'Knowledge' of Existence

[cvanwey]

What doubts would those be?

My doubt is the existence of such a claimed being, since I have not received any needed evidence to demonstrate the existence of such a specific entity.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

All that awaits mankind is fiery and final judgment after death.

Why worry about that now - (you think?) just go and do as you like..... maybe you have a few more days.... maybe a few more years..... worrying about it will not do any good, and won't make a difference in your judgment later (or today?) .

I stated I would like your best piece of evidence to at least demonstrate His specific existence. Were you actually going to offer as such? Or, instead assert half-threatening quotes, eluding to ' final judgement', to scare me into believing, or else....

 

[cvanwey]

All that awaits mankind is fiery and final judgment after death.

Why worry about that now - (you think?) just go and do as you like..... maybe you have a few more days.... maybe a few more years..... worrying about it will not do any good, and won't make a difference in your judgment later (or today?) .

It's almost as if you are not reading my responses. So let me re-state it in a different way...

Lets just say you are right, but I don't believe you. What evidence are you going to provide, to convince me. Because, at this point, it's really no different than a Muslim accusing you of being an infidel, and threatening you.

 

[Not David]

My doubt is the existence of such a claimed being, since I have not received any needed evidence to demonstrate the existence of such a specific entity.

Do you believe there is a deity tho?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

You can just keep believing whatever it is you believe and have believed in opposition to Yahweh as long as you are alive,
OR
you can choose to become muslim, and still die then separate from Yahweh without hope.

No one, not even Yahweh, can force you nor make you change you mind.

YOU DECIDED, not to accept all the evidence YAHWEH PROVIDED , including you being alive, and all the universe existence which all proves Yahweh's Existence, and Yahweh says with all this evidence, you have NO EXCUSE on judgment day.

So, it is always now, as it has been, your choice who you will serve.

It is your choice, as always, to reject the truth, the proof, the evidence all around you , of Yahweh's Existence,
thus it is your choice doing so, to reject salvation , to reject Jesus, and that is that.

Since you chose to reject Yahweh all your life so far,
there is no man alive who can prove to you what is the truth - no one on the forum, or anywhere on earth , since you reject Yahweh Who Alone is Greater than all others ,
then
therefore, you reject all others who live in Yahweh and testify of the truth in Jesus.

You alone decided your 'fate', ending in destruction.

It's almost as if you are not reading my responses. So let me re-state it in a different way...

Lets just say you are right, but I don't believe you. What evidence are you going to provide, to convince me. Because, at this point, it's really no different than a Muslim accusing you of being an infidel, and threatening you.

 

[jacks]

I appreciate the response. I wanted to emphasize this question before it could possibly lead to a rabbit trail.

I'm with you, no reason to go down a rabbit hole. My point was rather what type of evidence do you personally want/need to believe something? From what you said, perhaps you could be describe as a "Materialist"? (No not like Madonna's girl) but rather as defined by Webster:

"A belief that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter (see 1 matter 2)also scientific materialism."

If this describes you (and I'm not saying it does) then what you may need is a physical manifestation that proves God? If that is the case, what are you truly asking of us? We can not make God give you that evidence. My only suggestion would be to consider that there may be limitations in the material approach to reality.

Personally I feel you are sincere in seeking and will eventually get the answers you are looking for, but maybe not from CF. Finally hopefully you won't take offense when I say God bless you and pray that you find what you seek.

 

[Monna]

My point is that if (I) don't even possess the 'subjective knowledge, then I will not believe it exists.

Exactly. You cannot until God draws you.

Please provide your best piece of evidence for His specific existence

I met him. Or rather He met me. In a very specific traumatic incident. He gave me a promise and he gave me knowledge that was contrary to all current evidence of events, and which I had no possibility of acquiring on my own; and he turned total fear into total calm, peace and reassurance. The knowledge He gave me turned out to be true. The promise He gave, that I understood to apply to the immediate future, has turned out to be true for the 55 years since the event.

For me, that meeting was/is worth more as evidence, than all the amazing facts and figures, natural wonders that I saw and continue to see around me.

Satan had knowledge of God, and chose to rebel.

You state this, and go on to argue things arising from it, as if you believe it to be true. Do you believe God exists or not? If not, then Satan and all your following reasoning is non-sequitor. If you do believe in God, what is the problem?

And about doubts and my own personal growth: doubts have been a primary cause and motivation for seeking the truth. Doubts about what others have taught me, doubts about what myself, and particularly doubts about my own memory and my mind's ability to deceive me have all been a part of this process. Among other things they have led to regular interogation of my own (often hidden) underlying assumptions that affect my reasoning processes.

 

[bcbsr]

First, do you admit the 'moral argument' lays no bearing or basis to demonstrate Yahweh, in any capacity? If so, then I will move on to the rest.

But if not, then maybe we need to address why you feel the 'moral argument' is so compelling, and necessary at all, in establishing Yahweh specifically, in any capacity.

The point of the moral argument is that the implication is that man is more than matter. So it's a basis to seek further for that which is spiritual in origin, which I go on to consider.

The thing about seeking God is that you won't find him if you don't seek with all your heart. "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart." Jer 29:13 If a person is seeking the negative, that is seeking to disprove God, they will never find him.

 

[Monna]

Seeking clarity...
In one form of the "moral argument" the statement is made:
1. If God does not exist, there is no objective moral right or wrong.

Could someone please explain the thinking/reasoning behind this postulate?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

In response to your link:

The moral argument does not prove a god/gods.

The theist performs 'good' acts based upon assumed cosmic judgment, which is not demonstrably proven to any specific God.

The non-believer performs 'good' acts based upon consequences, empathy, sense of community, cooperation, culture, upbringing, homeostasis, and fear of loneliness, all which are actually demonstrably proven attributes which exist.

The moral argument ends exactly where it started. Meaning, the moral argument is there, in an attempt to prove god, but is a circular argument. Please watch the following 4 minute video, which seems to explain it best:

I would comment on the rest of your link. However, it's enough to first realize the moral argument gets us NO closer to Yahweh.

I've never understood why Christians appeal to morality. Hasn't their God personally arranged matters so that nearly every living thing with a central nervous system dies in terror and agony? Hasn't their God personally carried out mass slaughter and genocide? And then the apologist sits there and says to himself, "I bet I can win over the atheists with the moral argument!" One would think they'd have better luck mating a spider with an elephant.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Seeking clarity...
In one form of the "moral argument" the statement is made:
1. If God does not exist, there is no objective moral right or wrong.

Could someone please explain the thinking/reasoning behind this postulate?

As stated the statement is correct. Technically. If we were to ignore what we know is the intent behind the statement.

The reality is that morality cannot be objective no matter what, God or no God.

And if morality actually was objective, then the objectivity of morality would not be contingent upon God by definition. Objective things cannot be subject to something else because otherwise they'd be subjective.

Not only has God done a lot of things that would be considered overwhelmingly evil had they been done by a person (already enough for us to conclude either that morality is subjective or that God is objectively evil), but the "objective morality" argument is so stupid it simply can't even get off the ground. So it really blows my mind every time a Christian goes to morality. I'd say try to defend the resurrection, and everything else will fall in place. Prove the resurrection and atheists have to swallow the rest of the religion no matter how bitter it is.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As stated the statement is correct. Technically. If we were to ignore what we know is the intent behind the statement.

The reality is that morality cannot be objective no matter what, God or no God.

And if morality actually was objective, then the objectivity of morality would not be contingent upon God by definition. Objective things cannot be subject to something else because otherwise they'd be subjective.

Not only has God done a lot of things that would be considered overwhelmingly evil had they been done by a person (already enough for us to conclude either that morality is subjective or that God is objectively evil), but the "objective morality" argument is so stupid it simply can't even get off the ground. So it really blows my mind every time a Christian goes to morality. I'd say try to defend the resurrection, and everything else will fall in place. Prove the resurrection and atheists have to swallow the rest of the religion no matter how bitter it is.

Isn't Jesus reported to have said something along the lines that "even if a man is resurrected, such an event wouldn't be really enough to convert a person"? Yeah, I'm thinking that the inherent epistemology, actually most of the epistemological indices that are strewn throughout the Bible, including those of Jesus, deny your assertion that proving the Resurrection would be more than sufficient to gain the hearts of an otherwise morally marred humanity (a.k.a. a sinful world).

In fact, one of the churches I was in in the past seemed to be lead by persons who wanted to curtail the ways in which a person might decide to analyze and think about the nature of the bible and various social issues which that Church had to deal with. And I told them, "Y'know, it seems that there are only certain questions that are allowed to be asked here, and to me, that doesn't bode well for getting to the truth." Of course, not everyone was pleased with the comments that I made while I was there.

 

[cvanwey]

Exactly. You cannot until God draws you.

I met him. Or rather He met me. In a very specific traumatic incident. He gave me a promise and he gave me knowledge that was contrary to all current evidence of events, and which I had no possibility of acquiring on my own; and he turned total fear into total calm, peace and reassurance. The knowledge He gave me turned out to be true. The promise He gave, that I understood to apply to the immediate future, has turned out to be true for the 55 years since the event.

For me, that meeting was/is worth more as evidence, than all the amazing facts and figures, natural wonders that I saw and continue to see around me.

Let me clarify a bit...

In this topic thread, I do not wish to go after anyone to try and 'prove' their personal belief, (even If I personally do not feel it is justified). But if you feel you have compelling evidence, bring it Maybe it will resonate with me, maybe not

I guess my point is if God truly wants a relationship with me, and I truly sought to receive a response for decades, and never did, what should I conclude? If I was genuine, and never felt a presence, then how else am I supposed to conclude my current state, (as a severe skeptic)?

You state this, and go on to argue things arising from it, as if you believe it to be true.

My point eludes to above. God should have NO problem presenting 'proof' to everyone that HE exists. It should be no more elusive than 'knowing' the sun exists.

My point, in speaking about 'Satan', is that such stories seem to present in a way, where God clearly revealed His presence to some. So why must he now remain as if he is playing hide-and-seek with many?

There's many things I don't like, or agree with, but still must admit of their existence. However, a specific God is not one of them. My point is that one can still know Yahweh exists, and easily choose NOT to follow.

So, for me, without at least 'thinking' God is real, how would I possibly follow such asserted commands, which may possibly be written only by man, whom assert it came from a higher power?

Do you believe God exists or not? If not, then Satan and all your following reasoning is non-sequitor. If you do believe in God, what is the problem?

Please read above

 

[cvanwey]

Seeking clarity...
In one form of the "moral argument" the statement is made:
1. If God does not exist, there is no objective moral right or wrong.

Could someone please explain the thinking/reasoning behind this postulate?

The moral argument is NOT compelling, so don't bother

 

[cvanwey]

The point of the moral argument is that the implication is that man is more than matter. So it's a basis to seek further for that which is spiritual in origin, which I go on to consider.

The thing about seeking God is that you won't find him if you don't seek with all your heart. "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart." Jer 29:13 If a person is seeking the negative, that is seeking to disprove God, they will never find him.

I'm going to have to disagree quite severely here... I happen to run into many things, in which I never seek. I can deny it's existence, but that would be silly and also a lie. The entire point to this thread, is that the 'knowledge' of existence, should just be a default. The question of whether or not to obey, is another topic entirely.

 

[cvanwey]

I'm with you, no reason to go down a rabbit hole. My point was rather what type of evidence do you personally want/need to believe something? From what you said, perhaps you could be describe as a "Materialist"? (No not like Madonna's girl) but rather as defined by Webster:

"A belief that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter (see 1 matter 2)also scientific materialism."

If this describes you (and I'm not saying it does) then what you may need is a physical manifestation that proves God? If that is the case, what are you truly asking of us? We can not make God give you that evidence. My only suggestion would be to consider that there may be limitations in the material approach to reality.

Personally I feel you are sincere in seeking and will eventually get the answers you are looking for, but maybe not from CF. Finally hopefully you won't take offense when I say God bless you and pray that you find what you seek.

The struggle continues between emotion (vs) logic. A lot of times, emotion wins, in many cases. I was indoctrinated in Christianity, raised in Christianity, and continue to be fully surrounded in Christianity. Not a day goes by, where I am not reminded of Christianity, whether it be from comments from my peers, watching TV, or other... It's a large topic.

However, after all such claims, I continue to severely question if such a specific God even exists?.?.?.? This appears very odd. If something is 'just so much of fact', then why do I genuinely have such a hard time believing such a specific entity even exists?

Again, there exists many things, in which I know exist (whether I seek them or not). There are many things which exist, in which I do not agree with. Yahweh, however, is an entity, which I feel may not even exist. And yet, because of my up-bringing, sought Him for a looooong time.

 

[cvanwey]

Do you believe there is a deity tho?

This question kind of poses a dichotomy (nothing postmortem, or one God)... How do we know this deity still exists, that there exists only one, and that such a claimed deity is perfect, or is still even interactive with humans today???? I have had no experiences with any interaction; just like I have had no interaction with any specific aliens/extra terrestrials.

 

[Monna]

My point eludes to above. God should have NO problem presenting 'proof' to everyone that HE exists. It should be no more elusive than 'knowing' the sun exists.

Would the evidence I received, as described in post #27 convince you, if it happened to you? Or what is the likelihood that you would analyze it away as psychosomatic?

Do you trust your own senses?

 

[cvanwey]

Would the evidence I received, as described in post #27 convince you, if it happened to you? Or what is the likelihood that you would analyze it away as psychosomatic?

Do you trust your own senses?

I do trust my own senses. However, I do sometimes doubt my senses, when/if they do not appear to be consistent with reality.

In your specific situation, I honestly could not say. I've given, and received, anecdotal accounts many times.

I have NO doubt that what you have perceived is real. Meaning, I have no doubt you believe it's real. I'm not questioning that. My point is...

Anyone can question or doubt the existence of the 'sun', even though it appears fairly obvious its right there, for all to see and feel.

My point is it seems as though I should not have to strain really hard, and get my mind in a very specific way, to at least 'know' such a specific entity even exists. Would you not agree?

My point is the 'knowledge of existence'. Whether my senses can be questioned or not, is not really the crux of my issue. The point being... I should not possess severe doubt that such a specific entity exists, period.

 

[cvanwey]

Isn't Jesus reported to have said something along the lines that "even if a man is resurrected, such an event wouldn't be really enough to convert a person"? Yeah, I'm thinking that the inherent epistemology, actually most of the epistemological indices that are strewn throughout the Bible, including those of Jesus, deny your assertion that proving the Resurrection would be more than sufficient to gain the hearts of an otherwise morally marred humanity (a.k.a. a sinful world).

In fact, one of the churches I was in in the past seemed to be lead by persons who wanted to curtail the ways in which a person might decide to analyze and think about the nature of the bible and various social issues which that Church had to deal with. And I told them, "Y'know, it seems that there are only certain questions that are allowed to be asked here, and to me, that doesn't bode well for getting to the truth." Of course, not everyone was pleased with the comments that I made while I was there.

I'm still trying to figure you out sir, (in a good intended way) You, my friend, I still consider an 'enigma.'

I'm curious to know what was the compelling conclusion, or the overwhelming evidence presented, which lead you towards Christianity? I'm not looking for a long drawn out answer , just the category. So I'm not trying to be patronizing, when I present some categories below (just pick one, or interject your own). Again, just curious of the most compelling CATEGORY, (not the reasoning behind the category):

1. Anectodal/personal experience
2. Cross referencing sources from the Bible to verify their reality
3. The concept of 'something from nothing'
4. Argument from complexity
5. Infinite regress problem
6. Origin of 'abiogenesis'
7. Not accepting the existence of the 'universe' always was (eternal), but maybe in a differing form prior to 'big bang' cosmology...

other.....?

I then have a very specific question for YOU, since you appear to have handled many of my questions with much thought and sincerity....

If (I) have not received my necessary evidence to think some divine deity exists, even after decades of intense and sincere study, is it honest to call myself a believer? Furthermore, why would such an entity deliberately avoid revealing His presence for me to at least know He exists? Because again, I still have 'freewill' to defy, reject, disobey - just like I could with my boss, parents, and all other agents which I 'know' exist.

Notice I place 'knowledge' and 'know' in quotes. I do this to avoid the entire topic of, 'how do you know what you know..." I don't even want to really tackle that topic, in this thread, at least

I'm in search of intellectual honesty. Meaning, for myself... I either believe in a resurrection, and all other tenets, or I don't. Currently, I'm on the side of doubt, and to me, the evidence is about as strong as arguing with a 'flat-earther'. Yes, they can argue their position, but the 'evidence' does not appear supported, without imposing 'faith/hope' in it's direct place.

My point is, I just don't buy it - (being Christianity) - (i.e.) skepticism. I know the one's whom oppose me, do. I"m not questioning that. I'm looking to find out if it is, in fact, actually true?.?.?.? (without getting into the whole, "how do you trust your own senses topic, if possible).

Your thoughts?