If a person is not sincerely have faith in god first, then he can't feel god's presence.

[Pudding]

Some religion say in order to feel their god's presence, one need to sincerely have faith in god first, that is to sincerely accept and believe in god without doubt, then god will enlighten the person, then the person will be able to feel god's presence, then the god become real to the person.

If the person is not sincere, then he can't feel god's presence. He is to be blamed for not sincere, and will be punished.

This religion also claims that they're the only truth religion, or their religion is the most closes to truth; while other religion is false religion, or other religion is not closes to truth.

(1) How many and which religion has this type of claim?

(2) Assume religion A and B has this type of claim.
Is A to be blamed for not sincerely have faith in B's god, therefor A can't feel B's god's presence?
Is B to be blamed for not sincerely have faith in A's god, therefor B can't feel A's god's presence?

(3) If believer A/B try to sincerely have faith in both A's and B's gods, will believer A/B able to feel both A's and B's gods's presence at the same time?

(4) The argument of "because a person is not sincerely have faith in specific god first, therefor he can't feel the god's presence or know that the god is real", is this argument contradicted in itself when multiple religions all have this claims?

(5) Is many religion which believe in different gods, even different sect of religion which believe in one same god, that their religion's law/morality/dogma and their acceptence of interpretation to their own religion is greatly contradicted to each other?

Note: A's or B's god, can be a single god or plural gods.

 

[Lyndon]

Many people and myself would say that God influences us through our conscience, non believers still have a conscience so it seems to me even non believers can be influenced by God without being aware its God influencing them.

 

[Pudding]

Many people and myself would say that God influences us through our conscience, non believers still have a conscience so it seems to me even non believers can be influenced by God without being aware its God influencing them.

My thread's topic is "If a person is not sincerely have faith in god first, then he can't feel god's presence".

My thread's topic is not about "whether or not a non believer can be influenced by God even without being aware its God influencing them".

Does your post relate to the topic in other area?

 

[LuisDantas]

Some religion say in order to feel their god's presence, one need to sincerely have faith in god first, that is to sincerely accept and believe in god without doubt, then god will enlighten the person, then the person will be able to feel god's presence, then the god become real to the person.

An odd claim to make. It is a hairline away from a demand for people to make their own gods and deny the responsibility at the same time.

If the person is not sincere, then he can't feel god's presence. He is to be blamed for not sincere, and will be punished.

This religion also claims that they're the only truth religion, or their religion is the most closes to truth; while other religion is false religion, or other religion is not closes to truth.

(1) How many and which religion has this type of claim?

However many, it is too many.

(2) Assume religion A and B has this type of claim.
Is A to be blamed for not sincerely have faith in B's god, therefor A can't feel B's god's presence?
Is B to be blamed for not sincerely have faith in A's god, therefor B can't feel A's god's presence?

Technically yes, but in truth neither should demand faith in any god.

Accept such faith, certainly. Claim it, if they have it, sure. Arguably encourage it, even. But never demand it.

(3) If believer A/B try to sincerely have faith in both A's and B's gods, will believer A/B able to feel both A's and B's gods's presence at the same time?

It is possible, I assume, but not healthy to try. People have varying perceptions and conceptions of the sacred, and they will not always match. That is only a problem if we prime ourselves not to be accepting of that variety.

(4) The argument of "because a person is not sincerely have faith in specific god first, therefor he can't feel the god's presence or know that the god is real", is this argument contradicted in itself when multiple religions all have this claims?

Yes, and that is not even its only problem.


(5) Is many religion which believe in different gods, even different sect of religion which believe in one same god, that their religion's law/morality/dogma and their acceptence of interpretation to their own religion is greatly contradicted to each other?[/QUOTE]

Certainly. To a large extent because they insist on making reference to deities instead of to the actual doctrine and values.

 

[Vishvavajra]

It's a convoluted form of begging the question. In order to come to know if X is true, you have to already have accepted that X is true. It's what makes presuppositional apologetics so annoying and impossible to engage with.

It's also similar to a Catch-22 in its practical application.

In any case, it's a problem from a logical standpoint. It also suggests that what people are experiencing isn't really anything that could be said to have objective reality, but a wholly subjective one, a part of themselves.

 

[Tumah]

I would say these givens can't conclusively answer question four.
Let's call religion a God and religion B Satan.
Assume that the god of the God religion and the god of the Satan religion are also figures in the opposing religion.

Someone who believes strongly enough in the religion of God may feel their god's presence.
Someone who believes strongly enough in the religion of Satan may feel their god's presence.

So we would expect multiple religions to describe having felt their god's presence without contradicting any one religion's claim to having felt their god's presence.

 

[Pudding]

An odd claim to make. It is a hairline away from a demand for people to make their own gods and deny the responsibility at the same time.

However many, it is too many.

Technically yes, but in truth neither should demand faith in any god.

Accept such faith, certainly. Claim it, if they have it, sure. Arguably encourage it, even. But never demand it.

It is possible, I assume, but not healthy to try. People have varying perceptions and conceptions of the sacred, and they will not always match. That is only a problem if we prime ourselves not to be accepting of that variety.

Yes, and that is not even its only problem.

Certainly. To a large extent because they insist on making reference to deities instead of to the actual doctrine and values.

Thanks for your clear answer.

It's a convoluted form of begging the question. In order to come to know if X is true, you have to already have accepted that X is true. It's what makes presuppositional apologetics so annoying and impossible to engage with.

It's also similar to a Catch-22 in its practical application.

In any case, it's a problem from a logical standpoint. It also suggests that what people are experiencing isn't really anything that could be said to have objective reality, but a wholly subjective one, a part of themselves.

Thanks for sharing your thought on this matter.

 

[Lyndon]

My thread's topic is "If a person is not sincerely have faith in god first, then he can't feel god's presence".

My thread's topic is not about "whether or not a non believer can be influenced by God even without being aware its God influencing them".

Does your post relate to the topic in other area?

If you can't see the connection between the two statements its not my problem!!

 

[Orbit]

This is circular reasoning: if you believe in God you will see God. You can't presuppose an outcome and have it be logical. Maybe you should be searching for divinity in the non-rational, non-dogmatic sense--you're more likely to find something that way.

 

[Pudding]

I would say these givens can't conclusively answer question four.
Let's call religion a God and religion B Satan.
Assume that the god of the God religion and the god of the Satan religion are also figures in the opposing religion.

Someone who believes strongly enough in the religion of God may feel their god's presence.
Someone who believes strongly enough in the religion of Satan may feel their god's presence.

Can the position be reversed that religion A's God is Satan and religion B's God is not Satan?

If religion A confirm and declare that their God is not Satan; and religion B also confirm and declare that their God is not Satan.

Then which religion's God is Satan?

So we would expect multiple religions to describe having felt their god's presence without contradicting any one religion's claim to having felt their god's presence.

What is this sentence meaning? Can you explain in a more clear way?

 

[Pudding]

If you can't see the connection between the two statements its not my problem!!

I'm not criticize that its your problem.

I'm asking you to clarify or explain your response, if you would like to.

This is circular reasoning: if you believe in God you will see God. You can't presuppose an outcome and have it be logical. Maybe you should be searching for divinity in the non-rational, non-dogmatic sense--you're more likely to find something that way.

I'm not the person to suggest this circular reasoning should be logically right.

I'm just a person to ask the questions, i'm not the believer in the questions, nor i support their beliefs.

 

[Tumah]

Can the position be reversed that religion A is Satan and religion B is God?

If religion A confirm and declare that their God is not Satan; religion B also confirm and declare that their God is not Satan.

Then which religion is Satan?

To be clear, that is not what question four was about. The question is whether multiple religions can make multiple claims to experiencing god/s and how that might effect other religions' claims. I am only answering that question. What the determinate should be for figuring out which religion is actually god's and which one's is satan's should perhaps be something else.

What is this sentence meaning? Can you explain in a more clear way?

All I was saying is that the fact that more than one religions makes the same claim to having felt god's presence does not point to a contradiction that refutes them all. Such an occurrence might even be expected.

 

[Pudding]

To be clear, that is not what question four was about. The question is whether multiple religions can make multiple claims to experiencing god/s and how that might effect other religions' claims. I am only answering that question. What the determinate should be for figuring out which religion is actually god's and which one's is satan's should perhaps be something else.


All I was saying is that the fact that more than one religions makes the same claim to having felt god's presence does not point to a contradiction that refutes them all. Such an occurrence might even be expected.

Thanks for your explain. Now your point is logically right and made sence.

I think maybe i can open a new thread to discuss that:
Many religion claims that if a person sincerely have faith in a specific god, then the god will enlighten him and he will then be able to feel the god's presence.

Then adding your point:
Let's call religion a God and religion B/C/D...etc Satan.
Assume that the god of the God religion and the god of the Satan religion are also figures in the opposing religion.

Someone who believes strongly enough in the religion of God may feel their god's presence.
Someone who believes strongly enough in the religion of Satan may feel their god's presence.

Then ask the question that:
If all religion confirm and declare that their god is not Satan, then which religion's god is Satan? Which religion's god is the truth God?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I dont believe God is external. We all experience "God" in one way or another even if we dont have faith.

Outside of religious jargon, if you do t have faith and motivation to live, you will not experience the mental fulfilment of wanting to survive. However, our bodies and minds want to survive regardless if we have faith in taking care of it for it to thrive.

Translation in religious jargon. God is already pulling you (body/mind wants to survive) independent of our faith/wants.

Faith is an action. Do we want to participate in this life, or in abrahamic view, with God its up to the person that doesnt mean our body/mind or God if you like does so outside our faith.

Some religion say in order to feel their god's presence, one need to sincerely have faith in god first, that is to sincerely accept and believe in god without doubt, then god will enlighten the person, then the person will be able to feel god's presence, then the god become real to the person.

If the person is not sincere, then he can't feel god's presence. He is to be blamed for not sincere, and will be punished.

This religion also claims that they're the only truth religion, or their religion is the most closes to truth; while other religion is false religion, or other religion is not closes to truth.

(1) How many and which religion has this type of claim?

(2) Assume religion A and B has this type of claim.
Is A to be blamed for not sincerely have faith in B's god, therefor A can't feel B's god's presence?
Is B to be blamed for not sincerely have faith in A's god, therefor B can't feel A's god's presence?

(3) If believer A/B try to sincerely have faith in both A's and B's gods, will believer A/B able to feel both A's and B's gods's presence at the same time?

(4) The argument of "because a person is not sincerely have faith in specific god first, therefor he can't feel the god's presence or know that the god is real", is this argument contradicted in itself when multiple religions all have this claims?

(5) Is many religion which believe in different gods, even different sect of religion which believe in one same god, that their religion's law/morality/dogma and their acceptence of interpretation to their own religion is greatly contradicted to each other?

Note: A's or B's god, can be a single god or plural gods.

 

[Jainarayan]

Some religion say in order to feel their god's presence, one need to sincerely have faith in god first, that is to sincerely accept and believe in god without doubt, then god will enlighten the person, then the person will be able to feel god's presence, then the god become real to the person.

I can agree with this.

If the person is not sincere, then he can't feel god's presence.

I can agree with this.

He is to be blamed for not sincere, and will be punished.

I cannot agree with this. My religion claims no such thing.

This religion also claims that they're the only truth religion, or their religion is the most closes to truth; while other religion is false religion, or other religion is not closes to truth.

I cannot agree with this. My religion claims no such thing.

(1) How many and which religion has this type of claim?

Not mine.

 

[Pudding]

I can agree with this.

I can agree with this.

I cannot agree with this. My religion claims no such thing.

I cannot agree with this. My religion claims no such thing.

Not mine.

I'm not saying your religion claims such thing.

I say the religion which claims such thing, is the religion i refer to.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Faith first is a convenient way to get a person convinced over something that cannot be ever revealed. Many times being contradictory to the very theology it supports.

 

[Jainarayan]

This religion also claims that they're the only truth religion, or their religion is the most closes to truth; while other religion is false religion, or other religion is not closes to truth.

I'm not saying your religion claims such thing.

I say the religion which claims such thing, is the religion i refer to.

So whom are you addressing if not each of us? What is "this religion" are you asking about? Did I miss something?

 

[Pudding]

I dont believe God is external. We all experience "God" in one way or another even if we dont have faith.

Outside of religious jargon, if you do t have faith and motivation to live, you will not experience the mental fulfilment of wanting to survive. However, our bodies and minds want to survive regardless if we have faith in taking care of it for it to thrive.

Translation in religious jargon. God is already pulling you (body/mind wants to survive) independent of our faith/wants.

Faith is an action. Do we want to participate in this life, or in abrahamic view, with God its up to the person that doesnt mean our body/mind or God if you like does so outside our faith.

I'm sorry we've to agree to disagree.

 

[Pudding]

So whom are you addressing if not each of us? What is "this religion" are you asking about? Did I miss something?

"This religion" in that post, means the religion which is accord to the trait i've describe for it.

If your religion didn't have the trait i mention, then your religion is not "This religion" i refer to.