Knowing God

[shunyadragon]

The word subjective is overused, that it's losing all meaning in time.

Your use of proof in terms of truth with the lack of anything substantive beyond this is most definitely 'subjective in nature by definition when translated in any language: Subjective - Of the mind only, without objective evidence.

So far you have presented nothing beyond what you believe is true as proof, which does not have any meaning in logic nor in the reality of our existence that is objective

Still waiting . . .

 

[Link]

When proofs and evidence is presented, and person keeps demanding for them, the fault is on the demander, not the presenter.

 

[shunyadragon]

If God exists, he is the truth by which you can see who you are and others for who and what they are. If God doesn't exist, we are a corrupted falsehood with no basis.

There is no objective evidence whether God exists or not. It remains a subjective view from the human perspective whether God exists or not. The objective nature of our physical existence and for that matter the diverse conflicting human nature of belief is indifferent to any of your claims and for a matter also other conflicting views.

Your are not responding to the problem of your claims of 'proof' of truth has any more valid than then any oth conflicting view including those who claim God(s) do not exist

Still waiting . . .

 

[Link]

There is no objective evidence whether God exists or not. It remains a subjective view from the human perspective whether God exists or not. The objective nature of our physical existence and for that matter the diverse conflicting human nature of belief is indifferent to any of your claims and for a matter also other conflicting views.

Your are not responding to the problem of your claims of 'proof' of truth has any more valid than then any oth conflicting view including those who claim God(s) do not exist

Still waiting . . .

When we remind of signs (including God's vision and who we are) of God, it's up to you to recall and see the reality. If you deny reality, we can't make you acknowledge it, only remind of it. Without God, there is no truth to who we are. It's a delusional falsehood.

 

[shunyadragon]

When proofs and evidence is presented, and person keeps demanding for them, the fault is on the demander, not the presenter.

Actually not true in logic: The Burden of Proof: Why People Should Support Their Claims – Effectiviology.

Summary and conclusions

• The burden of proof (“onus probandi” in Latin) is the obligation to provide sufficient supporting evidence for claims that you make.
• For example, if someone claims that ghosts exist, then the burden of proof means that they need to provide evidence that supports this.
• The burden of proof fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone tries to evade their burden of proof, by denying it, pretending to have fulfilled it, or shifting it to someone else.
• People sometimes hide their evasion of the burden of proof in various ways, such as by denying personal commitment to the claim, shifting the responsibility for the claim to a secondary source, making claims that are unfalsifiable, or combining the burden of proof fallacy with other logical fallacies and rhetorical techniques.
• To respond to the burden of proof fallacy, you can point out the failure to fulfill the burden of proof, explain why the person in question has that burden, ask the person to fulfill their burden or retract their claim, call out the attempted evasion of the burden, provide counter-proof, focus on your own point, move on with the discussion, or leave the discussion entirely.

Still waiting . . .

 

[Link]

Actually not true in logic: The Burden of Proof: Why People Should Support Their Claims – Effectiviology.

Summary and conclusions

• The burden of proof (“onus probandi” in Latin) is the obligation to provide sufficient supporting evidence for claims that you make.
• For example, if someone claims that ghosts exist, then the burden of proof means that they need to provide evidence that supports this.
• The burden of proof fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone tries to evade their burden of proof, by denying it, pretending to have fulfilled it, or shifting it to someone else.
• People sometimes hide their evasion of the burden of proof in various ways, such as by denying personal commitment to the claim, shifting the responsibility for the claim to a secondary source, making claims that are unfalsifiable, or combining the burden of proof fallacy with other logical fallacies and rhetorical techniques.
• To respond to the burden of proof fallacy, you can point out the failure to fulfill the burden of proof, explain why the person in question has that burden, ask the person to fulfill their burden or retract their claim, call out the attempted evasion of the burden, provide counter-proof, focus on your own point, move on with the discussion, or leave the discussion entirely.

Still waiting . . .

And if I believe I have provided proof but people choose not to look at reality or just deny what they know (premises that are clear) to deny the proof, than what I can do?

 

[shunyadragon]

And if I believe I have provided proof but people choose not to look at reality or just deny what they know (premises that are clear) to deny the proof, than what I can do?

You have presented a subjective opinion of what you believe among numerous other conflicting claims based on likewise 'faith' without evidence. You have failed to present any substantive proof of your claims by definition as cited.

Why is your claim superior objectively over the many conflicting claims even those who 'subjectively believe' God(s) do not exist.

Still waiting . . .

 

[Link]

You have presented a subjective opinion of what you believe among numerous other conflicting claims based on likewise 'faith' without evidence. You have failed to present any substantive proof of your claims by definition as cited.

Why is your claim superior objectively over the many conflicting claims even those who 'subjectively believe' God(s) do not exist.

Still waiting . . .

This is your view. You can repeat all day, won't make the proof go away.

 

[shunyadragon]

This is your view. You can repeat all day, won't make the proof go away.

Failure to respond. Yes, this is my view, but I do not make the outragous egocentric subjective claim of proof or truth as you do, which your claims fail any test of logic, reason nor evidence based 'proof(?)..

Such exclusive claims as yours is the reason the many diverse ancient tribal beliefs remain in conflict, divided, and often violently in blood shed including innocents over the millennia.

You even fail to understand the rules of logic when you make bogus claims such as this; "When proofs and evidence is presented, and person keeps demanding for them, the fault is on the demander, not the presenter."

Still waiting . . .

 

[Redemptionsong]

He is asked in the Gospels if he is the Prophet, and says no.

Where do you get this from?

 

[shunyadragon]

Where do you get this from?

The challenge I mad to @Link, also applies to your claims, which fail any objective lests and logic, and remain one subjective claim among many diverse conflicting claims based on the belief in ancient tribal texts without substantial provenance in history.

 

[Link]

Where do you get this from?

Sorry, I got confused.

This is the proof:

John (a) is asked if he is the Messiah (who Jesus is instead the one from the line of David (a)) is promised to rule. But "the Prophet" is someone different then that.

Jesus (a) said he is the Messiah and the Messiah is different then "the Prophet". Elijah is different then both. All three are set to come, Elijah (a) is to return, the Prophet (s) is to come, and Messiah (a) from family of David (a) is to come. Jesus (a) picks one of these three.

Jesus (a) and Gospels remind of these different prophecies. The Prophet compared to Moses (a) is an initiator of a community and structure of kings anointed by God. Moses is a start point followed by successors. He foundational. Jesus (a) is the Messiah from the line of David (a) and the star of the family of David (a) but is not the initial founder, but the end point of the successors.

Out of those three things, Jesus (a) didn't claim to be Elijah (a) or the Prophet (s), but the Messiah (a) from the line of David (a) who rule the world at the end times.

John (a) is asked about three distinct prophecy of persons to come, and he is none of these three.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

The scriptures teach that the Holy Spirit is central to a person’s adoption as a child of God [Romans 8:15-17].



God is one [Deut. 6:4; Gal. 3:20]

God is (a) Spirit [John 4:24]

They that believe on him [Jesus Christ] receive the Spirit [John 7:39]

He that is joined to the Lord [Jesus Christ] is one spirit [1 Cor. 6:17]

They must worship him [God] in spirit and in truth [John 4:24]



Ephesians 2:18

‘For through him [Jesus Christ] we both [Jew and Gentile] have access by one Spirit [the Holy Spirit] unto the Father.’

John 14:6

‘no man cometh unto the Father, but by me [Jesus Christ]’

Philippians 2:2

‘Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.’

Ephesians 4:4-6

‘Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.’



True fellowship, peace, and unity, (we are told) comes through the indwelling Holy Spirit.



Q: Can any person claim to know God if he/she does not know, and follow, Christ through the indwelling Holy Spirit, received by grace?

Please tell me your a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints. I have not met a Non-LDS Christian that holds any of these scriptures seriously because of Sola Scriptura and Faith alone not works lead to salvation, the trinity as taught by the creeds, etc.

 

[firedragon]

The scriptures teach that the Holy Spirit is central to a person’s adoption as a child of God [Romans 8:15-17].



God is one [Deut. 6:4; Gal. 3:20]

God is (a) Spirit [John 4:24]

They that believe on him [Jesus Christ] receive the Spirit [John 7:39]

He that is joined to the Lord [Jesus Christ] is one spirit [1 Cor. 6:17]

They must worship him [God] in spirit and in truth [John 4:24]



Ephesians 2:18

‘For through him [Jesus Christ] we both [Jew and Gentile] have access by one Spirit [the Holy Spirit] unto the Father.’

John 14:6

‘no man cometh unto the Father, but by me [Jesus Christ]’

Philippians 2:2

‘Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.’

Ephesians 4:4-6

‘Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.’



True fellowship, peace, and unity, (we are told) comes through the indwelling Holy Spirit.



Q: Can any person claim to know God if he/she does not know, and follow, Christ through the indwelling Holy Spirit, received by grace?

Know God? Follow Christ "through" the Holy Spirit? Why "Through" anything? Cant God hear?

 

[sealchan]

The scriptures teach that the Holy Spirit is central to a person’s adoption as a child of God [Romans 8:15-17].



God is one [Deut. 6:4; Gal. 3:20]

God is (a) Spirit [John 4:24]

They that believe on him [Jesus Christ] receive the Spirit [John 7:39]

He that is joined to the Lord [Jesus Christ] is one spirit [1 Cor. 6:17]

They must worship him [God] in spirit and in truth [John 4:24]



Ephesians 2:18

‘For through him [Jesus Christ] we both [Jew and Gentile] have access by one Spirit [the Holy Spirit] unto the Father.’

John 14:6

‘no man cometh unto the Father, but by me [Jesus Christ]’

Philippians 2:2

‘Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.’

Ephesians 4:4-6

‘Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.’



True fellowship, peace, and unity, (we are told) comes through the indwelling Holy Spirit.



Q: Can any person claim to know God if he/she does not know, and follow, Christ through the indwelling Holy Spirit, received by grace?

There is a class of experience which I believe reveals that one has had an experience of God. I talk about it at length in this thread The God Dream

This is a class of experience found in Genesis and maybe in Acts (Saul/Paul conversion). But it is not specifically Christian.

 

[74x12]

'Not really true' is equally subjective. As with all ancient conflicting diverse scriptures, beliefs they lack any objective verifiable evidence as to which may be true or not.

You'll never find God waiting around for verified evidence.
God is real and can show us what scriptures are true and what aren't.

 

[shunyadragon]

You'll never find God waiting around for verified evidence.

You have totally misunderstanding my line of logic and reasoning in this thread. First,
I believe in God and that I acknowledge the subjective nature of this claim There is no waiting for verifiable evidenc4e, but the certainty of your claim below it seems you claim to have it. What is the evidence other than faith that determines your belief is real and factual?

I also read, pray and study all the religions of the world and their many many variations. I am still doing my homework.

God is real and can show us what scriptures are true and what aren't.

Can show??? Please demonstrate how they showed you and all the others who make similar claims contradict yours. This is a subjective claim like hundreds of beliefs who make the same claim except they say you are wrong and they are right. None of the above and you cannot back up your claim that they know, and how they know and everyone else is wrong that disagrees with you.

Though to make the absolute claims @Link and likely disagree, you are making We need more than just assertions they are 'proved,' true and real.

 

[Father Heathen]

They can claim it; but it's not really true.

You can't trap God in some book as if he were a pokemon. God isn't bound and beholden to the writ of men.

 

[Father Heathen]

You'll never find God waiting around for verified evidence.
God is real and can show us what scriptures are true and what aren't.

And yet every religion makes this claim about their own holy scriptures.

 

[shunyadragon]

And yet every religion makes this claim about their own holy scriptures.

Yes, and many divisions of each religion make claim, often absolute claims of truth that contradict other divisions of the religion.