'Knowledge' of Existence

[yeshuaslavejeff]

At some time, or after time, in the 'further' future, you will know the truth,
but is that too late ?

I'll go further.

 

[Tinker Grey]

At some time, or after time, in the 'further' future, you will know the truth,
but is that too late ?

Save your threats.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'll go further. Show there is 'spirit'; show me 'supernatural'; levitate this cup in front of me. If the substance of 'the other' cannot be shown here and now, then any explanation for things thought to happen 1000s of years ago is more likely than that it happened as written.

You must live in Missouri ....................................

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I'll go further. Show there is 'spirit'; show me 'supernatural'; levitate this cup in front of me. If the substance of 'the other' cannot be shown here and now, then any explanation for things thought to happen 1000s of years ago is more likely than that it happened as written.

I have yet to see a positive, coherent definition of 'supernatural', let alone any evidence for it.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I have yet to see a positive, coherent definition of 'supernatural', let alone any evidence for it.

Sure. But, if a preacher would (ala John 14:12) walk into a hospital and heal everyone just by willing it, I might say there could be something 'out there'.

 

[cvanwey]

Probably what compelled my assent and faith in Jesus was the activation of parts of my brain that aren't too dissimilar from those which were activated when I fell in love with my wife. But, I suppose you'll want me to explain why I love my wife, too?

The fact is, epistemological complications (...and notice I say "pistemological complications," not merely epistemology generally speaking) can't be extricated from the overall issue of belief and faith.

Yet, this is what it seems you're trying to assert that you can do, and while I could be wrong, the only reason I can think of as to why you are doing this is because you, like many typical working scientists today, haven't actually studied the logical and essential structures (and complexities) of your own epistemic assumptions, most of which are typically Evidentialist in nature, or how these are involved in the the human mind works. I'm thinking that you think that you've latched onto some cognitive science of some sort, and you've then begun to just run with it, thinking that you've hit the motherload and that the present epistemic structures actually in your head at the moment are in no need of any further epistemic scrutiny.

The paradox is this: even though you may have some conclusions from cognitive science by which you think you are now in no further need of epistemological scrutiny, the truth is that the field of epistemology as a whole has to do with the ways in which any person tries to 'perfectly' justify his/her own claims about the world (SO, NO ONE IS PRIVY TO AN ESCAPE FROM THIS SITUATION), and the complication is that...................and here's the kicker that really kicks me in the **********.....................NO EPISTEMOLOGY [even those involved in the sciences] enables a person to perfectly justify his or her claims about reality; and the bigger and more complex the claim is in association to its being recognized in reality, the harder it is to justify in any kind of way that other people SHOULD JUST KOW-TOW to the claim of the person who so asserts it.

So, for instance, I can make a simple claim and say, "The Sun comes up in the East." That's a simple enough claim, and most of us can vouch for its veracity. However, while this claim is true for just about everyone except those who are blind, there are a myriad of associated claims that emerge out of this one and which won't be so easily shared among all interlocutors and then justified among all these same folks. Moreover, each epistemological structure by which a person frames his or her thoughts and justifications is fraught with logical frailties and other risks of fracturing that make it so that it's very, very difficult for each of us to justify our beliefs, especially for something like ideas in the field of Religion. Additionally, some of the epistemological structures involved in something like Christian belief are fraught with even bigger problems, like that of Lessing's Ditch.

Then, to add the frosting to the cake, Biblical Epistemology itself implies that............................God isn't going to necessarily condescend to us and do for us what we each individually hope He will do to 'prove' His existence and His love for us. It's a big ol' bitter horse-pill to have to swallow, but that's just the way it is. Unfortunately, to make matters worse, there has been some amount of brainwashing going around in some evangelical Christian circles over the past few hundred years, since the onset of the Enlightenment, that claims that if a person JUST HAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE, OR THE RIGHT KIND OF EVIDENCE, then he/she will and should be able to believe. But, that ain't how the writers of the Bible tell us it all works................................................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, instead, the Bible is big instead on 'faith', not evidence. I trust you understand my position on faith

Thank you for your answer. It was way more than I asked for

So it appears intuitive in nature, like you said with your wife, I get it....

But my point is this really.... If I just 'know' that God exists, like I know my boss at work exists, this would be a great start. Seems ODD that I should have to prepare my mind for a specific 'mind set' to do so?.?.?.?.?.? I don't see the harm in having everyone at least 'know' what and which God is the real God?

If I at least 'knew' God existed, and which specific God, like you somehow do, I could then apply my 'freewill' accordingly, in the 'knowledge' that I at least know what hand I'm actually dealt.

 

[cvanwey]

Sure. But, if a preacher would (ala John 14:12) walk into a hospital and heal everyone just by willing it, I might say there could be something 'out there'.

I would pay good money to take one of these 'faith healers', in which I've seen many times the in the many churches I used to attend, to Saint Hopkins hospital to perform some 'healings'. They could re-scan the patients post-prayer, for verification. But you know they never would, and I wonder why?

 

[cvanwey]

At some time, or after time, in the 'further' future, you will know the truth,
but is that too late ?

I politely ask that if you are not going to engage, in any meaningful way, and instead simply present empty and threatening blank statements; like any Muslim could do to any Christian for example, then please present your knee-jerk thoughts elsewhere.

Thanks

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

As Jesus says, IF you seek the truth, and keep seeking the truth, you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

God's Own Promise, verified always, proven true, and in His Word.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah, instead, the Bible is big instead on 'faith', not evidence. I trust you understand my position on faith

Thank you for your answer. It was way more than I asked for

So it appears intuitive in nature, like you said with your wife, I get it....

But my point is this really.... If I just 'know' that God exists, like I know my boss at work exists, this would be a great start. Seems ODD that I should have to prepare my mind for a specific 'mind set' to do so?.?.?.?.?.? I don't see the harm in having everyone at least 'know' what and which God is the real God?

If I at least 'knew' God existed, and which specific God, like you somehow do, I could then apply my 'freewill' accordingly, in the 'knowledge' that I at least know what hand I'm actually dealt.

And I can very much sympathize with what you're saying. But also realize that, as I've explained elsewhere, our individual human level perceptions of reality will be informed and infused by all of our particular living experiences. So, you'll have your own unique way of seeing the world that emerges for you out of the conglomerate collection of the things you've felt, assessed, experienced and additionally through the further configuring that comes through the things you've read.

Respectively, I'll have my own collection of influences that have brought me to where I am. And if there is a God who in some way orchestrates things in our lives which helps to enable us to come to a place where we believe, then there will be that part that plays into our respective collection of perceptions as well. AND........if there is a Devil too in the mix (Screwtape, anyone?) ...................then who knows where we will each end up by the end of our lives in this apparent Religious Language Game we're all playing.

 

[cvanwey]

As Jesus says, IF you seek the truth, and keep seeking the truth, you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

God's Own Promise, verified always, proven true, and in His Word.

What does Jesus have to say for the ones whom sought Him for decades, only to never receive any type of response? And what if I died in a car wreck today? I cannot tell myself I believe, when I do not, no better than you can force yourself to believe China doesn't exist. Intellectual honesty concludes one either believes, or does not.

I already know you believe. My point is, that it's logical for all to at least 'know' something exists. And everything you are preaching upon this forum can still remain intact. Meaning, many can still choose to turn away, disobey, rebel, deny, etc... But at least the 'knowledge of existence' would not be the defining road block for the many whom remain skeptical.

 

[Not David]

Nope. The number of believers, or quantity of religions has no bearing on whether or not it is actually true.

What would be the basis for this to be true?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No, you're not getting what I'm saying, so let me reiterate. I'm saying that a miracle of any sort, such as raising some deceased family member from the dead and then sending that member to some lost family members, won't GUARANTEE the evoking of the response of faith in a person's heart.

CPR won't GUARANTEE resuscitation. Therefore it's pointless according to your logic.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

What would be the basis for this to be true?

Is that a serious question?

 

[Not David]

Is that a serious question?

Yes, will you stop being condescending?

 

[cvanwey]

What would be the basis for this to be true?

Evidence leads to truth.

 

[cvanwey]

I've explained elsewhere, our individual human level perceptions of reality will be informed and infused by all of our particular living experiences.

But regardless of my path, or anyone's path, wouldn't you at least acknowledge that no one, in their 'right mind', would deny the existence of Adolf Hitler. I hate to use such an over played example, but I couldn't resist And I do so for emphasis.

The 'knowledge of existence' should not require any of what you have stated

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But regardless of my path, or anyone's path, wouldn't you at least acknowledge that no one, in their 'right mind', would deny the existence of Adolf Hitler. I hate to use such an over played example, but I couldn't resist And I do so for emphasis.

The 'knowledge of existence' should not require any of what you have stated

....the problem here is that any single claim that any one single human being has existed doesn't really tell us much in and of itself about that person. And "knowledge of existence," particularly as it pertains to the past, is fraught with historiographical, historical, as well as epistemological and some ontological complexities and complications.

So, we can say:

Adolf Hitler existed. And then we can ask, "so what?"
Julius Caesar existed. And then we can ask, "so what?"
Hugh Hefner existed. And then we can ask, "so what?"
Alexander the Great existed. And then we can ask, "so what?"
Abraham Lincoln existed. And then we can ask, "so what?"
Frederick Douglas existed. And then we can ask, "so what?"
Jesus of Nazareth existed. And then we can ask, "so what?"

But when we say "God exists," we enter into a whole other ontological set of issues, and we'll find that we'll be doing a lot more inquiry in the middle of our additional deliberations as we try to figure out the meaning of God; we'll be doing much more than simply asking, "so what?"

So no, our "knowledge of existence" is not simple. In fact, I'm trying to understand from where you've gotten that idea.

 

[cvanwey]

....the problem here is that any one claim that any one single human being has existed doesn't really tell us much in and of itself. And "knowledge of existence," particularly as it pertains to the past, is fraught with historiographical as well as epistemological complexities and complications.

So, we can say:

Adolf Hitler existed. And then we can ask, "so what?"
Julius Caesar existed. And then we can ask, "so what?"
Hugh Hefner existed. And then we can ask, "so what?"
Alexander the Great existed. And then we can ask, "so what?"
Jesus of Nazareth existed. And then we can ask, "so what?"

But when we say "God exists," we enter into a whole other ontological set of issues, and we be doing a lot more in our deliberations about the meaning of God that simply asking, "so what?"

This thread is to point out, that many are atheists, skeptics, agnostics, humanists, etc., and many are so; directly because they are not even sure if God exists, let alone a very specific God.

The entire point of this thread, is to demonstrate that it 'should' be 'common knowledge' that, not only a God exists, but a specific God exists. Just like the many, whom are in the camp of doubt, most likely still acknowledge the existence of Hitler, Hugh Hefner, etc...

There's a difference in acknowledging the existence of Jesus and Alexander. Many acknowledge that both of them existed respectively, which are not Christian. However, both individuals claimed the supernatural. Jesus being the Messiah and Alexander being the son of Zeus. So yes, one can acknowledge the existence to them both just fine, while still rejecting Yahweh and Zeus.

My point being... There seems to exist no logical reason, or required journey, to 'know' something at least exists.

Believe it or not, this IS the main road block, as to why it is so easy for me to reject many claims from the Bible.

If I knew a God actually existed, then I would have no choice, but to read the Bible possibly from a different viewpoint. But as it stands, here we are, 1,000's of years later, and no real proof has demonstrated a God, or further yet, a very specific God.

My point also being.... If God wants everyone to come to know Him, why does God appear to be playing hide and seek? The ways in which many seem to come to realize and know God, seem very perplexing to me. Knowledge of existence is only step one, but is crucial and required, before moving on to step two, which is, as you pointed out, 'so what'.

I mean, I could be in vast denial, or the biggest skeptic, or etc.; but if the evidence is blankly in my face, I have NO choice but to acknowledge such existence.

I'm actually not asking for proof. Because I know you cannot furnish any. My point is, if God truly wants everyone to have a fighting chance, one would think God would 'reveal' himself to all in doubt, to at least provide a fair offer.

As it stands, it's not bad enough the many have to navigate the context of the 1,000+ pages in the Bible, but then many are also left with the task of wondering if such a book was ACTUALLY inspired by a God.

 

[Not David]

This thread is to point out, that many are atheists, skeptics, agnostics, humanists, etc., and many are so; directly because they are not even sure if God exists, let alone a very specific God.

The entire point of this thread, is to demonstrate that it 'should' be 'common knowledge' that, not only a God exists, but a specific God exists. Just like the many, whom are in the camp of doubt, most likely still acknowledge the existence of Hitler, Hugh Hefner, etc...

There's a difference in acknowledging the existence of Jesus and Alexander. Many acknowledge that both of them existed respectively, which are not Christian. However, both individuals claimed the supernatural. Jesus being the Messiah and Alexander being the son of Zeus. So yes, one can acknowledge the existence to them both just fine, while still rejecting Yahweh and Zeus.

My point being... There seems to exist no logical reason, or required journey, to 'know' something at least exists.

Believe it or not, this IS the main road block, as to why it is so easy for me to reject many claims from the Bible.

If I knew a God actually existed, then I would have no choice, but to read the Bible possibly from a different viewpoint. But as it stands, here we are, 1,000's of years later, and no real proof has demonstrated a God, or further yet, a very specific God.

My point also being.... If God wants everyone to come to know Him, why does God appear to be playing hide and seek? The ways in which many seem to come to realize and know God, seem very perplexing to me. Knowledge of existence is only step one, but is crucial and required, before moving on to step two, which is, as you pointed out, 'so what'.

I mean, I could be in vast denial, or the biggest skeptic, or etc.; but if the evidence is blankly in my face, I have NO choice but to acknowledge such existence.

I'm actually not asking for proof. Because I know you cannot furnish any. My point is, if God truly wants everyone to have a fighting chance, one would think God would 'reveal' himself to all in doubt, to at least provide a fair offer.

As it stands, it's not bad enough the many have to navigate the context of the 1,000+ pages in the Bible, but then many are also left with the task of wondering if such a book was ACTUALLY inspired by a God.

The problem is that you want God to provide evidence according to how you think he should do it without thinking what are the plans of God with mankind.