen to follow this list of 'commandments'/instructions, you will be rewarded with meeting them in a few years (only if you follow the book which was instructed by your parents). Yes, you 'know' someone 'birthed' you, but you do not know if you are following the correct rule book to reach the desired destination of meeting your birth parents, by only following the book. Furthermore, what if you read many asserted rules from this book, and they do not appear to jive with your 'known' reality, using the very SAME 'intuitions' you use to 'know' the rest of your reality

I will place a hypothetical back to you.... Say it was somehow 'revealed' to you that you were created by the 'Muslim God', and Jesus was not the true messiah? Wouldn't you at least want to know? This seems like a reasonable request. Also, would you decide to still know and worship such a God, or would you instead go to hell for spite? You see, even if I were to acknowledge a creator, I need to know which one? Doesn't seem like an unreasonable request. Nor, should I require to prepare my mind in 'some specific way', to receive Him (i.e) faith, belief, and prayer. Because like I stated elsewhere, God does have the ability to make His presence known at any given time, whether the individual wants it or not. They could then have NO choice to doubt the specific God's existence!



I please ask that you at least explore 'intentional agency' and 'false positive', as they also relate to theism, any theism; not just Christianity. Just like I did when you mentioned
'intuitive theism', and I read such articles as:

ttps://www.cs.umb.edu/~marc/tics/kelemen.txt

Humans have a natural urge and tendency to 'draw connections' and 'meaning' where none may exist. Hence, the 'false positives'. Hence, the desire to conclude 'intentional agency.' Hence, the reason a remote tribe, absent from any external talk of any God(s), will still invoke their own gods, and believe it wholeheartedly until death. The unknown, in practically any situation, drives such 'connections', 'agency', and belief.

***************

You still have not given me a specific example of a scientific discovery, which leads directly to Yahweh; instead only broad scientific subjects. I'm curious, because the 'knowledge of existence' is what I'm after, in this thread.



How do you know? What is your actual source(s) for this specific assertion? How does the Bible get you specifically to Yahweh, and not instead some absent or no-longer-existent deity/deities? You see, 'knowledge of existence' is key. When you say I'm 'denying', this would imply that I'm either a liar, or being intellectually dishonest. I assure you I'm neither

Seems odd that such a question is even still posed, in spite of the claimed almighty powers of God. One does not see countless forum exchanges, (like here for example), for the argument for and against the existence of most tangible things. And yet, we have philosophers fiercely divided to this day, in regards to a God

Universal removal of doubt leads to universal condemnation for many. You seem to forget that with every reply....

I know what you mean by intentional agency and false positive. These are those throw away slogans you hurl at stuff when you get defensive and you don't know what else to do. Humans also have a natural tendency to see logic, morality, mathematics, and other life as true reality. Those functions are no different than agency. You might want to object but I assure you, you are mistaken to think otherwise as each are basic. I'd be happy to make your thread about this if you want, but if your reply to the mere mention of the big bang and CMBR is to toss general psychological slogans at me I think it will be a waste of time.

You just confirmed it. Humans possess a natural propensity to apply 'intentional agency'. You already agree that we have it, though your denial of that agency is baseless and groundless. "How does the Bible get me to Yahweh"? What kind of question is that? That doesn't even make any sense unless you had 0 sleep last night and no coffee. I'll give common sense a little more time to take wake up here. You admit to denying the intuitions God gave you, His general revelation, why you are bringing up the Bible, His explicit revelation, is beyond me except that you appear deeply confused now in this conversation.

The reason we don't debate the existence of Tables is because we have an intuition toward empiricism that makes it seem true to us. Meanwhile 84% of the world identify with a religious group through a different intuition. We debate because there is a tiny handful of people in the world that disagree, because they deny those intuitions. To date I have never heard a reason to doubt them.

 

[cvanwey]

Universal removal of doubt leads to universal condemnation for many. You seem to forget that with every reply....

Thank you

That doesn't even make any sense unless you had 0 sleep last night and no coffee. I'll give common sense a little more time to take wake up here.

Thank you

The reason we don't debate the existence of Tables is because we have an intuition toward empiricism that makes it seem true to us. Meanwhile 84% of the world identify with a religious group through a different intuition. We debate because there is a tiny handful of people in the world that disagree, because they deny those intuitions. To date I have never heard a reason to doubt them.

I please ask that you no longer address this thread, as I feel it is going nowhere.

Thanks

 

[Sanoy]

Speaking of apparent 'slogans'...



Talk about 'recoil'...



You have failed to address any of my observations. You seem more interested in ad hominem replies.

I please ask that you no longer reply to this thread. I continued to make earnest replies, and express an honest exchange. You appear to no want any part in such endeavors.

Moving forward, please dispense with your passive and over-generalize responses elsewhere. They serve absolutely no purpose in this thread. And quite frankly, are wasting valuable time.

Thanks

That isn't a slogan it's a theological fact that you ignore rather than deny. It may appear as a slogan since I have to repeat that fact for each reply.

The term Yahweh comes from the Bible, it is a silly question to ask where it comes from, especially as a former Christian of what 30 years? Think about your statements before you make them.

I have made no ad hominems to you. The moderators are dilagent in reading a thread before acting, so smearing me because you can't respond to me won't work as you imagine. I have engaged your OP and presented a formal argument showing why it's misguided. You have yet to address it validly, so I will repeat it.

Let me recap those points.

• 1. It is a theological fact that everyone has sufficient knowledge for salvation or condemnation(Romans 1:20 & Romans 2:15)
• 2. It is a theological fact that greater knowledge of God leads to greater condemnation to those who reject (Matthew 10:15)
• 3. It is a theological fact that those with a hardened heart cannot enter God's rest (Psalm 95:8-11)
• 4. It is a theological fact that mere Knowledge does not save (Psalm 95:8-11)

Conclusion - greater knowledge (1) will lead to greater condemnation (2) for those with a hardened heart (3), and those without a hardened heart already have enough knowledge for salvation (Romans 2:15). So what you ask is misguided.

So how about you actually engage the responses to your OP instead of bringing tangent discussions which you asked for!, and smearing me, and asking me to leave rather than engaging my counter points. Also if you want someone to leave your thread don't smear them first.

 

[Chriliman]

Wow. This is brutally honest! Thank you! Which now begs the question...

(Again off topic, but I have to ask; in light of your surprising response).

When you state 'there was no other option,' where you stating God had no other option? Wouldn't this demonstrate a limitation?

Yes, I think God limits himself to only do what's best for humanity. Back then, that may have included removing certain irredeemable people groups from the face of the earth in order to preserve the redeemable aspects of humanity. However, there are still certain scriptures that paint God has a merciless monster, such as those describing dashing babies against rocks, that's hard to reconcile. Which is why I'm open to the idea of certain scriptures not being from God, but rather from men speaking as if they are God. I'm open to the truth no matter what.

Also, how are you able to discern which passages were from God, and which ones were simply man-made? And remember, when 2 timothy 3:16 was written, it specifically referenced the OT, as the NT was not formally yet in existence, in an organized way.

I always bounce scripture off the character of Jesus and see what sticks, some just doesn't, like what I referenced above. I follow Jacob M Wright on facebook who touches on this issue a lot, here's an example of one of his posts, very interesting stuff!
https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https://www.facebook.com/jacobmawright/posts/10155966450504387&width=500

 

[cvanwey]

That isn't a slogan it's a theological fact that you ignore rather than deny. It may appear as a slogan since I have to repeat that fact for each reply.

The term Yahweh comes from the Bible, it is a silly question to ask where it comes from, especially as a former Christian of what 30 years? Think about your statements before you make them.

I have made no ad hominems to you. The moderators are dilagent in reading a thread before acting, so smearing me because you can't respond to me won't work as you imagine. I have engaged your OP and presented a formal argument showing why it's misguided. You have yet to address it validly, so I will repeat it.

Let me recap those points.

• 1. It is a theological fact that everyone has sufficient knowledge for salvation or condemnation(Romans 1:20 & Romans 2:15)
• 2. It is a theological fact that greater knowledge of God leads to greater condemnation to those who reject (Matthew 10:15)
• 3. It is a theological fact that those with a hardened heart cannot enter God's rest (Psalm 95:8-11)
• 4. It is a theological fact that mere Knowledge does not save (Psalm 95:8-11)

Conclusion - greater knowledge (1) will lead to greater condemnation (2) for those with a hardened heart (3), and those without a hardened heart already have enough knowledge for salvation (Romans 2:15). So what you ask is misguided.

So how about you actually engage the responses to your OP instead of bringing tangent discussions which you asked for!, and smearing me, and asking me to leave rather than engaging my counter points. Also if you want someone to leave your thread don't smear them first.

I again ask that you no longer reply.

Peace

 

[Sanoy]

I again ask that you no longer reply. I can certainly cut/paste many observations, in which were not addressed or glossed over.

Peace

Take back your smear and remove it from your post and I will grant that request.

That was a deductive argument, you have to deny the premises which are theological facts explicit in scripture.

 

[cvanwey]

Yes, I think God limits himself to only do what's best for humanity. Back then, that may have included removing certain irredeemable people groups from the face of the earth in order to preserve the redeemable aspects of humanity. However, there are still certain scriptures that paint God has a merciless monster, such as those describing dashing babies against rocks, that's hard to reconcile. Which is why I'm open to the idea of certain scriptures not being from God, but rather from men speaking as if they are God. I'm open to the truth no matter what.

Awesome. So am I.

I always bounce scripture off the character of Jesus and see what sticks, some just doesn't, like what I referenced above. I follow Jacob M Wright on facebook who touches on this issue a lot, here's an example of one of his posts, very interesting stuff!
https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https://www.facebook.com/jacobmawright/posts/10155966450504387&width=500

I would be interested to get (your) assessment to my last question:

'how are you able to discern which passages were from God, and which ones were simply man-made? And remember, when 2 timothy 3:16 was written, it specifically referenced the OT, as the NT was not formally yet in existence, in an organized way?'

 

[cvanwey]

Take back your smear and remove it from your post and I will grant that request..

If that's what you want to call my response to your initial insults, okay. And I have no problem leaving the ones, you've initiated, up there

If I'm so confused, so apparently inept, just move on.... Why waste your precious time? But I will happily remove anything you request, if you can please just stop responding to my threads. There's plenty of fish in the sea. I find it odd, however, that you have repeatedly addressed mine? (rhetorical question, not meant for a response).

 

[Chriliman]

Awesome. So am I.

Great!

I would be interested to get (your) assessment to my last question:

'how are you able to discern which passages were from God, and which ones were simply man-made? And remember, when 2 timothy 3:16 was written, it specifically referenced the OT, as the NT was not formally yet in existence, in an organized way?'

I find it helpful to remain humble and patient, you know, practice the fruits of the Spirit and believe that if God wants me to know or do something, then he'll reveal it to me in a way I can understand or accomplish, though it may challenge me, which is good.

Sorry if this isn't the answer you were looking for.

 

[cvanwey]

I find it helpful to remain humble and patient, you know, practice the fruits of the Spirit and believe that if God wants me to know or do something, then he'll reveal it to me in a way I can understand or accomplish, though it may challenge me, which is good.

Sorry if this isn't the answer you were looking for.

An honest answer is all I'm looking for

Circling back to the 'knowledge of existence'...

If you only have your brain to assess all thoughts, how are you then able to discern which thoughts were directed from your own self inflicted consciousness, verses directly from God, verses directly from the devil, or verses directly from an alternate entity? What actual mechanism (TELLS) you, like a 'proxy agent', which thoughts are from whom?

This was a question I posed a couple of years ago, expressed to many clergy, pastors, ministers, and the like.

I have yet to receive, what I would call, a worthy answer.

Would you care to take a crack at it?

There's a point to this question, whether you feel you can answer or not.