'Knowledge' of Existence

[cvanwey]

You told me to do as I wish in post 204, and I wished to bring that to your attention, yet again.

My other contention is that you run off topic with every post in these grandiose replies and then complain about it later when you're required to respond on those tangents.

You still need to learn what Abductive reasoning is. Yet again your response is to toss out another slogan "therefore God" rather than engage it properly. It's not God of the gaps, I have told you this before. Abductive means "therefore X is the best explanation". You have to compete if you want to challenge it. Stop throwing out slogans instead of engaging, stop using fallacy objections erroneously only to immediately commit them yourself, learn logic... before you put on a performance of having used it.

double post

 

[cvanwey]

Engage? I did. I made a deductive case which you have completely ignored twice now. I never left the thread, I having been waiting for your response.

Not understanding the logic you intend to employ distracts from the thread. The multiple side tangents you bring up and close down when it turns against you distracts from the thread. The specious slogans you hurl about distracts from the thread. The expansive replies in lieu of being concise and succinct distracts from your thread. If your interested in the purity of your thread don't do those things and actually respond to the hard counters of your OP. Actually listen to people and consider the possibility that the way you go about things is mistaken rather than shrug off correction.

If your gut instinct is to make a line by line expansive reply to every sentence I just said then you haven't listened to anything I just said.

Thank you for the continued hijacking of this thread. If you do no wish to engage with anything I have actually brought forth to you, or not to you, so-be-it. I can certainly provide my personal insight as to your methodology in responses as well, but instead choose not to waste any energy in such nonsense.

I am having a very meaningful exchange with another poster. Please stop disrupting as such. It yields no productivity for no one.

As stated, if you care to engage in 'intuitive theism' (your sighted topic), and how I feel it directly relates to 'intentional agency' and 'false positives', as they also relate to the unknown; I feel this may actually be productive and relevant.

Your other points do not appear relevant, in all honesty. Hence, I did not respond.

Otherwise, your continued 'insight' of opinion is neither requested, helpful, or necessary.

Thanks

 

[Sanoy]

Thank you for the continued hijacking of this thread. If you do no wish to engage with anything I have actually brought forth to you, or not to you, so-be-it. I can certainly provide my personal insight as to your methodology in responses as well, but instead choose not to waste any energy in such nonsense.

I am having a very meaningful exchange with another poster. Please stop disrupting as such. It yields no productivity for no one.

As stated, if you care to engage in 'intuitive theism' (your sighted topic), and how I feel it directly relates to 'intentional agency' and 'false positives', as they also relate to the unknown; I feel this may actually be productive and relevant.

Your other points do not appear relevant, in all honesty. Hence, I did not respond.

Otherwise, your continued 'insight' of opinion is neither requested, helpful, or necessary.

Thanks

Submitted for the third time. Your on topic challenge.

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). Mere knowledge does not save(4) So what you ask is misguided.

Your personal insights and observations will be ineffective given the sequitur formula. The conclusion follows from the theological facts so which theological fact do you theologically reject. Let's see if you engage or continue to dismiss it as you have the last two times.

 

[cvanwey]

Submitted for the third time. Your on topic challenge.

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.

The conclusion follows from the premises so which premise do you theologically reject. Let's see if you engage or dismiss.

Seriously....

This again? Not relevant. But to appease your apparent delicate sensibilities... Here we go...

'1. It is a theological fact that everyone has sufficient knowledge for salvation or condemnation(Romans 1:20 & Romans 2:15)'

Not this chap. Now prove me wrong Unless you are suggesting I'm breaking commandment #9

Second of all, 'theological' and 'fact' go together about as cohesively as oil and water. Case in point, have a Catholic talk to an Orthodox Jew. Have a Baptist talk to a JW.

Without demonstration of the actual source whom states as such, you are merely appealing to the opinions of the ancient humans whom wrote as such.

So again, not relevant. If it was fact, philosophy classes would loose over half their discussion topics and content (i.e.) God vs no god

'2. It is a theological fact that greater knowledge of God leads to greater condemnation to those who reject (Matthew 10:15)'

This demonstrates begging the question. Why?

'Begging the question is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.' - Google

Instead of proving the existence of the asserted God, you are instead asserting it's already final conclusion, as if it is just fact that Yahweh is the true and real God. You have yet to demonstrate His actual existence. Please provide your best philosophy book to support your case Or maybe you can further reference another passage from the very book I'm questioning the source of authenticity?

Again, 'knowledge of existence' is paramount, and is the starting point.

'3. It is a theological fact that those with a hardened heart cannot enter God's rest (Psalm 95:8-11)'

More of the same, please read any/all responses above - as they all apply in one way or another. Again, knowledge of existence would begin to reinforce such assertions. But as it stands, it becomes no different than a Muslim quoting the Holy Qur'an, via Surah 4:82, and expecting you to 'believe' it.

'4. It is a theological fact that mere Knowledge does not save (Psalm 95:8-11)'

Who stated 'mere knowledge' would save? However, it would sure help to know if it's real and true or not, wouldn't it now?

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

Can we now please get back to relevant matters? As stated prior: intentional agency/false positives (vs) intuitive theism, as they all relate to the unknown.

 

[Sanoy]

Seriously....

This again? Not relevant. But to appease your apparent delicate sensibilities... Here we go...

'1. It is a theological fact that everyone has sufficient knowledge for salvation or condemnation(Romans 1:20 & Romans 2:15)'

Not this chap. Now prove me wrong Unless you are suggesting I'm breaking commandment #9

Second of all, 'theological' and 'fact' go together about as cohesively as oil and water. Case in point, have a Catholic talk to an Orthodox Jew. Have a Baptist talk to a JW.

Without demonstration of the actual source whom states as such, you are merely appealing to the opinions of the ancient humans whom wrote as such.

So again, not relevant. If it was fact, philosophy classes would loose over half their discussion topics and context (i.e.) God vs no god

'2. It is a theological fact that greater knowledge of God leads to greater condemnation to those who reject (Matthew 10:15)'

This demonstrates begging the question. Why?

'Begging the question is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.' - Google

Instead of proving the existence of the asserted God, you are instead asserting it's already final conclusion, as if it is just fact that Yahweh is the true and real God. You have yet to demonstrate His actual existence. Please provide your best philosophy book to support your case Or maybe you can further reference another passage from the very book I'm questioning the source of authenticity?

Again, 'knowledge of existence' is paramount, and is the starting point.

'3. It is a theological fact that those with a hardened heart cannot enter God's rest (Psalm 95:8-11)'

More of the same, please read any/all responses above - as they all apply in one way or another. Again, knowledge of existence would begin to reinforce such assertions. But as it stands, it becomes no different than a Muslim quoting the Holy Qur'an, via Surah 4:82, and expecting you to 'believe' it.

'4. It is a theological fact that mere Knowledge does not save (Psalm 95:8-11)'

Who stated 'mere knowledge' would save? However, it would sure help to know if it's real and true or not, wouldn't it now?

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

Can we now please get back to relevant matters? As stated prior: intentional agency/false positives (vs) intuitive theism, as they all relate to the unknown.

Not relevant? Are you so far off topic that your OP no longer applies?

Interesting that you rejected every single theological fact when all you had to do was reject one. This often happens when one takes the position of rejecting what someone says before trying to understand if it's true.

These are theological facts from scripture. A fact can be analytic or synthetic, so your objection over the term theological fact is mistaken. Scripture defines Yahweh, so if you are referring to Yahweh you need to engage theologically...which you failed to do. If you are not referring to Yahweh then you are on the wrong section.

 

[cvanwey]

Not relevant? Are you so far off topic that your OP no longer applies?

I could not have said it better myself. I did not want to address, because your 'observations' remove me from the actual topic. So there you go. I circled back to 'knowledge of existence', even in my last response, as stated in the title of the OP, just to try and keep it from sliding astray.

So can we go to relevant material now? You keep avoiding it like the plague.

 

[Sanoy]

I could not have said it better myself. I did not want to address, because your 'observations' remove me from the actual topic. So there you go. I circled back to 'knowledge of existence', even in my last response, as stated in the title of the OP, just to try and keep it from sliding astray.

So can we go to relevant material now? You keep avoiding it like the plague.

The conclusion litterally addresses your OP. I see you will merely dismiss it as I expected.

Those are not observations, but theological facts that are explicit in the text.

I'd like to get through your OP first, before moving to the meta narrative you have turned it into. Your OP states - "why doesn't the one true God at least reveal himself in a way which leaves no shred of doubt of such existence?" Do you still think God should remove all doubt of His existenece? If no, then great! If yes then please show why what I presented is wrong by addressing it appropriately.

 

[cvanwey]

The conclusion litterally addresses your OP. I see you will merely dismiss it as I expected.

Those are not observations, but theological facts that are explicit in the text.

I'd like to get through your OP first, before moving to the meta narrative you have turned it into. Do you still think God should remove all doubt of His existenece? If no, then great! If yes then please show why what I presented is wrong by addressing it appropriately.

Let us address the finer points of the OP, shall we...

'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).'

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

Furthermore, I am not turning it into anything. I already addressed your reply, and stated it is not relevant, for the reasons I stated. You do not have to accept that.

You are the one whom reference 'intuitive theism' many responses ago, not me. So to state 'I'm the one trying to change the subject' is confusing...

Furthermore, find a post, with more than 20 responses in, where many sub-categories don't develop It becomes the natural progression of discussion. Regardless of if you feel the 'main and original point' has been resolved. Often times, a seemingly simple topic can do that (i.e.) take on a life of it's own...

Again, I have now addressed your wanted observations extensively. If it still remains 'below' your satisfaction, call yourself 'victorious' and move along. I really do not care, quite frankly.

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

Let me end by attempt to shut down, what could be, 100 more exchanges, which gets no one nowhere..... But please feel free to accuse me of changing the subject again

Do you agree that if someone does not think a book was inspired by a divine source, having someone sight authoritative passages from that book becomes specious? (yes or no)?

I will answer for you. The answer is YES.

Next question....

Is God deliberately avoiding my repeated requests for proof of existence for decades, or, does god not exist??????

Thanks

 

[Sanoy]

I'm not engaging in your tangents. I await one of two things. Either your agreement to my conclusion directed at the summary of your OP in which you stated "why doesn't the one true God at least reveal himself in a way which leaves no shred of doubt of such existence?" Or a proper rebuttal to my conclusion.

 

[cvanwey]

I'm not engaging in your tangents. I await one of two things. Either your agreement to my conclusion directed at the summary of your OP in which you stated "why doesn't the one true God at least reveal himself in a way which leaves no shred of doubt of such existence?" Or a proper rebuttal to my conclusion.

Well, this is the thread I started, so no thanks. Feel free to dictate your specific terms in your own generated thread. I am not required to respond, in your very specific predetermined and instructed/directed way. I addressed the points you so desperately wanted me to address. I feel your 'points', regarding 'theological fact', severely begs the question, and are invalid and irrelevant, for the many reasons already sighted in that reply. I care not to regurgitate them again - reread the post in which I responded, if need-be...

Asking you why God does not attempt to make Himself known to me, like He apparently does for thousands of others, is a legitimate question, and is not a 'tangent.' It hit the heart of the OP, quite frankly.

Appealing to 'higher condemnation' is simply a cop out answer, from how I see it. Sorry. Case and point, all the expressed martyrs, Sal, doubting Thomas; (also) - all the individuals today whom state they were in doubt until they had visions, premonitions, sightings, dreams, near death experiences, etc.... All of which apparently inherit LESS condemnation because they received their needed and wanting conformation of existence. Meaning, they will now get to know, and strike a relationship, and view the Bible in a different way. So your assertion does not make sense, even if it were actually true.

 

[Sanoy]

Seems my expectations of you dismissing what you can't rebut were perfectly warranted. It has been my experience that those interested in the truth of a matter don't dismiss propositions that are contrary to their own.

 

[cvanwey]

Seems my expectations of you dismissing what you can't rebut were perfectly warranted.

Then please move along ;-) Thanks

(end disruption to productivity)

 

[Oncedeceived]

Disclaimer: I acknowledge that you believe Yahweh is real. I, on the other hand, do not. Thus, it's apparent and obvious of some of our disagreements, which will be extrapolated plentifully and often below. Later revealing, the starting point necessarily requires knowledge of existence.



I'm here to explore all avenues. I was brought up in Christianity for most of my life. I then finally decided to study it, and have found that almost none of what was asserted to me aligns with my known reality. But since I have received decades of indoctrination, it's hard to come to turns with what I have no choice to believe. Which is further informed by the fact that I have yet to receive my needed conformation that such a claimed agent is real. And like I stated prior, I do not know exactly what evidence would yield such a result, as you have... Just like I don't know what exact evidence would get me to believe in a claimed alternate asserted and claimed spiritual entity.

I would be interested in what you mean by you decided to study it?

I feel you know what I meant. Either He wrote it directly, or imposed His instruction upon others. However, anyone can claim any external force compelled them to write stuff. Quite honestly, it does not matter if 'God' wrote it himself, or instructed another. The assertion/claim still remains the same. Which is... it was presented by a 'supernatural agent'.

As stated several times now, if one does not think such an agent is real, then they are reading the opinions of ancient people, and their assertions about 'truth', and placed to paper.

Their assertions are finding fulfillment in our own time. But alas, another topic that would take us off course.

Yes. And at the end of the day, if one doubts the claimed agent is real, the rest is just human provided assertions - (probably some true, some false, some strange, some silly, some wrong).

Aren't you just making assertions? You assert there is nothing that supports the Christian worldview but in fact, there are many facts that support that worldview. If an intelligent Being created the universe, we should see certain attributes to that universe that displays that intelligence.

Of course you do. I think you have received sufficient and necessary direct contact from your claimed creator, right? I would sure hope you were not merely drawing such conclusions, based upon the arguments you have been making? (i.e.) 'LOL', 'organization', etc... These are just byproducts, or points in which you later draw your conclusions, based upon your necessary 'knowledge of existence' as the catalyst (starting point). But what if you were in my boat? Meaning... I have never had any convincing contact. Would such argumentation lead directly to Yahweh specifically? Probably not, if you are being intellectually honest. Hence, the reason I stated from the very beginning of this thread, 'knowledge of existence' necessitates the starting point. The points you reference reinforce your later connections to the 'why' questions.

If you were honest, I think you would agree that you are working on your own presuppositions and anything that might be presented as evidence or support for the Christian worldview you dismiss outright. I get the distinct feeling that you are not searching for real answers but in justification of your own beliefs, IMHO.

The entire statement

demonstrates nonsense... 'While I know we have more knowledge than you/unbelievers, there is reasonable evidence that supports and comports within the Christian worldview whereas in an unbelievers worldview there is no reasonable answer at all within their worldview.'

I have yet to hear anything validating from your arguments. However, I do believe you when you state you have received contact from your believed agent. Unless you haven't, and are instead solely enamored by the given 'justifications' for God, i.e. 'LOL' and 'order'?

Let's break it down. You already have conceded that I have knowledge of the existence of Yahweh...so no nonsense there. The Laws of Logic, the Laws of Physics, appearance of design, an environment placed in the universe that is just right for intelligent life, intelligent life, mathematics, morality and so forth are all elements that reflect the Christian worldview. No nonsense there, it would be nonsense if the universe seemed a random place where there were no transcendent elements at all, if morality didn't really exist and if the universe was in chaos or disorder and we then claimed that supported our worldview.

This was not my point. I have not received 'knowledge of existence' for Yahweh. So your prior statement becomes meaningless. Just like if someone was reading passages from the Qur'an to you. If you do not think Muhammad flew up to heaven on a white horse, the book is a fairy tale to you - pure and simple. Yes, it may possess some words of advise, or impose some 'lateral wisdom'. But the assertion of 'pure truth' is of little relevance to (you). You instead, have no choice, but to evaluate each assertion and statement from that book, to correlate claimed 'truth' within each specific assertion from that book. However, if you 'knew' Muhammad was the true and real prophet, you would most likely look to reconcile all passages in which you did not agree, or which did not make sense. Because again, who are YOU to judge the truth of the 'living true God'? Sound familiar?

No, I would do as I did and research it and determine if it could be the truth.

Afraid so. God is no more the orchestrator and organizer of logic, than the weather is for snowflakes. We have yet to identify any supernatural causation to either. Just because we currently know more about the weather than the brain, does not mean to default the supernatural for the brain until otherwise disproven. This is backwards thinking. By default, we simply do not know the 'driving force', if one exists.

First and foremost, you simply are not grasping the concept here. We are not talking about the brain. We are talking about the LOL. The brain doesn't give us the Laws of Logic, they transcend our brains. If there were no minds, no brains on earth, the LOL would still be true and still exist. Yet, they are concepts, thoughts which exist whether we do or not. Do you see why your argument against them is not relevant?

Then all you are doing is pushing the assertion back even one more step, with no further justification. 'All original laws were created by Yahweh.' Again, I understand why YOU say this. You think Yahweh is real and this is what He 'tells' you. Hence, you are drawing such a conclusion, for the 'why and how' of it...

But for all skeptics and non-believers, they don't know the origin - if any. And fallacious argumentation will not persuade otherwise

I am saying that the LOL SUPPORT the Christian worldview. They make sense in our worldview. They are consistent with an Intelligent Being being the reason behind reason. That is not nonsensical at all. Tell me how that doesn't comport with the Christian worldview.

Furthermore, how is Brahma not the root of all these laws - (since I have the same lack in knowledge to both asserted gods in which are claimed to exist by many)?

For you it isn't. But being honest about looking into the reality of the LOL and other elements that support Christian Theism would be a good start.

I really wonder what your assertion of truth would have been a few thousand years ago, before later discovery dispelled the many asserted prior gods for things unknown? (i.e.) 'Thor created the lightening you see. This best explains lightening' (no straw man intended, just demonstrating a point here)... Seems as though very convenient to now state that all 'law' from the Big Bang or prior was created by Yahweh. This assertion is really not falsifiable!

What makes the universe obey laws? A few thousand of years ago we didn't have the understanding of the universe and that understanding has broadened our knowledge and only increased the need for an Intelligent Being to make sense of it all, IMHO. Why does the universe appear designed? In the Christian worldview, it should appear designed. In a naturalistic worldview there is no reason for it to appear designed.

So if I'm understanding what you are saying here... You are asserting that it is your specific God which set all original laws into this concluded motion? So again, we are right back to where we started. You are 'connecting the dots'. You are 'drawing a connection' to make sense of a mystery. And this makes sense, since you believe Yahweh is real. I claim I don't know, and that Yahweh has never made his presence aware to me, like he has foo you. So again, this dispute will most likely remain a stalemate, for the obvious reason sighted within my beginning 'disclaimer'.

Which, quite frankly, further demonstrates and proves my OP.

You haven't given any good reason to dismiss the actual elements supporting the Christian worldview. Just claiming that I am connecting the dots is meaningless, if there were no dots to connect your argument might have substance but we live in a world that makes sense, we know that there are reasons things are the way they are. Yet, if there is no Christian worldview, there is no reason for reason; there is no reason for scientific methodology or any endeavor if not for the consistency of order in the universe.

You are again making an assertion, as if I'm just in denial. Tisk tisk How is this any different than a door-to-door Scientologist, Mormon, or Muslim coming to your door, making the very same pronouncements? It isn't! Why? Because you do not believe such alternative claimed agents are real postmortem.

Untrue, I was going the route of all religions lead to God mistake. It was God that provided His identity. Which, without knowledge of Him you are at a disadvantage as to His identity. But you seem hell bent to dismiss all possibility of acknowledging His possible reality.

As stated prior, do you know exactly what evidence would convince you that Vishnu exists? Probably not But Vishnu should know.

I understand, so why are you not discussing this with Vishnu adherents? Or maybe Buddha adherents?

News flash... You kind of really don't have a choice in what you currently believe Otherwise, as already stated elsewhere, 'believe' you can fly, by flapping your arms, and find a building to test this newly forced belief. You can be in denial, which is kind of the gist I gather you are placing me within?.?.?.?

From what you are saying to me, it doesn't seem genuine that you are really wanting knowledge of God. That is my opinion of course, I could be wrong but that is what I am feeling from your dialog.

Again, I think you know what I meant. I prayed and asked for decades with no contact relayed. And yet, thousands claim they do. I guess I'm just in denial, right? Otherwise, really makes no sense.... You really think I would waste my time denying what I thought was real? Seriously? Heck, I want it to be real. I devoted much of my life to the hopes it was real. What motive would I have to straight up lie?

How do I know you have devoted much of your life to this? I can only go by what is happening here in this thread. In this thread you have denied the possibility of support of the Christian worldview which to me seems dishonest. What I say in your view might be really wrong, but does it makes sense in the worldview I hold...that is the question and you just deny it outright. See I can understand not believing that the universe is really designed by God, what I don't understand is how you can assert it doesn't support a Designer in the Christian worldview.

And it's a good thing too

But you do and that might not be so good if what I am saying is true...

Again, I believe because I really have no choice in most matters of extreme importance.

But you seem unaware of the arguments.

 

[cvanwey]

Seems my expectations of you dismissing what you can't rebut were perfectly warranted. It has been my experience that those interested in the truth of a matter don't dismiss propositions that are contrary to their own.

You mean like the many you have glossed over and dismissed, w/o addressing in the slightest?

 

[Sanoy]

You mean like the many you have glossed over and dismissed, w/o addressing in the slightest?

You ask me to "move along" and then call me back. Would you like to make up your mind? I sure would like you to.

 

[Uber Genius]

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?

Lots to discuss in your post. I will return to the main thrust of your post shortly, which is called the hiddenness of God. Here we have the suggestion that epistemological claims rely on specific a posteriori experiences. Certainly the Biblical accounts are mostly of this variety, but all of the natural theological arguments operate sans experience (unless you through Alvin Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology into the mix).

These would encompass arguments for God based on the beginning of the universe a finite time (~13.7 billion yrs in the past from nothing.

Similarly the idea that, "Out of nothing nothing comes." This is a first principle of philosophy and is the basis that we need an eternal "necessary" being in order to kick off the existence of contingent things such as universes.

We can look at the fine-tuning of the universe for the existence of life despite the fact that a near-infinite non-life-permitting number of possible universes exist and a infinitesimal amount of life-permitting universes exist.

We can also examine the fact that there seem to be objective moral values and duties that couldn't possibly be grounded outside of a personal creator.

So by no means is one limited to waiting around for personal experience.

 

[Uber Genius]

Hence, to state to such a person to pretend, and follow through with the rest anyways, by way of 'faith',

Faith is not a way of knowing anything. This is an anachronistic equivocation of the term. In the NT the word translated "Faith" is the word PISTIS. It means to trust. Not believe in something for which there is no evidence.

If your mom (call her Betty) had died years ago and been cremated, and a natural disaster wiped out not only her house, the court house that had records, but everyone who was still alive (other than you) who knew her, would she have ever existed?

How would you prove it?

Well certainly you had a mother.

But what evidence, other than thousands of personal experiences, could you provide to prove that Betty was your mother?

So would you have warrant to call Betty your mother?

Your trust in this case is based on 1000s of experiences that you take to be veridical. Now you find others who you thought had died in the natural disaster that wiped out all records of Betty. They corroborate your story and add to it with their own experiences of your mother. You collect hundreds of such stories and someone then asked you, "How can you believe Betty was your mother?" You reply, calling on a mountain of testimony and your own experience, "I have faith in the evidence."

 

[Uber Genius]

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).

Now we get to the crux of your question.

James 2:18 says:

"But someone will say, '“You have faith; I have deeds.
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.""
19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder."

What is the author of James getting at here?

God could care less whether people believe he exists. He is not trying to prove that. He is inviting people from every walk of life to freely rule and reign with him. He wants people who are willing to be adopted into his family and share his inheritance. He is not interested in those who, like the demons, don't want anything to do with being adopted as sons and daughters. The ones who will say yes are invited by the HS.

 

[cvanwey]

I would be interested in what you mean by you decided to study it?

I simply read the Bible. Asked questions of various clergy at the time I decided to do so. If I had 'knowledge of existence', I would instead of just tried to reconcile their asserted conclusions, as they conflict with my 'known' discovery. Meaning, I would have tried to state that humans are flawed, and our conclusions about reality are altered from the 'truth'. However, since I'm not sure if this being is real, I instead am left no choice but to compare the statements made, against the apparent conflicting conclusions I see.

In conclusion, reading the Bible appears 'untrustworthy' on many points.

Aren't you just making assertions? You assert there is nothing that supports the Christian worldview but in fact, there are many facts that support that worldview. If an intelligent Being created the universe, we should see certain attributes to that universe that displays that intelligence.

I disagree. Where exists a conclusion of 'supernatural', and where might I find such a reference outside of 'pseudoscience'?

I hope you are not leading towards the ''watchmaker analogy'?.?.?.?

If you were honest, I think you would agree that you are working on your own presuppositions and anything that might be presented as evidence or support for the Christian worldview you dismiss outright. I get the distinct feeling that you are not searching for real answers but in justification of your own beliefs, IMHO.

Fair point! I already acknowledged, many replies ago, we come from differing 'presuppositions' though Mine stems from lack of evidence for decades, yours is possibly the opposite.

I could state the very SAME thing of you, regarding 'justification' But this actually kind of goes back to the OP. If I had 'knowledge of existence', like you, then I would be always looking for 'clues' and 'ques' to support my presupposition, like many theists do I gladly admit I would most likely do the same.

But as it stands, I have had a severe lack in such evidence for decades. Thus, my conclusions quite differ. As doubt further creeps in, and rears it's ugly head, I have no choice but to try and remove emotional ties to anything I see as 'plausible intentional spiritual agency.' Sorry, this is me being bunt and honest with you. At this point, God would realize I now require a more concrete answer, to then enter His invited circle. Otherwise, it becomes very easy to dismiss many unanswered questions as simply unanswered questions, and not instead apply divine agency to the unknown without verification and conformation.

Let's break it down. You already have conceded that I have knowledge of the existence of Yahweh...so no nonsense there. The Laws of Logic, the Laws of Physics, appearance of design, an environment placed in the universe that is just right for intelligent life, intelligent life, mathematics, morality and so forth are all elements that reflect the Christian worldview. No nonsense there, it would be nonsense if the universe seemed a random place where there were no transcendent elements at all, if morality didn't really exist and if the universe was in chaos or disorder and we then claimed that supported our worldview.

This is TMI at this point. I would love to deconstruct all of what you just said, but I could write volumes about 'morality'. And in fact, I have.... If you care to discuss morality, we could certainly defer to the appropriate topic.

As for the appearance of design, 99.9% of the universe is inhabitable. 99+% of all animals are now extinct. (Analogy time) - Why would God create a large sheath of concrete, and when life pops up out of one of its tiny cracks, state, 'hey, look what I created, life'?

Does life exist on other planets? (rhetorical question- please don't answer - just demonstrating the kinks in the assertions made).

Furthermore, you are 'overstepping' your boundaries to suggest that the Bible references much of anything else than 'creation', which is a blanket term used by other claimed competing holy texts.

But again, I already acknowledge you feel Yahweh is real. So to get into all of this becomes superfluous. It's easy for you to conclude it all ties to your God

First and foremost, you simply are not grasping the concept here. We are not talking about the brain. We are talking about the LOL. The brain doesn't give us the Laws of Logic, they transcend our brains. If there were no minds, no brains on earth, the LOL would still be true and still exist. Yet, they are concepts, thoughts which exist whether we do or not. Do you see why your argument against them is not relevant?

I think it is you whom missed my main point. The 'laws' of anything, and appealing to them as applied to a singular creator, is actually fallacious.

What if the universe is eternal, and prior to the 'Big Bang' the universe was simply in a differing state? The laws may have greatly differed. What if it's later discovered we do indeed have a multiverse, and such laws differ in each? To then argue for consistent eternal laws would then be nonsense. To then assert a creator would also be a non sequitur. You could possibly argue for a 'change agent'. But the word 'creator' becomes irrelevant.

We don't know what we don't know. Applying the answer, which 'makes sense' to you, does not solve the question. There exists too many possibilities to consider, not just yours.

Hence, all 'originating laws', (if not eternal), are yet to be known, and may never be known.

I am saying that the LOL SUPPORT the Christian worldview. They make sense in our worldview. They are consistent with an Intelligent Being being the reason behind reason. That is not nonsensical at all. Tell me how that doesn't comport with the Christian worldview.

The same for opposing religions. All with their equally as valid anecdotal stories of contact from their respective claimed seen deities.

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

The rest of your response can be answered from my responses above.

 

[cvanwey]

But what evidence, other than thousands of personal experiences, could you provide to prove that Betty was your mother?

Depends on the specific claim. If I claimed my mother had supernatural powers, would you believe me? But yes, a mundane claim, which can be backed by countless other mundane examples, warrants belief.