'Knowledge' of Existence

[cvanwey]

I just don't think I'll be able to find the time in the near future.

No worries... It's just that you hit so many topics for your sighted justifications; it seems to address many of them in an intelligent and coherent way.

 

[cvanwey]

I've read tidbits of it. Carroll is a very exciting speaker and of course is very well educated in his field, on the other hand William Lane Craig is not educated in that field and from what I have read that was the big difference. Carroll although one that doesn't dismiss philosophy outright didn't seem to refute that aspect of the debate. But I haven't watched the debate itself so I can't say for sure. I just don't know if I will have time to actually do that.

I just didn't want to send you a one-sided biased 'kill point' video link from one side or the other You can certainly watch those too. I wanted to remain as neutral as possible, or, as I can be

But getting back to it...

'Knowledge of existence' seems to be the catalyst for such drawn conclusions. When one does not receive that 'knowledge of existence', all such points, in which you may see, as connecting to your believed God, simply connects me, (the skeptic), to instead simply shrug my shoulders and state, "I really don't know, but there could be a multitude of conclusions - (and NOT just a dichotomy of God or nothing at all)."

If you have anything else to add, go for it.

Otherwise, this is why I really do not wish to delve into specific topics/arguments (for and against); as I would imagine we have both addressed most of them sufficiently in the past, and either find them compelling, or not compelling, to prove some asserted 'primer mover', 'uncaused cause', 'driving force which institutes stable laws', etc....

Peace

 

[Sanoy]

I've read tidbits of it. Carroll is a very exciting speaker and of course is very well educated in his field, on the other hand William Lane Craig is not educated in that field and from what I have read that was the big difference. Carroll although one that doesn't dismiss philosophy outright didn't seem to refute that aspect of the debate. But I haven't watched the debate itself so I can't say for sure. I just don't know if I will have time to actually do that.

Dr Craig has a collaboration of minds that he has available for cosmology. I didn't think Carroll had any knowledge over Craig on this topic, I think the impression people got was from the "I'm-right-Impatience" and derogatory tone Carroll maintained through the entire debate. In regards to the relevant FTA, Carroll admits to fine tuning, but denies there is any fine tuning for life. His sole reason given being that the entropy of the early universe is much lower than it needs to be to allow for life. That was it, a tiny foot note response. The bulk of it was over Carrolls toy model which he used to attack premise one of the cosmological argument by mixing an matching multiple toy models. Like one trying to deny 1 puzzle piece by appealing to the sides of 4 different puzzle pieces each with 1 side that fits. So I think you chose wisely not to spend extra time out of your day watching it for a minute long segment.

 

[cvanwey]

Honestly, the fact that you know this shows you know the character of God, you know who God is.

No I certainly do not. I know what I know, and what the Bible claims, and am instead invoking what I would project such a claimed 'all loving and all knowing' entity would do.

So I then pose to you the same concluded dichotomy I have presented to others:

Either God has chosen to continue to defy my continued genuine inquiry, via (Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23), or, this claimed God does not exist?

Which answer makes more sense?

As stated prior, denial is not an option. I believed wholeheartedly, because of indoctrination, for decades.

Many things exist, in which I have no choice to acknowledge their existence. Pure and simple.

Even if you merely imagine the perfect characteristics of God, the perfect way of being, it exists at least in your imagination.

This response does not make sense.

If you have any correct understanding of what I've said, please don't harden your heart. Rather, continue seeking truth and understanding in a loving way.

Having not received simple and necessary 'knowledge of existence' for 30+ years would reasonably leave most in my precarious position.

Furthermore, 'hardening my heart', would not apply in reference to the 'knowledge of existence'. I would have no choice to either acknowledge the existence, or not. I could be in denial, but that would be silly, in light of the fact I was a believer for 30+ years, searching for basic knowledge that this entity is actually there, listening to me - in which I never received.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Dr Craig has a collaboration of minds that he has available for cosmology. I didn't think Carroll had any knowledge over Craig on this topic, I think the impression people got was from the "I'm-right-Impatience" and derogatory tone Carroll maintained through the entire debate. In regards to the relevant FTA, Carroll admits to fine tuning, but denies there is any fine tuning for life. His sole reason given being that the entropy of the early universe is much lower than it needs to be to allow for life. That was it, a tiny foot note response. The bulk of it was over Carrolls toy model which he used to attack premise one of the cosmological argument by mixing an matching multiple toy models. Like one trying to deny 1 puzzle piece by appealing to the sides of 4 different puzzle pieces each with 1 side that fits. So I think you chose wisely not to spend extra time out of your day watching it for a minute long segment.

How can you admit to fine tuning but deny it for life? That doesn't jive.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I just didn't want to send you a one-sided biased 'kill point' video link from one side or the other You can certainly watch those too. I wanted to remain as neutral as possible, or, as I can be

But getting back to it...

'Knowledge of existence' seems to be the catalyst for such drawn conclusions. When one does not receive that 'knowledge of existence', all such points, in which you may see, as connecting to your believed God, simply connects me, (the skeptic), to instead simply shrug my shoulders and state, "I really don't know, but there could be a multitude of conclusions - (and NOT just a dichotomy of God or nothing at all)."

If you have anything else to add, go for it.

Otherwise, this is why I really do not wish to delve into specific topics/arguments (for and against); as I would imagine we have both addressed most of them sufficiently in the past, and either find them compelling, or not compelling, to prove some asserted 'primer mover', 'uncaused cause', 'driving force which institutes stable laws', etc....

Peace

I agree, you are very set in your worldview and nothing I can add would be compelling.

 

[cvanwey]

How can you admit to fine tuning but deny it for life? That doesn't jive.

You would really need to watch the video. If you watch it, without a presupposed filter, it talks about quite a lot. I just posed this one, again, because it might seem to resonate and parallel many of your broached talking points.

 

[cvanwey]

I agree, you are very set in your worldview and nothing I can add would be compelling.

Ditto, but with belief in the supernatural.

 

[Sanoy]

How can you admit to fine tuning but deny it for life? That doesn't jive.

I wondered the same thing. He went into 0 explanation on that. Dr Craig had mentioned that Carroll believes in fine tuning, and Carroll said he took him out of context, and that he believes in fine tuning just not for life...whatever that means. It was a bizarre debate at times. Carroll showed slides of Guth (or one of those three) holding up "sentence cards" like some public service announcement commercial on a disease. Carroll doesn't explain anything about it. He spends all of 1 minute. There is nothing useful in the video to watch, I re-watched the whole thing. There is nothing to look at, he doesn't even explain his own point.

 

[cvanwey]

I wondered the same thing. He went into 0 explanation on that. Dr Craig had mentioned that Carroll believes in fine tuning, and Carroll said he took him out of context, and that he believes in fine tuning just not for life...whatever that means. It was a bizarre debate at times. Carroll showed slides of Guth (or one of those three) holding up "sentence cards" like some public service announcement commercial on a disease. Carroll doesn't explain anything about it. He spends all of 1 minute. There is nothing useful in the video to watch, I re-watched the whole thing. There is nothing to look at, he doesn't even explain his own point.

First and foremost, I appreciate you took over four hours of your time in watching the debate twice! This tells me that you must at least value 'some' of my opinions, which appears practically in stark contrast to 'some' of your responses directly to me

Moving forward, in retrospect, there's a few points I wanted to address, for various related and unrelated reasons, quite frankly:

1. In reading your later responses, you appear to be, (and please don't take any of this offensively), kind of 'poisoning the well' in a sense. You practically blanket discredited the entire debate. I do admit, in hindsight, it may have been more appropriate to instead PM @Oncedeceived about this debate. This way, others would not interject with their many conclusions (and muddy the waters - you). So for this, I need to be mindful that such responses are public, not private. But I have to wonder....? From my estimation, it appears somewhat desperate to continue infusing your specific unrequested opinions from this debate. It's almost as if you are imploring @Oncedeceived to 'please not watch the video.' I'm sure this individual is smart enough to reach their own conclusions. There exists a plethora of topics and two way discussions within this debate (bias or unbias).

2. Myself and @Oncedeceived have both conceded that we possess our own conclusions to many topics, and that there really exists no further reason to address such argument points, (for or against). So your continued pleadings, for her not to watch the video becomes even further unnecessary. And again acts as a distractor.

3. Through the exploration of this topic, one of my original hypothesis appear even further demonstrated, in which you personally have attributed - (so thank you for that).... 'Knowledge of existence' DOES become the starting point, (as stated in my OP). Case and point, watching the video. If you feel you have the knowledge of existence for Yahweh, by whatever means necessary, of course any talking points, in an attempt to discredit God's specific existence is going to be met with resistance! Of course such discussion is going to be completely discarded or dismissed. No different than you presenting opposing observations to a Hindu. If the opponent feels they have received their sufficient 'knowledge of existence' for Brahma, of course any video opposing such a conclusion will be met with bias and presuppositional conclusions completely to the contrary. Or quite frankly, accepting the hits, and ignoring all the misses.

Your later responses are peculiar, telling, and also seem to align with my prior notion.... Again, that if one truly thinks their specific supernatural entity exists, this becomes the starting point to begin making all 'in favor' evidence fit, while discarding or excluding all opposing points. I too admit, I would most likely do the exact same thing. Why? Because in my brain, I would believe this entity actually existed. Hence forth, all apologetic philosophical arguments would further reinforce and draw direct connections and conclusions to my already 'believed to exist' entity.

So quite frankly, though I would love hashing out the MANY talking points of the 2 hour debate, I already know it will fall upon def ears (quite frankly in both directions). So let's not bother.

Because of this ~300 post thread (thus far), it has become more apparent, that once one truly thinks their believed entity is real (God, Brahma, Baal, etc...), no amount of inquiry will shake ones presupposition otherwise. Kind of obvious to state as such... But hey....

In conclusion, 'knowledge of existence' is the starting point. 'Knowledge of existence' is key. "Knowledge of existence' is paramount. The rest then quickly falls into place. (i.e.) finding meaning, finding purpose, finding intentional agency, finding and searching for all existing visually observed traits, which one would then have no other choice but to connect to their specific 'known' agent. It would be very easy to, if one 'knows' their entity is real.

But I do have one repeated topic unanswered/untouched....

If God wants a close and personal relationship with all humans, and God is 'all-good and all knowing', I then ask to address the following dichotomous conclusion (yet again)....

*********************

1. Either God is deliberately avoiding my repeated attempts in knowledge of existence, which contradicts and is in direct spite of (Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23).

2. God does not actually exist

And since all whom might reply here, think God does exist, option 2. does not become a plausible option.

The 'knowledge of existence' appears mundane, and still allows for 100% free will, free choice, and would actually propel many to then do 'God's work', as opposed to the millions/billions of 'atheists' to Yahweh specifically which simply CANNOT do God's work and CANNOT have a relationship, as they do no think such an agent is real.

Just seems odd really..... One might think that all would be placed on a level playing field.

Furthermore, I wanted to reiterate an anecdotal story one more time...

My best friend's wife was a staunch atheist. At age 20, she claimed to receive a vision. This was the catalyst for her to read the Bible. This was the catalyst for her to begin preaching to others. This was the catalyst for her to start praying. This was the catalyst for her to begin ignoring all opposing observations, or rationalizations, which appear to oppose stories in Genesis, etc etc etc..

We have had many discussions over the past couple of years. Her 'faith' will not waiver. I ask her why? She states, that it is because she received her necessary proof for existence, which then propelled her to connect all the remaining pieces of evidence. At this point, nothing will shake her faith, according to her. She also teaches Sunday school now.

So I ask you, was 'knowledge of existence' a necessity in her case? Simple (yes or no).

 

[Sanoy]

Given that Carroll only spent 1 minute on the subject, I think you should make your point rather than redirect to a 2hr debate. Regarding poisoning the well. If you were concerned about that you wouldn't have followed your suggestion of watching the debate with "Spoiler alert, the arguments are completely one sided. ". If you want to discuss the OP you know what I'm waiting for, in the meantime you are certainly welcome to type your way to whatever conclusion you want.

 

[cvanwey]

Given that Carroll only spent 1 minute on the subject, I think you should make your point rather than redirect to a 2hr debate. Regarding poisoning the well. If you were concerned about that you wouldn't have followed your suggestion of watching the debate with "Spoiler alert, the arguments are completely one sided. ". If you want to discuss the OP you know what I'm waiting for, in the meantime you are certainly welcome to type your way to whatever conclusion you want.

I gave you what you want (even after I told you they were not relevant). You just didn't like it. Again, you have addressed practically nothing I've mentioned. But please continue with your tactics; they are very telling

 

[joinfree]

Satan

Please show, that you are not satan's slave. Write his "name" with s, not the capital S. The size matters. The satan is the Absolute Nothingness the Philosophy talking about.

 

[cvanwey]

Please show, that you are not satan's slave. Write his "name" with s, not the capital S. The size matters. The satan is the Absolute Nothingness the Philosophy talking about.

I have an "S" for you. Seriously...?

 

[joinfree]

I have an "S" for you. Seriously...?

It may be Revelation to you, but Eastern Orthodox Christianity writes satan not with capital S. satan is murderer, his second name is DEATH. He has murdered all people, who are dead in History. Including his trusted slaves, e.g. Adolf Hitler.

 

[cvanwey]

It may be Revelation to you, but Eastern Orthodox Christianity writes satan not with capital S. satan is murderer, his second name is DEATH. He has murdered all people, who are dead in History. Including his trusted slaves, e.g. Adolf Hitler.

Are you responding to the correct thread?

 

[Sanoy]

I gave you what you want (even after I told you they were not relevant). You just didn't like it. Again, you have addressed practically nothing I've mentioned. But please continue with your tactics; they are very telling

You gave me what you wanted to give me, not what I have repeatedly asked for. Shall I pull it up again, and repeat the same request? That would be what, the fourth time? I'm perfectly happy to do so if you have forgotten again. I certainly haven't. If you want to discuss the OP you know what I'm waiting for, in the meantime you are certainly welcome to type your way to whatever conclusions you want.

 

[cvanwey]

You gave me what you wanted to give me, not what I have repeatedly asked for. Shall I pull it up again?

I have 'gave you' many things you asked for.... You have since avoided my many counter points. So not necessary to 'put it up' again. You only want what you specifically want. And when I answer specifically, you still discard and dismiss it. So no thanks, quite frankly. I do not care to regurgitate my very specific response to, what I feel, is your irrelevant request. Simply look it up and read it again if you choose. Per your request, I had even also modified replies to appease your delicate sensibilities.

So I will make this as simple as possible. If you choose to ignore it again, then your 'contribution' to this thread really becomes very much not productive, and instead just appears petty....

(Here's the conclusion)...

If you 'know' your God exists, you will then begin to look for specific connections to make it all fit.

If you do not 'know' such a God exists, you might doubt such 'evidence' (in which the believer uses to make the direct connections).

I hope you may concede at least this much.?.?.?. If so, you then understand why me and @Oncedeceived decided to terminate further posts towards one-another.

And again, I am going to reiterate one of my main conclusions again... 'Knowledge of existence' becomes the starting point for being a Christian.

'My best friend's wife was a staunch atheist. At age 20, she claimed to receive a vision. This was the catalyst for her to read the Bible. This was the catalyst for her to begin preaching to others. This was the catalyst for her to start praying. This was the catalyst for her to begin ignoring all opposing observations, or rationalizations, which appear to oppose stories in Genesis, etc etc etc..

We have had many discussions over the past couple of years. Her 'faith' will not waiver. I ask her why? She states, that it is because she received her necessary proof for existence, which then propelled her to connect all the remaining pieces of evidence. At this point, nothing will shake her faith, according to her. She also teaches Sunday school now.

So I ask you, was 'knowledge of existence' a necessity in her case? Simple (yes or no).'

 

[Oncedeceived]

But I have to wonder....? From my estimation, it appears somewhat desperate to continue infusing your specific unrequested opinions from this debate. It's almost as if you are imploring @Oncedeceived to 'please not watch the video.' I'm sure this individual is smart enough to reach their own conclusions. There exists a plethora of topics and two way discussions within this debate (bias or unbias).

2. Myself and @Oncedeceived have both conceded that we possess our own conclusions to many topics, and that there really exists no further reason to address such argument points, (for or against). So your continued pleadings, for her not to watch the video becomes even further unnecessary. And again acts as a distractor.

I welcomed Sanoy's opinion.

3. Through the exploration of this topic, one of my original hypothesis appear even further demonstrated, in which you personally have attributed - (so thank you for that).... 'Knowledge of existence' DOES become the starting point, (as stated in my OP). Case and point, watching the video. If you feel you have the knowledge of existence for Yahweh, by whatever means necessary, of course any talking points, in an attempt to discredit God's specific existence is going to be met with resistance! Of course such discussion is going to be completely discarded or dismissed. No different than you presenting opposing observations to a Hindu. If the opponent feels they have received their sufficient 'knowledge of existence' for Brahma, of course any video opposing such a conclusion will be met with bias and presuppositional conclusions completely to the contrary. Or quite frankly, accepting the hits, and ignoring all the misses.

Which happens of course with atheists as well.

Your later responses are peculiar, telling, and also seem to align with my prior notion.... Again, that if one truly thinks their specific supernatural entity exists, this becomes the starting point to begin making all 'in favor' evidence fit, while discarding or excluding all opposing points. I too admit, I would most likely do the exact same thing. Why? Because in my brain, I would believe this entity actually existed. Hence forth, all apologetic philosophical arguments would further reinforce and draw direct connections and conclusions to my already 'believed to exist' entity.

In your brain? Could you explain that comment please? Have you every asked for Brahma or Buddha to reveal their existence?

Because of this ~300 post thread (thus far), it has become more apparent, that once one truly thinks their believed entity is real (God, Brahma, Baal, etc...), no amount of inquiry will shake ones presupposition otherwise. Kind of obvious to state as such... But hey....

Have you asked those other than in Christianity that might 'shake' their presuppositions?

[In conclusion, 'knowledge of existence' is the starting point. 'Knowledge of existence' is key. "Knowledge of existence' is paramount. The rest then quickly falls into place. (i.e.) finding meaning, finding purpose, finding intentional agency, finding and searching for all existing visually observed traits, which one would then have no other choice but to connect to their specific 'known' agent. It would be very easy to, if one 'knows' their entity is real.

You do realize that there are only three religions that adhere to monotheism. That is a very important point in your discussion.

But I do have one repeated topic unanswered/untouched....

If God wants a close and personal relationship with all humans, and God is 'all-good and all knowing', I then ask to address the following dichotomous conclusion (yet again)....

*********************

1. Either God is deliberately avoiding my repeated attempts in knowledge of existence, which contradicts and is in direct spite of (Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23).

2. God does not actually exist

And since all whom might reply here, think God does exist, option 2. does not become a plausible option.

The 'knowledge of existence' appears mundane, and still allows for 100% free will, free choice, and would actually propel many to then do 'God's work', as opposed to the millions/billions of 'atheists' to Yahweh specifically which simply CANNOT do God's work and CANNOT have a relationship, as they do no think such an agent is real.

Just seems odd really..... One might think that all would be placed on a level playing field.

The whole point to Christianity is choice. God will not, does not want to force anyone to have a relationship with Him. Yes, free will is important, free choice is imperative. He may know exactly what it would take to force you to know He exists, that isn't what He wants.

Furthermore, I wanted to reiterate an anecdotal story one more time...

My best friend's wife was a staunch atheist. At age 20, she claimed to receive a vision. This was the catalyst for her to read the Bible. This was the catalyst for her to begin preaching to others. This was the catalyst for her to start praying. This was the catalyst for her to begin ignoring all opposing observations, or rationalizations, which appear to oppose stories in Genesis, etc etc etc..

We have had many discussions over the past couple of years. Her 'faith' will not waiver. I ask her why? She states, that it is because she received her necessary proof for existence, which then propelled her to connect all the remaining pieces of evidence. At this point, nothing will shake her faith, according to her. She also teaches Sunday school now.

So I ask you, was 'knowledge of existence' a necessity in her case? Simple (yes or no).

You are asking all of us. That will get you no where. I don't know what opposing evidence or observations she might be ignoring. She probably ignored evidence for God at one time...am I right?

 

[joinfree]

Are you responding to the correct thread?

I am not stupid, am I?