No, I don't. That seems to be your misunderstanding of what I'm saying.By whom?
You're writing but you're not thinking beyond yourself. And yet you presume that everyone else should be.
You and me both.I'm growing weary of this.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No, I don't. That seems to be your misunderstanding of what I'm saying.By whom?
You're writing but you're not thinking beyond yourself. And yet you presume that everyone else should be.
You and me both.I'm growing weary of this.
Who knows, indeed? However, I should point out that those sailors, however, always had the potential to catch a squid and bring back the evidence (and in fact, that has happened). I should also point out that, compared with the totality of people alive, very few were sailors who encountered such beasts, such things being very rare, so it's hardly surprising that it took so long. On the other hand, humans in their billions have been assiduously looking for "evidence" of the existence of God -- under every rock, in every logical construction Anselm could dream up, in prayers and ceremonies and invocations, in "pictures" made be oil on ponds or burns on toast or shadows on hedges -- and yet such "evidence" still eludes everyone.This is a logical fallacy.
For thousands of years sailors came back from the sea with tales of giant squid. All those years not a single shred of evidence other than the tales. Widely considered to be fiction and overactive imaginations. But recently in the last 20 years or so evidence has been presented. Now giant squids are real, as they have been proven to exist. No longer fictional tales of horror.
Your logic is faulty because the giant squid has existed in reality this whole time. Because of its elusive nature, its environment (deep dark ocean) and its biology, evidence is scarce to say the least. But the lack of evidence does not immediately make something not a part of reality. As proven by the giant squid in 2004.
Who knows what evidence may be found one day that does prove the existence of God. Real tangible evidence.
Who knows, indeed? However, I should point out that those sailors, however, always had the potential to catch a squid and bring back the evidence (and in fact, that has happened). I should also point out that, compared with the totality of people alive, very few were sailors who encountered such beasts, such things being very rare, so it's hardly surprising that it took so long. On the other hand, humans in their billions have been assiduously looking for "evidence" of the existence of God -- under every rock, in every logical construction Anselm could dream up, in prayers and ceremonies and invocations, in "pictures" made be oil on ponds or burns on toast or shadows on hedges -- and yet such "evidence" still eludes everyone.This is a logical fallacy.
For thousands of years sailors came back from the sea with tales of giant squid. All those years not a single shred of evidence other than the tales. Widely considered to be fiction and overactive imaginations. But recently in the last 20 years or so evidence has been presented. Now giant squids are real, as they have been proven to exist. No longer fictional tales of horror.
Your logic is faulty because the giant squid has existed in reality this whole time. Because of its elusive nature, its environment (deep dark ocean) and its biology, evidence is scarce to say the least. But the lack of evidence does not immediately make something not a part of reality. As proven by the giant squid in 2004.
Who knows what evidence may be found one day that does prove the existence of God. Real tangible evidence.
That's a lot of accusation of blindness, and all of it utterly circular and completely unattested.The blind cannot see.
Those who cannot see even from creation, from the glory of the heavens and from the glory of the earth, the ecosystems, the individual animals - some of the obvious things revealed about God - are blind.
Those who think that a God who creates man with an unquenchable thirst for God in the fact that there never has been a nation, a tribe - on earth without some form of worship, and yet denies this need as originating with the creator - are blind. That atheism stands there lonely and screams there is no god while there is undeniable evidence for the universe not being materialistic - just goes to show that some are blind.
I will not deny some are blind; this cannot be fixed. So, let the blind lead the blind into oblivion.
As always, I have to respectfully disagree by pointing out that any "knowledge" of God from "His Messengers" must be as easily conveyed by Him to all of us, rather than to just a few "Messengers." And because this method of revelation through prophets can conclusively be shown to be fraught with the dangers of errors of communication in passing that "knowledge" along, it would seem to me to be an extremely poor mechanism for anything worthy of being called "God" to employ.As a Baha'i I would say the Essence of God is unknowable.
What "knowledge" we have of God we receive from His Messengers.
So in my belief in answer to your question "Whence does this knowledge come from?" It comes from the Messengers and Prophets of God Who have appeared down through our history and sacrificed Themselves for the well being of humankind.
Religion is founded on revelations received by the Prophets and in some form are later shared with us so we have revealed scriptures and Writings that are availabe for anyone to explore.
Who knows, indeed? However, I should point out that those sailors, however, always had the potential to catch a squid and bring back the evidence (and in fact, that has happened). I should also point out that, compared with the totality of people alive, very few were sailors who encountered such beasts, such things being very rare, so it's hardly surprising that it took so long. On the other hand, humans in their billions have been assiduously looking for "evidence" of the existence of God -- under every rock, in every logical construction Anselm could dream up, in prayers and ceremonies and invocations, in "pictures" made be oil on ponds or burns on toast or shadows on hedges -- and yet such "evidence" still eludes everyone.
I add that to the things I consider.
That is the state of affairs, and none can change it.That's a lot of accusation of blindness, and all of it utterly circular and completely unattested.
Many of those that you might call "blind" may, with just as much (and very likely more) justification, claim that you are hallucinating -- "seeing" what isn't there.
That's a good question... but why stop there?But let's challenge this "all good, all knowing and all powerful" god for another moment. What would it have taken, I wonder, to have stopped that earthquake in Mexico this week, which killed children and teachers in an elementary school, among much else? Was that too much? Okay -- but what would it have cost God to just trigger a false fire alarm -- such a tiny thing to do, and they would all have been out of the building?
"Objective validation" is, itself, an imaginary phenomena that isn't otherwise "real". Logically, no human can "objectively perceive" or "objectively validate" anything. Because the moment we perceive it, we are doing so subjectively. And the moment we presume to "validate" it, we are doing so based on our own subjective criteria.
Nothing like this exist at all. Have you been duped by well known fake propagated by conman like Wyatt and websites that circulate those fakes?That is the state of affairs, and none can change it.
Even if I were to take my Google Earth markers from Mount Sinai, where one can still see the stone altar with its engravings, the mountain, the grave-site of those killed, and the maker Solomon left on both sides of the straight - you would find ways with a broom and dustpan to get rid of it. Even the gilded wheel of an Egyptian chariot, perhaps Pharao's own - would leave you grabbing for the broom, not the Bible.
You should read my poem I left on another question; you might like it better:
To remove the veils
It depends on what the nature of "God" is which no one can "directly" know.
I'd have to ask from whence did your knowledge, memory, fallibility/infallibility, knowledge of what is good/bad, vision, desire for other folks to be dependent of you in some way, belief, spiritual experiences, the desire to engineer/create/design, life (some of the many essences/nature of your being) come from?
Is that documented and evident? What tests have you performed within yourself?
Atheists too? The people who make the claim "nah, nah, there is no God," are making a claim of authority.
You can't say, "No, that's not God," without some idea of what "God" is.
What you say is true, but I wouldn't call these mystical experiences. Mystical experiences are more likely to "break" your view of god or reality than follow them.
Indeed, such a being would seem fake and if tested would be proven such.
Why would anything powerful enough to be called deity request worship from lesser beings anyway? It makes as much sense to me as a human wanting a single celled organism to worship him.
My criticism of Religion is the claim to know anything about God, at all.
My position is man knows nothing about God. I assume this is the default position of atheists. Am I wrong?
People who say God is whatever... loving, all powerful, Just, merciful, has a plan for all of us etc.
From whence does this knowledge about God come from?
I know nothing about God and neither do you. You can have faith that God possesses whatever properties you feel God should possess, but based on what? Imagining if a God did exist, this is what God ought to be like?
You have the Bible, Quran etc... So why do you feel these folks were in any better position than you to have knowledge about God.
Not that I'm going to go about calling believers liars. I just think they feel a certainty that they don't actually possess.
It informs it.
Because science hasn't discovered everything.
Or misinforms it as the case maybe. Or do you see all religious as equally valid?
Science is just a tool to validate what we think we have discovered. Through validation of our discoveries we can make better choices as to how to better pursue our goals.
If you're wanting to accomplish something, doesn't it make sense to be as certain as possible of how reality works?