Are people who claim to know God liars?

[Nakosis]

By your line of reasoning, historians are also liars.

The difference between Christianity and history is that, history is the witnessing of human deeds while the Bible records the witnessing of God's deeds. Shall there be any truth there, it's the only way for such a truth to convey.

Truth then is what we accept to be true. Doesn't mean there needs to be any actuality to truth. I mean if you never bother to validate it. Truth could be anything as long as for whatever your personal reasoning is, you've decided to accept it as truth.

You can have historians create your truth for you or the biblical authors. None of it needs to be validated of actual.

My point is since you're allowing others to create truth for you, I can as easily create the truth for myself.

 

[Hawkins]

Truth then is what we accept to be true. Doesn't mean there needs to be any actuality to truth. I mean if you never bother to validate it. Truth could be anything as long as for whatever your personal reasoning is, you've decided to accept it as truth.

You can have historians create your truth for you or the biblical authors. None of it needs to be validated of actual.

My point is since you're allowing others to create truth for you, I can as easily create the truth for myself.

Truth is basically an objective existence. However the problem is that humans don't usually have the capability to confirm a truth besides a scientific truth. A scientific truth can be confirmed by humans simply because it repeats itself indefinitely for humans to observe, to theorize, to conclude and to predict to confirm its truth.

Other than science, humans have to put faith in information provided by direct 'eye-witnesses' who are believed to have the first handed information. For example, this is the way how human history is written down. That's actually the way how you acquire your knowledge about what happened in this world on a daily basis. You rely on putting faith in the news broadcast, and with reporters as the eye-witnesses, to get to such a truth.

 

[Nakosis]

Science can confirm a truth if it's a scientific truth. A scientific truth is a specific kind of truth which repeats itself with a set of rules governing its repetition. Besides this, "science" is just a term more refers to a hypothesis came up with science-assisted researches. The hypothesis can be true or false.

If it can't be validated through science, then it's supernatural.

Supernaturally, reality can take on any form or concept you can imagine. You're free to be as creative as you want. You can believe whatever you want based on your supernatural concepts of reality.

Of course I can also believe whatever I want to. Neither of us needs to validate anything, prove anything or have any beliefs in common.

 

[Hawkins]

If it can't be validated through science, then it's supernatural.

Supernaturally, reality can take on any form or concept you can imagine. You're free to be as creative as you want. You can believe whatever you want based on your supernatural concepts of reality.

Of course I can also believe whatever I want to. Neither of us needs to validate anything, prove anything or have any beliefs in common.

No, actually what you just did yesterday can hardly be validated by science! What you did yesterday is not supernatural, or is it!

Humans don't have the capability to go back to yesterday to validate what you did. That's the problem. We can get to know what you did by putting faith in what you said about what you did, or an eye witness said about what you did. That's the way how humans can get to a truth, generally speaking.

 

[Nakosis]

Truth is basically an objective existence. However the problem is that humans don't usually have the capability to confirm a truth besides a scientific truth. A scientific truth can be confirmed by humans simply because it repeats itself indefinitely for humans to observe, to theorize, to conclude and to predict to confirm its truth.

Other than science, humans have to put faith in information provided by direct 'eye-witnesses' who are believed to have the first handed information. For example, this is the way how human history is written down.

Why? I mean you can or choose not to. Since none of it can be validated you can believe in whatever history you want. Governments, religions all have histories created for you to believe in. Pick any, it doesn't matter since it can't be validated anyway.

I'm just saying I can as easily create my own and claim it to be the truth. As long as I can make it sound convincingly enough, might even get a few folks to accept it as true as well.

 

[Hawkins]

Why? I mean you can or choose not to. Since none of it can be validated you can believe in whatever history you want. Governments, religions all have histories created for you to believe in. Pick any, it doesn't matter since it can't be validated anyway.

I'm just saying I can as easily create my own and claim it to be the truth. As long as I can make it sound convincingly enough, might even get a few folks to accept it as true as well.

Because the only way you can reach a truth in this case is by believing human accounts of witnessing.

Human account of witnessing can be true or can be fabricated. In order to reach a truth, you thus need to examine the reliability of those accounts, instead of arbitrarily believe in anything.

 

[Nakosis]

No, actually what you just did yesterday can hardly be validated by science! What you did yesterday is not supernatural, or is it!

Humans don't have the capability to go back to yesterday to validate what you did. That's the problem. We can get to know what you did by putting faith in what you said about what you did, or an eye witness said about what you did. That's the way how humans can get to a truth, generally speaking.

It could be validated, I could have recorded it. If I need to prove something I can come up with a way to do so.

Eye witnesses are not very reliable.

There's this lady, goes about convincing folks of crimes they didn't commit. Folks aren't even good witness to their own lives let alone something for which they were a simple by stander for.

Like I said in a previous post, I was able to convince folks I could tell their future. Your conscious awareness is easy to fool.

In fact I find it surprisingly easy to convince people of some truth. It doesn't really have to be true. Sometimes it's kind of scary how easily a person can be convinced of something. Kind of scary how easily a person can convince themselves of something. It doesn't have to be supernatural.

I like, I mean it's kind of a ethical position, to be able to prove something I claim is truth, which basically means scientifically, but where no validation is required it's a lot easier than you'd think it would be.

 

[Nakosis]

Because the only way you can reach a truth in this case is by believing human accounts of witnessing.

Human account of witnessing can be true or can be fabricated. In order to reach a truth, you thus need to examine the reliability of those accounts, instead of arbitrarily believe in anything.

That's all I'm saying. Trust what you can validate, to the best of your ability. Question what you can't. I'm just surprised this is not more common.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

People who claim to know God may not be liars but they are fooling themselves. God is so much above humans that it is like a roach trying to understand a human. The roach may think it knows all about humans but it really does not.

 

[PureX]

What I mean by objective is without bias. To view something without a desire for it to be true or false.

But the bias is US. The bias is our preconceived expectations about what is real and true, and our desire to fit whatever we experience into these so that we can imagine that we "understand" it.

To examine the evidence and understand what it implies without a personal bias as to what is implied.

It can't be done. The bias is built into what we already think we 'understand'. What we already think is 'real and true'. And it will be through this biased presumption of what is 'real and true' that we will seek to understand anything new.

 

[Nakosis]

But the bias is US. The bias is our preconceived expectations about what is real and true, and our desire to fit whatever we experience into these so that we can imagine that we "understand" it.
It can't be done. The bias is built into what we already think we 'understand'. What we already think is 'real and true'. And it will be through this biased presumption of what is 'real and true' that we will seek to understand anything new.

Don't you think we need to be unbiased as possible when we go about claiming what is true?

In Engineering I will cite my conclusions and provide all the evidence that conclusion is drawn from which is presented to a 3rd party which has no vested interest in the conclusion being right or wrong. And this remains available for anyone questioning the claims so they needn't rely on my opinion but are free to question the conclusion as they see fit.

I understand what you're saying, what I do goes well beyond personal validation. While I understand this is not 100% foolproof, I believe this level of validation is necessary for something to be claimed as true.

Knowing without this it is much easier to fool ourselves and others into believing something is true.

 

[Nakosis]

People who claim to know God may not be liars but they are fooling themselves. God is so much above humans that it is like a roach trying to understand a human. The roach may think it knows all about humans but it really does not.

So it seems best to me to just get to the point of acknowledging to ourselves we know nothing about God. As an atheist, I'm just acknowledging that.

 

[Jumi]

They do, well they seem to. The subconscious is more powerful, more aware, less fallible, records everything you've see or heard. All I'm doing is creating a conscious concept of God. The subconscious does the rest. This "God" possesses a great deal of insight, wisdom, knowledge to a vastly greater capacity than what I am consciously capable of. It is in many ways superior to the thoughts of conscious awareness. It's not difficult for it to "break" your view of reality.

What you are still describing are what I termed spiritual experiences earlier in contrast to the mystical experience. The "god" experience of the mystics is different, that's why there are some of us who don't even use the word "god" for it. It doesn't provide knowledge, wisdom or prophecy at least not in the sense used in religious circles that I know of and that's not just a divider, it's a good thing. Indeed, I've never really got into religion, don't understand it's worth from any other point than social cohesion and conflict.

Anything that is worth calling wisdom is what we gain from our mind and subjective endeavors regardless of strange experiences.

Yes, if you approach it scientifically. If however you're relying on personal experience, not so much.

Personal experience is a bad guide to reality which is why being more "scientific" works out rather different solutions. There is confirmation bias, environmental luck of the draw and various coincidences that come into play as I'm sure you're aware.

I think it depends more on your concept of such a deity since it seems we get to define the properties of God.

Yes, those are the problematics of God. Everyone who speaks their views on God tends to know their own God better than anyone else and knows what their God likes.

 

[Nakosis]

What you are still describing are what I termed spiritual experiences earlier in contrast to the mystical experience. The "god" experience of the mystics is different, that's why there are some of us who don't even use the word "god" for it. It doesn't provide knowledge, wisdom or prophecy at least not in the sense used in religious circles that I know of and that's not just a divider, it's a good thing. Indeed, I've never really got into religion, don't understand it's worth from any other point than social cohesion and conflict.

Anything that is worth calling wisdom is what we gain from our mind and subjective endeavors regardless of strange experiences.


Personal experience is a bad guide to reality which is why being more "scientific" works out rather different solutions. There is confirmation bias, environmental luck of the draw and various coincidences that come into play as I'm sure you're aware.


Yes, those are the problematics of God. Everyone who speaks their views on God tends to know their own God better than anyone else and knows what their God likes.

Since my original complaint was about folks claiming knowledge about God, it looks like we are in agreement.

 

[Willamena]

God shouldn't depend on what my idea of God is.

I've no problem creating up some concept of God, but based on what? The Bible, the Quran, whatever my subconscious mind can dream up?

I can do all this and come up with a variety of concepts of God. Assuming there is a God, this God must conform to my concept of what God should be?

What seems more likely? I have some actual knowledge of God or my subconscious mind creates for me some concept of God from what other folks have told me about God?

And, more to the question, whatever that concept happens to be, how do I validate it?

Personal validation of God, whatever the concept isn't that hard. God tends to take on whatever form I conceive of God.

So since I've found that I can't trust personal validation because of this tendency to validate the concepts I myself create, I don't create concepts of God. If there is a God, it's up to God to prove himself. Not my job to create a concept for God to conform to.

God doesn't depend on what your idea of god is.

Nevertheless, one requires an idea of what god is to speak with any authority about god.

 

[Nakosis]

God doesn't depend on what your idea of god is.

Nevertheless, one requires an idea of what god is to speak with any authority about god.

So if I have an idea about God, what authority do I actually possess?

I suppose I have the authority to tell you about my beliefs but that doesn't really give me any authority over your beliefs does it?

This is not really a problem IMO. It's when folks decide they have the authority to tell you what your beliefs ought to be.

I don't really care if folks believe in dragon Gods. It's when they tell me with the implied conviction that I ought to accept it as truth that God is a dragon.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That's a good question... but why stop there?

What would it cost God to stop a fire where people were killed?
What would it cost God to advise everyone that a tsunami is about to hit so people could leave costal areas?
What would it cost God to stop a 50 car pileup where many were killed or maimed?
What would it cost God to take a drunk driver and sober him up to not kill when he went in the wrong direction on a highway?

Such a tiny thing to do.

But why stop there?

What would it cost God to stop a child from falling out of a window?
What would it cost God to stop a child from falling out of a tree?
What would it cost God to stop a child from playing with a gun and killing a friend?

Such a tiny thing to do.

But why stop there?

What would it cost God to stop someone from breaking a bone during a soccer game?
What would it cost God to stop a child on a bike from falling and scraping a knee?
What would it cost God to stop a child from accidentally breaking the nose of his friend playing with branches and using them as swords?

Such a tiny thing to do...

What would it cost? Not having humans but rather puppets on a string with no will, no purpose and no life.

IMV

Yet, Ken, if my memory is not absolutely faulty, you yourself have claimed that God does intervene, and that miracles do occur -- have you not?

And, Ken, knowledge does not make me a puppet on a string with no will, purpose or life. I am as free to ignore the warning of some imminent peril as I am to walk blindly into it. I'll give you an example: I'm a gay man. Many (make it most) of the people that I knew up until the 1980s and 90s are now dead, and I am not. They and I learned about HIV and AIDS at the same time, yet my own choices have left me here to argue with you, and their choices led them to .... well, no more of that.

You -- and most Christians -- believe with perfect faith that God has intervened any number of times in human history, the Creation, the Fall, the Flood, the Exodus, the conquest of Canaan, the impregnation of Mary Jesus. God doing for men what men couldn't do for themselves -- you acknowledge that and don't think it makes them puppets, yet you revert to puppetry at my simple question?

I tell you truly, I think that is equivocal and hypocritical.

 

[osgart]

God believers are sincere about their convictions, and I think those fundamental believers are dangerously wrong in their convictions. not because they believe in god, but because they adhere to doctrines that are militant about conversion or else.

some God believers are civil though.

my main gripe is that we shouldn't be judging people on the basis of religious faith or lack thereof.

There are so many different kinds of people only a fool would judge them all based on religious acceptance or rejectance.

There are good people on both sides.

 

[Grandliseur]

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?

You have not taken a look at the pictures available ! Too bad.

 

[Kenny]

Yet, Ken, if my memory is not absolutely faulty, you yourself have claimed that God does intervene, and that miracles do occur -- have you not?

Not faulty at all... I just took what you had suggested and brought it to the ultimate conclusion.

And, Ken, knowledge does not make me a puppet on a string with no will, purpose or life.

You misapplied what I said and it seems you are offering a change of subject. I took the ultimate conclusion of your "why doesn't God intervene" and kept your thread to its apex which is, as I stated, a puppet on a string with no will, purpose or life.

Having knowledge wasn't the issue and, as a matter of fact, didn't even touch on the subject of you having knowledge. We touched on the statement "why didn't God do something" which has nothing to do with you having knowledge.

I am as free to ignore the warning of some imminent peril as I am to walk blindly into it. I'll give you an example: I'm a gay man. Many (make it most) of the people that I knew up until the 1980s and 90s are now dead, and I am not. They and I learned about HIV and AIDS at the same time, yet my own choices have left me here to argue with you, and their choices led them to .... well, no more of that.

True... true. You are free, like everyone else, to make choices.

You -- and most Christians -- believe with perfect faith that God has intervened any number of times in human history, the Creation, the Fall, the Flood, the Exodus, the conquest of Canaan, the impregnation of Mary Jesus. God doing for men what men couldn't do for themselves -- you acknowledge that and don't think it makes them puppets, yet you revert to puppetry at my simple question?

Wouldn't use the word "impregnation" but that isn't the point. Yes, God has and does intervene. And there are reasons for, why and even how He intervenes. It is for those very reasons that we aren't puppets on a string.

I tell you truly, I think that is equivocal and hypocritical.

As one with free will, you certainly have every right to think it hypocritical--but I, as another free-will spiritual entity, hold to the position that you would like it to be hypocritical. I find it quite logical with the example, that you gave about your lifestyle, as evidence thereof.