'Knowledge' of Existence

[Hawkins]

I will start with a simple analogy:

I honestly do not know if extra terrestrials in fact do exist. However, I'm pretty confident all the specific claims laid forth, for sighting a specific entity has not been sufficiently demonstrated.

The analogy is not close enough. ET may not have a good reason to intentionally hide themselves from humans. They may not have the full capability to do so either. God on the other hand, if exists, has all the capability to hide Himself from humans if He has a good reason to hide behind.

ET can't have a full control of a valid and credible human encounter, plus that they don't have a very valid motive to do so. We don't have a strong motive to encounter the ants, we don't have a strong motive to avoid ants from seeing us. Thus "ants never see a human" stands not much chance because the possibility of such a lack of encounter is sheer, provided that the populations of ants are evenly distributed across our globe.

Under the circumstance, if without any valid and random encounter between ants and humans, it is reasonable for the ants to assume the absence of humans. This however doesn't apply to the case of God as God has the ability to actively avoid any encounter.

So why doesn't the one true God at least reveal himself in a way which leaves no shred of doubt of such existence? Many and most might still institute 'freewill' and make their choice not to obey, love, follow, and respect; (just like Satan and a third of the angels apparently did).

So the answer is simple, He demands faith from humans.

The advocate or possibilities however are, is there a way God can communicate with us but without destroying human faith which He demands? Christians speculate that we can establish a relationship with Him so that He reveals Himself to us in a way that human faith can still be assessed to qualify us by the standard defined in the New Covenant.

My analogy to the situation is rather, I honestly do not know what you ate today but a year ago (nor did you yourself, I bet). Can I reach what you ate by examining any evidence available. This chance is sheer unless you always eat under a surveillance camera (even so the date can still be faked).

The one exclusive way for humans to reach such a kind of unreachable is putting faith in human witnessing. Say, if CNN (a credible source of eye-witnessing) wrote down what you ate that day, then we can know what you ate by trusting CNN with faith. That's the exclusive way how we can reach the fact of what you ate. In this case, what we examine is actually the credibility of the source (of eyewitness accounts), instead of actually evidence (which by its very nature is scarcely available).

Again, "I don't believe due to the lack of evidence" is just another delusional ideal, a fallacious argument commonly employed.

 

[cvanwey]

The analogy is not close enough. ET may not have a good reason to intentionally hide themselves from humans. They may not have the full capability to do so either.

How would you even know that? (off topic) Maybe you haven't seen War of the Worlds then?

Back on topic. My point being we have many anecdotal claims for both ET's and gods (both claims in mass sightings). Hence, I doubt you are lending much credence to the anecdotal claims for the ET's or anecdotal claims of the millions who swear to their opposing gods, in which you do not accept/believe.

God on the other hand, if exists, has all the capability to hide Himself from humans if He has a good reason to hide behind.

What could possibly be the point for intentionally hiding His existence from me, after decades of pleading? Especially due to the fact so many claim to receive revelation (both asking for it and not asking). If I had a nickel for every time I heard that so-and-so was not a believer until they received a message from beyond...... I'd definitely have a few bucks

we don't have a strong motive to avoid ants from seeing us. Thus "ants never see a human" stands not much chance because the possibility of such a lack of encounter is sheer, provided that the populations of ants are evenly distributed across our globe.

Under the circumstance, if without any valid and random encounter between ants and humans, it is reasonable for the ants to assume the absence of humans. This however doesn't apply to the case of God as God has the ability to actively avoid any encounter.

We don't claim to be the creator of ants, and that if they don't acknowledge us, we will punish them either. So I'm not following your rationale.

So the answer is simple, He demands faith from humans.

In my case, 'blind faith'. And blind faith can be used for anything, and possesses no reliability factor.

 

[Hawkins]

We don't claim to be the creator of ants, and that if they don't acknowledge us, we will punish them either. So I'm not following your rationale.

Your argument here is irrelevant. It's not an analogy about creation. It's an analogy about encountering an existence. Why do you have to twist it this way is beyond me.

In my case, 'blind faith'. And blind faith can be used for anything, and possesses no reliability factor.

If so, then all human history can be classified as blind faith. It only shows your lack of understanding of human witnessing, or worse your applying of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[cvanwey]

Your argument here is irrelevant. It's not an analogy about creation. It's an analogy about encountering an existence. Why do you have to twist it this way is beyond me.

Identifying a false analogy is not 'twisting'. Sure, some ants will never encounter humans. But I doubt that ants are asking if humans exist. Furthermore, humans don't possess the ability to magically appear in front of ants, whom ask for such proof, like a God would have.

I've never encountered many insects and animals in the flesh. And most likely, never will. But if such an insect or an animal claimed to be my deity, I would sure at least make sure that species actually existed first The ant, most likely, does not possess the cognitive ability most likely.

If so, then all human history can be classified as blind faith. It only shows your lack of understanding of human witnessing, or worse your applying of intellectual dishonesty.

Another grave analogy presented :/ You state ALL human history is classified as blind faith????? Okay, lets test this claim....

Example:

Compare the 'historical evidence' for the claim of '911', as compared directly to the claim that Alexander the great died of fever in Babylon. They both require historical evidence. They both require witnesses. Which one stands higher to adverse scrutiny? Are they equal in a conclusion of 'blind faith'?

Seriously?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't recall doing any such thing? I stated that all such arguments no closer leads to your specific god, than many possible alternatives - (too many to list). I am NOT the one asserting that LOL leads to Yahweh specifically. You are. So bring it. You claim it is the catalyst to prove Yahweh specifically. So bring it.

I asked if I was able to demonstrate that your argument instead can lead elsewhere (many places), would you then become a skeptic?

Would demonstrating that LOL does not directly and axiomatically ONLY lead to the Abrahamic God make you a skeptic?

Because if you were able to show that LOL leads directly to Yahweh, don't you think I would have heard such a convincing rendition, at some point, by now???? Or, do you possess the secret in which no one else has provided?

Let me refresh your memory, you said: "Yes I do see a problem here. I can no closer conclude many equally as viable alternatives for such laws, as you specifically do for your specific believed God."

You said there were equally viable alternatives and I said I would like you to present them.

From my estimation, any and every (asserted claim/positive claim) demands scrutiny, investigation, evidence, etc... Being neutral means to do as such for any and every incoming asserted claim - big or small. To not do so accordingly might instead represent gullibility, bias, or any additional appeals to fallacious reasoning.

Yet, you made the claim: But merely drawing such specific conclusions to Yahweh, using all such argumentation you present, no further leads to the Abrahamic God, verses an alternative God, multiple gods, no longer existent creating forces, the universe is eternal, we are in a test tube, etc.....................

So what evidence do you cite to conclude that no argumentation leads specifically to the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob?

Conclusions which ONLY can lead to your specific god, in which cannot also be used by individuals whom argue for the existence of an opposing god, or other alternatives.

As I see it, one can pose arguments, and tie them directly to their specific believed god. I've seen it with religions, in opposition to yours.

Were they cohesive with their own worldview?

How is any of this unrelated to empathy? Furthermore, the same can be said for 'sin' and Satan, in regards to the 'bad' stuff.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean?

 

[cvanwey]

Let me refresh your memory, you said: "Yes I do see a problem here. I can no closer conclude many equally as viable alternatives for such laws, as you specifically do for your specific believed God."

You said there were equally viable alternatives and I said I would like you to present them.

Yes, they are all equally probably. Meaning, I lend no more credence to one, verses many of the countless others. Why do you keep harping on this? You are spending too much time griping over minutiae, verses beginning the process to demonstrate the light and truth in your claims to Yahweh specifically.

Are you going to bring your smoking gun evidence or not? I'm very curious now. I'm excited to see some evidence, in which I have not already encountered or heard many times before.

Yet, you made the claim

: But merely drawing such specific conclusions to Yahweh, using all such argumentation you present, no further leads to the Abrahamic God, verses an alternative God, multiple gods, no longer existent creating forces, the universe is eternal, we are in a test tube, etc.....................

Yes, so? I have seen no evidence leading directly to Yahweh. Prove me wrong with your LOL argument.

So what evidence do you cite to conclude that no argumentation leads specifically to the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob?

You are asking me to prove a negative right now. The Bible is the claim. The burden of proof is with the claim, not the one whom does not accept it. Can you please just present your evidence for how LOL points specifically to Yahweh?

Using the Bible to prove the Bible is circular.

As stated prior, it would be like me referring to the 'Big Book of History', constructed and formulated by the 'Historical High Council' hundreds of years ago, to demonstrate that chapter 3, verse 11, is true because it says so. And when you provide observations to the contrary, of such a very specific claim in this big book, I then tell you that you lack textual criticism abilities, it was actually a metaphor, you are taking it out of context, you are not reading the verse right, chapter 7 validates the other verse, etc.... (I'm not saying you would do this, but I see it quite often and is worth mentioning all the same)

So lets please remain on point. I'm looking for you to change my life. Let's no longer squabble over semantics. We are >300 posts in. We can go over each response with a fine-toothed comb, and nit-pick many things.

At this point, I'm interested in one thing from you.... Demonstration of how LOL leads specifically to Yahweh. You brought it up. You kept going back to it. So please demonstrate accordingly.

 

[Hawkins]

Identifying a false analogy is not 'twisting'. Sure, some ants will never encounter humans. But I doubt that ants are asking if humans exist. Furthermore, humans don't possess the ability to magically appear in front of ants, whom ask for such proof, like a God would have.

However you twist my words again ever in this post. It's never about some ants don't encounter humans. It's about the possibility of no ants encountered humans.

Your twist is actually simple, as analogy is to illustrate a point to make it more obvious. You however try to point out the difference between an analogy and a reality. This is where your intellectual dishonesty is. An analogy is an analogy simply because it is not necessary a reality in all aspects. "Ants aren't created by humans" has nothing to do with what the analogy used to illustrate a point. It's rather your intellectual dishonesty to try to invalidate a valid analogy.

Twisting is all you can do! The question to yourself is actually, why do you have to?

Under the circumstance, if without any valid and random encounter between ants and humans, it is reasonable for the ants to assume the absence of humans. This however doesn't apply to the case of God as God has the ability to actively avoid any encounter.

This is the quote from my post. If you can be honest to yourself and other humans reading this thread, can you explain what's that to do with your comment of "ants not created by humans"?

If you can be honest and logical, the only answer is that it's irrelevant. If you are incapable of both, then none can help.

 

[cvanwey]

However you twist my words again ever in this post. It's never about some ants don't encounter humans. It's about the possibility of no ants encountered humans.

Your twist is actually simple, as analogy is to illustrate a point to make it more obvious. You however try to point out the difference between an analogy and a reality. This is where your intellectual dishonesty is. An analogy is an analogy simply because it is not necessary a reality in all aspects. "Ants aren't created by humans" has nothing to do with what the analogy used to illustrate a point. It's rather your intellectual dishonesty to try to invalidate a valid analogy.

Twisting is all you can do! The question to yourself is actually, why do you have to?



This is the quote from my post. If you can be honest to yourself and other humans reading this thread, can you explain what's that to do with your comment of "ants not created by humans"?

If you can be honest and logical, the only answer is that it's irrelevant. If you are incapable of both, then none can help.

You are stuck on the 'ant analogy', in which I have exposed the many points as to why this is not relevant in any viable capacity. Furthermore, I do not care to really spend any more time on it. So go ahead and keep using the word 'twist'. If you wish to cleave to it further, go for it.

And speaking of intellectual dishonesty, I have also demonstrated how your blanket generalized conclusion about, how all history is based upon 'blind faith', is also patently false. And yet, I see nothing in response, in opposition, for this conclusion.

 

[Hawkins]

You are stuck on the 'ant analogy', in which I have exposed the many points as to why this is not relevant in any viable capacity. Furthermore, I do not care to really spend any more time on it. So go ahead and keep using the word 'twist'. If you wish to cleave to it further, go for it.

And speaking of intellectual dishonesty, I have also demonstrated how your blanket generalized conclusion about, how all history is based upon 'blind faith', is also patently false. And yet, I see nothing in response, in opposition, for this conclusion.

I simply tried to point out that "ants not created by humans" has nothing to do with my analogy. This is a fact, whether you'd like to continue the discussion is irrelevant. What puzzles me is rather why you have to make an irrelevant comment.

Actually the discussion itself is meaningless if you can't be honest even to yourself. Regarding to twist "no ants encountered humans" and "some ants didn't encountered humans" are completely irrelevant. It's thus a twist to imply that they are relevant.

 

[cvanwey]

I simply tried to point out that "ants not created by humans" has nothing to do with my analogy. This is a fact, whether you'd like to continue the discussion is irrelevant. What puzzles me is rather why you have to make an irrelevant comment.

Actually the discussion itself is meaningless if you can't be honest even to yourself. Regarding to twist "no ants encountered humans" and "some ants didn't encountered humans" are completely irrelevant. It's thus a twist to imply that they are relevant.

I did not see anything in this response pertaining to my second valid point; about 'blind faith'?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Paul doesn't go into specifics. So it's up to us to figure out what he is referring too.

OK. In that case, I figure the presuppositional apologists are correct in their usage of this passage - Paul is asserting that I, the atheist, have a conscious apprehension of Yahweh, but am knowingly and willfully 'suppressing' it.

As such, I am in a position to know, with 100% accuracy, that Paul is wrong, and that the Bible is not the 'perfect word of God'.

Or, suppose I don't figure that. Maybe Paul is not making any such claim to knowledge, and is just making a mundane, general claim about people's tendencies toward belief.

So ultimately, it comes down to either 100% false, or mundane. Either one you choose is not particularly meaningful to me.

 

[Sanoy]

OK. In that case, I figure the presuppositional apologists are correct in their usage of this passage - Paul is asserting that I, the atheist, have a conscious apprehension of Yahweh, but am knowingly and willfully 'suppressing' it.

As such, I am in a position to know, with 100% accuracy, that Paul is wrong, and that the Bible is not the 'perfect word of God'.

Or, suppose I don't figure that. Maybe Paul is not making any such claim to knowledge, and is just making a mundane, general claim about people's tendencies toward belief.

So ultimately, it comes down to either 100% false, or mundane. Either one you choose is not particularly meaningful to me.

That is not what Paul says. Verse 18 speaks of the wrath of God set against the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. The subject of the revelation is the state of ungodliness and unrighteousness. In the last half of the verse the definite article is on the men, and the accusative is on the truth, which is suppressed by unrighteousness. This is a specific set of men, not all men. Pauls global remark is verse 20, which explains v19, and is used in a simple active voice rather than something thrusted upon their minds. Verse 21 and on refers specifically to the Romans, the Idol worshipers whom the letter is addressed, or those who by similarity are like them.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

That is not what Paul says. Verse 18 speaks of the wrath of God set against the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. The subject of the revelation is the state of ungodliness and unrighteousness. In the last half of the verse the definite article is on the men, and the accusative is on the truth, which is suppressed by unrighteousness. This is a specific set of men, not all men. Pauls global remark is verse 20, which explains v19, and is used in a simple active voice rather than something thrusted upon their minds. Verse 21 and on refers specifically to the Romans, the Idol worshipers whom the letter is addressed, or those who by similarity are like them.

OK. I believe you believe that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, they are all equally probably. Meaning, I lend no more credence to one, verses many of the countless others. Why do you keep harping on this? You are spending too much time griping over minutiae, verses beginning the process to demonstrate the light and truth in your claims to Yahweh specifically.

Are you going to bring your smoking gun evidence or not? I'm very curious now. I'm excited to see some evidence, in which I have not already encountered or heard many times before.



Yes, so? I have seen no evidence leading directly to Yahweh. Prove me wrong with your LOL argument.

To begin, let me say that I am presenting this to show that there is evidence that supports the worldview of Christianity; which in turn, supports the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. If the Christian worldview is true as we claim, what would we expect to see in the universe and do we see it?

As I stated before: LOL are necessary truths, they are not physical matter, they are true in every possible world so they must exist in every possible world. With this in mind, it stands to reason, if there are necessarily existent thoughts, we must have a necessary existent mind; and if there is a necessary existent mind, there must be a necessary existent person. There is no physical necessary existent person, this person must be metaphysical/spiritual in nature. So if there are LOL, there must also be a necessarily existent, personal, spiritual being. The laws of logic imply the existence of God.

Why do the Laws of Logic imply the existence of the specific God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Christianity is based on Scripture and that is where we find the identity and foundation of the universe and the specifics we should expect. In other words, the Bible informs us what to look for if as it claims the God of the Bible exists.

Regarding the Laws of Logic (and the Laws of Nature which we are not addressing right now) there are claims that present what to expect. There are a few verses that are important to the evidence supporting the claims.
“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, (Emphasis mine) so that they are without excuse.” Romans 1:20
God has provided within the things created patterns, designs and solutions from the beginning of time and imparted this information to us through the LoL and gave us solutions even before we needed them. We are ingrained to search for these patterns and designs so that we too can provide similar solutions to our environment when necessary. These designs are apparent in all things created.

"But now ask the beasts, and let them teach you; And the birds of the heavens, and let them tell you.”
This 'seems' like a simple statement but it is paramount to mankind. In our early creation we looked at nature and found solutions, we learned how to harness fire and we learned from other beasts about our surroundings and utilized those solutions. We used the flight of birds to design planes, God designed each kind of bird to fly most efficiently in order to minimize energy use, a necessity for survival. Engineers have determined that God’s aeronautical designs reduce drag and turbulence, and that His designs have a mathematical basis referred to as the “Strouhal” number. With only small alterations to the formula it also applies to fish and water mammals as they, too, “fly” through water. The Strouhal number is used to make modern aircraft designs fuel efficient. Using God's designs man has developed many different kinds of "delta wing" military aircraft. The original design for "delta wing" or "canard" aircraft is revealed in the discovery of a gliding reptile fossil, Sharovipteryx mirabilis, found in Kyrgyzstan in 1971. I could go on and on. We now have the study of Biomimicry where we are using nature as a design pattern and developing all types of amazing solutions to problems. Look at this design:

You don't have to finish the whole thing if you don't want to, the first few minutes will suffice.

Here is another design that shows purpose and forethought:

We can see the design mechanisms in this are just like those designs we use. This comes another verse:
Genesis 1:26-27
God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
God is all knowledge and all wisdom. Our minds are made in the image of God. We think thoughts as does God. As God designed and it is clearly apparent in those designs, we too know when we see something that is designed. If we were to come to a new planet for instance and happened to see a McDonald's wrapper we wouldn't think it just created itself. We recognize design. We think God's thoughts after Him. Design is a product of mind with purpose. Why as humans do we obey rules of logic? Rules that transcend our own minds? Why are minds able to access mathematics which in turn allow us to understand the universe which is explained in mathematics? These are not material physical attributes but things of the mind. If Christianity is true, and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob exists this is what we would expect to see...and we do.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

LOL are necessary truths, they are not physical matter, they are true in every possible world so they must exist in every possible world. With this in mind, it stands to reason, if there are necessarily existent thoughts, we must have a necessary existent mind

There are several large holes in your argument.

Firstly, how did you get from necessary truth to 'necessarily existent thoughts'? That's a giant leap. Do you hold that truth is mind-dependent? If so, then the (classical) laws of logic are contingent, not immutable. Show your work, please.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There are several large holes in your argument.

Firstly, how did you get from necessary truth to 'necessarily existent thoughts'? That's a giant leap. Do you hold that truth is mind-dependent? If so, then the (classical) laws of logic are contingent, not immutable. Show your work, please.

The Laws of Logic are of thoughts, correct? They are not physical matter...correct?

 

[Chriliman]

There are several large holes in your argument.

Firstly, how did you get from necessary truth to 'necessarily existent thoughts'? That's a giant leap. Do you hold that truth is mind-dependent? If so, then the (classical) laws of logic are contingent, not immutable. Show your work, please.

Just because truth/logic is mind-dependent doesn’t necessarily mean it will ever change. If all minds cease then yes truth/logic will cease, but theists believe truth/logic is dependent on an immortal unchanging God(or immortal unchanging mind, if you prefer).

 

[Oncedeceived]

Just because truth/logic is mind-dependent doesn’t necessarily mean it will ever change. If all minds cease then yes truth/logic will cease, but theists believe truth/logic is dependent on an immortal unchanging God(or immortal unchanging mind, if you prefer).

It actually does mean it will never change, in any possible world in any possible time. If man's mind ceases to exist, which in the Christian worldview doesn't happen either but if man had never existed or ceased to exist the Laws of Logic would continue unchanged , truth/logic would not cease due to God being eternal.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

The Laws of Logic are of thoughts, correct? They are not physical matter...correct?

The laws themselves are derived from minds, yes. The reality they describe is not. If there were no minds, the statement 'A=A' would not exist, but things would still be themselves.

The laws do not have any power in and of themselves. 'A=A' does not cause things to be themselves, any more than 'E=MC²' causes matter and energy to be equivalent.

Things being themselves would still be a necessary truth, if there were no minds and no thoughts at all. So again, how did you get from necessary truth to 'necessarily existing thoughts'? As I see it, that assumption is completely unwarranted, and unneeded. Logic works just fine without it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The laws themselves are derived from minds, yes. The reality they describe is not. If there were no minds, the statement 'A=A' would not exist, but things would still be themselves.

Should we think logically? Does a rock tell us it is a rock rather than a tree? A = A would exist. A rock would exist as a rock rather than a tree whether or not we describe it that way or not. A = A in any possible world, at all possible times universally. So again, Should we think logically?

The laws do not have any power in and of themselves. 'A=A' does not cause things to be themselves, any more than 'E=MC²' causes matter and energy to be equivalent.

I am not sure what you mean, power in and of themselves, can we disobey logic?

Things being themselves would still be a necessary truth, if there were no minds and no thoughts at all.

Truth needs mind, if it exists at all and it does. However, it doesn't need "our" minds. It goes beyond our minds and is still truth. The Laws of Logic are thoughts which need a mind. Since they don't need "our" minds there must exist a mind from which logical thoughts of truth are eternal.

So again, how did you get from necessary truth to 'necessarily existing thoughts'? As I see it, that assumption is completely unwarranted, and unneeded. Logic works just fine without it.

How in your opinion does it work? How are the Laws of Logic absolute truth universally, in any possible world, at any possible time whether we exist or not? Your assumption that there is no necessarily existing thoughts is contrary to your statement that Things being themselves would still be a necessary truth.