'Knowledge' of Existence

[cvanwey]

I welcomed Sanoy's opinion.

I too welcome all incoming positions, opinions, and the like... Just my observation with some however...

Which happens of course with atheists as well.

Stuff you may already know, but...

theist/you - 'the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation' - google.com

atheist/not me - 'a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods' - google.com

skeptic/me - 'a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions' - google.com

In your brain? Could you explain that comment please? Have you every asked for Brahma or Buddha to reveal their existence?

If I had a near death experience, a vision, a potent dream, strong intuition, 'direct contact', etc, I would conclude this entity is 'real'. Anyone then to tell me otherwise I would then view as flat out incorrect. Hence, all arguments in favor of my God would appeal to me, while all arguments against my believed God I would reject; for one reason or another, because I would have already concluded they 'cannot' be correct.

Have you asked those other than in Christianity that might 'shake' their presuppositions?

I actually have. I've noticed most adhere to their conclusions primarily for the stated response directly above.

You do realize that there are only three religions that adhere to monotheism. That is a very important point in your discussion.

It actually represents little to no importance. All such common arguments put forward no closer demonstrate the existence of a singular agent, verses a poly agent, verses a fallible agent(s).

The whole point to Christianity is choice. God will not, does not want to force anyone to have a relationship with Him. Yes, free will is important, free choice is imperative.

I would concede/agree up to this point.

He may know exactly what it would take to force you to know He exists, that isn't what He wants.

This does not appear relevant. I have knowledge of existence to many things in which I choose to follow, not follow, accept, reject. A knowledge that such a claimed specific agent actually exists appears paramount for many/most - (including the many Christians whom choose to follow). Case and point, my best friend's wife. The many whom have near death experiences. The many whom receive a vision. The many whom possess bold intuition to such 'knowledge.' Also, all such stated humans in the past - Sal. Thomas, Pharaohs, Moses, Noah, etc...

You are asking all of us. That will get you no where. I don't know what opposing evidence or observations she might be ignoring. She probably ignored evidence for God at one time...am I right?[/QUOTE]

My point, is that prior to age 20, she did not have a potent point of contact. Prior to this, she would be left to make her choice, based upon argumentation (for or against) alone. Seems odd to leave one to such an important decision, in spite of the fact this agent is claimed to also be omnipresent. As stated prior, the mere knowledge to the absolute existence of such a claimed agent appears to tarnish nothing. This really seems to strike the crux of such a conclusion.

I leave you with another analogy, even though you state many are not very relevant (don;t take it too seriously though)

Say a child receives notes from Santa every year with the provided presents. Year after year, as the child develops wisdom, the child starts to further question these notes left. The child is repeatedly told this agent is real, and that all observations to the contrary are simply explained away. As the child grows, the child eventually decides to stay up all night the following year Christmas eve. The agent still never shows up. The next morning arises. The child finally falls asleep, after exhaustion, and when they wake up, sees presents with a note.

Years go by, and the child decides to shake the belief, due to no appearance from this claimed agent. Is this person justified in doubting such an agent is real?

 

[Sanoy]

I have 'gave you' many things you asked for.... You have since avoided my many counter points. So not necessary to 'put it up' again. You only want what you specifically want. And when I answer specifically, you still discard and dismiss it. So no thanks, quite frankly. I do not care to regurgitate my very specific response to, what I feel, is your irrelevant request. Simply look it up and read it again if you choose. Per your request, I had even also modified replies to appease your delicate sensibilities.

So I will make this as simple as possible. If you choose to ignore it again, then your 'contribution' to this thread really becomes very much not productive, and instead just appears petty....

(Here's the conclusion)...

If you 'know' your God exists, you will then begin to look for specific connections to make it all fit.

If you do not 'know' such a God exists, you might doubt such 'evidence' (in which the believer uses to make the direct connections).

I hope you may concede at least this much.?.?.?. If so, you then understand why me and @Oncedeceived decided to terminate further posts towards one-another.

And again, I am going to reiterate one of my main conclusions again... 'Knowledge of existence' becomes the starting point for being a Christian.

'My best friend's wife was a staunch atheist. At age 20, she claimed to receive a vision. This was the catalyst for her to read the Bible. This was the catalyst for her to begin preaching to others. This was the catalyst for her to start praying. This was the catalyst for her to begin ignoring all opposing observations, or rationalizations, which appear to oppose stories in Genesis, etc etc etc..

We have had many discussions over the past couple of years. Her 'faith' will not waiver. I ask her why? She states, that it is because she received her necessary proof for existence, which then propelled her to connect all the remaining pieces of evidence. At this point, nothing will shake her faith, according to her. She also teaches Sunday school now.

So I ask you, was 'knowledge of existence' a necessity in her case? Simple (yes or no).'

I will not move on to one of your side tangents until we finish the topic of the OP. If you are incapable of correction upon your OP you will be incapable of correction for everything else - making these side tangents a pointless endeavor.

Submitted for the fourth time. Directed toward the OP "So why doesn't the one true God at least reveal himself in a way which leaves no shred of doubt of such existence? "

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.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I too welcome all incoming positions, opinions, and the like... Just my observation with some however...

Just wanted you to know how I felt about it.

Stuff you may already know, but...

theist/you - 'the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation' - google.com

atheist/not me - 'a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods' - google.com

skeptic/me - 'a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions' - google.com

I am not sure I agree with any of these definitions but:

Let me put it this way, everyone should be a skeptic and everyone is. A worldview is not something we come by easily; at least something we should not come about easily. Questioning is the cornerstone to knowledge and doubt is how we get there. Skeptics/you and Christians/me both share that desire for truth. I didn't have a straight road to Christianity. Some do, but I think most at one time or another have come to a break in the road, where you either stay or go and it makes all the difference in the world as to which way you choose. Anyone who accepts or doesn't doubt all accepted opinions is doing themselves and Christianity a disservice.

If I had a near death experience, a vision, a potent dream, strong intuition, 'direct contact', etc, I would conclude this entity is 'real'. Anyone then to tell me otherwise I would then view as flat out incorrect. Hence, all arguments in favor of my God would appeal to me, while all arguments against my believed God I would reject; for one reason or another, because I would have already concluded they 'cannot' be correct.

Knowledge of God does do that, but do we ignore problems I don't think so. God doesn't expect that, He uses it.

It actually represents little to no importance. All such common arguments put forward no closer demonstrate the existence of a singular agent, verses a poly agent, verses a fallible agent(s).

I might come back to this.

I would concede/agree up to this point.

I have to step out for a bit and have run out of time. Please wait to respond until I can get back and finish.

This does not appear relevant. I have knowledge of existence to many things in which I choose to follow, not follow, accept, reject. A knowledge that such a claimed specific agent actually exists appears paramount for many/most - (including the many Christians whom choose to follow). Case and point, my best friend's wife. The many whom have near death experiences. The many whom receive a vision. The many whom possess bold intuition to such 'knowledge.' Also, all such stated humans in the past - Sal. Thomas, Pharaohs, Moses, Noah, etc...

Let me ask you something. Do you think that the possibility exists for the Christian God to be real?

My point, is that prior to age 20, she did not have a potent point of contact. Prior to this, she would be left to make her choice, based upon argumentation (for or against) alone. Seems odd to leave one to such an important decision, in spite of the fact this agent is claimed to also be omnipresent. As stated prior, the mere knowledge to the absolute existence of such a claimed agent appears to tarnish nothing. This really seems to strike the crux of such a conclusion.

You said that if you were to get this knowledge you would have to change your mind about everything...you would try to 'fit' your reality into God's existence. Yet, you continue to say that nothing will change your mind other than God going to great lengths to reveal Himself to you. I as just a Christian, see a person who doesn't think that Christianity is a reasonable position to hold. How do you justify moving from a position of your worldview into a Christian worldview? Do you feel you must give up your brain power, your touch with reality?

I leave you with another analogy, even though you state many are not very relevant (don;t take it too seriously though)

Say a child receives notes from Santa every year with the provided presents. Year after year, as the child develops wisdom, the child starts to further question these notes left. The child is repeatedly told this agent is real, and that all observations to the contrary are simply explained away. As the child grows, the child eventually decides to stay up all night the following year Christmas eve. The agent still never shows up. The next morning arises. The child finally falls asleep, after exhaustion, and when they wake up, sees presents with a note.

Years go by, and the child decides to shake the belief, due to no appearance from this claimed agent. Is this person justified in doubting such an agent is real?

I take this very seriously and have mixed feelings about this charade we pull on kids. I know it is fun but my biggest concern after becoming a Christian was the Santa thing. I didn't want them equating Santa with God after they found out there was no Santa. I didn't want them ruining it for other children either. So we had a long talk after the fact. You are equating a myth that everyone (other than the children) knows is not true to God. You are always justified doubting if you 'know' such an agent isn't real. Are you claiming that you are justified in doubting because you have shaken a childhood belief? Each person, whether in a Christian home or atheist must at one time or another try to determine the truth of such a claim. I haven't seen in this thread that being done. I see you demanding that if God is real that He must reveal Himself to you in a certain way, but you refuse to even look at reasoning of His existence.

 

[cvanwey]

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.

According to who? You have yet to receive my main point. If there exists no actual authoritative God to dictate such claims, then you are reciting your own personal opinion, piggybacked upon the opinions of the ancient humans whom wrote as such.

The 'knowledge of existence' would at least assure me of the very specific God being reality; as opposed to the many other asserted and claims gods of claimed past and present.

Prepare for some major regurgitation below.... (Meant to run in direct conjunction, and in addition w/ response #244.)

I'm not sure why you appear to be stuck on this specific request - in which I already thoroughly and appropriately answered....

Why would I care what the Bible says any more than what the Qur'an says? If I doubt the said agent's existence, whom claims inspiration to such cited text, what might be the point in reciting passages from the very book in which I question - (which claims to be inspired from the very specific agent I question)?

It is becoming quite apparent, you continue not to follow. You are citing passages from a book written by humans. The book claims it is inspired by Yahweh. I doubt the very existence of this claimed agent. And yet, the passages state they came from Yahweh. You are directly appealing to a book which claims authorship from the very supernatural forces I directly question.

If I knew that such an agent even existed at all, I could then see fit the plausibility that such writings were 'possibly' prescribed from such a claimed agent. I could then assess if I then choose to follow such said writings accordingly.

Even if I had no choice but to conclude that such an agent is real, I still possess free choice to act accordingly. Just as you would have all the free choice to elect whether or not to follow an opposing deity, in which you later learned was actually real, and is also dictating commands of you from their ancient book.

Furthermore, I stated in my OP that 'knowledge of existence' would be the starting point - furnished in bold type even. Of course mere knowledge does not 'save'. If the Bible were true, it would only be the starting point. I've already addressed this 'umteen' times now....

 

[cvanwey]

Let me put it this way, everyone should be a skeptic and everyone is. A worldview is not something we come by easily; at least something we should not come about easily. Questioning is the cornerstone to knowledge and doubt is how we get there. Skeptics/you and Christians/me both share that desire for truth. I didn't have a straight road to Christianity. Some do, but I think most at one time or another have come to a break in the road, where you either stay or go and it makes all the difference in the world as to which way you choose. Anyone who accepts or doesn't doubt all accepted opinions is doing themselves and Christianity a disservice.

I get it.

But I'm trying to be honest with myself. At this point, I require 'more evidence'. I read the Bible, and it severely misaligns with my known reality in many ways - (not specified here, because it will serve no alternative purpose). Hence, I have no other choice but to reject much/most of it. But if I received some sort of direct revelation - (like the many of anecdotal stories I hear about all the time), I would then instead have no choice but to reconcile that such a claimed book must be 'true'. But will still have FULL free reign to try and interpret it in a possible multitude of ways (i.e.) the multiple existing denominations. Or, reject all of it, because I don't agree. Or, reject the parts I don't like, and keep the parts I do. So there we are...

Knowledge of God does do that, but do we ignore problems I don't think so. God doesn't expect that, He uses it.

I should know what specific God exists, as much as I know that my specific biological parents exist, or gravity, or air, or the sun. I still have all choices allotted to me ('good' and 'bad'), on what to actually do with this specific known information.

I might come back to this.

Don't bother, quite frankly It will just waste many posts, and neither side will change anything. The answer is simple. Everyone should have no doubt which entity, is the real entity, if there exists a true single entity to begin with, which also possesses all the attributes in which it claims to possess.

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

I will await the rest of your response.

 

[Sanoy]

According to who? You have yet to receive my main point. If there exists no actual authoritative God to dictate such claims, then you are reciting your own personal opinion, piggybacked upon the opinions of the ancient humans whom wrote as such.

The 'knowledge of existence' would at least assure me of the very specific God being reality; as opposed to the many other asserted and claims gods of claimed past and present.

Prepare for some major regurgitation below.... (Meant to run in direct conjunction, and in addition w/ response #244.)

I'm not sure why you appear to be stuck on this specific request - in which I already thoroughly and appropriately answered....

Why would I care what the Bible says any more than what the Qur'an says? If I doubt the said agent's existence, whom claims inspiration to such cited text, what might be the point in reciting passages from the very book in which I question - (which claims to be inspired from the very specific agent I question)?

It is becoming quite apparent, you continue not to follow. You are citing passages from a book written by humans. The book claims it is inspired by Yahweh. I doubt the very existence of this claimed agent. And yet, the passages state they came from Yahweh. You are directly appealing to a book which claims authorship from the very supernatural forces I directly question.

If I knew that such an agent even existed at all, I could then see fit the plausibility that such writings were 'possibly' prescribed from such a claimed agent. I could then assess if I then choose to follow such said writings accordingly.

Even if I had no choice but to conclude that such an agent is real, I still possess free choice to act accordingly. Just as you would have all the free choice to elect whether or not to follow an opposing deity, in which you later learned was actually real, and is also dictating commands of you from their ancient book.

Furthermore, I stated in my OP that 'knowledge of existence' would be the starting point - furnished in bold type even. Of course mere knowledge does not 'save'. If the Bible were true, it would only be the starting point. I've already addressed this 'umteen' times now....

Which Theological fact do you reject and on what theological grounds? Otherwise the conclusion follows and your statement, which I copied, is mistaken. If you are not talking about the Christian God, then you are on the wrong section of the forums. I continue to await your theological objection, or for you to submit to correction on that statement. It is fruitless to go into tangents with one who values their innocence over the truth.

 

[cvanwey]

Which Theological fact do you reject and on what theological grounds? Otherwise the conclusion follows and your statement, which I copied, is mistaken. If you are not talking about the Christian God, then you are on the wrong section of the forums. I continue to await your theological objection, or for you to submit to correction on that statement. It is fruitless to go into tangents with one who values their innocence over the truth.

What I find 'fruitless', is to further waste my energy addressing some of your unrelated comments. Responses #244 and #304, along with others, should more than suffice, as to my position. As stated prior, just because you do not 'like' my answers, does not demonstrate their insufficiency.

Christian apologetics is to defend one's faith against objections. I'm not really even posing an 'objection.' I'm asking why God never revealed himself to me after repeated requests. It seems that God's lack in revelation, from my perspective, may only result in two final conclusions:

1. God is not adhering to His own scripture (in which I will not keep repeating the verses)
2. From my perspective, the prayed to God does not actually exist.

'Knowledge of existence' does not appear to 'condemn.' In fact, from my estimation, it would appear for all to reconcile the actual existence of such a claimed agent. What one then does with such information is up to all of us; AGAIN, like Sal, Thomas, my friend's wife, the pharaohs of ancient past, the countless testimonials whom received their visions, Satan, etc....

 

[Chriliman]

No I certainly do not. I know what I know, and what the Bible claims, and am instead invoking what I would project such a claimed 'all loving and all knowing' entity would do.

So I then pose to you the same concluded dichotomy I have presented to others:

Either God has chosen to continue to defy my continued genuine inquiry, via (Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23), or, this claimed God does not exist?

Which answer makes more sense?

As stated prior, denial is not an option. I believed wholeheartedly, because of indoctrination, for decades.

Many things exist, in which I have no choice to acknowledge their existence. Pure and simple.



This response does not make sense.



Having not received simple and necessary 'knowledge of existence' for 30+ years would reasonably leave most in my precarious position.

Furthermore, 'hardening my heart', would not apply in reference to the 'knowledge of existence'. I would have no choice to either acknowledge the existence, or not. I could be in denial, but that would be silly, in light of the fact I was a believer for 30+ years, searching for basic knowledge that this entity is actually there, listening to me - in which I never received.

I’m going to put this the simplest way I know how. God is a loving and truthful relationship. God is not far off somewhere in heaven by himself, he lives in us and through us. If you’ve ever had a genuine loving and truthful relationship with anyone then you’ve experienced godliness. Yes, it was Jesus who initially made this relationship possible, now we get to enjoy it and hopefully see it bare fruit in real, beneficial ways.

You’re making it too complicated by expecting some grand vision, just look for those loving, truthful and even challenging characteristics in people around you and engage in like manner and you will be at peace in and with God, even if others oppose you.

I do welcome your challenging thoughts and inquiries as I believe they help flesh out the truth.

Edit: This isn’t to say God doesn’t communicate through visions or doesn’t do miracles, it’s just sometimes a simple loving relationship is sufficient to communicate and get things done.

 

[Sanoy]

What I find 'fruitless', is to further waste my energy addressing some of your unrelated comments. Responses #244 and #304, along with others, should more than suffice, as to my position. As stated prior, just because you do not 'like' my answers, does not demonstrate their insufficiency.

Christian apologetics is to defend one's faith against objections. I'm not really even posing an 'objection.' I'm asking why God never revealed himself to me after repeated requests. It seems that God's lack in revelation, from my perspective, may only result in two final conclusions:

1. God is not adhering to His own scripture (in which I will not keep repeating the verses)
2. From my perspective, the prayed to God does not actually exist.

'Knowledge of existence' does not appear to 'condemn.' In fact, from my estimation, it would appear for all to reconcile the actual existence of such a claimed agent. What one then does with such information is up to all of us; AGAIN, like Sal, Thomas, my friend's wife, the pharaohs of ancient past, the countless testimonials whom received their visions, Satan, etc....

Then don't address them. Address my comment on your actual OP.

Again....Which Theological fact do you reject and on what theological grounds? Otherwise the conclusion follows and your statement, which I copied, is mistaken. If you are not talking about the Christian God, then you are on the wrong section of the forums. I continue to await your theological objection, or for you to submit to correction on that statement. It is fruitless to go into tangents with one who values their innocence over the truth.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I guess you couldn't wait.

I get it.

But I'm trying to be honest with myself. At this point, I require 'more evidence'. I read the Bible, and it severely misaligns with my known reality in many ways - (not specified here, because it will serve no alternative purpose). Hence, I have no other choice but to reject much/most of it. But if I received some sort of direct revelation - (like the many of anecdotal stories I hear about all the time), I would then instead have no choice but to reconcile that such a claimed book must be 'true'. But will still have FULL free reign to try and interpret it in a possible multitude of ways (i.e.) the multiple existing denominations. Or, reject all of it, because I don't agree. Or, reject the parts I don't like, and keep the parts I do. So there we are...

Are you trying to be honest with yourself? You are being very contradictory; on one hand you require 'more evidence' and on the other you deny any possibility of such evidence. You claim the Bible is misaligned with your 'known' reality but you claim that that reality is for the most part things you don't know; then claim you have no choice but to reject it. Do you see how contradictory your position is?

I should know what specific God exists, as much as I know that my specific biological parents exist, or gravity, or air, or the sun. I still have all choices allotted to me ('good' and 'bad'), on what to actually do with this specific known information.

You should, yes. And according to Christian theology you should know that it is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. You claim that God should reveal Himself according to Scripture but then deny Scripture is real. Contradictory again.

Don't bother, quite frankly It will just waste many posts, and neither side will change anything. The answer is simple. Everyone should have no doubt which entity, is the real entity, if there exists a true single entity to begin with, which also possesses all the attributes in which it claims to possess.

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

I will await the rest of your response.

Don't bother making a case? We are just suppose to give you an answer on why God isn't revealing Himself, when if I were God I'd shake my head and allow you to go your way. When you are face to face with Him, you go ahead and tell Him that all the evidence didn't fit and see if He agrees.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What I find 'fruitless', is to further waste my energy addressing some of your unrelated comments. Responses #244 and #304, along with others, should more than suffice, as to my position. As stated prior, just because you do not 'like' my answers, does not demonstrate their insufficiency.

Christian apologetics is to defend one's faith against objections. I'm not really even posing an 'objection.' I'm asking why God never revealed himself to me after repeated requests. It seems that God's lack in revelation, from my perspective, may only result in two final conclusions:

1. God is not adhering to His own scripture (in which I will not keep repeating the verses)
2. From my perspective, the prayed to God does not actually exist.

'Knowledge of existence' does not appear to 'condemn.' In fact, from my estimation, it would appear for all to reconcile the actual existence of such a claimed agent. What one then does with such information is up to all of us; AGAIN, like Sal, Thomas, my friend's wife, the pharaohs of ancient past, the countless testimonials whom received their visions, Satan, etc....

You are missing HIS point. You choose Scripture to claim He isn't living up to His own standards while claiming that it is just a book ancients wrote. You whole premise is then invalid.

 

[cvanwey]

Are you trying to be honest with yourself? You are being very contradictory; on one hand you require 'more evidence' and on the other you deny any possibility of such evidence. You claim the Bible is misaligned with your 'known' reality but you claim that that reality is for the most part things you don't know; then claim you have no choice but to reject it. Do you see how contradictory your position is?

Keeping this very short...

God decides to provide some evidence for me. I have the following conclusions allotted to me:

1. Legitimately not view it as captivating evidence for God specifically - (for whatever honest reason)
2. See the evidence from Yahweh, but choose to deny it (not honest)
3. Connect such evidence to Yahweh, and then conclude Yahweh specifically exists now.

Again, I prayed for decades, never to receive, what I would honestly assess, as connecting evidence for God. The longer this goes, the more I then doubt. If God 'knows' my 'heart', God would know the evidence presented already would not convince me, (regardless of me being 'too dumb', 'too darn critical', or whatever other honest assessment).

So yes, the longer I go, the more 'persuasive' I then conclude my evidence needs to be. This is NOT contradictory. But EVEN if it WAS, God knows my 'heart', and would know what actual evidence 'would' convince me.

Thus far, option 1. (above) remains the honest conclusion.

You should, yes. And according to Christian theology you should know that it is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. You claim that God should reveal Himself according to Scripture but then deny Scripture is real. Contradictory again.

Not so. I thought you understood my position. I stated in the OP even, that 'knowledge of existence' is the STARTING POINT. I am a direct product of my indoctrination. Yet, never received my necessary direct 'evidence for actual existence'. Instead, just basically instilled blind faith, again due primarily to indoctrination.

So I NOW come to finally reconcile that w/o 'knowing' this specific God is the true God, I NOW then instead view the Bible as nothing more than ancient words, written from ancient humans. Just like you would do, when any opposing person cites passages from their claimed holy book.

This becomes my default position for EVERY piece of ancient literature moving forward.... If I received 'knowledge of existence' from some claimed deity, I would THEN have NO choice but to begin to assess if this now 'known' claimed deity inspired the book, in which it claims.

I hope I have now clarified many points?.?.?.?.

Don't bother making a case? We are just suppose to give you an answer on why God isn't revealing Himself, when if I were God I'd shake my head and allow you to go your way. When you are face to face with Him, you go ahead and tell Him that all the evidence didn't fit and see if He agrees.

I trust you have received further clarification, as to why I state as such.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Keeping this very short...

God decides to provide some evidence for me. I have the following conclusions allotted to me:

1. Legitimately not view it as captivating evidence for God specifically - (for whatever honest reason)
2. See the evidence from Yahweh, but choose to deny it (not honest)
3. Connect such evidence to Yahweh, and then conclude Yahweh specifically exists now.

This is an important point in your discovery: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Now what invisible things (of Him) do we see? We see laws that the universe obeys, we see cause and effect in the universe that pushes back even before time that calls out for an unmoved mover, we see design in the universe and in living things. We see intelligence not only in living things but in the universe itself. All these things are clearly seen, the Christian worldview best describes how all this points to God; that God put His signature on the universe so we could know of His existence. Now you can deny that God is behind all this that we see, but to do so you must give good reason and an explanation for why these things should be there. In a world without God, why are there laws the universe obeys, if every action has a cause, what began that movement in the very beginning? Why do we see design in the universe, in the planet and in life itself if it were not indeed designed? You offer no explanation and seem proud to say, You don't know. Well according to God and the ancient writings of the Bible, you do know but you don't want to accept that; even if that explanation is reasonable and cohesive. So you continually say you have asked for evidence and continually you deny that very evidence.

Again, I prayed for decades, never to receive, what I would honestly assess, as connecting evidence for God. The longer this goes, the more I then doubt. If God 'knows' my 'heart', God would know the evidence presented already would not convince me, (regardless of me being 'too dumb', 'too darn critical', or whatever other honest assessment).

If God exists, like we claim, (and He does) why would God give you anything other than what He has given you that you already have denied? You haven't denied it with an explanation that gives cause for those things we can see, you just deny it could be God.

So yes, the longer I go, the more 'persuasive' I then conclude my evidence needs to be. This is NOT contradictory. But EVEN if it WAS, God knows my 'heart', and would know what actual evidence 'would' convince me.

Thus far, option 1. (above) remains the honest conclusion.

If God knows what actual evidence would convince you, don't you think He would also know if NOTHING would convince you? Maybe it is not God hiding as you think, but God understanding that you are not going to change your mind at all.

Not so. I thought you understood my position. I stated in the OP even, that 'knowledge of existence' is the STARTING POINT. I am a direct product of my indoctrination. Yet, never received my necessary direct 'evidence for actual existence'. Instead, just basically instilled blind faith, again due primarily to indoctrination.

So I NOW come to finally reconcile that w/o 'knowing' this specific God is the true God, I NOW then instead view the Bible as nothing more than ancient words, written from ancient humans. Just like you would do, when any opposing person cites passages from their claimed holy book.

This becomes my default position for EVERY piece of ancient literature moving forward.... If I received 'knowledge of existence' from some claimed deity, I would THEN have NO choice but to begin to assess if this now 'known' claimed deity inspired the book, in which it claims.

I hope I have now clarified many points?.?.?.?.

I was never in doubt of you points. I say they are contrary to your actions. I say they are contradictory in nature, as shown in my last post.

 

[cvanwey]

This is an important point in your discovery: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

As stated prior, long ago, I do not wish to engage. I have already investigated such claimed 'justifications' for God.

Reason? You appear to have received your 'knowledge of existence'. So of course you are going to tie all such (below) arguments and observations to your perceived specific 'existent' god. As I too admit might do as well, if I had such provided specific presentations.

Like I also stated prior, knowing if/what specific God exists, provides the starting pointing to such connected conclusions. Meaning, I think Yahweh exists. Hence, I can then reasonably tie all unknowns (i.e.) 'consistent laws of many things', to this perceived specific cosmic agent. Heck, I would too, if I 'knew' such a specific God existed for sure?

So the question remains, why has God denied (my) needed evidence for decades to reveal his specific existence, like the countless thousands or millions, whom provide anecdotal stories and testimonies?

God apparently has the power to reveal. God apparently does reveal to many whom ask. Heck, God even seems to appear to many whom never ask. Most of which testimonials, all-the-while providing the beginning reason, or catalyst, as to why they now worship God - (starting point). Seems odd that I have not received the luxury to such seemingly mundane revelation? Seems odd that I prayed for such for decades, in line with many verses in the Bible. Just seems odd...

And no Sanoy, 'condemnation' instead appears to be a completely contradictory proposition, in which you assert. Otherwise, my best friend's wife would be one of many which do not follow such an asserted paradigm. Greater knowledge does NOT seem to bring with it, great condemnation. Otherwise, how might one account for Sal - (the publisher of >40% of the NT)? How does it account for my best friend's wife (the staunch atheist)? How does it account for the fundamental reasons of so many, in which I speak with, whom state that they were NOT a believer, until they received revelation from the Holy Spirit/Ghost?

I GLADLY admit that if I received such revelation from a perceived specific God myself, I would have no choice but to then look for patterns to conclude the actual TRUTH (like you are presenting below in your creation arguments). Unless God thinks I'm actually lying in these posts?.?.?.?.

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

I am going to only select specific statements you have provided below:

Now you can deny that God is behind all this that we see, but to do so you must give good reason and an explanation for why these things should be there.

I pose the same/equal conclusions of 'I don't know', as I also do for a 'singular deity', 'universe in a test tube', 'multiple deities', 'fallible creator(s)', etc.... If I 'knew' a very specific agent actually existed, like you seem to, then yes, I would then conclude all such questions can be filled in with such a 'known' agent. I would then most likely present the arguments you pose.

If God exists, like we claim, (and He does) why would God give you anything other than what He has given you that you already have denied?

You have now directly accused me of option 2. from my prior response (i.e.) being dishonest. And I take offense to your conclusion. Please re-address my prior reply, and please see that I am currently in the camp of option 1. instead.

If God knows what actual evidence would convince you, don't you think He would also know if NOTHING would convince you? Maybe it is not God hiding as you think, but God understanding that you are not going to change your mind at all.

I'm pretty sure that if a claimed alternate God exists, and wanted you to know, this agent could let you know, in a way you could not question And yes, you could still 'deny' it, but that is an entirely other thing verses knowledge of your reality. Meaning, you would then just be a liar, like what you are basically calling me now.

I was never in doubt of you points. I say they are contrary to your actions. I say they are contradictory in nature, as shown in my last post.

I trust my response demonstrates the false conclusions of your statements.

 

[Oncedeceived]

As stated prior, long ago, I do not wish to engage. I have already investigated such claimed 'justifications' for God.

I think you believe you have but when I brought up the Laws of Logic you didn't know what that was, you attributed it to intelligence or the brain. So I have to ask myself if you have really investigated all the 'justifications' for God. Without getting into them it is very hard to gauge. It also goes towards knowledge of God which is your whole premise. How can you not wish to engage something which is very important to your whole thread?

Reason? You appear to have received your 'knowledge of existence'. So of course you are going to tie all such (below) arguments and observations to your perceived specific 'existent' god. As I too admit might do as well, if I had such provided specific presentations.

You are trying to connect to the Christian God cvanwey, and say you are sincere; but you seem to be saying that the 'justifications' for God are not relevant unless you already have first hand knowledge of His existence. According to God if Christianity is true, those justifications are evidence of His existence. Do you see the problem here?

Like I also stated prior, knowing if/what specific God exists, provides the starting pointing to such connected conclusions. Meaning, I think Yahweh exists. Hence, I can then reasonably tie all unknowns (i.e.) 'consistent laws of many things', to this perceived specific cosmic agent. Heck, I would too, if I 'knew' such a specific God existed for sure?

The point of the 'justifications' is if you look at those you will find that they are not unknowns but what we DO KNOW. So what this tells me is that you haven't investigated this avenue very fully.

So the question remains, why has God denied (my) needed evidence for decades to reveal his specific existence, like the countless thousands or millions, whom provide anecdotal stories and testimonies?

You claim there are only two options but ignore the third, He isn't hiding but knows that no amount of evidence will convince you. If Jesus stood before you and showed you where the nails entered His hands, would you believe or believe that you were just dreaming?

God apparently has the power to reveal. God apparently does reveal to many whom ask. Heck, God even seems to appear to many whom never ask. Most of which testimonials, all-the-while providing the beginning reason, or catalyst, as to why they now worship God - (starting point). Seems odd that I have not received the luxury to such seemingly mundane revelation? Seems odd that I prayed for such for decades, in line with many verses in the Bible. Just seems odd..

. You say you have prayed accordingly in line with the Bible; what does that mean really?

And no Sanoy, 'condemnation' instead appears to be a completely contradictory proposition, in which you assert. Otherwise, my best friend's wife would be one of many which do not follow such an asserted paradigm. Greater knowledge does NOT seem to bring with it, great condemnation. Otherwise, how might one account for Sal - (the publisher of >40% of the NT)? How does it account for my best friend's wife (the staunch atheist)? How does it account for the fundamental reasons of so many, in which I speak with, whom state that they were NOT a believer, until they received revelation from the Holy Spirit/Ghost?

You have misunderstood what he is saying.

I GLADLY admit that if I received such revelation from a perceived specific God myself, I would have no choice but to then look for patterns to conclude the actual TRUTH (like you are presenting below in your creation arguments). Unless God thinks I'm actually lying in these posts?.?.?.?.

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

What revelation? You still haven't answered me, do you think that the possibility of God existing is real?

I am going to only select specific statements you have provided below:



I pose the same/equal conclusions of 'I don't know', as I also do for a 'singular deity', 'universe in a test tube', 'multiple deities', 'fallible creator(s)', etc.... If I 'knew' a very specific agent actually existed, like you seem to, then yes, I would then conclude all such questions can be filled in with such a 'known' agent. I would then most likely present the arguments you pose.

Fine. No problem. Like I told you, I didn't know who God was at first but He let me know in many ways.

You have now directly accused me of option 2. from my prior response (i.e.) being dishonest. And I take offense to your conclusion. Please re-address my prior reply, and please see that I am currently in the camp of option 1. instead.

You have dismissed option 3.

I'm pretty sure that if a claimed alternate God exists, and wanted you to know, this agent could let you know, in a way you could not question And yes, you could still 'deny' it, but that is an entirely other thing verses knowledge of your reality. Meaning, you would then just be a liar, like what you are basically calling me now.

Please understand, I am not calling you a liar by claiming you are denying, I think you think you not denying anything but your posts tell a different story. I don't for a minute think you are lying. I think that you really believe that you have earnestly searched but your words don't conform to that way of thinking.

 

[cvanwey]

I think you believe you have but when I brought up the Laws of Logic you didn't know what that was, you attributed it to intelligence or the brain. So I have to ask myself if you have really investigated all the 'justifications' for God. Without getting into them it is very hard to gauge. It also goes towards knowledge of God which is your whole premise. How can you not wish to engage something which is very important to your whole thread?

I was referring to humans, and how humans apply such 'laws', which stems from our brain ;-) Just like the 'physical laws' cannot be established by humans, without the use of our brains (i.e.) consciousness. But nice try, trying to change the my very simplistic main point of observation ;-) But I am not taking the bait.

You are trying to connect to the Christian God cvanwey, and say you are sincere; but you seem to be saying that the 'justifications' for God are not relevant unless you already have first hand knowledge of His existence. According to God if Christianity is true, those justifications are evidence of His existence. Do you see the problem here?

Yes I do see a problem here. I can no closer conclude many equally as viable alternatives for such laws, as you specifically do for your specific believed God. So without knowing this specific agent's existence, I place no more credence to this very specific asserted God, than I now do for any alternative hypothesis; in which I also do not have instilled knowledge of as well. The only reason I spend time here (on CF), is because of my indoctrinated upbringing.

The point of the 'justifications' is if you look at those you will find that they are not unknowns but what we DO KNOW. So what this tells me is that you haven't investigated this avenue very fully.

I beg to differ. Or are you again calling me a liar? I have studied all common arguments in which theists place forth. None appear compelling to me. But I digress, as I wish to 'try' and remain on point with my very basic observations, (sometimes it is hard to do - and I can personally attest to that).

You claim there are only two options but ignore the third, He isn't hiding but knows that no amount of evidence will convince you. If Jesus stood before you and showed you where the nails entered His hands, would you believe or believe that you were just dreaming?

I could ask you the very same thing about an asserted and claimed opposing god. Do you actually know what evidence would be required to believe? I doubt it. It's like asking what specific evidence would convince you of many other extraordinary claims. You kind of don't know, until it is presented. It becomes hypothetical.

And again, I either believe, or don't. So I either believe and accept, believe and deny, or don't believe because my needed evidence is not compelling for me. Even if I'm oblivious to God's provided evidence, I would still be honest in not believing, if I state the evidence is not convincing (whether the evidence is sufficient in God's eyes or not).

You say you have prayed accordingly in line with the Bible; what does that mean really?

Asked for signs of existence, which could not easily be muddled with later coincidence. I asked for signs which appear axiomatic, and cannot instead be confused with later interpellation - (do to looking for signs down the road to make it fit), etc.... All in accordance with Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23

What revelation? You still haven't answered me, do you think that the possibility of God existing is real?

Of course, that's why I'm here. However, I mostly think this primarily due to countless amounts of indoctrination.

In regards to revelation, take your pick from the countless anecdotal stories heard everywhere around you. You know, something which would convince me it is real. And like I stated, I do not discriminate on the criteria too much.

Fine. No problem. Like I told you, I didn't know who God was at first but He let me know in many ways.

You see, I would like Him to let me know in many ways, like He does for you. But merely drawing such specific conclusions to Yahweh, using all such argumentation you present, no further leads to the Abrahamic God, verses an alternative God, multiple gods, no longer existent creating forces, the universe is eternal, we are in a test tube, etc.....................

BUT, If I just simply was instilled with the knowledge of your believed God, I would not have created this thread.

Please understand, I am not calling you a liar by claiming you are denying, I think you think you not denying anything but your posts tell a different story. I don't for a minute think you are lying. I think that you really believe that you have earnestly searched but your words don't conform to that way of thinking.

So if I honestly doubt, where I previously substituted with blind faith, then I have no choice but to trust my senses (even if these senses don't jive with actual reality). And since I doubt, God will punish me, according to His specific rules, (again), if it were actually real. And again, the reason it appears contradictory to state as such, is due to my indoctrination.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I was referring to humans, and how humans apply such 'laws', which stems from our brain ;-) Just like the 'physical laws' cannot be established by humans, without the use of our brains (i.e.) consciousness. But nice try, trying to change the my very simplistic main point of observation ;-) But I am not taking the bait.

Yeah, but I wasn't. I made my point very clear. I was referring to the LOL transcending the human brain, so your answer was in direct conflict with my point. I wasn't trying to bait you, I was completely honest in that the LOL are a very good argument for Christian Theology.
You say that you don't want to engage in this type of discussion, but this type of discussion is paramount in answering your thread.

Yes I do see a problem here. I can no closer conclude many equally as viable alternatives for such laws, as you specifically do for your specific believed God.

How would I know that you have equally as viable alternatives for the laws if you won't present them? I know of none, so I would be happy to discuss those viable alternatives.

So without knowing this specific agent's existence, I place no more credence to this very specific asserted God, than I now do for any alternative hypothesis; in which I also do not have instilled knowledge of as well. The only reason I spend time here (on CF), is because of my indoctrinated upbringing.

So in reality, you really have no real desire to have an answer? You just are here because you were told to be a Christian when you were young? Everyone is indoctrinated as children, it is called living in reality; whether that be in a Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or atheist upbringing. So? Nothing new in that, you have moved on into a differing worldview. It really doesn't matter, unless the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob lives. That is why I am here, because He does and it does matter to me whether you live with God or separated for an eternity. Why? I see you as a very nice guy who believes he has surpassed indoctrination, but I see that you have done the same thing now. Taking on the unbeliever's arguments lock, stock and barrel without scrutinizing it at all. I could be wrong, but that is not what this thread is showing. That doesn't say anything about your character, or that you are lying; it just presents a different face than what your thread does.

I beg to differ. Or are you again calling me a liar? I have studied all common arguments in which theists place forth. None appear compelling to me. But I digress, as I wish to 'try' and remain on point with my very basic observations, (sometimes it is hard to do - and I can personally attest to that).

Why? You haven't been able to show anything of substance to refute them?

I could ask you the very same thing about an asserted and claimed opposing god. Do you actually know what evidence would be required to believe? I doubt it. It's like asking what specific evidence would convince you of many other extraordinary claims. You kind of don't know, until it is presented. It becomes hypothetical.

Its called reason, it is called research, it is called searching for the truth. I don't have to wonder about God being some other deity and I've looked at the others with an open mind and found them to be inconsistent and lacking a cohesive reality. Is Christianity reasonable? Does it make sense with the reality of our universe and I think it has been shown it does.

And again, I either believe, or don't. So I either believe and accept, believe and deny, or don't believe because my needed evidence is not compelling for me. Even if I'm oblivious to God's provided evidence, I would still be honest in not believing, if I state the evidence is not convincing (whether the evidence is sufficient in God's eyes or not).

God is the judge of that. I can't say.

Asked for signs of existence, which could not easily be muddled with later coincidence. I asked for signs which appear axiomatic, and cannot instead be confused with later interpellation - (do to looking for signs down the road to make it fit), etc.... All in accordance with Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23

Which there are signs of existence that are axiomatic and you deny it. It is real, it only makes sense with an Intelligent mind but you refuse to even consider that.

Of course, that's why I'm here. However, I mostly think this primarily due to countless amounts of indoctrination.

In regards to revelation, take your pick from the countless anecdotal stories heard everywhere around you. You know, something which would convince me it is real. And like I stated, I do not discriminate on the criteria too much.

I think actually you do. Just being honest. You won't even discuss LOL which is like I said paramount.

You see, I would like Him to let me know in many ways, like He does for you.

Its called a relationship and it grows with time and trust.

But merely drawing such specific conclusions to Yahweh, using all such argumentation you present, no further leads to the Abrahamic God, verses an alternative God, multiple gods, no longer existent creating forces, the universe is eternal, we are in a test tube, etc.....................

I disagree and I can show you why, but of course you don't want to be bothered with details.

BUT, If I just simply was instilled with the knowledge of your believed God, I would not have created this thread.

So if I honestly doubt, where I previously substituted with blind faith, then I have no choice but to trust my senses (even if these senses don't jive with actual reality). And since I doubt, God will punish me, according to His specific rules, (again), if it were actually real. And again, the reason it appears contradictory to state as such, is due to my indoctrination.

I don't think that is the reason it appears to be contradictory.

 

[cvanwey]

Yeah, but I wasn't. I made my point very clear. I was referring to the LOL transcending the human brain, so your answer was in direct conflict with my point. I wasn't trying to bait you, I was completely honest in that the LOL are a very good argument for Christian Theology.
You say that you don't want to engage in this type of discussion, but this type of discussion is paramount in answering your thread.

Okay, great. Then bring your best argument for the LOL, as it directly relates to the Christian God specifically. But if I can demonstrate how this argument does not specifically lead to the Abrahamic God, are you going to then become a skeptic like me?

Taking on the unbeliever's arguments lock, stock and barrel without scrutinizing it at all. I could be wrong, but that is not what this thread is showing. That doesn't say anything about your character, or that you are lying; it just presents a different face than what your thread does.

Yes, you are wrong. I rationalized for my very specific believed God for decades. It is only in the past couple of years that I have actually looked at all claims from a neutral lens

Why? You haven't been able to show anything of substance to refute them?

I honestly have made NO attempt, quite frankly. That is not the point of this thread. If I doubt the claimed source, none of the presented arguments for this very specific God will lend any credence to such a conclusion. The starting point is belief in this one specific god.

Its called a relationship and it grows with time and trust.

A human has a brain. How is a human to know which thoughts are directly from God, verses not?

I don't think that is the reason it appears to be contradictory.

It's called emotion verses logic. Often times, emotion wins.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Okay, great. Then bring your best argument for the LOL, as it directly relates to the Christian God specifically. But if I can demonstrate how this argument does not specifically lead to the Abrahamic God, are you going to then become a skeptic like me?

I would be glad to present my position and best argument for the LOL and how it directly relates to The God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. However, you made the claim that you had equally viable alternatives and that is what I asked you to present.

Yes, you are wrong. I rationalized for my very specific believed God for decades. It is only in the past couple of years that I have actually looked at all claims from a neutral lens

Neutral or naturalistic?

I honestly have made NO attempt, quite frankly. That is not the point of this thread. If I doubt the claimed source, none of the presented arguments for this very specific God will lend any credence to such a conclusion. The starting point is belief in this one specific god.

What criteria do you base such a declaration upon? (the declaration that none of the presented arguments for this very specific God will lend any credence to such a conclusion) Regardless, it is an important part of this thread.

A human has a brain. How is a human to know which thoughts are directly from God, verses not?

It's called emotion verses logic. Often times, emotion wins.

God's voice is different but in the beginning it is difficult to hear the difference, I will admit. It was a process of my thoughts being matched by outside sources that confirmed those thoughts...things that happened or several other sources saying the same thing to understand that difference. God doesn't leave us to our own thoughts. There are also the words and phrasing that you don't use in your own thoughts, or things that you really don't want to do, like be forgiving of someone, or changing something that is sinful in your life that you didn't even realize was sinful. My thoughts are more self-centered and God's thoughts are more love centered. I've been on this forum and another one for decades and there are many times that God has let me know that I am being unloving or not Christian like in my behavior and I have to step away and let the self-centered me be pushed back. However, I don't expect you to believe me.

 

[cvanwey]

I would be glad to present my position and best argument for the LOL and how it directly relates to The God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. However, you made the claim that you had equally viable alternatives and that is what I asked you to present.

I don't recall doing any such thing? I stated that all such arguments no closer leads to your specific god, than many possible alternatives - (too many to list). I am NOT the one asserting that LOL leads to Yahweh specifically. You are. So bring it. You claim it is the catalyst to prove Yahweh specifically. So bring it.

I asked if I was able to demonstrate that your argument instead can lead elsewhere (many places), would you then become a skeptic?

Would demonstrating that LOL does not directly and axiomatically ONLY lead to the Abrahamic God make you a skeptic?

Because if you were able to show that LOL leads directly to Yahweh, don't you think I would have heard such a convincing rendition, at some point, by now???? Or, do you possess the secret in which no one else has provided?

Neutral or naturalistic?

From my estimation, any and every (asserted claim/positive claim) demands scrutiny, investigation, evidence, etc... Being neutral means to do as such for any and every incoming asserted claim - big or small. To not do so accordingly might instead represent gullibility, bias, or any additional appeals to fallacious reasoning.

What criteria do you base such a declaration upon? (the declaration that none of the presented arguments for this very specific God will lend any credence to such a conclusion) Regardless, it is an important part of this thread.

Conclusions which ONLY can lead to your specific god, in which cannot also be used by individuals whom argue for the existence of an opposing god, or other alternatives.

As I see it, one can pose arguments, and tie them directly to their specific believed god. I've seen it with religions, in opposition to yours.

God's voice is different but in the beginning it is difficult to hear the difference, I will admit. It was a process of my thoughts being matched by outside sources that confirmed those thoughts...things that happened or several other sources saying the same thing to understand that difference. God doesn't leave us to our own thoughts. There are also the words and phrasing that you don't use in your own thoughts, or things that you really don't want to do, like be forgiving of someone, or changing something that is sinful in your life that you didn't even realize was sinful. My thoughts are more self-centered and God's thoughts are more love centered. I've been on this forum and another one for decades and there are many times that God has let me know that I am being unloving or not Christian like in my behavior and I have to step away and let the self-centered me be pushed back. However, I don't expect you to believe me.

How is any of this unrelated to empathy? Furthermore, the same can be said for 'sin' and Satan, in regards to the 'bad' stuff.