Concerning God: What do you mean, when you say, "I know for certain that he does/does not exist."?

[Cephus]

Theologically speaking, personal revelation is by definition a perfect knowledge, if you are the recipient of the revelation. It would be futile to argue about the validity of such a claim with someone that does not accept said revelation. So, if you believe in the Bible, you have to take on the challenge in James 1:5-6 to know with a surety that which is true.

I don't care about theologically speaking because theologically speaking isn't rationally defensible. They claim to have experiences with things they cannot demonstrate with evidence. How do they know that they had an experience with a god? How do they test that belief? They cannot. They can only assert it. You can't prove that you weren't imagining it, that you weren't being delusional, that the devil from another pantheon didn't come along to mislead you, that space aliens didn't use their mind control rays to make you see something that wasn't true, etc. It's just an empty claim, made for emotional comfort, which can never be demonstrated. That's why it isn't knowledge, no matter how strongly they believe it, because it can never be shown to be true.

 

[daguit]

I don't care about theologically speaking because theologically speaking isn't rationally defensible. They claim to have experiences with things they cannot demonstrate with evidence. How do they know that they had an experience with a god? How do they test that belief? They cannot. They can only assert it. You can't prove that you weren't imagining it, that you weren't being delusional, that the devil from another pantheon didn't come along to mislead you, that space aliens didn't use their mind control rays to make you see something that wasn't true, etc. It's just an empty claim, made for emotional comfort, which can never be demonstrated. That's why it isn't knowledge, no matter how strongly they believe it, because it can never be shown to be true.

Regardless of whether you care about the theological, I think I made it pretty obvious with the inclusion of scriptural reference that my intention was to make a theological statement, and not enter into a debate on what you consider to be rationally defensible.

 

[Akivah]

They are supposed to be, that's the whole point of having juries, that they will look at the evidence in an unbiased manner and come to a conclusion based on the evidence.

Juries are made up of people and no person in the world doesn't have biases. While facts might be static, the interpretation of those facts is anything but.

It's funny how you think scientists, as a class, are more rational than anyone else. Last I checked, scientists are people too. Everyone, including you, has their own biases.

Opinions are ****-poor for determining actual reality. Opinions based solely on emotion don't actually get you anywhere demonstrably real. They're doing the same thing that people who get married just because they feel good are doing. Maybe that explains why the religious get divorced at a rate much higher than atheists.

Do you have a link showing the divorced rates of believers versus atheists? I'd be interested in looking at it.

I can't respond to what someone else says, other than to say I consider him wrong. Anyone who doesn't believe in a god, any god, is an atheist. That doesn't mean they're a rational atheist, one who has come up with reasons why they reject the claims of the religious.

There are irrational atheists? What are their divorce rates?

Every baby born is, by definition, an atheist because they don't pop out of the womb believing in gods.

How do you know what every baby is thinking?

That doesn't put babies on the same intellectual level as well-educated atheists who have studied religion for years and found it to be bunk.

I disagree that someone that doesn't believe in G-d is automatically "well-educated".

Also, there are many people that have studied for years and believe in G-d.

You cannot know God exists because you cannot provide any evidence whatsoever that God is actually real.

G-d doesn't have any physical characteristics of any kind. So that's a non-starter argument.

You've got to be able to back up where you got this supposed knowledge.

Why?

Every religion claims to "know" their gods are real, yet every other religion discounts that claim of "knowledge" for one of their own.

What does that mean?

If there was any actual knowledge of God, there would be a massive amount of objective evidence supporting it. There isn't.

You are really hung up on physical characteristics, G-d has NONE. As I said earlier, G-d doesn't fit in a test tube.

If you are going to use "rational" in your arguments, you need to be able to back up your claims using the laws of logic and critical thinking and you can't.

I don't need to back up anything. And neither does G-d. If you want to believe, then do so. If you don't, then don't. All the rest is you trying to get people to agree with your beliefs.

This has nothing to do with superiority, it has everything to do with being factually correct. Words have meanings for a reason. If you use the words incorrectly, as you are doing with "rational", then the person who is wrong is you. When you find out that you're wrong, the only proper course of action is to correct it. I suspect you will not do so.

Gotta love your conclusion, if a person disagrees with you, then they are, by definition, irrational.

 

[Akivah]

When you mentioned scientists, it seemed like "we" were talking science. Sorry. My bad.

That's okay, everyone makes mistakes.

We were actually talking about how opinions are formed.

Yes. However, you've also said (in this very thread) that people arrive at their feelings on a subject in advance of determining the facts and then dredge up whatever information they can find to prop up their preconceived opinion.

Yes. For example, I came across a piece a few days ago stating that people decide within 7 seconds of meeting someone of whether they like them. They then spend the rest of the conversation looking for evidence to bolster their belief.

What you're describing there isn't science (nor is it how scientific disagreements are framed).

As I said, this isn't a science discussion. But talking about scientists and how they come to their beliefs isn't a factual science discussion.

it follows that no one should ever be making up their minds in advance of the facts and then backtracking to find information to support their uninformed opinion.

All of us people do just that. That dating article, I referred to above does that. I've read of police doing that on investigations, fixating on a particular suspect before they have any facts. The examples are endless.

I'll ask again: Do differing opinions change the facts of a matter?

I'll answer again. While physical facts don't change, the opinions and interpretations of what those facts mean change.

 

[Cephus]

Juries are made up of people and no person in the world doesn't have biases. While facts might be static, the interpretation of those facts is anything but.

Which, while true, the whole point of the jury system is to root out individual biases, such that the jury that you end up with is capable of making as dispassionate a decision, based on the evidence, as possible. It doesn't always work but that is the goal.

It's funny how you think scientists, as a class, are more rational than anyone else. Last I checked, scientists are people too. Everyone, including you, has their own biases.

Because the whole scientific method is designed to root out individual biases. That's why they have peer-reviewed journals, where anyone reading is invited to do the experiments for themselves and confirm or deny the results. Either the experiment works or the experiment does not work. That's what happened a couple of decades ago when Pons and Fleishmann said they had discovered cold fusion. Other scientists around the world took their experimental data and performed it again and came to different results, discrediting the original claim. It's not about people, it's about results.

Do you have a link showing the divorced rates of believers versus atheists? I'd be interested in looking at it.

Of course I do, I don't post anything without evidence. This comes from the Barna Research Group, an evangelical Christian group that does studies and polls. They published data that showed that divorce among atheists was lower than divorce among conservative Christians, 30% of atheists vs. 33% of most Christian groups.

How do you know what every baby is thinking?

Because we know that babies have no capacity for rational thought.

I disagree that someone that doesn't believe in G-d is automatically "well-educated".

Didn't say they were. It is, however, a fact that education is a primary indicator for non-religiosity. Education and IQ are inversely proportional to religious adherence. And yes, I have multiple studies for that too, if you want to see them.

Also, there are many people that have studied for years and believe in G-d.

True, that doesn't mean that they came to that belief rationally.

G-d doesn't have any physical characteristics of any kind. So that's a non-starter argument.

Says who? That's another major problem for your side, if God has no demonstrable characteristics, how do you know what characteristics God actually has? Christians have no problem declaring what God wants and how God thinks, how do you know? Where did you get that information? How did you check it to be sure?

[quote[Why?[/quote]

Because otherwise, you can't tell the difference between something real and something made up?

What does that mean?

Just what it says. All religions claim to know that their beliefs are real. Christianity does, Islam does, Hinduism does, etc. Yet Christianity doesn't take the claims of Islam or Hinduism seriously, Islam doesn't take the claims of Christianity or Hinduism seriously and Hinduism doesn't take the claims of Christianity or Islam seriously. If all three groups "know" that their beliefs are true, how can they be so easily discounted by other people who somehow "know" that their own individual beliefs are true? Sounds to me like a lot of people claiming knowledge, who don't actually have knowledge.

You are really hung up on physical characteristics, G-d has NONE. As I said earlier, G-d doesn't fit in a test tube.

And again, where do you get your information? Demonstrate that your claims are true.

I don't need to back up anything. And neither does G-d. If you want to believe, then do so. If you don't, then don't. All the rest is you trying to get people to agree with your beliefs.

You do it you want to be taken seriously. Nobody says "hey, if you want to believe in gravity, fine, if you don't, don't." Reality doesn't work that way. We accept things about the world around us because they have been tested and found to be true. What you're doing is like a child describing their imaginary friend and saying "If you don't want to believe in him, I don't care". It's childish.

Gotta love your conclusion, if a person disagrees with you, then they are, by definition, irrational.

No, irrationality is irrational. Whether they agree with me is irrelevant, it depends on their methodology, not their conclusion.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

We were actually talking about how opinions are formed.

If you're trying to argue that how opinions are formed somehow impacts the facts, you'll have to work harder to convince me.

For example, I came across a piece a few days ago stating that people decide within 7 seconds of meeting someone of whether they like them. They then spend the rest of the conversation looking for evidence to bolster their belief.

Again, you're not dealing with facts. You're dealing with opinions. What you're describing isn't science. It's a trip to the ice cream parlor.

As I said, this isn't a science discussion. But talking about scientists and how they come to their beliefs isn't a factual science discussion.

Thank you.

All of us people do just that. That dating article, I referred to above does that.

Wait. A person who claims that everyone operates without information and searches for info to bolster their ignorant presuppositions just cited an article that claims that everyone operates without information and searches for info to bolster their own ignorant presuppositions?

Why does that not surprise me?

I've read of police doing that on investigations, fixating on a particular suspect before they have any facts. The examples are endless.

A surfeit of examples doesn't necessarily make the practice of operating sans evidence correct. It merely demonstrates the ubiquity of the error.

I'll answer again. While physical facts don't change, the opinions and interpretations of what those facts mean change.

Why not apply that alleged maxim to the Law of Identity or the atomic mass of hydrogen and see if you can conjure up some "differing opinions or interpretations?"

Otherwise, aren't you essentially just debating your favorite flavor of ice cream?

 

[Akivah]

Maybe that explains why the religious get divorced at a rate much higher than atheists.

Hello Cephus

I finally got around to reading your link that purportedly backs up your statement. The Barna study of divorce rates does not support your statement that religious get divorced at a MUCH higher rate than atheists. The report says that divorced rates of Evangelical Christian is 26%, Catholic 28%, Atheist/Agnotic 30%, All Christian 33%, and all adults combined 33%. The atheist difference of 3% from the national average was within the range of sampling error. Any difference in rates of divorce are small, not "much higher" as you stated. Indeed atheists have a higher rate of divorce than two classes of religious groups.

I thought a much more interesting and statistically significant difference was in the rates of marriage; Christians at 84% and atheists at 65%.

 

[Willamena]

To say that you know something "for certain" or with absolute knowledge, is pretty strong language. So when you say that you know this for certain, what does that mean exactly?

I mean I know what it means "to exist."

Existence is integrally tied to presence and consciousness. The world is composed of information garnered by a conscious mind; where that information is present, in whatever form it is present, something exists.

"God" is what supercedes the information. It can neither exist nor not exist, else it be information.

 

[tkdrocks]

(I am sure that this question has been asked before on this forum, but the members come and go. So, I think it would be fun to serve it up again.)

To say that you know something "for certain" or with absolute knowledge, is pretty strong language. So when you say that you know this for certain, what does that mean exactly?

• Does it mean that you are fully convinced?
• Do you know because of some specific evidence? (If so, please share)
• Is it just strong faith?
• Something else?

I will share my thoughts later, but I thought that I would just get the ball rolling first.

By definition, knowledge requires provable/disprovable facts. So in the case of knowing for certain about a being that refuses to react with the physical world in any measureable/meaningful way would be impossible. As far as knowing about a deity not existing actually depends upon how said deity is defined. Once you have some characteristics to look for (a description, if you will). The first question that I would ask is, "How did you derive this description?" Once that question is answered, I would seek some independent confirmation. That confirmation would have to be stronger than just another claim, however. Simultaneously, I would check for consistency. For example, if someone claimed to have seen a four-sided triangle, I might be more than a little skeptical. Once I have established that the particular deity described lacks evidence or logical possibility, then (and only then) I can say that I know for certain that that particular god doesn't exist. But it does not deny the possibility of any deities. If you have a deity that you would like for me to analyze, I will do so for a small fee of $99.99. (No checks please.)

Fully convinced? If this is your position, then you should change your language to I am fully convinced that my definition of god (Please define fully) exists, because you do not "know for certain".

Specific evidence: Not surprisingly, this particular part of the question has been avoided like peanuts at a food allergy conference. If there was specific (not anecdotal) evidence, it would already be common knowledge. No evidence is necessary to prove a negative.

Strong Faith? Since facts are not involved, faith has to be based upon a hope. Once something is proven, it no longer requires faith.

Hebrews 11:1,6 King James Version (KJV)

1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


The writer of Hebrews was innovative as he actually turned faith into a religious currency:


6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

 

[tkdrocks]

Did you already? I'm curious.

I finally got around to it. I had to suffer through a vacation in Hawaii, so I got a little distracted.

 

[tkdrocks]

To say that you know something "for certain" or with absolute knowledge, is pretty strong language. So when you say that you know this for certain, what does that mean exactly?

• Does it mean that you are fully convinced?
• Do you know because of some specific evidence? (If so, please share)
• Is it just strong faith?
• Something else?

•yes

Thanks for taking the 2.5 seconds to respond. One word responses don't add much value. Can you expound on why you are fully convinced.

•yes ( but i don't share anymore sorry )

One must wonder why you stopped sharing. Were your evidences not taken seriously by others?

•no its fact

Excellent, please list your overwhelming evidences of this fact for the benefit of others. Remember, facts can be falsified, so if your evidence is not provable, then it really isn't a fact, but an assertion.

• no


Ps.....this is for the " does exist"


good luck

 

[crazyrussian]

(I am sure that this question has been asked before on this forum, but the members come and go. So, I think it would be fun to serve it up again.)

To say that you know something "for certain" or with absolute knowledge, is pretty strong language. So when you say that you know this for certain, what does that mean exactly?

• Does it mean that you are fully convinced?
• Do you know because of some specific evidence? (If so, please share)
• Is it just strong faith?
• Something else?

I will share my thoughts later, but I thought that I would just get the ball rolling first.

The below chart is the best evidence I have seen to date that There is a god concept. The fact that over 9 time specific prophecies are able to come into perfect alignment illustrating that Jesus may have in fact fulfilled time specific prophecy concerning the death and resurrection is evidence that is hard to ignore even if Christians currently misrepresent the only sign given to the lawless and adulterous generation.

 

[Bunyip]

The below chart is the best evidence I have seen to date that There is a god concept. The fact that over 9 time specific prophecies are able to come into perfect alignment illustrating that Jesus may have in fact fulfilled time specific prophecy concerning the death and resurrection is evidence that is hard to ignore even if Christians currently misrepresent the only sign given to the lawless and adulterous generation.

Unfortunately prophecies are useless as evidence. There are characteristically vague and amorphous - and so can be harmonised with whatever the person interpreting them wants.

 

[Willamena]

Unfortunately prophecies are useless as evidence. There are characteristically vague and amorphous - and so can be harmonised with whatever the person interpreting them wants.

Fortunately that's true; else everyone would be wise.

 

[tkdrocks]

Unfortutnately prophecies are useless as evidence. There are characteristically vague and amorphous - and so can be harmonised with whatever the person interpreting them wants.

I at least have to give kudos crazyrussian for offering an attempt at evidence. The chirping crickets were getting pretty loud.

There is no doubt that Judaism and other contemporary religions utilized numerology quite extensively. The problem is, like with many other prophetic systems, confirmation bias. That is, it is easy to remember the hits, while ignoring the misses. There is also the, often forgotten conjunction fallacy: The tendency to assume that specific conditions are more probable than general ones.

It is a nice chart, though. Isn't it cool to have thousands of years of timeline and vague (as well as, flexible) time units to create a story board?

Now let's go as far as granting this as reliable evidence. It is quite a complex process to predict the coming of Jesus. It doesn't address which doctrine about Jesus is correct. Is he the Son of God/Saviour Jesus or a more traditional messiah? In order for this "evidence" to be useful, it also has to align with your very narrow scope of the doctrine.

Finally, depending on your own beliefs about Jesus, the Bible makes some pretty astounding claims about him. He is God, being the strongest and the fact that he is the only method to achieve salvation is another. To quote Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." This doesn't pass that muster.

But don't let me discourage you. If you have any more "evidence", I am happy to review it. I would never say that my mind cannot be changed, but the standard has to be pretty high.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I don't know for sure, but I strongly suspect God is the product of human insecurity and wishful thinking. So "Man made God" rather than "God made man".

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

I believe i Know G-d Our Creator and Father in Heaven exists ....
for me i have irrefutable proof, though not sure i can prove it to those still alive
on this planet who wish to deny ...

Oh My proof ... I died in a car accident Feb 82 ... Newcastle Australia ...
and travelled to that other realm thru the tunnel to the light ... Death Experience
Went through a life review with the entity i call the gatekeeper ... was a little
distressed that he did not name himself ... Pleased he had me meet friends and
My Grandfather who gave me a prophesy ... which proved true 6 months after
i was sent back with tasks to perform by the Gatekeeper

So if Heaven or whatever the place of souls waiting for life experience is called
then Hashem (G-d) is no big leap eh ...

 

[tkdrocks]

I believe i Know G-d Our Creator and Father in Heaven exists ....
for me i have irrefutable proof, though not sure i can prove it to those still alive
on this planet who wish to deny ...

Oh My proof ... I died in a car accident Feb 82 ... Newcastle Australia ...
and travelled to that other realm thru the tunnel to the light ... Death Experience
Went through a life review with the entity i call the gatekeeper ... was a little
distressed that he did not name himself ... Pleased he had me meet friends and
My Grandfather who gave me a prophesy ... which proved true 6 months after
i was sent back with tasks to perform by the Gatekeeper

So if Heaven or whatever the place of souls waiting for life experience is called
then Hashem (G-d) is no big leap eh ...

It is good that you feel you have some personal affirmation, but you will have to forgive the billions of souls, that have had not had this special experience, for not taking your word for it.

You also have to excuse me for not taking "life after death" stories seriously, please view this post.

Here is an article discussing the reasons anecdotal evidence is not very useful.

 

[allfoak]

One word.
Gnosis.

 

[tkdrocks]

The below chart is the best evidence I have seen to date that There is a god concept. The fact that over 9 time specific prophecies are able to come into perfect alignment illustrating that Jesus may have in fact fulfilled time specific prophecy concerning the death and resurrection is evidence that is hard to ignore even if Christians currently misrepresent the only sign given to the lawless and adulterous generation.

Before someone complains that I did not debunk any of the items in this "proof", here are my thoughts. Most of the items displayed in this chart are not facts, but unprovable assertions. When you pile up a long list of assertions, it does seem impressive. However, a mountain of assertions does not equate to facts.