'Knowledge' of Existence

[2PhiloVoid]

I honestly don't know, but would like to be given the opportunity - Like many claim to have had (some and not others, which appears to present favoritism)...

...and who are these wonderful people? Are they still alive today? Just wondering.

Furthermore, God, being 'all knowing' and all, would know my required 'evidence' to accept His existence as reality to me. I would then have NO choice, but to view the Bible as presented from the actual stated source, from which it is claimed, (verses) written by men, with their own personal agendas. You see, 'knowledge of the existence' becomes the starting point. My bias currently tells me the Bible is man-made. I have no choice, because I currently only accept the existence of humans. If I accepted the existence of Yahweh, now we have a whole new ball game.

And how exactly does your bias "tell" you that the Bible is man-made? I mean, since you are being honest here with us in explicating in more general terms what kind of thing would have to happen to satisfy your curiosity so that you could come to a point where you feel you could believe, it seems that for you to tell us on the one hand that you require a certain kind of evidence, however repeatedly, I'm at pains to come to an understanding just how it is, then, that any of us, on a human level could help you. Why come to CF and ask questions of us when none of us could possibly be in any kind of either epistemic or privileged position to offer you anything that could even be remotely helpful. When you paint all of what "you want" in such distinct, qualified, individual terms, you've basically painted yourself into a qualifiably aesthetic mental zone in which we can't don anything but sit on the sidelines and listen.

I mean, I'd love to help you come back to Christ if that's what you really want, but......................I can't "give you" God!

Hence, the reason why I see people (believers) viewing the Bible waaaay differently than I. They view it as inspired. I do not, because I think it wasn't, because I'm skeptical there even exists an agent out there to provide as such. If God's so-called power was able to 'harden the Pharaoh's heart', 'present evidence to doubting Thomas', and also claims omnibenevolence and omnipresence, I see no issue.... Do you?

Okay. So? If that's the honest-to-God truth in how you see it, then is our conversation with you here at CF over? Or, do you have some other reason for being here? Please tell me you're not here on a mission to covertly "seek-and-destroy" the faith of existing Christians.............................

 

[Chriliman]

I appreciate your response. Now I would like to circle back, as it relates to my OP But prior to this, I would like to give you (my) rendition of 'faith'.

To me, faith means retaining a fundamental belief, in spite of possible opposing evidence. Faith also means pretending to know something unknown. Faith means to wish or hope something is true, because you want it to be. Faith also means, again, to me, not objectively following evidence, due to the desire to fulfill one's hope of a specific result.

Sorry, I do not possess or share the same opinion of the word faith No viable definition, for the word 'faith', appears to be evidence based. This is why I asked you for your definition. Faith appears the antithesis to evidence. The Bible does not appear to elude to any better conclusion either.

It seems you may be referencing another concept of faith, which is fine. But does not appear to be the definition of the actual word 'faith'.

Anywho, moving forward, I wanted to completely circle back to the OP.

If a God is presumably all power and all loving, what would be the point in 'deliberately' not answering my repeated requests to know He exists? If God knows I would then never doubt His specific existence, and still have the ability to apply 'free will' to decide whether or not to love, worship, and obey, why not just reveal Himself? Why remain hidden, in spite of the fact he has presented himself to many. Appears very illogical, and completely contradicts God's claimed nature....

You see, this is what I would conclude as 'blind faith.' Moving forward, if I were to be a 'Christian', I would instead have to instill and implement my past indoctrination, and apply 'blind faith'. This, to me, is not honest with myself. Hence, the reason I stated 'knowledge of existence' becomes the starting point.

Thoughts?

Neither I or God would expect you to instill blind faith in anything. We expect you to observe the evidence available and place your faith in what’s most good and reasonable, which we are providing to you. If you can’t accept what’s plainly given to you then what more do you expect of God or me? I fully believe God is working through me, giving you the most plainly accurate message possible, yet you won’t accept or agree, why?

An all loving and powerful God would not leave us to blind faith in order to understand what he’s communicating to us. No, he speaks clearly through people like me. Some Christians may be afraid to be like Jesus and say God is in me and I am in God, but I’m not afraid, I do believe God is communicating directly to you, through me.

 

[cvanwey]

...and who are these wonderful people? Are they still alive today? Just wondering.

Are you new to CF? I get anecdotal testimonials from time to time, along with outside of here at work, peers within my chosen hobbies, etc...

And how exactly does your bias "tell" you that the Bible is man-made? I mean, since you are being honest here with us in explicating in more general terms what kind of thing would have to happen to satisfy your curiosity so that you could come to a point where you feel you could believe, it seems that for you to tell us on the one hand that you require a certain kind of evidence, however repeatedly, I'm at pains to come to an understanding just how it is, then, that any of us, on a human level could help you.

I think you've slightly missed my point... I'm saying that it should be 'common knowledge' that Jesus/Yahweh is real; like the sun, moon, humans, etc... I find it peculiar that God appears to be the greatest hide-and-seek champion ever, 'testing everyone's faith', or claiming that the one's whom deny or resist His truth are just in denial. Seems like He's had quite a while now to demonstrate His existence, in a way which would be undeniable to all. We would all read the Bible from the perspective of knowing it actually came from Yahweh. Many would still reject it, and so forth. However, an 'atheist', 'agnostic', 'humanist', 'free thinkers' would have no choice but to reconcile the existence of such a being, whether they like it or not. All such parties could choose to rebel, based upon disagreement, etc...

Why come to CF and ask questions of us when none of us could possibly be in any kind of either epistemic or privileged position to offer you anything that could even be remotely helpful. When you paint all of what "you want" in such distinct, qualified, individual terms, you've basically painted yourself into a qualifiably aesthetic mental zone in which we can't don anything but sit on the sidelines and listen.

Not so... I've spent a lot of time formulating my conclusions. And this is one of the things which keeps me very skeptical. I'm just being honest. Why must God remain hidden? Makes no sense, unless he's not actually real.?.?.?

I mean, I'd love to help you come back to Christ if that's what you really want, but......................I can't "give you" God!

This is a forum arena to express our opinions, views, and thoughts. This is one of mine

Okay. So? If that's the honest-to-God truth in how you see it, then is our conversation with you here at CF over? Or, do you have some other reason for being here? Please tell me you're not here on a mission to covertly "seek-and-destroy" the faith of existing Christians.............................

Funny. Sometimes the truth can be an ugly reality. This is my reality. If I cannot manipulate my own intuition, what choice do I have? I cannot make myself believe, no more than making myself believe any other current 'unbelieved' conclusion.

I feel some of my observations have possibly manifested some serious points to consider... I really have no agenda, as you speak of... I'm simply expressing my deepest concluded thoughts, after a wide range of study. If my points are causing some to 'destroy' people's 'faith', then maybe their beliefs are not as well grounded as they may have thought.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Are you new to CF? I get anecdotal testimonials from time to time, along with outside of here at work, peers within my chosen hobbies, etc...

Um.....did you by chance attend primarily Pentecostal or Faith Movement churches when you were a Christian? Because most of the others don't harbor on the expectation of direct, full-fledged divine miracles, but you seem to be quite sensitized to this sort of thing. Just wondering. If you did, it doesn't mean anything demeaning per say, but it would help to explain some things.

I think you've slightly missed my point... I'm saying that it should be 'common knowledge' that Jesus/Yahweh is real; like the sun, moon, humans, etc... I find it peculiar that God appears to be the greatest hide-and-seek champion ever, 'testing everyone's faith', or claiming that the one's whom deny or resist His truth are just in denial. Seems like He's had quite a while now to demonstrate His existence, in a way which would be undeniable to all. We would all read the Bible from the perspective of knowing it actually came from Yahweh. Many would still reject it, and so forth. However, an 'atheist', 'agnostic', 'humanist', 'free thinkers' would have no choice but to reconcile the existence of such a being, whether they like it or not. All such parties could choose to rebel, based upon disagreement, etc...

And maybe by not showing up the way everyone would like for Him to do so, this will afford some people more latitude and grace on the Judgement Day? Maybe?

Moreover, people's brain patterns and perceptions are different enough that one can't really expect the same connotation to emerge in all of those minds even if they have the same denotations.

Not so... I've spent a lot of time formulating my conclusions. And this is one of the things which keeps me very skeptical. I'm just being honest. Why must God remain hidden? Makes no sense, unless he's not actually real.?.?.?

I'm sure you've spent a lot of time formulating your conclusions. But remember, you're not the only one who has spent 30 + years in the formulating process.......not that longer formulations are by necessity more substantive than other formulations, particularly if faith isn't solely the outcome of a rational process. It includes it, but it doesn't fully rely on that.

This is a forum arena to express our opinions, views, and thoughts. This is one of mine

Okay. I'm not here to stop you.

Funny. Sometimes the truth can be an ugly reality. This is my reality. If I cannot manipulate my own intuition, what choice do I have? I cannot make myself believe, no more than making myself believe any other current 'unbelieved' conclusion.

And you think an ugly reality isn't my reality too? You're the only one with an ugly reality? Really?

I feel some of my observations have possibly manifested some serious points to consider... I really have no agenda, as you speak of... I'm simply expressing my deepest concluded thoughts, after a wide range of study. If my points are causing some to 'destroy' people's 'faith', then maybe their beliefs are not as well grounded as they may have thought.

That's interesting. I feel that some of my observations also have some serious points to consider, but I don't see people lining up to find out all of the nuances involved in all of that, not that I expect them to. Yet, at the same time, I sometimes encounter other people who seem to expect me to line up to consider ALL of theirs. Go figure.

Oh, now you say you've had a wide range of study. Didn't I ask you about this a while back?

 

[cvanwey]

Um.....did you by chance attend primarily Pentecostal or Faith Movement churches when you were a Christian? Because most of the others don't harbor on the expectation of direct, full-fledged divine miracles, but you seem to be quite sensitized to this sort of thing. Just wondering. If you did, it doesn't mean anything demeaning per say, but it would help to explain some things.

The ones which claim to receive contact, don't harbor because they feel they received their needed proof.

LOL. I'm not sensitive. Not at all. More so like perplexed, baffled, puzzled, or confused. Too many inconsistencies to reconcile...

- Sal receives a divine revelation, without request (who write 40% of the NT)
- Doubting Thomas received his necessary evidence
- Many claim they receive contact, due to faith and prayer (but not me), which seems to represent favoritism
- God is 'all good', and 'all present', and yet deliberately withholds evidence/contact from some;
- God knows what each individual would need to 'know' He exists, but chooses not to provide it; especially when earnestly requested (which is sort of related to the point directly above)
- Human's keen ability to apply 'intentional agency' and conclude 'false positives'
- Humans selfish nature to think there just has to be someone out there to listen to them and love them from beyond
- The fact that many conclude God, simply because they don't understand some things
- The fact that 'knowing' God actually authored the Bible would cause non-believers to at least look at the Bible differently, verses any other current man written book.
- Humans should not need to get their 'mind a certain way'. They either know it, or they don't.
- etc etc etc.....

And maybe by not showing up the way everyone would like for Him to do so, this will afford some people more latitude and grace on the Judgement Day? Maybe?

I'm not asking, or requesting any specific way. Just the ways He knows each person might need to no longer doubt.

Moreover, people's brain patterns and perceptions are different enough that one can't really expect the same connotation to emerge in all of those minds even if they have the same denotations.

See response directly above

And you think an ugly reality isn't my reality too? You're the only one with an ugly reality? Really?

So you are a skeptic too, for some of the same reasons I am?

That's interesting. I feel that some of my observations also have some serious points to consider, but I don't see people lining up to find out all of the nuances involved in all of that, not that I expect them to. Yet, at the same time, I sometimes encounter other people who seem to expect me to line up to consider ALL of theirs. Go figure.

Oh, now you say you've had a wide range of study. Didn't I ask you about this a while back?

I address them What am I, chopped liver over here? I don't expect anyone to response to my thoughts, unless they choose to.

I've studied the last two years, to make up for the prior 30+ in which I did none

 

[cvanwey]

Neither I or God would expect you to instill blind faith in anything. We expect you to observe the evidence available and place your faith in what’s most good and reasonable, which we are providing to you. If you can’t accept what’s plainly given to you then what more do you expect of God or me?

What evidence specifically am I denying?

I fully believe God is working through me, giving you the most plainly accurate message possible, yet you won’t accept or agree, why?

I know you believe that. Therefore, this is the starting point for why you are a Christian. I, do not.

Why? The same reason I do not accept any opposing claimed God. The same reason you do not either. The same reason I do not accept the currently provided anecdotal reports of alien sightings...

An all loving and powerful God would not leave us to blind faith in order to understand what he’s communicating to us. No, he speaks clearly through people like me. Some Christians may be afraid to be like Jesus and say God is in me and I am in God, but I’m not afraid, I do believe God is communicating directly to you, through me.

How do I know God speaks through you? You have to be honest here... If someone told you that an opposing god was speaking through them, would you believe them?

 

[DogmaHunter]

What would be the basis for this to be true?

Simple: beliefs can be wrong.

100% of people could believe the earth is flath. It would still be a sphere. The people would simply be incorrect.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The idea is that you are skeptic about the existence of God, and even if you don't want it it's related with your own personal believes about what God should be (in this case, how he reveals himself).

I think that's a misrepresentation.

The correct formulation would be:
"...it's related to how a God is claimed to be".

 

[Sanoy]

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.



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.



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.



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

Paul is not wrong, you have sufficient knowledge to acquire salvation apart from confessing Christianity. I stand firm on that. You just don't recognize it. People are born with what is called intuitive theism, it is the major instinct that has caused mankind to form religions for it's entire history. They also have intuitions on right and wrong, the ongoing existence of their soul, and guilt. People disregard those intuitions today by ascribing them to other things but they are still there. How you respond to them will either condemn or excuse you on the day when God judges people's secrets through Jesus Christ (Romans 2:15-16)

Weighing a thought and investigating it is just being reasonable. Being reasonable doesn't require special nomenclature to distinguish one from another reasonably acting person. Skepticism, as a position, is position of negative propositional attitude toward a subject, requiring a higher level of satisfaction, sometimes even an intentionally bloated and impossible level. That is why it is specially denoted, it describes the propositional attitude one has. An attitude is not an intellectual position but a subjective position.

 

[Sanoy]

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.

I'll give you the TLDR version then.

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.

 

[Chriliman]

What evidence specifically am I denying?

The information I've given you that states Christian faith is not merely blind faith, but rather does rely on experiential evidence.

I like what you said here about faith.

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.'

I can agree with that assessment.

Why? The same reason I do not accept any opposing claimed God. The same reason you do not either. The same reason I do not accept the currently provided anecdotal reports of alien sightings...

Actually, sometimes when I speak with people of other religions I recognize characteristics of God in them and what they say. I even see God's characteristics in atheists from time to time. This only affirms to me that God is indeed all in all, even if not fully recognized yet from an individual perspective.

How do I know God speaks through you? You have to be honest here... If someone told you that an opposing god was speaking through them, would you believe them?

It depends on what they say and wether it lines up with what an all loving God would say. Often times it will both reveal my folly and empower me to repent of that folly and do better. I have been corrected by many people, including atheists in the past and I believe that was God working through them in order to correct me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The ones which claim to receive contact, don't harbor because they feel they received their needed proof.

LOL. I'm not sensitive. Not at all. More so like perplexed, baffled, puzzled, or confused. Too many inconsistencies to reconcile...

- Sal receives a divine revelation, without request (who write 40% of the NT)
- Doubting Thomas received his necessary evidence
- Many claim they receive contact, due to faith and prayer (but not me), which seems to represent favoritism
- God is 'all good', and 'all present', and yet deliberately withholds evidence/contact from some;
- God knows what each individual would need to 'know' He exists, but chooses not to provide it; especially when earnestly requested (which is sort of related to the point directly above)
- Human's keen ability to apply 'intentional agency' and conclude 'false positives'
- Humans selfish nature to think there just has to be someone out there to listen to them and love them from beyond
- The fact that many conclude God, simply because they don't understand some things
- The fact that 'knowing' God actually authored the Bible would cause non-believers to at least look at the Bible differently, verses any other current man written book.
- Humans should not need to get their 'mind a certain way'. They either know it, or they don't.
- etc etc etc.....

I don't know it. And I've never claimed that I have. And to this day, I still haven't gotten any 'extra' message from the Great Beyond of God's Glory in a direct manner similar to those you've listed above. Like you, and like many here, I wish I could have. But then, if I understand the Bible correctly, that little thing that Uncle Ben told Peter Parker seems to be something God will put into direct effect as well. Do you really want that too? I'm not sure that I do ..............................

I'm not asking, or requesting any specific way. Just the ways He knows each person might need to no longer doubt.

Well, that doesn't always work now, does it? Look what happened to Saul? Look what happened to Judas?

So you are a skeptic too, for some of the same reasons I am?

Yeah, it's called "life can really suck, so deal with it"! Of course, I always hate it when other people spell it out for me in just so many words just like that. It kind'a sucks, too, just to be told that life can suck!

I address them What am I, chopped liver over here? I don't expect anyone to response to my thoughts, unless they choose to.

I don't think you're chopped liver.

I've studied the last two years, to make up for the prior 30+ in which I did none

That's great! Later is better than never, so you're already ahead of the game from where quite a few people still are. Ahead of the likes of Eleanor, anyway!

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Paul is not wrong, you have sufficient knowledge to acquire salvation apart from confessing Christianity. I stand firm on that.

Only one person has immediate apprehension of my thoughts - me. Not you. Certainly not Paul. By predicating your argument on information you have no access to, you stand on nothing whatsoever.

Actually, it's worse than that. You sawed your own legs off and dove headfirst into quicksand.

Weighing a thought and investigating it is just being reasonable.

It sure is. It's also being skeptical.

 

[Sanoy]

Only one person has immediate apprehension of my thoughts - me. Not you. Certainly not Paul. By predicating your argument on information you have no access to, you stand on nothing whatsoever.

Actually, it's worse than that. You sawed your own legs off and dove headfirst into quicksand.



It sure is. It's also being skeptical.

I think you might misunderstand me as I explained a lot of this earlier in the thread. Intuitive theism is a thing that has been studied. We have an innate intuition that drives us toward toward teleological thoughts, which History bares out in it's many religions. One doesn't need to be psychic, or a mind reader to imagine you are a typical human being. Me assuming you have eyes is no more assertive than assuming you bare the same innate intuitions as the rest of mankind. Who knows, maybe you're a different creature form the majority and don't have intuition X, but I am sure you bare another of the many guiding intuitions that exist tangent to the human consciousness, like the intuition of logic, mathematics, morality etc. Intuitions are required to function long term, you would not be here if you lacked them.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I think you might misunderstand me as I explained a lot of this earlier in the thread.

No, I understand just fine. I just find it very amusing that you would appeal to 'intuitive theism', as if that is what Paul was talking about.

I don't find the concept of 'intuitive theism' to be profound at all. It's quite mundane, actually. Humans are social, pattern-seeking animals. We are evolved to ascribe meaning, intent, and form to everything. It's why we see figures in clouds, why we yell at inanimate objects like cars and computers when they appear to 'misbehave', and why we imagine invisible entities called 'gods' and 'spirits' are responsible for everything from lightning and rain to the creation of the universe. I have never done that last one at any point in my life, nor have many other people I've known throughout my life, but it does not surprise me that a lot of people do.

So, is that really all Paul was talking about? That humans, as a generally applicable rule, are inclined to ascribe meaning, intent, and form, very often erroneously? Because if he is, then he and I agree. Humans do that. And they are frequently wrong in doing so.

I don't think that's what he's saying, though. And I don't think that's why you quoted him. I think you quoted him because you believe it's a point of fact - not just a generally applicable rule of psychology - that everyone has a conscious apprehension of not merely a generic 'god' concept, but Yahweh specifically.

Which would only take one counterexample to prove false. And it so happens, I am aware of one - me. I have no conscious apprehension of Yahweh or his 'creation', or any other non-entity you care to imagine. Any atheist can prove this to themselves in the exact same manner as me.

So, who is wrong - you, and your interpretation of Paul, or Paul himself? Those are your choices. Being 'right' about this, in any meaningful fashion, is not a logically available option to you.

 

[Chriliman]

No, I understand just fine. I just find it very amusing that you would appeal to 'intuitive theism', as if that is what Paul was talking about.

I don't find the concept of 'intuitive theism' to be profound at all. It's quite mundane, actually. Humans are social, pattern-seeking animals. We are evolved to ascribe meaning, intent, and form to everything. It's why we see figures in clouds, why we yell at inanimate objects like cars and computers when they appear to 'misbehave', and why we imagine invisible entities called 'gods' and 'spirits' are responsible for everything from lightning and rain to the creation of the universe. I have never done that last one at any point in my life, nor have many other people I've known throughout my life, but it does not surprise me that a lot of people do.

So, is that really all Paul was talking about? That humans, as a generally applicable rule, are inclined to ascribe meaning, intent, and form, very often erroneously? Because if he is, then he and I agree. Humans do that. And they are frequently wrong in doing so.

I don't think that's what he's saying, though. And I don't think that's why you quoted him. I think you quoted him because you believe it's a point of fact - not just a generally applicable rule of psychology - that everyone has a conscious apprehension of not merely a generic 'god' concept, but Yahweh specifically.

Which would only take one counterexample to prove false. And it so happens, I am aware of one - me. I have no conscious apprehension of Yahweh or his 'creation', or any other non-entity you care to imagine. Any atheist can prove this to themselves in the exact same manner as me.

So, who is wrong - you, and your interpretation of Paul, or Paul himself? Those are your choices. Being 'right' about this, in any meaningful fashion, is not a logically available option to you.

I think the point is that you are consciously aware of the characteristics and attributes of God, even if you don’t believe they actually apply to a real being.

God is like Jesus, kind and helpful towards the oppressed and tough loving towards the oppressors by exposing their evil desires. If there’s anything you should remember about God, it is that, because those characteristics are what will move humanity forward toward a brighter more peaceful future.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I think the point is that you are consciously aware of the characteristics and attributes of God

I am consciously aware of what the people who purport to speak on Yahweh's behalf have claimed are his characteristics and attributes. That's all. I did not intuit them, nor did I receive them from any 'revelation', nor did I glean them from observing his purported 'creation'. I got them from his spokespeople.

So if that's all Paul is asserting - that I am are aware of what has been claimed on behalf of Yahweh, by his spokespeople - then I agree. I can't help but be aware of that. His spokespeople are quite loud about it.

If it's more than that, then someone is wrong. Either Paul, or you and your interpretation of his words.

 

[cvanwey]

Actually, sometimes when I speak with people of other religions I recognize characteristics of God in them and what they say. I even see God's characteristics in atheists from time to time. This only affirms to me that God is indeed all in all, even if not fully recognized yet from an individual perspective.

It depends on what they say and wether it lines up with what an all loving God would say. Often times it will both reveal my folly and empower me to repent of that folly and do better. I have been corrected by many people, including atheists in the past and I believe that was God working through them in order to correct me.

Just curious....? Below is a simple test. (I 'bold typed' some of the perspective default answers). The answer, not 'bold typed' and underlined are the ones I would like for you to answer.

Does God's moral character ever change? (yes or no)
Has God ever commanded for individuals to kill others in war? (yes or no)
When these people were commanded to do so, did the person whom was commanded also agree with God's command, at the time it was commanded? (yes or no)

Where these people actually being commanded from God to kill others in war? (yes or no)

Now....

Has God ever commanded a parent to kill their child (yes or no)?
Did the person commanded know why they were being commanded to do as such ahead of time? (yes or no)
Did they think the command was from God? (yes or no)

Where these people actually being commanded from God to kill their child? (yes or no)

Now also fill in this riddle for me, as per your previous response above....

Do people today state that God told them to do this, that, or the other (yes or no)

How does one actually evaluate such a conclusion?????

 

[cvanwey]

Conclusion - greater knowledge (1) will lead to greater condemnation

The more you know, the less you believe.
The less you know, the more you believe.

Education's purpose is to overcome ignorance, not to instead reinforce it.

(2) for those with a hardened heart

The search for truth does not equal a 'hardened heart.' All assertions can always be challenged. One then weighs the evidence accordingly, and without bias.

(3), and those without a hardened heart already have enough knowledge for salvation (Romans 2:15). So what you ask is misguided.

Indoctrination and bias does not equal truth. Evidence, investigation, and lack in a bias, however, can and will lead to a truth. Doubt and skepticism are some of the pillars to demonstrate lack in bias and presupposition.

 

[Sanoy]

No, I understand just fine. I just find it very amusing that you would appeal to 'intuitive theism', as if that is what Paul was talking about.

I don't find the concept of 'intuitive theism' to be profound at all. It's quite mundane, actually. Humans are social, pattern-seeking animals. We are evolved to ascribe meaning, intent, and form to everything. It's why we see figures in clouds, why we yell at inanimate objects like cars and computers when they appear to 'misbehave', and why we imagine invisible entities called 'gods' and 'spirits' are responsible for everything from lightning and rain to the creation of the universe. I have never done that last one at any point in my life, nor have many other people I've known throughout my life, but it does not surprise me that a lot of people do.

So, is that really all Paul was talking about? That humans, as a generally applicable rule, are inclined to ascribe meaning, intent, and form, very often erroneously? Because if he is, then he and I agree. Humans do that. And they are frequently wrong in doing so.

I don't think that's what he's saying, though. And I don't think that's why you quoted him. I think you quoted him because you believe it's a point of fact - not just a generally applicable rule of psychology - that everyone has a conscious apprehension of not merely a generic 'god' concept, but Yahweh specifically.

Which would only take one counterexample to prove false. And it so happens, I am aware of one - me. I have no conscious apprehension of Yahweh or his 'creation', or any other non-entity you care to imagine. Any atheist can prove this to themselves in the exact same manner as me.

So, who is wrong - you, and your interpretation of Paul, or Paul himself? Those are your choices. Being 'right' about this, in any meaningful fashion, is not a logically available option to you.

Paul doesn't go into specifics. So it's up to us to figure out what he is referring too. The early church fathers took the same interpretation I am taking regarding other religions, and God's General revelation. Rather than intuition they might use conscious. There were even Pagans considered righteous by God in the OT, the Ugaritic Danel is one. Amusing? If this is a hostile conversation I prefer we end it right now.

Oh so you are a mind reader and know why I quoted Paul? Someone once said, "It is extremely unwise to predicate an argument on your ability to read the content of other people's thoughts." Well your psychic reading is mistaken, despite "understanding just fine". If you want to have an accurate conversation, take my suggestion and read through the context of what you are replying too, rather than trying to psychically acquire that from my mind in lieu of reading it.