'Knowledge' of Existence

[Oncedeceived]

Proof for Yahweh specifically please. The direct knowledge of His direct existence to all of this please? Otherwise, we can all speculate and ponder until the cows come home

I started this whole discussion with this: I believe that the Christian worldview best explains what we see in reality. If you want to go into all the alternatives and why they aren't cohesive and coherent within their own worldview we can do that. The claims that I make are specifically for Yahweh and I have provided why. If you want to believe that Allah, or Buddha or whoever might be a better fit for reality then by all means we can go down that alley. Right now, you have determined that you don't believe that God by any name is a reality. So, that's fine. The worldview you hold though is not consistent or cohesive with reality. It is not consistent or cohesive within your own argumentation.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's kind of an interesting question. The development of language in humans is a fascinating field of study. The concept of definitions is probably just intuitive. If you're really looking for answers, I would encourage you to look up what kind of research has been done as to the origin of logical reasoning.

Logical reasoning is not what we are discussing. Laws of Logic are the same as reason. They are what is necessary a priori to reasoning.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Again, this is where I'm seeing a grave disconnect. There are many conclusions to where I feel I do not have enough data, information, direct evidence, or intelligence to make or assert a conclusion. As stated many times now, I empathize with many whom attempt to account for a 'driving force' to all such things in which many assert. In regards to the others/you, whom conclude or assert a position (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc), I am instead in the camp of doubt, skepticism, or simply state "I really don't know".

You don't know, that we agree on. You claim that if you had that knowledge (which I possess) you too would reach similar conclusions. Yet, on the other hand, you accuse Christians being unfounded in their claims. So if you had this knowledge, would your claims equally be unfounded?

The fact that (you) label yourself a Christian tells me you automatically have made such conclusions. I, on the other hand, happily admit there exists many things I cannot make such assertions about.

You claim you don't have enough information to make assertions or come to conclusions about certain things, but then you assert that the evidence provided by Christians is not sufficient or explanatory towards their position. If you don't know, how do you know it isn't sufficient or explanatory or true?

And just because I do not know the answer to something, does not mean I cannot rule out the assertion of some others.

Which depends on what you mean by rule out. If you rule outright anything that is God related because it is God related, then you really aren't looking for any truth in any God related claim.

It's 1960, and someone tells me "Tina Turner" is singing on a demo track. I may not know whom is actually singing the song, but can still confidently conclude that Tina is not the singer. Hence, without enough data, I might not be able to 'disprove' the assertion of 'Tina Turner'.

This is kinda how I view what is going on here. You are asserting a conclusion (Christianity, in all of it's wide varieties). Where I'm stating, in regards to a 'driving force' I don't know, but can safety conclude that your asserted position does not align with my reality.

I hope this helps a bit?

Helps what?
Your reality which is what? That you don't know? Your reality must be somewhat similar to mine in most ways. We live in the same universe, we live on the same earth, we breath the same air. You seem to be content in not asking the hard questions about that existence. That is fine, but you have a view of Christianity that doesn't hold up to the actual Theology that it presents.

Again, in regards to such 'Bible prophecy', my 'asserted conclusion' is simple. I find many people, whom refer to any such book of prophecy, accept the (vague) hits while ignoring the (many) misses. Christianity definitely falls within this category. So until you cite a very specific 'claimed fulfilled prophecy', this is my concluded 'asserted position', for this particular topic, thus far

Like I said, I will come back to this.

I feel this is where our assumptions/conclusions/ideas drastically diverge or part ways. I gladly state that I am NOT qualified to assert a conclusion, but defer my 'trust' in the many whom have devoted their careers to such study. In regards to 'Mitochondrial Eve' (in regards to 'modern humans can be traced to only one female ancestor'), please watch the 6 minute video. And no, I am not a Richard Dawkins fan on many points :

Glad that you are not a fan of Dawkins.

If the above assertion is true, on any level, then Genesis' assertion is patently false. Because as I eluded to prior, the Bible asserts that humans were first created in present human form. And the 'creationist' would seem to have NO choice, but to reject macro evolution. If the above video is even slightly true, the origin/beginning of human ancestry does not follow such Biblical claims. And since you stated you are also a fan of science, I would then also assume you accept true scientific theory???? And since evolution is a scientific theory, this might be where the conversation could get shaky... Meaning, you have adopted a possible a priori to Adam and Eve as humans. This claims overtly rejects macro evolution - (a scientific theory).

1. If what he says is true, on any level, it does not then make Genesis patently false. It does not require that the creationist to reject macro evolution. Some do, some don't. Genesis states that God made Adam and Eve in His image. That means spiritually for sure, and physically perhaps. Genesis doesn't say anything about there being no other people prior to this spiritual creation. We do know as I was saying in the last post, that there were other people that Cain (the son of Adam and Eve) was fearful of and of whom he thought might kill him. So there is Scriptural support that there were other beings (people) who were not created in the image of God. Call them Homo Neanderthalensis, or Denisovans or Homo Erectus whatever you like but there were other people who were not in the image of God. So, no Genesis doesn't reject macro evolution per se.

This is one of the many reasons why I am severely in the camp of major doubt to many claims from 'Genesis'

Perhaps you haven't addressed it as carefully as you might?

Yes, and as I stated prior, even a few decades ago, scientists thought the earth was perfectly round. So this must also mean, that since scientific conclusions change, then the original assertion is correct - (the world is flat). Meaning, because we may still not know the absolute concluded spherical shape, we can then throw our hands up in the air, drop all science, and conclude the world is flat, as eluded to from both theists and scientists a while back.

This is so bizarre in regard to what I said, it is mind blowing. I never implied anything of the sort. I said that Science and its new discoveries had shown Genesis more accurate.

In regards to your above links, what specific Bible verses do you feel directly connect? Are they specific? Do they hint anything specific from these cited articles noted? Or, are they instead kind of vague? Meaning, no real specific data to correlate between a verse(s) and such articles of conclusion?

Sometimes I get the feeling you are just skimming over my posts and not really thinking about what I've written. I told you that early on (decades ago) atheists would claim that Genesis 1:2
2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.
and Genesis 1:3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light.
Were not possible. That early in the universe there could be no water and it was total darkness. They said this was a reason that Genesis was not true. Then through scientific study we find that was true and supplied the articles to show it. Then they claimed that water could not have been on earth early enough for life to begin with plants, and if there was no sun they couldn't exist. However, science again confirmed that there was water early on earth and that plants can grow even in the darkest depths of the ocean.

Is it possible such connections are instead a post hoc conclusion? Also, what happens if an alternate conclusion later no longer supports the Bible verse(s) you are them connecting to? Since you gladly admit that science changes, why even reference a scientific conclusion back to Bible prophecy at all???

The connections were not post hoc as the scientific data had provided the information after the Bible was written. It wasn't about a Bible prophecy, but Genesis. You didn't catch that a second time I guess.

This is why I am a doubter/skeptic to many things.... If we do not know yet, it's okay to state, we do not know yet. Or, may never know.

A skeptic does not mean someone who doesn't ask or search for answers.

Oh, I understand. You want me to make an assertion.

You hold a worldview, everyone does.

(Which will also ultimately oppose your concluded position, since I am a skeptic to your specific asserted and concluded position).

As I stated in the beginning response in this post, I am in the camp of doubt and skepticism to many things (theism and science alike). Until (I feel) the evidence is overwhelming to reach any/all conclusions, I do not assert a conclusion.

Hence, there exists many conclusions I may never, or have yet to draw.

Ok. Fair enough. You don't know and so you have nothing to add to the conversation.

Then why not instead just refer to something like RNA, a single celled organism, or other more undefined or 'simplistic' models? Why specifically present such a specific bacteria? Again, I gladly state I do not know the 'driving force' to start such processes at all. The Bacteria flagella is way overkill, and instead seems to represent a specific viewpoint. And 'irreducible complexity' seems to be one of the inferred components to such arguments...

You really do seem to skim over my posts and make undo assumptions. The point to the Bacterial Flagellum was that we think our thoughts after God. Biomimicry is exactly thinking God's thoughts after Him. We have 'invented' a similar design without ever knowing about the Bacterial Flagellum. That was the whole point.

If you are a Christian, then you do conclude creationism, and Yahweh as the 'driving force.' If not, please advise accordingly.

I wouldn't say 'driving force' particularly, but yes.

You are a Christian, so I know your claim(s) I am a skeptic. So in such matters, I do not have one.

It seems you don't. You are claiming that I assert that unknowns point to God or I insert God when there are unknowns which is simply not true. It is from what we do know that I use to support my position.

Nope. If you did not assert a conclusion to the origin, then I would agree with you

You said: 'Can you think of a better answer? No? Therefore my specific God.' 'God exists because we do not yet know some things.' I think God is a better answer for what we KNOW. We know that the Laws of Logic are necessary truths that are immaterial, invariant/immutable, and universal. We know that. What makes the best explanation for what we know? An immaterial, invariant/immutable God who all truth originates? The answer is not just placing God in an unknown, we know what the Laws of Logic are, we know they are necessary truth, we know they can not be escaped. What is the BEST explanation for Logic? I feel it is God and it is cohesive and coherent with that worldview I hold.

Then please stop asking me for my conclusion and worldview for the origin of anything. I don't know. And neither do you.

I know that I can understand what makes the most sense of what we do know. I know what is consistent within my worldview.

 

[gaara4158]

Logical reasoning is not what we are discussing. Laws of Logic are the same as reason. They are what is necessary a priori to reasoning.

The laws of logic govern how we are able to describe reality, not how reality itself is allowed to behave. They are linguistic tools.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The laws of logic govern how we are able to describe reality, not how reality itself is allowed to behave. They are linguistic tools.

To even be able to communicate, language or symbolism or writing necessitate the Laws of Logic, not the other way around. They are not linguistic tools, they are absolute necessary truths a priori to any thinking.

 

[gaara4158]

To even be able to communicate, language or symbolism or writing necessitate the Laws of Logic, not the other way around. They are not linguistic tools, they are absolute necessary truths a priori to any thinking.

No, they are linguistic tools for precisely the reason you just stated. We need to make a set of assumptions in order to allow for communication. You’re confusing the map for the territory. A=A because we decided that there’s only one thing we’re going to call A, and that’s A. The “rule” that keeps rocks from spontaneously morphing into flowers is a fact of physics, not logic.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, they are linguistic tools for precisely the reason you just stated. We need to make a set of assumptions in order to allow for communication. You’re confusing the map for the territory. A=A because we decided that there’s only one thing we’re going to call A, and that’s A. The “rule” that keeps rocks from spontaneously morphing into flowers is a fact of physics, not logic.

Lets go back to your chess analogy. We can play chess and play by the rules or we can play chess and not follow the rules. You can move a rook diagonally, you are just breaking the rules. The rules are optional, meaning that we can opt not to follow the rules. Language is the same way, when all the rules are follow we can communicate but someone can change those rules and language and communication can become gibberish if you don't know the rules. You can opt out of language or communication. However, the laws of logic are not optional. If one makes any sense of reality, you have to use logic. It is not an option. It is necessary general truths that you can't escape. You can't even choose to break the rules.

 

[gaara4158]

Lets go back to your chess analogy. We can play chess and play by the rules or we can play chess and not follow the rules. You can move a rook diagonally, you are just breaking the rules. The rules are optional, meaning that we can opt not to follow the rules. Language is the same way, when all the rules are follow we can communicate but someone can change those rules and language and communication can become gibberish if you don't know the rules. You can opt out of language or communication. However, the laws of logic are not optional. If one makes any sense of reality, you have to use logic. It is not an option. It is necessary general truths that you can't escape. You can't even choose to break the rules.

“Making sense” and “playing chess” are analogous in the sense that as long as you’re following the rules, you’re engaging in that activity. If you move a rook diagonally, you’re no longer in fact playing chess, but instead just pushing pieces around a chessboard. If you make logical contradictions, you are no longer making sense, just tossing words around. But in either case, the universe doesn’t collapse into nonsense when you break the rules. You’re just breaking the rules.

The unbreakable rules of reality you’re referring to are the laws of physics, and that’s an entirely different subject. Studies at the quantum level suggest that the behavior of reality can’t be neatly contained within logical descriptions anyway.

 

[Oncedeceived]

“Making sense” and “playing chess” are analogous in the sense that as long as you’re following the rules, you’re engaging in that activity. If you move a rook diagonally, you’re no longer in fact playing chess, but instead just pushing pieces around a chessboard. If you make logical contradictions, you are no longer making sense, just tossing words around. But in either case, the universe doesn’t collapse into nonsense when you break the rules. You’re just breaking the rules.

I never suggested or even implied that the universe could collapse into nonsense. You CAN'T break the rules. You can break formal and informal logic, you can make fallacious statements but you can not break the laws of logic.

The unbreakable rules of reality you’re referring to are the laws of physics, and that’s an entirely different subject. Studies at the quantum level suggest that the behavior of reality can’t be neatly contained within logical descriptions anyway.

No, I am not referring to the laws of physics. The laws of logic are not made of material stuff. They are not made of atoms or molecules.

 

[gaara4158]

I never suggested or even implied that the universe could collapse into nonsense. You CAN'T break the rules. You can break formal and informal logic, you can make fallacious statements but you can not break the laws of logic.

No, I am not referring to the laws of physics. The laws of logic are not made of material stuff. They are not made of atoms or molecules.

We’ve been over this. You’re mistaking the map for the territory. What are the laws of logic you’re talking about, if not what I just described?

 

[Oncedeceived]

We’ve been over this. You’re mistaking the map for the territory. What are the laws of logic you’re talking about, if not what I just described?

Let's take your laws of physics. The Laws of Physics are bound by the laws of logic but the laws of logic are not bound by the Laws of Physics. We can conceive logic outside of physics but we can't conceive physics outside of logic. We can't use physics to provide for logic but we can and do use logic to provide for the laws of physics.

 

[cvanwey]

I started this whole discussion with this: I believe that the Christian worldview best explains what we see in reality. If you want to go into all the alternatives and why they aren't cohesive and coherent within their own worldview we can do that. The claims that I make are specifically for Yahweh and I have provided why. If you want to believe that Allah, or Buddha or whoever might be a better fit for reality then by all means we can go down that alley. Right now, you have determined that you don't believe that God by any name is a reality. So, that's fine. The worldview you hold though is not consistent or cohesive with reality. It is not consistent or cohesive within your own argumentation.

Please watch to the end (under 10 minutes)...

 

[gaara4158]

Let's take your laws of physics. The Laws of Physics are bound by the laws of logic but the laws of logic are not bound by the Laws of Physics. We can conceive logic outside of physics but we can't conceive physics outside of logic. We can't use physics to provide for logic but we can and do use logic to provide for the laws of physics.

It seems to me that you’re conceptualizing the laws of logic as some prescriptive set of laws about how reality has to be, and they can be derived from an armchair. Can you give an example of such a law?

 

[cvanwey]

I will go back and answer your last post but I will respond to this one first. Yes, if you had knowledge of God's existence you would not be on the side of the discussion you are now. Obviously.

So what is He waiting for? Knowledge of existence should be overwhelming to His specific existence. [Rhetorical question] I would get the same answer from you as I may get from any believer in any alternate asserted religious conclusion.

That we are having this discussion and you and Eight Foot Manchild are missing is that we could not even have this discussion if it were not for the laws of logic.

Organized thought leads specifically to Yahweh???? Please explain?

As far as knowledge (which again is grounded in logic) of God, true knowledge can be acquired and many people hold knowledge that others do not hold at one time or another. The fact that you and EF Manchild don't have this knowledge is not validation of that knowledge not being actual or true. It just means you don't have that knowledge.

What specifically validates such knowledge of Yahweh for you?

All denominations of Christianity have the same bedrock affirmations. That Jesus Christ is the son of God, that He died for our sins and that He rose again. That's it. That is the foundation for Christianity. Anything other than that has to be argued with Scripture as to if it is in keeping with the Theology of Christianity. There are always differing ideas and beliefs in all things.

You've missed my entire point. If we believed in a resurrection, yes, we would only argue the ways to get and not get to heaven, and what each Bible verse actually means. (i.e.) How a nondenominational may state 'they 'saved' their mother from hell, whom used to be a Catholic'

And may also choose to reject it, while having no choice but the acknowledge His existence.

1. You take the opposing alternate conclusions and see if they are cohesive and coherent within that worldview. Does reality reflect what that worldview proclaims?

Well, I've plugged in many assertions from the Bible, which appear to not align with my 'worldview'. So the Biblical claims do not appear to make sense. Now, if I knew Yahweh was real, I would instead begin to question my sense of reality. But until I receive such proof, I can only conclude honestly, (in the realm of severe doubt).

2. We know that hundreds of millions of doubters and skeptics have come to have knowledge of God. The fact that you and EF Manchild have not does not change the fact that hundreds of millions have.

I already acknowledged that many state that they have, and also fully believe they have. However, it seems odd that God does not care to also reveal such truths to all, to present a level playing field. And as stated many posts prior, God would also know that all received their needed proof of mere existence, and some chose to instead deny, reject, rebell, etc... Again, knowledge in existence does not tamper with free will/free choice. So what is the harm in revelation for all, (verses only some)?

3. No, not at all. God wants us to have that choice. Man will always make up excuses and follow down other paths if they don't want God.

This response does not address my observation. After 1,000's of years, philosophy is still arguing for and against the mere existence of God(s). I doubt all such people, whom argue against the existence are just in denial

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

There's almost nothing here I haven't responded to multiple times, so I'll be jumping around a bit.

Exactly, you are not understanding my argument.

I don't think you understand your argument, frankly. No textbook on Earth describes logic the way you do in this thread. You should stop reading Matt Slick and read Copi & Cohen.

There are types of truth?

Yes. Philosophies will have differing ways of describing them, but typically they are broken down into conceptual (sometimes interchangeable with 'metaphysical') truth and empirical (sometimes 'evidential') truth, each of which may have subcategories.

Really? And how do you know that revelation isn't one of them?

Because no one has ever put forward a reliable, workable epistemology for it. You are welcome to be the first.

We can't predict the mind of Yahweh...true. We can't know His thoughts but He has made known what His plans are for the universe. So we can know that the universe will stay the same up to the point of its end.

That's a contradiction. In order to know the universe will stay the same, you would have to know the mind of Yahweh, to know he would never alter or destroy it. You said yourself that you can't know that.

I'm sure glad these aren't my problems.

I haven't ascribed any position to you other than your estimation of your view. You believe that reality is immutable and universal.

Correct so far.

You believe that the laws of logic are invented by humans to describe reality.

Wrong. I know the laws of (classical, Aristotelean) logic were invented by humans. It's right there in our history. The literature is available for anyone to see.

Which is not a problem for me, because my worldview distinguishes between reality and statements about reality.

You believe truth is not invented by humans. You believe that my position is cartoonish. Now where have I ascribed incorrectly your position?

You've got it mostly right. Your problem is, you want to have it both ways.

On one hand, you keep saying you agree with me that the universe would continue to operate exactly as it does, absent any mental activity. You said you agree that the entire wealth of human knowledge - including all forms of logic - could disappear tomorrow, and reality would carry on all the same.

On the other hand, your apologetics require you to argue the exact opposite hierarchy, with the universe necessarily following after mental activity. Namely, that of an all-powerful cosmic mind, from which all of reality derives.

So you are forced to jump back and forth, depending where the conversation is happening. Pick one. You can't have both.

I find that the existence of our reality or the universe and our existence is most coherent and cohesive in the Christian worldview. I believe that reality must derive from a mind from the evidence the universe gives us. The universe speaks of intelligence. It is derived by mathematical structure, it is governed by laws, it appears designed and mankind has the ability to understand it. I find no other worldview that explains what we see of reality better.

I know what your worldview says. You didn't task yourself with reiterating it.

You tasked yourself with proving that reality must necessarily derive from a mind. You have failed at doing so.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Please watch to the end (under 10 minutes)...

This must have been very traumatic for someone such as yourself, who is longing for the knowledge of God and His existence, who can't understand why He continues to hide Himself from you when you want so badly to know Him.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It seems to me that you’re conceptualizing the laws of logic as some prescriptive set of laws about how reality has to be, and they can be derived from an armchair. Can you give an example of such a law?

No, not about has reality has to be, it is how we conceptualize how reality is.

You are not aware of the Laws of Logic?

 

[gaara4158]

No, not about has reality has to be, it is how we conceptualize how reality is.

You are not aware of the Laws of Logic?

We are both familiar with something we call the laws of logic, but the way you’re talking about them doesn’t fit with the definition I have for them. So I’m trying to get to the bottom of what exactly you’re talking about when you say “laws of logic.” I think it would be helpful if you provided an example.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So what is He waiting for? Knowledge of existence should be overwhelming to His specific existence. [Rhetorical question] I would get the same answer from you as I may get from any believer in any alternate asserted religious conclusion.

Do you pray then to Allah, Buddha or Brahman?

Organized thought leads specifically to Yahweh???? Please explain?

Have you studied other religions?

What specifically validates such knowledge of Yahweh for you?

Reality.

You've missed my entire point. If we believed in a resurrection, yes, we would only argue the ways to get and not get to heaven, and what each Bible verse actually means. (i.e.) How a nondenominational may state 'they 'saved' their mother from hell, whom used to be a Catholic'

And may also choose to reject it, while having no choice but the acknowledge His existence.

You are right, I am not getting your point. Christian Theology at its foundation is Jesus Christ, who lived, died for the sins of mankind and rose again. If a denomination goes from the original gospel of this foundation they are not of the Church. Sin is cleansed not by the person or their works, nor by Mary, nothing but Jesus Christ. If that foundation is not in the denomination then we know that the denomination is not of the church.

Well, I've plugged in many assertions from the Bible, which appear to not align with my 'worldview'. So the Biblical claims do not appear to make sense. Now, if I knew Yahweh was real, I would instead begin to question my sense of reality. But until I receive such proof, I can only conclude honestly, (in the realm of severe doubt).

You are not a neutral observer, you have a worldview that rests on your presuppositional biases. Just as I do. Your sense of reality is seen through this worldview and even though I believe that it is inconsistent and incoherent within your own view, you as well see mine as such. I feel that you are not open to any change in your worldview, because when I have provided some views that differ from yours you haven't bothered to even comment on them, or address them. That is what I am seeing anyway.

I already acknowledged that many state that they have, and also fully believe they have. However, it seems odd that God does not care to also reveal such truths to all, to present a level playing field. And as stated many posts prior, God would also know that all received their needed proof of mere existence, and some chose to instead deny, reject, rebell, etc... Again, knowledge in existence does not tamper with free will/free choice. So what is the harm in revelation for all, (verses only some)?

Its hard to find someone you hold up to ridicule. Just sayin

This response does not address my observation. After 1,000's of years, philosophy is still arguing for and against the mere existence of God(s). I doubt all such people, whom argue against the existence are just in denial

Well that is not what God says, if God is real and what I claim is true.

 

[Oncedeceived]

We are both familiar with something we call the laws of logic, but the way you’re talking about them doesn’t fit with the definition I have for them. So I’m trying to get to the bottom of what exactly you’re talking about when you say “laws of logic.” I think it would be helpful if you provided an example.

What exactly is your definition of them?