'Knowledge' of Existence

[cvanwey]

I don't understand your response.

Hence, the reason I'm getting slightly impatience, in which you then translate instead, as 'recoiling.'

I don't 'recoil' at Santa Clause. I don't have any emotional response at all to Santa Clause because he doesn't exist. If you wanted to argue that he existed I would listen and not become defensive if his existence becomes a real possibility.

Again, I'm not 'recoiling', so please retire this word temporarily, in reference to me and this topic. Please allow me to set something straight once and for all. Most/all adults do not 'recoil' at Santa, the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy, Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo, and the like, because no one around them is making pronouncements to the asserted realism, assertions of reality, asserting vital 'truths' pertaining to such beings, and so on.

No professed 'skeptics' to such beings exist, nor is necessary, because there exists no need in adult society in doing so. Neither you, nor I, would even think to invoke such a label as 'asanatclausist', 'aeasterbunnyist', and so on. Let alone professing being a 'skeptic' to such agents. The fact I label myself as a 'skeptic' to such propositions is only necessary, in response to the vast majority whom oppose the current position in society. It becomes absurd to publicly profess 'skepticism' to many alternative claims, as mentioned above.

I hope you understand my position, and not instead take it as another 'recoil.'

What you ask to be done in lifting the veil would condemn many, and I think yourself as well.

I disagree, for the reason I stated in prior responses. And pardon me for responding to it again. And again, please do not translate this as 'recoiling.' Take a simple 'atheist' as the example.... All atheists 'reject' the premise of god, by definition. So if they are genuine in their label, like you also are with Santa, Poseidon, etc, then of course they are not going to lend any credence to such asserted pronouncements. Just like you make the same conclusion with all other god assertions.

In regards to the Bible and Christianity, I'm currently 'condemned'. I regards to postmortem conclusions, there exists a presented dichotomy - (Heaven or not Heaven). Without arguing the minutiae of Bible passages (belief vs works - to reach and achieve salvation), knowledge of existence saved many, according to the Bible.

Again, the atheist stands no chance, if Christianity is true.

Paul says that everyone is without excuse on that day of judgement.

Why should I care what Paul says, any more than what any other person says, whom also claims they received any type of revelation from their asserted God? What makes Paul so special? Is he not just another mortal, whom claimed dialogue from a divine deity?

And again, if 'atheism' is actually a thing (by definition), then such a statement by Paul is false. Meaning, many earnestly do not think a god exists. And of course everyone thinks they know 'right' from 'wrong'. This is further demonstrated from the fact we see so many opposing denominations within Christianity.

When you die, and you stand before God, you will have no excuse, not even 'knowledge of existence' because you know right from wrong.

Please read my response above, in regards to assertions...

That is not to say there will not be fairness, but that no mater what, no one will be without excuse. Why bring condemnation upon the world when knowledge does not save? God could appear before you on the road to McDonalds, but that won't save you, only your heart can do that.

Again, I greatly disagree. Take your aforementioned 'Paul', for instance. What was the catalyst for his salvation? He did not believe Jesus resurrected, until his trip to Damascus. What choices, decisions, and actions did he do there-after? If he not had 'knowledge of existence', to a postmortem deity, would he have believed, wrote almost half the NT, preach the word to others, etc? So yes, the 'knowledge of existence' is required for many to entertain the notion of claimed 'salvation.'

The problem with skepticism is that it is a decision to include and to exclude certain forms of knowledge.

You mean, like I do with the countless other assertions made, on a daily basis, in which I remain skeptical (i.e.) aliens, asserted contact from individuals and their opposing gods, spirit sightings, ghost sightings, etc...? None of which I have any 'knowledge' of myself, in stark contrast to the countless anecdotal claims.

God is not a physical being, I have been healed, attacked by demons in the same sense as the movies, I have seen angels, I have seen, ghosts and yet I have never seen God or the supernatural according to your skepticism.

So are you saying this is the underlying reason you have 'knowledge of existence'? Because quite frankly, it would be very easy to conclude that 'God' also exists, if you also had such experiences with the other said supernatural agents. Alternatively, I have experienced none of what you claim, so I cannot claim 'knowledge of existence.' Therefore, I have no choice but to be truly skeptical; just like you most likely are when presented, what you consider, 'unbelievable' anecdotal stories from others.

Skepticism, in general usage, is a retaining wall one builds to keep things out,

Even if everything you say is true, what's God's excuse for not instilling 'knowledge of existence' for most of my life? Again, if I had knowledge of existence, this thread would not exist Yes, I may question passages in the Bible. But I would instead try to reconcile their apparent 'truth', rather than instead question if they actually came from anything other than just another mere human being.

it's not a form of epistemology.

I feel you are over inflating my profile label. I'm labelled as a 'skeptic', because I'm neither a believer nor an atheist. You seem to be placing too much stock in my profile label/handle And when did I ever claim skepticism, in relation to any type of epistemology?

My entire point of this thread, is that in belief or no belief in anything, one does not need to 'open their mind in a certain', to gain knowledge of existence to something. Even if everything you state is true of skepticism, many skeptics and doubters had no choice but to retract their prior doubt, when presented evidence to the contrary. Heck, read the Bible to affirm this observation (i.e.) Sal and Thomas again. It's what one decides to do with the 'knowledge'.....

What you need is healing from the past,

If this is actually true, I would not request as such from a forum

but you want the wound to stay open instead.

I prefer truth; whether it be 'good', 'bad', or 'ugly'. If you feel attacked, wounded, or anything else 'negative', my apologize. However, I am expressing my views and positions, after deep and careful thought.

 

[Chriliman]

Hence, the reason I'm getting slightly impatience, in which you then translate instead, as 'recoiling.'



Again, I'm not 'recoiling', so please retire this word temporarily, in reference to me and this topic. Please allow me to set something straight once and for all. Most/all adults do not 'recoil' at Santa, the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy, Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo, and the like, because no one around them is making pronouncements to the asserted realism, assertions of reality, asserting vital 'truths' pertaining to such beings, and so on.

No professed 'skeptics' to such beings exist, nor is necessary, because there exists no need in adult society in doing so. Neither you, nor I, would even think to invoke such a label as 'asanatclausist', 'aeasterbunnyist', and so on. Let alone professing being a 'skeptic' to such agents. The fact I label myself as a 'skeptic' to such propositions is only necessary, in response to the vast majority whom oppose the current position in society. It becomes absurd to publicly profess 'skepticism' to many alternative claims, as mentioned above.

I hope you understand my position, and not instead take it as another 'recoil.'



I disagree, for the reason I stated in prior responses. And pardon me for responding to it again. And again, please do not translate this as 'recoiling.' Take a simple 'atheist' as the example.... All atheists 'reject' the premise of god, by definition. So if they are genuine in their label, like you also are with Santa, Poseidon, etc, then of course they are not going to lend any credence to such asserted pronouncements. Just like you make the same conclusion with all other god assertions.

In regards to the Bible and Christianity, I'm currently 'condemned'. I regards to postmortem conclusions, there exists a presented dichotomy - (Heaven or not Heaven). Without arguing the minutiae of Bible passages (belief vs works - to reach and achieve salvation), knowledge of existence saved many, according to the Bible.

Again, the atheist stands no chance, if Christianity is true.



Why should I care what Paul says, any more than what any other person says, whom also claims they received any type of revelation from their asserted God? What makes Paul so special? Is he not just another mortal, whom claimed dialogue from a divine deity?

And again, if 'atheism' is actually a thing (by definition), then such a statement by Paul is false. Meaning, many earnestly do not think a god exists. And of course everyone thinks they know 'right' from 'wrong'. This is further demonstrated from the fact we see so many opposing denominations within Christianity.



Please read my response above, in regards to assertions...



Again, I greatly disagree. Take your aforementioned 'Paul', for instance. What was the catalyst for his salvation? He did not believe Jesus resurrected, until his trip to Damascus. What choices, decisions, and actions did he do there-after? If he not had 'knowledge of existence', to a postmortem deity, would he have believed, wrote almost half the NT, preach the word to others, etc? So yes, the 'knowledge of existence' is required for many to entertain the notion of claimed 'salvation.'



You mean, like I do with the countless other assertions made, on a daily basis, in which I remain skeptical (i.e.) aliens, asserted contact from individuals and their opposing gods, spirit sightings, ghost sightings, etc...? None of which I have any 'knowledge' of myself, in stark contrast to the countless anecdotal claims.



So are you saying this is the underlying reason you have 'knowledge of existence'? Because quite frankly, it would be very easy to conclude that 'God' also exists, if you also had such experiences with the other said supernatural agents. Alternatively, I have experienced none of what you claim, so I cannot claim 'knowledge of existence.' Therefore, I have no choice but to be truly skeptical; just like you most likely are when presented, what you consider, 'unbelievable' anecdotal stories from others.



Even if everything you say is true, what's God's excuse for not instilling 'knowledge of existence' for most of my life? Again, if I had knowledge of existence, this thread would not exist Yes, I may question passages in the Bible. But I would instead try to reconcile their apparent 'truth', rather than instead question if they actually came from anything other than just another mere human being.



I feel you are over inflating my profile label. I'm labelled as a 'skeptic', because I'm neither a believer nor an atheist. You seem to be placing too much stock in my profile label/handle And when did I ever claim skepticism, in relation to any type of epistemology?

My entire point of this thread, is that in belief or no belief in anything, one does not need to 'open their mind in a certain', to gain knowledge of existence to something. Even if everything you state is true of skepticism, many skeptics and doubters had no choice but to retract their prior doubt, when presented evidence to the contrary. Heck, read the Bible to affirm this observation (i.e.) Sal and Thomas again. It's what one decides to do with the 'knowledge'.....



If this is actually true, I would not request as such from a forum




I prefer truth; whether it be 'good', 'bad', or 'ugly'. If you feel attacked, wounded, or anything else 'negative', my apologize. However, I am expressing my views and positions, after deep and careful thought.

I’m glad you prefer truth. Truth must be communicated through sentient beings and when it is communicated in love, this is what we understand to be God. God is with us, lovingly communicating truth and life to each person in a unique way. How we respond to that truth and love is up to us.

 

[cvanwey]

I’m glad you prefer truth. Truth must be communicated through sentient beings and when it is communicated in love, this is what we understand to be God. God is with us, lovingly communicating truth and life to each person in a unique way. How we respond to that truth and love is up to us.

Though I disagree with a lot of what is said here for many reasons, please allow me to just instead assume everything you stated as correct thus far; (as I want to remain on topic)....

Now all (I) need is the actual 'knowledge of existence' to the correct God. Otherwise, which God are we talking about? Please remember, the 'love' demonstrated from one asserted God may be the antithesis of the asserted 'love' from an opposing God. Furthermore, what the receiving agent (me), interprets as 'love', may differ from individual to individual. But in some small respect, I see what you are saying. Meaning, 'how we respond.'

However, and this is a big however, to simply assume all 'good' thoughts are from God and all 'bad' thoughts are not, simply pushes the 'moral argument'; which I find lacking and not convincing, as it only becomes a circular argument.

 

[Chriliman]

Though I disagree with a lot of what is said here for many reasons, please allow me to just instead assume everything you stated as correct thus far; (as I want to remain on topic)....

Now all (I) need is the actual 'knowledge of existence' to the correct God. Otherwise, which God are we talking about? Please remember, the 'love' demonstrated from one asserted God may be the antithesis of the asserted 'love' from an opposing God. Furthermore, what the receiving agent (me), interprets as 'love', may differ from individual to individual. But in some small respect, I see what you are saying. Meaning, 'how we respond.'

However, and this is a big however, to simply assume all 'good' thoughts are from God and all 'bad' thoughts are not, simply pushes the 'moral argument'; which I find lacking and not convincing, as it only becomes a circular argument.

You disagree that truth is communicated through sentient beings and that God might communicate truth through loving relationships?

 

[cvanwey]

You disagree that truth is communicated through sentient beings and that God might communicate truth through loving relationships?

This response represents question begging...

Truth is the act of belief, in accordance with 'fact' and 'reality'.

The only sentiment beings demonstrated as 'fact' or 'reality' are humans, whom argue for or against 'truth' with one another. Unless we are all in the Matrix and then nothing matters anyways.

What each individual interprets as 'good' ranges widely from person to person.

What each individual interprets as 'loving' ranges widely from person to person.

To place this all together, again, is begging the question.

Until an absolute definition of all terms are demonstrated, anyone can infer any supernatural agent (by using the premise to support itself). But as it stands, we live in a shared reality, full of humans.

 

[Chriliman]

This response represents question begging...

Truth is the act of belief, in accordance with 'fact' and 'reality'.

The only sentiment beings demonstrated as 'fact' or 'reality' are humans, whom argue for or against 'truth' with one another. Unless we are all in the Matrix and then nothing matters anyways.

What each individual interprets as 'good' ranges widely from person to person.

What each individual interprets as 'loving' ranges widely from person to person.

To place this all together, again, is begging the question.

Until an absolute definition of all terms are demonstrated, anyone can infer any supernatural agent (by using the premise to support itself). But as it stands, we live in a shared reality, full of humans.

I agree for the most part. However, when it comes to why/how it is that I or the universe exist and for what purpose, I believe in a loving purpose that both includes and goes beyond myself leading to fullness of eternal life as apposed to believing we exist by mere chance for no reason(except for the illusion of reason we create ourselves), as a blip in infinite meaninglessness.

 

[Chriliman]

This response represents question begging...

Truth is the act of belief, in accordance with 'fact' and 'reality'.

The only sentiment beings demonstrated as 'fact' or 'reality' are humans, whom argue for or against 'truth' with one another. Unless we are all in the Matrix and then nothing matters anyways.

What each individual interprets as 'good' ranges widely from person to person.

What each individual interprets as 'loving' ranges widely from person to person.

To place this all together, again, is begging the question.

Until an absolute definition of all terms are demonstrated, anyone can infer any supernatural agent (by using the premise to support itself). But as it stands, we live in a shared reality, full of humans.

I agree for the most part. However, when it comes to why/how it is that I or the universe exist and for what purpose, I believe in a loving purpose that both includes and goes beyond myself leading to fullness of eternal life as apposed to believing we exist by mere chance for no reason(except for the illusion of reason we create ourselves), as a blip in infinite meaninglessness. Either belief takes faith to hold.

 

[jacks]

Neither you, nor I, would even think to invoke such a label as 'asanatclausist', 'aeasterbunnyist', and so on.

Careful, I think you just coined a couple of new terms! Stick with CF long enough and I'm sure these will surface somewhere.

 

[jacks]

I keep thinking that I've said all I can on this topic, but your responses and those of a couple others on this thread keeps me coming back. I'll be brief (not for your sake, mine...I've got other work to do!) Also I don't know how to do multiple quotes, so I'm just going to insert some comments, that won't look as professional as advanced posters. Though I will at least try to change the font color.

So did he not answer because:

1. I'm in some kind of extreme denial of my own 'known' reality, for only this one topic?
2. God chooses not to answer, even after decades of prayer and worship; opposing scripture?
3. God chooses to reveal to some, and not others, which seems to imply favoritism?
4. God may choose to reveal only after I form doubt, after years of prior earnest inquiry; which again opposes scripture from the Bible?
5. God is not interactive with humans?
6. God is actually imaginary?

Yes, it could be any of these or simply God thinks He has already giving you sufficient information or perhaps we don't know God's mind and can't even imagine what His motives may be. Is our perspective of the universe and all of life great enough to say:
1. If God exists, then He would do X.
2. But He doesn’t do X.
3. Therefore God does not exist?

Seems as though the 'knowledge of existence' would not logically be the hangup for millions. And most likely, is the only hangup for millions.... And yet, this is the reason many do not care or follow; because they simply do not buy into the asserted agent as real. i.e 'Why invest any energy, if the 'law maker' does not exist?' I know the reason I do, however... Indoctrination[/QUOTE]

Indoctrination or you may just be someone searching for truth (The Ultimate Truth) and aren't satisfied with the answers you've been given so far. In essence that was my journey. Science and the material world seemed to be only part of the "truth" and was always lacking.

Anyway please don't say anything else interesting...I've got a life outside of this thread!

 

[Sanoy]

Hence, the reason I'm getting slightly impatience, in which you then translate instead, as 'recoiling.'



Again, I'm not 'recoiling', so please retire this word temporarily, in reference to me and this topic. Please allow me to set something straight once and for all. Most/all adults do not 'recoil' at Santa, the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy, Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo, and the like, because no one around them is making pronouncements to the asserted realism, assertions of reality, asserting vital 'truths' pertaining to such beings, and so on.

No professed 'skeptics' to such beings exist, nor is necessary, because there exists no need in adult society in doing so. Neither you, nor I, would even think to invoke such a label as 'asanatclausist', 'aeasterbunnyist', and so on. Let alone professing being a 'skeptic' to such agents. The fact I label myself as a 'skeptic' to such propositions is only necessary, in response to the vast majority whom oppose the current position in society. It becomes absurd to publicly profess 'skepticism' to many alternative claims, as mentioned above.

I hope you understand my position, and not instead take it as another 'recoil.'



I disagree, for the reason I stated in prior responses. And pardon me for responding to it again. And again, please do not translate this as 'recoiling.' Take a simple 'atheist' as the example.... All atheists 'reject' the premise of god, by definition. So if they are genuine in their label, like you also are with Santa, Poseidon, etc, then of course they are not going to lend any credence to such asserted pronouncements. Just like you make the same conclusion with all other god assertions.

In regards to the Bible and Christianity, I'm currently 'condemned'. I regards to postmortem conclusions, there exists a presented dichotomy - (Heaven or not Heaven). Without arguing the minutiae of Bible passages (belief vs works - to reach and achieve salvation), knowledge of existence saved many, according to the Bible.

Again, the atheist stands no chance, if Christianity is true.



Why should I care what Paul says, any more than what any other person says, whom also claims they received any type of revelation from their asserted God? What makes Paul so special? Is he not just another mortal, whom claimed dialogue from a divine deity?

And again, if 'atheism' is actually a thing (by definition), then such a statement by Paul is false. Meaning, many earnestly do not think a god exists. And of course everyone thinks they know 'right' from 'wrong'. This is further demonstrated from the fact we see so many opposing denominations within Christianity.



Please read my response above, in regards to assertions...



Again, I greatly disagree. Take your aforementioned 'Paul', for instance. What was the catalyst for his salvation? He did not believe Jesus resurrected, until his trip to Damascus. What choices, decisions, and actions did he do there-after? If he not had 'knowledge of existence', to a postmortem deity, would he have believed, wrote almost half the NT, preach the word to others, etc? So yes, the 'knowledge of existence' is required for many to entertain the notion of claimed 'salvation.'



You mean, like I do with the countless other assertions made, on a daily basis, in which I remain skeptical (i.e.) aliens, asserted contact from individuals and their opposing gods, spirit sightings, ghost sightings, etc...? None of which I have any 'knowledge' of myself, in stark contrast to the countless anecdotal claims.



So are you saying this is the underlying reason you have 'knowledge of existence'? Because quite frankly, it would be very easy to conclude that 'God' also exists, if you also had such experiences with the other said supernatural agents. Alternatively, I have experienced none of what you claim, so I cannot claim 'knowledge of existence.' Therefore, I have no choice but to be truly skeptical; just like you most likely are when presented, what you consider, 'unbelievable' anecdotal stories from others.



Even if everything you say is true, what's God's excuse for not instilling 'knowledge of existence' for most of my life? Again, if I had knowledge of existence, this thread would not exist Yes, I may question passages in the Bible. But I would instead try to reconcile their apparent 'truth', rather than instead question if they actually came from anything other than just another mere human being.



I feel you are over inflating my profile label. I'm labelled as a 'skeptic', because I'm neither a believer nor an atheist. You seem to be placing too much stock in my profile label/handle And when did I ever claim skepticism, in relation to any type of epistemology?

My entire point of this thread, is that in belief or no belief in anything, one does not need to 'open their mind in a certain', to gain knowledge of existence to something. Even if everything you state is true of skepticism, many skeptics and doubters had no choice but to retract their prior doubt, when presented evidence to the contrary. Heck, read the Bible to affirm this observation (i.e.) Sal and Thomas again. It's what one decides to do with the 'knowledge'.....



If this is actually true, I would not request as such from a forum




I prefer truth; whether it be 'good', 'bad', or 'ugly'. If you feel attacked, wounded, or anything else 'negative', my apologize. However, I am expressing my views and positions, after deep and careful thought.

I apologize if I am annoying you with the wrong word in using 'recoil'. When you said "The 'recoil', you keep referring to, is in the direct result from failure to obtain 'knowledge of existence' for decades." I assumed you identified with the term. What word would you rather use for your defensive behavior?

The vast majority of society do not oppose Theism. I still don't understand your position, your second section didn't make any sense to me as the origin story of your skepticism.

I'm telling you, universal knowledge of existence universally condemns (Matthew 10:15). Everyone already has enough knowledge to divide themselves. Greater knowledge is given to those with an open heart. You say that you will not lend Credence to the things of God, and I say if He reveals Himself to you today you will submit but you will still be damned unless your heart changes. Salvation is grasped from the heart not the head. If you had extra knowledge of his existence this thread would not exist but you would still be condemned, and now even more greatly. Your position as a skeptic is a position of hardness of the heart. It is a mercy to some that they do no possess greater knowledge of His existence.

If you speak on Christian theology you should care about those that define it, like Paul. Pauls says you already have all the knowledge you need to allow your heart to grasp salvation. When you die you will be without excuse. Pauls mind was converted on the road to Damascus, not his heart. Paul already thought he was doing the right thing regarding God, God corrected him on what is right. If God did the same for you your mind would change, but what about your heart? That is the only thing that matters.

Being resistant to new ideas that you have no knowledge of, what you call the position of skepticism, is not an epistemological form. It's just bias to protect ignorance. It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle. Lacking knowledge of what I have experienced doesn't make you a skeptic. Skepticism is a voluntary position. You can doubt, without being a "skeptic". The position of skepticism is that of raising the bar of sufficiency to be convinced by something. That is just bias, masqueraded as epistemology. I don't doubt the religious claims of other, because the Bible teaches that the so called 'gods' of the world are not vacant and silent.

Let me recap those points.

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

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

 

[cvanwey]

I agree for the most part. However, when it comes to why/how it is that I or the universe exist and for what purpose, I believe in a loving purpose that both includes and goes beyond myself leading to fullness of eternal life as apposed to believing we exist by mere chance for no reason(except for the illusion of reason we create ourselves), as a blip in infinite meaninglessness.

I've stated this a few responses back, but I will state it here too

Humans infer or associate 'intention', often times, where no actual intention prevails. Whether you accept evolution by natural selection, or not, one premise appears to reign 'true'...

Say it's a few 1,000 years ago. You are carrying water, from point A to point B, back to your tribe. You are walking along a path, with high brush boarding the trail. You start to hear a slight russell. Is it the wind, or is it a predator stalking you? From a survival perspective, if you automatically choose 'the wind', you could be food. If you chose a predator, and it happens to only be the wind, congratulations, you have just invoked a 'false positive'. We humans infer 'intentional agency' (i.e.) a predator, and 'false positives' (i.e.) resulting in the wind and not a predator, quite often. From a survival perspective specifically, it is what supports 'survival of the fitter.' The ones whom deduce less 'false positives', eventually die off; leaving only the ones whom deduct more 'false positives', by concluding 'intentional agency'.

However, because of this passed on inherited survival trait, we humans also invoke such conclusions, by nature, where they may not apply. Whenever a situation is unknown (i.e.) meaning of life, the universe, our planet, etc..., most humans have the natural urge to apply 'intentional agency' by default. The question remains, is it a 'false positive'?

I came across a quote, which I've yet to post here, but appears very befitting, in this specific case. It is not meant to be offensive. But please, if you would, take it for the grain of salt in which it is intended

"God exists, because I don't know things."

Does the universe have purpose? I don't know.
Is consciousness 'God given'? I don't know.
Is the inherent ability to distinguish 'right' from 'wrong' God given'? I don't know.

Because I have the ability to ASK such questions, does not then conclude such a God agent MUST exist Again, this would be smuggling in 'intentional agency', because I don't know what lurks on the other end.

I guess we will know after we die

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Pauls says you already have all the knowledge you need to allow your heart to grasp salvation.

Paul is wrong. I have no such knowledge.

It is extremely unwise to predicate an argument on your ability to read the content of other people's thoughts. It puts them in a position to know, for certain, whether you are right or wrong.

It would be functionally equivalent if you claimed to be able to read minds, and stated 'just now, you were thinking of picking apples in an orchard.' Since I have an immediate apprehension of my own thoughts, I am therefor in a position to know, with 100% certainty, if your claim to be able to read minds is true or false. And if I wasn't thinking of picking apples in an orchard, I know for a fact that you do not have the ability you claim to have.

So the best case scenario for you is that you've misinterpreted Paul's words, and your argument is wrong. The worst case scenario is that you've interpreted Paul correctly, and it's the Bible itself that's wrong.

Being resistant to new ideas that you have no knowledge of, what you call the position of skepticism, is not an epistemological form. It's just bias to protect ignorance. It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle. Lacking knowledge of what I have experienced doesn't make you a skeptic. Skepticism is a voluntary position. You can doubt, without being a "skeptic".

Skepticism does not entail rejecting ideas out of hand, and it does not disallow the entertaining of thoughts without accepting them. In fact, that's precisely what skepticism is - entertaining thoughts, weighing them against evidence, critically examining the arguments for them, etc.

The position of skepticism is that of raising the bar of sufficiency to be convinced by something.

Correct. It's about proportioning one's belief to the evidence given, with respect to the nature of the claim.

If you tell me you flew from Philadelphia to Chicago yesterday, that's pretty mundane. I would accept that claim on your say so alone.

If you tell me you flew from Philadelphia to Chicago yesterday by flapping your arms up and down, I would need much more than just your say so to believe you.

If you sincerely think that's a bad thing, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. PM me for the details.

That is just bias

Correct again. It's a bias for believing as many true things as possible, and not allowing false things through the filter.

 

[cvanwey]

Yes, it could be any of these or simply God thinks He has already giving you sufficient information or perhaps we don't know God's mind and can't even imagine what His motives may be. Is our perspective of the universe and all of life great enough to say:
1. If God exists, then He would do X.
2. But He doesn’t do X.
3. Therefore God does not exist?!

Seems logical to conclude that, someone like myself, whom has been actively searching for Yahweh for decades, would have been given sufficient evidence to conclude He is real by now

If God is all knowing, God would know what 'evidence' would suite (my) criteria. Logically, it makes no sense for a claimed 'all loving' God to 'deliberately' deprive a human of their needed necessary evidence, when such humans ask...? It creates contradictions, among all the stated and asserted 'omni's' (i.e.) omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omniscience, omnitemporal, etc...

What would be the point in having humans search their entire life, asking the question of - "Does God exist, and more importantly, which God?"

If the above answer was settled, to each individuals tastes and conclusions, all humans would then be on a level playing field. It would then make much more sense. All such humans could then be equally judged on their known conclusions. But as it stands, it makes no sense. And really only begs the questions, 'are we simply inventing our own gods, out of the argument from ignorance?' Or, "are we just that selfish to think that someone MUST be on the other end, listening to us and loving us?"

Again, 'knowing' such a conclusion would FREE UP much time to then work from this known conclusion, RATHER than simply asking the question over and over again, because we DO NOT know Makes no sense.

 

[cvanwey]

I apologize if I am annoying you with the wrong word in using 'recoil'. When you said "The 'recoil', you keep referring to, is in the direct result from failure to obtain 'knowledge of existence' for decades." I assumed you identified with the term. What word would you rather use for your defensive behavior?

The vast majority of society do not oppose Theism. I still don't understand your position, your second section didn't make any sense to me as the origin story of your skepticism.

I honestly stopped reading right about here... Except for the parts another poster responded to...

I feel I have articulated my position quite thoroughly. If you do not like, or accept that, then fine.

 

[cvanwey]

Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been understood and observed by what he made, so that people are without excuse.
.

Such an assertion assumes the term 'atheist' is a lie, or does not exist, and that no one is a true atheist.

atheist - 'a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods' (Oxford Dicionary)

I'm seeking clarification here... Did you provide such verses because you adopt the position that everyone 'knows' a god actually exists, and that the one's whom state they don't, are liars in some capacity?

 

[Chriliman]

I've stated this a few responses back, but I will state it here too

Humans infer or associate 'intention', often times, where no actual intention prevails. Whether you accept evolution by natural selection, or not, one premise appears to reign 'true'...

Say it's a few 1,000 years ago. You are carrying water, from point A to point B, back to your tribe. You are walking along a path, with high brush boarding the trail. You start to hear a slight russell. Is it the wind, or is it a predator stalking you? From a survival perspective, if you automatically choose 'the wind', you could be food. If you chose a predator, and it happens to only be the wind, congratulations, you have just invoked a 'false positive'. We humans infer 'intentional agency' (i.e.) a predator, and 'false positives' (i.e.) resulting in the wind and not a predator, quite often. From a survival perspective specifically, it is what supports 'survival of the fitter.' The ones whom deduce less 'false positives', eventually die off; leaving only the ones whom deduct more 'false positives', by concluding 'intentional agency'.

However, because of this passed on inherited survival trait, we humans also invoke such conclusions, by nature, where they may not apply. Whenever a situation is unknown (i.e.) meaning of life, the universe, our planet, etc..., most humans have the natural urge to apply 'intentional agency' by default. The question remains, is it a 'false positive'?

I came across a quote, which I've yet to post here, but appears very befitting, in this specific case. It is not meant to be offensive. But please, if you would, take it for the grain of salt in which it is intended

"God exists, because I don't know things."

Does the universe have purpose? I don't know.
Is consciousness 'God given'? I don't know.
Is the inherent ability to distinguish 'right' from 'wrong' God given'? I don't know.

Because I have the ability to ASK such questions, does not then conclude such a God agent MUST exist Again, this would be smuggling in 'intentional agency', because I don't know what lurks on the other end.

I guess we will know after we die

You’re right, which is why many times we must rely on faith(assuming something based on available evidence without actually knowing for sure) in order to make progress (and not be devoured by a lion )

You say we’ll know after death, but that’s only true if we have some sort of immortal experience after death, which is what I believe, but if death is actually the end of experience then no, we won’t know. So actually, at least my faith is in something that could be verified after death.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Such an assertion assumes the term 'atheist' is a lie, or does not exist, and that no one is a true atheist.

atheist - 'a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods' (Oxford Dicionary)

I'm seeking clarification here... Did you provide such verses because you adopt the position that everyone 'knows' a god actually exists, and that the one's whom state they don't, are liars in some capacity?

Like I said...if they think this passage is saying 'everyone knows Yahweh exists', the best case for them is that they've interpreted it wrong. The worst case is that they've interpreted it correctly, and the Bible is wrong. All any atheist needs in order to know the assertion is false is to be aware of at least one person for whom it isn't true - themselves.

That's what you get when you predicate an assertion on the content of someone else's thoughts. It's an extremely unwise thing to do.

 

[cvanwey]

You’re right, which is why many times we must rely on faith(assuming something without actually knowing for sure) in order to make progress (and not be devoured by a lion )

You say we’ll know after death, but that’s only true if we have some sort of immortal experience after death, which is what I believe, but if death is actually the end of experience then no, we won’t know. So actually, at least my faith is in something that could be verified after death.

You too are right... If 'nihilism' is the result, then postmortem is the end for such the human. My conclusion was 'intentional'. It was a bit of satire, deliberately appealing to 'Pascal's wager' in some minor sense, or the 'presupposition' that postmortem existence has to be true

But I must ask, in light of your response, and also the fact that I'm now curious... What is your definition of 'faith', in this particular case? Faith can mean differing things, in differing situations; and also differs from person to person.

I do know 'faith' is mentioned quite a lot in the Bible. But unfortunately, it appears to elude to the 'worst' kind. Meaning, blind faith. And in such a case, such faith can be used for any and every opposing religion - equally as effective; in regards to the religions you reject. And quite honestly, I may 'know' the underlying reasons why you reject all other asserted and opposing religions... You were born into this one, and/or are majoritively surrounded by this one - (the reason I state this, is because it is the same for me).

Based upon your response, it seems to appear that you believe out of hope, and/or 'just in case'? I'm not trying to 'strawman' you, just looking for clarity; as you appear to present some of the same fundamental reasons I wholeheartedly believed for decades.

Regardless, I hope that you explore what type of 'faith' you are using. Some versions of faith are more synonymous with 'trust' or 'hope'. Trust is earned, and applied to 'knowing' something does exist, and then electing to trust in it. 'Hope' may also apply to a 'known' agent, and in the 'hopes' this 'known' agent will do what you want. Both such propositions can apply to a form of 'faith.'

Blind faith, however, is hoping the agent actually exists, or inferring it must exist, because you have no better conclusion established, which is the argument from ignorance most violate from time to time, including myself for things.

 

[cvanwey]

Like I said...if they think this passage is saying 'everyone knows Yahweh exists', the best case for them is that they've interpreted it wrong. The worst case is that they've interpreted it correctly, and the Bible is wrong. All any atheist needs in order to know the assertion is false is to be aware of at least one person for whom it isn't true - themselves.

That's what you get when you predicate an assertion on the content of someone else's thoughts. It's an extremely unwise thing to do.

I agree with you, and your assessment. However, I wanted to get the response from the one whom posted as such To 'know' their intent behind deciding to reply with such Bible verses, with absolutely no prevailing insight of their own - (which would be one of the primary reasons one posts on a forum arena).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You too are right... If 'nihilism' is the result, then postmortem is the end for such the human. My conclusion was 'intentional'. It was a bit of satire, deliberately appealing to 'Pascal's wager' in some minor sense, or the 'presupposition' that postmortem existence has to be true

But I must ask, in light of your response, and also the fact that I'm now curious... What is your definition of 'faith', in this particular case? Faith can mean differing things, in differing situations; and also differs from person to person.

I do know 'faith' is mentioned quite a lot in the Bible. But unfortunately, it appears to elude to the 'worst' kind. Meaning, blind faith. And in such a case, such faith can be used for any and every opposing religion - equally as effective; in regards to the religions you reject. And quite honestly, I may 'know' the underlying reasons why you reject all other asserted and opposing religions... You were born into this one, and/or are majoritively surrounded by this one - (the reason I state this, is because it is the same for me).

Based upon your response, it seems to appear that you believe out of hope, and/or 'just in case'? I'm not trying to 'strawman' you, just looking for clarity; as you appear to present some of the same fundamental reasons I wholeheartedly believed for decades.

Regardless, I hope that you explore what type of 'faith' you are using. Some versions of faith are more synonymous with 'trust' or 'hope'. Trust is earned, and applied to 'knowing' something does exist, and then electing to trust in it. 'Hope' may also apply to a 'known' agent, and in the 'hopes' this 'known' agent will do what you want. Both such propositions can apply to a form of 'faith.'

Blind faith, however, is hoping the agent actually exists, or inferring it must exist, because you have no better conclusion established, which is the argument from ignorance most violate from time to time, including myself for things.

And here I thought having "blind faith" was to believe with eyes wide shut, that a person with this kind of epistemic disposition would be in a circumstance where he/she chooses to completely dispense with any possible kind or quality of evidence or any other epistemic indicator regarding the Christian ontology being engaged and explored in an 'ongoing' manner.

Ooops! I guess I can throw out the dozens of books on epistemology that I currently have sitting on my shelf, and I might as well drop-kick my philosophy diploma into the garbage bin.