Knowledge or Belief?

[Darcy88]

I often hear Christians say "I know God exists." I even more often hear them say "I have faith in God," meaning they believe that God exists. Christians call themselves "believers" and "men of faith." But every Christian I know and have conversed at length with on religion has said "I know God exists." They often specify "I don't believe, I know He exists."

Here is how belief is defined in one dictionary:


be·lief   /bɪˈlif/ Show Spelled[bih-leef] Show IPA
noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief. And here knowledge:


knowl·edge   /ˈnɒlɪdʒ/ Show Spelled[nol-ij] Show IPA
noun
1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.
4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune. As you can see, belief and knowledge are not the same thing. Only in books have I ever heard a Christian admit that they do not know for sure whether God exists. The ones I encounter always state that they "know."

If God can be known as a scientific axiom or a natural fact can be known then wherein lies the virtue in believing in Him? We are to believe that God spoke to Abraham and to Moses. This means that their faith was not faith in the sense faith is often referred to today. If God spoke to them then they themselves truly did know that God existed. And so their faith was not belief, it was trust, the same kind of trust that I have in my father or in a dependable elder or friend. The virtue of Moses and Abraham lay in their loyalty to God, their love and their fear of Him. Nowadays just having faith, just believing in God, is considered by Christians to be a great virtue. But God does not speak to them or give them signs the way He did to the early Hebrews.

The point I am trying to get at is that Christians do not know God exists, they believe, they have faith that he does. And since this is something they consider a virtue they should not inadvertently contradict it by saying that they know He exists.

Any thoughts? Or was that a big boring long-winded waste of words.

[/dev/null]

I think what christians mean when they say "I know God exists" is "I assume God exists"; this is, for the average religious person, God is an axiom (maybe more of a definition). In my experience, an actually conscious faith is a very unusual exercise of introspective spirituality. And these days, the probable outcome of such a inner search is the realization of the pointlessness of the concept of divinity itself.

[cacian]

The way I see it one calls themselves a christian then by title they are believing in Jesus and then God.
The same as one would call themselves an electrician/a prime minister they are in fact saying they do and are what they are calling themselves.
A title gives the admission and proof that you are what you say you are.

[PoeticPassions]

I think it is a good question, but a tricky one. I suppose we use the word 'know' for a lot of things that may just be faith-based. Such as 'I know he loves me' or 'I know you are a good person.' I see the first statement as very much faith based, but at the same time coming out of certain circumstances and experience, where behaviors and attitudes and feelings influence what we think we know. The second statement could indeed be knowledge, as it could fit under these points in the definition:

4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.

However, how can you really know someone is a good person? Maybe they seem to be in front of you, but maybe in their private lives they are not. But this also brings into question of what it means to be 'good,' or what is 'truth'? Then we could get into a philosophical discussion on absolutes, subjectivity, rationality, etc.

Perhaps it is not contradictory for Christians to say they know that God exists. For someone who actually speaks to God on a daily basis, sees what he or she believes to be his miracles, reads the holy book of his or her religion and sees evidence in that book of His existence, then why would it not be knowledge?


But what I wonder is, do we really know anything for certain?

I'm just thinking out loud here, and haven't really come to any conclusions yet.

[/dev/null]

The way I see it one calls themselves a christian then by title they are believing in Jesus and then God.

But they think Christ and God are at the same time individuals and part of a unity. I don't think they are assuming (believe) Jesus and proving (knowledge) God from there.


Perhaps it is not contradictory for Christians to say they know that God exists. For someone who actually speaks to God on a daily basis, sees what he or she believes to be his miracles, reads the holy book of his or her religion and sees evidence in that book of His existence, then why would it not be knowledge?

That's fine from a rational point of view, but a religious person is not supposed to avoid the leap of faith.

[BienvenuJDC]

The point I am trying to get at is that Christians do not know God exists, they believe, they have faith that he does. And since this is something they consider a virtue they should not inadvertently contradict it by saying that they know He exists.

Any thoughts? Or was that a big boring long-winded waste of words.

This can apply to most of the things that you think you know. I don't think that another thread is needed to attack the Christian belief system. I'll take no further part in it.

[BienvenuJDC]

That's fine from a rational point of view, but a religious person is not supposed to avoid the leap of faith.

It is a misconception that religious people need a "leap of faith".

[/dev/null]

It is a misconception that religious people need a "leap of faith".

How so?

[YesNo]

What I think we know is that we are conscious that we are alive. We add meaning to that by incorporating beliefs and experiences that others have had through play, ritual and pretending. This becomes a cycle of increased knowledge, pretending and more clarified belief.

I don't think the process is peculiar to Christianity. Atheism is a belief system that works the same way.

A positive feature of Christian belief is the idea of an ultimate reality that is not only conscious but which loves humanity--so loving that their God would incarnate and die for the community of believers. I'm not Christian since I don't think this is the only valid way to approach that ultimate reality, but I do believe there is a fundamental truth in the characterization of ultimate reality as conscious and loving which atheism completely misses.

[usman.khawar]

well i think if someone says i beleive that God exist and i ask how? now if there is no reason or argument i name that faith as blind faith. there is no foundation for that beleive and a person having such beleive is living in the home of mirrors. whoever lives live with argument whoever dies dies due to argument. Weaker mind i mean weaker argument cant stand in front of the powerful mind or powerful argument.Quran reviles those who follow faith blindly, dogmatically and without thinking. God declares in the Wise Book

For the worst of beasts (people) In the sight of Allah are the deaf and the dumb,- those who do not use their intellects (8:22)

in Quran there are three main degrees of faith or believe...

ilm = knoweldge, yakin = believe

1. (ilm ul yakin) knowledge of beleive that He exist,through reason and argument. in this part we also beleive about heavens, angels, hell etc as these things turns towards the basic question whether God exist or not. if He exist then these things also exists.so through reason n argument if we know that God exist then it doesnt matter if we cant prove where is heaven or hell. but we can explain why they exists if we read Quran there are answers of these kind of questions.

2. (ain ul yakin) Ain is an arabic word which means eyes. self experience. in which one test the existence of God. for example he asked God to do something odd for him personally or God give him inspiration personally to increas him in beleive.

3. (Haq ul yakin).. i dont know its explanation yet..
i think its and topic starter questions's explanation will be in my today's post in thread i started.

[Darcy88]

This can apply to most of the things that you think you know. I don't think that another thread is needed to attack the Christian belief system. I'll take no further part in it.

That's not at all fair Bien. I am not attacking Christianity. You don't like that I said "Christians don't know God exists?" I guess Pascal was attacking Christianity in his Pensees too. I guess its wrong for someone to ask honest questions in a respectful way. You wonder why there are so many atheists. Maybe its because of blind intractable attitudes like yours that don't make any effort to reach across to non-believers and help them understand your religion.

Some of my beliefs may be faith-based. But even those that are have been subjected to the test and trial of reason. Yours apparently have not, otherwise you'd be able to discuss this with me.

I guess if I went to a priest or pastor with these questions he'd say "get out, I'm not having another discussion in which religion is regarded with reason." Forget the whole marvellous history of Christian and Muslim philosophy, reason and religion in this day and age are truly and irrevocably estranged.

[Darcy88]

What I think we know is that we are conscious that we are alive. We add meaning to that by incorporating beliefs and experiences that others have had through play, ritual and pretending. This becomes a cycle of increased knowledge, pretending and more clarified belief.


Wow, YesNo. This is what I've always felt was the case, but I've never been able to so clearly articulate it as you have here. Thanks.

[Darcy88]

It is a misconception that religious people need a "leap of faith".

Yes, the Christian Kierkegaard didn't know what he was talking about. Pascal and Kierkegaard, there you go. Two great Christian geniuses who were not afraid to examine their religion using reason. I've always entertained the idea of becoming a Christian. But then I encounter people whose faith is unthinking and undiscriminating and I get discouraged and give up. Like here.

[Darcy88]

I think what christians mean when they say "I know God exists" is "I assume God exists"; this is, for the average religious person, God is an axiom (maybe more of a definition). In my experience, an actually conscious faith is a very unusual exercise of introspective spirituality. And these days, the probable outcome of such a inner search is the realization of the pointlessness of the concept of divinity itself.

That's depressing. I used to know this mormon girl. As you can guess we would clash on the issue of her faith. I once got her to admit, after a long tough slough of pushing and pushing, that she didn't know for sure whether God existed or Joseph Smith was actually a prophet. She said "its true for me." Now that is honest.


I think it is a good question, but a tricky one. I suppose we use the word 'know' for a lot of things that may just be faith-based. Such as 'I know he loves me' or 'I know you are a good person.' I see the first statement as very much faith based, but at the same time coming out of certain circumstances and experience, where behaviors and attitudes and feelings influence what we think we know. The second statement could indeed be knowledge, as it could fit under these points in the definition:

4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.

However, how can you really know someone is a good person? Maybe they seem to be in front of you, but maybe in their private lives they are not. But this also brings into question of what it means to be 'good,' or what is 'truth'? Then we could get into a philosophical discussion on absolutes, subjectivity, rationality, etc.

Perhaps it is not contradictory for Christians to say they know that God exists. For someone who actually speaks to God on a daily basis, sees what he or she believes to be his miracles, reads the holy book of his or her religion and sees evidence in that book of His existence, then why would it not be knowledge?


But what I wonder is, do we really know anything for certain?

I'm just thinking out loud here, and haven't really come to any conclusions yet.

Interesting thoughts you put forward here. I think that faith without some amount of doubt is dishonest. I mean even the scientist may have his Cartesian moment in which he or she questions the basis of sense perception. When a religious person says to me "I don't believe, I know God exists," they are making a factual claim no different than stating that the sky is blue or trees are green. That to me isn't faith, its a species of dishonest pretending. Doubt does not preclude faith, otherwise there would never have been any thoughtful Christians. But there have been plenty.

[BienvenuJDC]

Yes, the Christian Kierkegaard didn't know what he was talking about. Pascal and Kierkegaard, there you go. Two great Christian geniuses who were not afraid to examine their religion using reason. I've always entertained the idea of becoming a Christian. But then I encounter people whose faith is unthinking and undiscriminating and I get discouraged and give up. Like here.

The keyword is "need". It is my perspective that if I can know anything, I can know that there is a God. It is based on much evidence and reasoning. However, I will not go into that argument again. It rarely is handled with civility on this site.

[Darcy88]

The keyword is "need". It is my perspective that if I can know anything, I can know that there is a God. It is based on much evidence and reasoning. However, I will not go into that argument again. It rarely is handled with civility on this site.

Fair enough. I read the bible everyday. I took my grandmother to church the last three Sundays. I began this thread in the spirit of honest inquiry and genuine respect. I understand why your hairs get on end at seeing such a thread though. If the thread goes on it will probably devolve into an atheism vs christianity debate, so I see where you were coming from.

[cafolini]

You can believe or disbelieve anything you please, but what you know, that's a different story. What you know could get your ash if you just consider it belief or disbelief. However, you could watch a fire from a mile away and know people are burning to death. Yet you can consider it a belief or disbelief without consequence. But my suggewstion is that you don't be stupid and get into the habit of doing that.

[PMLondonderry]

I don't KNOW God exists. I've never seen Him, touched Him, heard Him speak...I believe He exists.

I think saying "I KNOW he does" misses the whole point. If God wanted us to KNOW He existed, that wouldn't be much of a test would it? Putting a banana in front of me and saying "does it exist?" is a no-brainer. It's faith that is the real test. So no, I don't know He exists. I just believe He does.

[Darcy88]

I don't KNOW God exists. I've never seen Him, touched Him, heard Him speak...I believe He exists.

I think saying "I KNOW he does" misses the whole point. If God wanted us to KNOW He existed, that wouldn't be much of a test would it? Putting a banana in front of me and saying "does it exist?" is a no-brainer. It's faith that is the real test. So no, I don't know He exists. I just believe He does.

That's what I'm talking about. I've always wanted to hear a believer say that. It doesn't detract at all from your faith. In a way it validates it.

[BienvenuJDC]

I know that the kings of England existed. I know that Hugo wrote Les Miserables. I know that George Washington was the first president of the United States. There are many other things that I know without being an eyewitness. We need to be careful not to get into a discussion of semantics over how we define terms.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I know that the kings of England existed. I know that Hugo wrote Les Miserables. I know that George Washington was the first president of the United States. There are many other things that I know without being an eyewitness. We need to be careful not to get into a discussion of semantics over how we define terms.

. . . I thought you were going to stay out of this. I was going to reciprocate, but if you want to to discuss it, let's discuss it; so, which is it, Bien, yea or nay?

[Darcy88]

. . . I thought you were going to stay out of this. I was going to reciprocate, but if you want to to discuss it, let's discuss it; so, which is it, Bien, yea or nay?

I haven't responded to that post of Bien's either because I don't think he wants to get himself involved in another fruitless religious debate.

[Bad Grass]

I know God exist's. Just as I know you exist. But I have never seen you. Only your words.

[Darcy88]

I know God exist's. Just as I know you exist. But I have never seen you. Only your words.

That is a cop-out. Non-reality adhering fundamentalist mind-sets aside, the likelihood of God existing is nothing like the likelihood of myself existing to you or you existing to me. The most plausible conclusion is to assume that a person wrote your post. The most plausible explanation for creation is nature itself. As far as we know God is not needed to explain the world in the way that you are needed to account for your posting. That does not prove there is no God, contrary to what many atheists conclude. But your line of thinking does not stand up to rigorous examination.

I have no problem with your words in most contexts, I understand them and they make sense to me, but in the context of a thread meant to seriously examine the epistemological underpinnings of belief in or knowledge of God, it doesn't quite cut it.

[Bad Grass]

A cop-out? My personal reasons' would be too long for a post.
I don't believe in the word of the dictionary.
I believe in the word of God.
Perhaps another day.

[BienvenuJDC]

. . . I thought you were going to stay out of this. I was going to reciprocate, but if you want to to discuss it, let's discuss it; so, which is it, Bien, yea or nay?


I haven't responded to that post of Bien's either because I don't think he wants to get himself involved in another fruitless religious debate.

We could discuss it, but I'd rather do something that would improve our interactions on here. Let's just agree that you say that it's a 'belief' (and I can live with that), and I'll choose to call it 'knowledge'.

[usman.khawar]

I know God exist's. Just as I know you exist. But I have never seen you. Only your words.

hello..can we add with 'His words' like His promises,His attributes, His actions, or ultimately His words in His Books...?

[usman.khawar]

A cop-out? My personal reasons' would be too long for a post.
I don't believe in the word of the dictionary.
I believe in the word of God.
Perhaps another day.

can u minimize ur some personal reasons to share with us ?

[usman.khawar]

I don't KNOW God exists. I've never seen Him, touched Him, heard Him speak...I believe He exists.

I think saying "I KNOW he does" misses the whole point. If God wanted us to KNOW He existed, that wouldn't be much of a test would it? Putting a banana in front of me and saying "does it exist?" is a no-brainer. It's faith that is the real test. So no, I don't know He exists. I just believe He does.


Hi. Cong Man. very nice argument PML , in the reply why not God showed Himself directly? i really appreciate that..is a no-brainer ..i fully agree with you on this..

[usman.khawar]

I know that the kings of England existed. I know that Hugo wrote Les Miserables. I know that George Washington was the first president of the United States. There are many other things that I know without being an eyewitness. We need to be careful not to get into a discussion of semantics over how we define terms.

absolutely true.yes there is some problems in defining terms. 'know' is from knowledge?
like u say i know that the kings of england existed. we need two things to test ur claim. 1. witness 2 proof. either u see urself or someone, who never lie, tell you. 2. proof is for those who never trust anyone to test ur claim. isnt so ?

all i wanted to ask a question beleif on what? who told God exist? should we not have some knoweldge to beleif on something?

[Darcy88]

[QUOTE=usman.khawar;1123222]
should we not have some knoweldge to beleif on something/QUOTE]

As an atheist I can offer my opinion and that opinion is no. I don't think you need undoubtable knowledge to justify your faith in God and in Christ as his son or Mohammed as his messenger. I think there are many non evidentiary factors that may be taken as reasonable justification for belief. Pascal's Wager is a prime example of such a way of thinking. The problem I think enters when credulity becomes certainty, and what began as faith turns, in the believer's mind, to a whole web of beliefs which are mistaken for knowledge and are held aloof from reason and from doubt. Its like opening the rampart gates to premit entry to an ambassador but then leaving them wide open that the whole opposing army may follow bursting by the thousands in.

[cafolini]

I don't KNOW God exists. I've never seen Him, touched Him, heard Him speak...I believe He exists.

I think saying "I KNOW he does" misses the whole point. If God wanted us to KNOW He existed, that wouldn't be much of a test would it? Putting a banana in front of me and saying "does it exist?" is a no-brainer. It's faith that is the real test. So no, I don't know He exists. I just believe He does.

I have already taken my position as neutrality regarding the position of the three stooges of history, namely the theist, the atheist and the agnostic. But that you don't know God exists is false. Why? Simply because you are dealing with the existential as knowledge in all dimensions and then turning around and not recognizing it as an existance. And that's probably the objection Darcy has toward your position in which he estimates you might even be validating your faith.
I on the other hand can validate my faith in many ways. I could simply say the duck at my summer pond knows I know he's God, he exists in many ways, is essential in many ways, and occurs until death do us part and beyond in his existential and essential demeanor.

[Varenne Rodin]

Belief, and the desperation to believe, while at times cute and endearing, is rubbish. We're fertilizer. Belief doesn't change that. It's not arguable. It's not assuming something about something else. Humans are like earnest naked mole rats; bashing around blindly searching for a nut. Maybe there's a nut, maybe there isn't. Either way, we're unlikely to find it. Best of luck to the searchers. I'm going to be like water and float away.

[Darcy88]

Belief, and the desperation to believe, while at times cute and endearing, is rubbish. We're fertilizer. Belief doesn't change that. It's not arguable. It's not assuming something about something else. Humans are like earnest naked mole rats; bashing around blindly searching for a nut. Maybe there's a nut, maybe there isn't. Either way, we're unlikely to find it. Best of luck to the searchers. I'm going to be like water and float away.

A very well-thought out and well-written post Varenne. Yours is a valid point of view, one that I pretty much share, though I envy those able to convince themselves that its otherwise.

[Varenne Rodin]

A very well-thought out and well-written post Varenne. Yours is a valid point of view, one that I pretty much share, though I envy those able to convince themselves that its otherwise.

I do too, Darcy. Life is a conundrum. Maybe if I were better at riddles...

[cafolini]

Belief, and the desperation to believe, while at times cute and endearing, is rubbish. We're fertilizer. Belief doesn't change that. It's not arguable. It's not assuming something about something else. Humans are like earnest naked mole rats; bashing around blindly searching for a nut. Maybe there's a nut, maybe there isn't. Either way, we're unlikely to find it. Best of luck to the searchers. I'm going to be like water and float away.

So, what? What do you BELIEVE might happen as a result of expressing it that way? I know, you don't believe. Never mind.

[cafolini]

[QUOTE=usman.khawar;1123222]
should we not have some knoweldge to beleif on something/QUOTE]

As an atheist I can offer my opinion and that opinion is no. I don't think you need undoubtable knowledge to justify your faith in God and in Christ as his son or Mohammed as his messenger. I think there are many non evidentiary factors that may be taken as reasonable justification for belief. Pascal's Wager is a prime example of such a way of thinking. The problem I think enters when credulity becomes certainty, and what began as faith turns, in the believer's mind, to a whole web of beliefs which are mistaken for knowledge and are held aloof from reason and from doubt. Its like opening the rampart gates to premit entry to an ambassador but then leaving them wide open that the whole opposing army may follow bursting by the thousands in.

Credulity never becomes certainty. Credulity is a hypocritical belief system. Convictions are presented. It's a way to cope with the aim at winning the debate.
What you are exposing is a politically naive argument past the age < 12?
Yet it is there, presented as such, operating as such, and will linger there as such for a while. The best of it is that it cannot longer be sustained but in a museum. And much of the world is indeed a museum.

[Veho]

Maybe some people's, what I and others would call, belief is a knowledge to them because of their absolute conviction that God exists. Perhaps as atheists we can't understand that level of blind acceptance. If a believer only believes then that means they know that there is the possibility that they are wrong but they believe they are not wrong. Whereas if they 'know' He exists that is a unquestionable knowledge that can't be doubted.

[Darcy88]

[QUOTE=Darcy88;1123255]

Credulity never becomes certainty. Credulity is a hypocritical belief system. Convictions are presented. It's a way to cope with the aim at winning the debate.
What you are exposing is a politically naive argument past the age < 12?
Yet it is there, presented as such, operating as such, and will linger there as such for a while. The best of it is that it cannot longer be sustained but in a museum. And much of the world is indeed a museum.

Credulity can become certainty. I've seen it in many Christians and certainly not just in them. I see it in politics, in people's personal lives. We entertain the notion of something, we it confirm with confirmation that may be solid or weak, and pretty soon we can become sure of what was at first a possibility. There are people who believe things non-reality based, wholly opinionated, and not just in religion but in the whole sphere of human life, as if they were certain hard and fast facts.

[usman.khawar]

[QUOTE=usman.khawar;1123222]
should we not have some knoweldge to beleif on something/QUOTE]

As an atheist I can offer my opinion and that opinion is no. I don't think you need undoubtable knowledge to justify your faith in God and in Christ as his son or Mohammed as his messenger. I think there are many non evidentiary factors that may be taken as reasonable justification for belief. Pascal's Wager is a prime example of such a way of thinking. The problem I think enters when credulity becomes certainty, and what began as faith turns, in the believer's mind, to a whole web of beliefs which are mistaken for knowledge and are held aloof from reason and from doubt. Its like opening the rampart gates to premit entry to an ambassador but then leaving them wide open that the whole opposing army may follow bursting by the thousands in.


. what i can say about me is that my beleif on God is based on knoweldge. i know He exist. whatelse Also God says dont beleive without knowledge as i mentioned in a verse. There is no credulity in my beleif nor God likes it.

but i m very much interested in listening the objective arguments against God. i like objective arguments.

i dont find any reasonable or convincing answer of my question.
should we not have some knoweldge to beleif on something? or its all about trust without proof ? i have given my answer above. i have a proof and i mentioned this external scientific argument at several places.

[Darcy88]

[QUOTE=Darcy88;1123255]


. what i can say about me is that my beleif on God is based on knoweldge. i know He exist. whatelse Also God says dont beleive without knowledge as i mentioned in a verse. There is no credulity in my beleif nor God likes it.

but i m very much interested in listening the objective arguments against God. i like objective arguments.

i dont find any reasonable or convincing answer of my question.
should we not have some knoweldge to beleif on something? or its all about trust without proof ? i have given my answer above. i have a proof and i mentioned this external scientific argument at several places.

Well then you my friend are the first person to ever have "proof" of God. This is a watershed theological occurrence. With your "knowledge" and your "proof" you shall by proliferating it reign in a new golden age of faith. I see it now. Good job.

I'm actually unfamiliar with your proofs for God's existence. If you wouldn't mind giving us a quick recap I would be interested in hearing them. I won't even try to disprove them, as I didn't intend for this thread to be come a "God exists, no he doesn't, yes he does, hahaha that's stupid, no you're stupid" kind of thread.

[cafolini]

[QUOTE=cafolini;1123329]

Credulity can become certainty. I've seen it in many Christians and certainly not just in them. I see it in politics, in people's personal lives. We entertain the notion of something, we it confirm with confirmation that may be solid or weak, and pretty soon we can become sure of what was at first a possibility. There are people who believe things non-reality based, wholly opinionated, and not just in religion but in the whole sphere of human life, as if they were certain hard and fast facts.

Well, yes. Madness is there, but the insane behave the same way in other areas. There are all kinds of strategies. If they were capable of acting as if they knew, they'd sooner or later stop looking toward both sides of the street and get hit by a truck. A child might do it out of trust for what parents say, but for how long?

There are many ways of handling the BS. What happens is that the majority become convinced of the functioning of the hypocritical way and continue in that network.

It is not that they don't know it is true or false. It's that they know it works withing their wise limits. "Wisdom sets limits to knowledge."

[usman.khawar]

[QUOTE=usman.khawar;1123486]

Well then you my friend are the first person to ever have "proof" of God. This is a watershed theological occurrence. With your "knowledge" and your "proof" you shall by proliferating it reign in a new golden age of faith. I see it now. Good job.

I'm actually unfamiliar with your proofs for God's existence. If you wouldn't mind giving us a quick recap I would be interested in hearing them. I won't even try to disprove them, as I didn't intend for this thread to be come a "God exists, no he doesn't, yes he does, hahaha that's stupid, no you're stupid" kind of thread.

Well my dear! no,yes , no, yes :) ,, well if i dont think and understand about these basic questions like Does God exist? For what and whom do we exist? is Religion is the solution or the problem? then really m stupid. and if think about it then m not. and also m not the first or the last person to ever have "proof" of God..

Do you beleive in God? Do you reject God? whatever your view, do you have a scientific, rational and objective argument to prove your case. i asked you but you didnt asnwer any of my question but turning it to me. no issues. m still interested to listen arguements against God but rational and objective. like someone said He dont exist coz no one saw Him etc.

Well among so many reasons and arguments i have top of those is like " As humans we do thousands of mistakes but still be regarded as human beings. But God cannot be God if He makes a single mistake. You only have to find one mistake from Quran to prove that God’s claim is not true and therefore He cannot be God. "

We tried but we failed to find out a single mistake. if you have courage accept the challenge.

a little more explained answer is waiting for you in the link below, the last post.

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63000&page=13

[Varenne Rodin]

I wouldn't accuse any god of making mistakes. To me, that's as silly as believing in a god in the first place. We don't know there is a god or any sort of creator. There could be, but then we would have to agonize over who or what created that god. We don't know if we're cogs in a machine, or part of a collective of energy/life forms supporting a greater force. We might just be part of a never ending system of stuff that keeps refreshing itself, on some type of chronomajestic rotation. Maybe we're carefully designed robots (AI), and this is what we have evolved into. Maybe we're an experiment without the programming to understand why. Maybe god is a burning ball of chemicals and gas and doesn't know, understand, or care about us. Like a kid burning ants with a magnifying glass. We're an accident of chain reactions. We're a MIRACLE of chain reactions. Bears and birds and rabbits are our secret gods. Say whatever you want. Believe whatever you want. Just don't tell anyone they are somehow punishing "god" by not believing in him. There are too many possibilities to think that anyone KNOWS anything about how or why existing happened. People can fool themselves. It's not knowledge. It's rubbish, as I said.

[usman.khawar]

yes you are right verenne.. making hasty decisions without knowledge is rubbish.
all misunderstanding about God that He is like a beast, burning ball , always punish.etc..this fear is ,also the obstacle in the way of God, created by judaism, priest of chiristianity and mullahs of islam. but He is not like a beast.

in all possiblities which u mentioned is there any one who claimed to be a God?

i wrote in details anywhere in any forum about the answer of "who create the creator" simply in short once again.. do u think its all accidents? a beautiful accidents of gases reactions? if u consider again and think that is there any possiblity that there is no start? i mean everything is coming from no time? from always ? is it not right to think logically that there should be a start, a personality who must have the attribute of self-existing one.? In Quran you can see God is claiming one of his attribute out of 99 as Al_Qayyum (The self-existing One)

Why God created everything is a very good question indeed. i think its always arise in the mind who think. well who can give the answer? any historian? what is the age of earth? before several ice ages what was the time? no doubt God Himself give the answers. who said " i was a hidden treasure i wish to be known"

well i appreciate that ur intellect reached at AI. We humans are afraid to give A.I to our robots due to the fear that Robots will kill human kind who is unjust. if u consider human feed in robot that stop unjustice then what happened? who is more unjust than Man ? our scientist are afraid of but God was not...

For above purpose/reason that is " to be known" He ist of all created robots (angels etc), these creations didnt have anyother choice but to obey His commandas. so God created intellect and gave A.I to Human. He said in Quran giving full liberty of choice " i gave u intellect now its upon you whether to accept or deny"? whether to be thankful or !

but going further philosophically is it not wise to check 1st of all is there any God or not?

if a book is claiming that each of my word is God's word then 1st of all we have to check it thorughly. may b you read what i wrote for you guys in other thread which explained everything which any one need in this era. if you finally draw a mistake from that book then there is no God at all. you know there is no other book claimed that its each word is protected directly by God and there is no other data of God except Quran.
all questions are seccondaries all debates are secondaries. all assumptions and phiolosphical attempts are absurd without solving the 1st basic question. if you finally conclude that there is no god then no worries just enjoy this life. but if you cant point out a single mistake from the whole book which is full of scientific stuff besides moral n social laws. after a very hard working with the help of laboroties etc we found some facts of universes and its is already mentioned in that book then what does it mean ?? then we have to see what God says about everything about existence about metaphycials things then we have to admit whatever He says and why He created everything and what He wants from us.

One interesting thing i like to share with u guys in the end..He says before creating the things He made one attribute compulsory to Him that is His merci. He said before creating i decided that i must showed my merci upon everyone in every situation. you dont see He doesnt interfare in the exam nor give immediate response at your bad doings killing etc. but He provided each n everyting necceassry for this test. He not only mentioned the questions and also gave the knowledge of the answers through messengers also set the situations and the things we need so that we can easily give time to that questions..

the most interesting thing i tell u about His promise showing His bounties and merci if u just consider that for the whole life one just have to solve a question " is there any God? ". if one fail to solve this question then is there any expectation should be made for the reward? a work which u dont do or complete would u ask for wages ? you know that i know a promise of God that if a person who in his full life come to the conclusion that " there is no god But Allah" the One and Only, and say one time from his mouth with fully understanding in his whole life, u know what is the reward is being promised by God? is there anyone who can give the answer ? who think God is like a beast they should listen the reward. Hell's fire cant touch that Man. this is also the promise of God. He is truthful. He is truth. He doesnt do against his words. take my word. He is the Man of word. is there anyone again who start a quarel that why i said Him "Man" as Man of word?
There is also a saying of Prophet that a person who shed a single tear in the way of God / in search/ in fear of going far away from Him/ in love of God also for this person Hell's fire has been forbidden. this is also a promise. then who is more poor busniness mind who know this and didnt save his/her trillions years of life unlimited life. ???

thanks ...

[cafolini]

In any purely existential or even more backward, essential way, it is impossible to be wrong without being right. But the terribleness (from terra) of science demands three dimensions. Not one, not two, not x where x > three.
However, science will always be or exist incomplete. Can only be a final authority where we were able to apply it. Where else?
Everywhere else, we need insane freaks to pose as scientists. No?:rofl:

[usman.khawar]

.after little editing ..

yes you are right verenne.. making hasty decisions without knowledge is rubbish.
all misunderstanding about God that He is like a beast, burning ball , always punish.etc..this fear is ,also the obstacle in the way of God, created by judaism, priest of chiristianity and mullahs of islam. but He is not like a beast.

in all possiblities which u mentioned is there any one who claimed to be a God?

i wrote in details anywhere in any forum about the answer of "who create the creator" simply in short once again.. do u think its all accidents? a beautiful accidents of gases reactions? if u consider again and think that is there any possiblity that there is no start? i mean everything is coming from no time? from always ? is it not right to think logically that there should be a start, a personality who must have the attribute of self-existing one.? In Quran you can see God is claiming one of his attribute out of 99 as Al_Qayyum (The self-existing One)

Why God created everything is a very good question indeed. i think its always arise in the mind who think. well who can give the answer? any historian? what is the age of earth? before several ice ages what was the time? no doubt God Himself give the answers. who said " i was a hidden treasure i wish to be known"

well i appreciate that ur intellect reached at AI. We humans are afraid to give A.I to our robots due to the fear that Robots will kill human kind who is unjust. if u consider human feed in robot that stop unjustice then what happened? who is more unjust than Man ? our scientist are afraid of but God was not...

For above purpose/reason that is " to be known" He ist of all created robots (angels etc), these creations didnt have anyother choice but to obey His commandas. so God created intellect and gave A.I to Human. He said in Quran giving full liberty of choice " i gave u intellect now its upon you whether to accept or deny"? whether to be thankful or !

but going further philosophically is it not wise to check 1st of all is there any God or not?

if a book is claiming that each of my word is God's word then 1st of all we have to check it thorughly. may b you read what i wrote for you guys in other thread which explained everything which any one need in this era. if you finally draw a mistake from that book then there is no God at all. you know there is no other book claimed that its each word is protected directly by God and there is no other data of God except Quran.
all questions are seccondaries all debates are secondaries. all assumptions and phiolosphical attempts are absurd without solving the 1st basic question. if you finally conclude that there is no god then no worries just enjoy this life. but if you cant point out a single mistake from the whole book which is full of scientific stuff besides moral n social laws. after a very hard working with the help of laboroties etc we found some facts of universes and its is already mentioned in that book then what does it mean ?? then we have to see what God says about everything about existence about metaphycials things then we have to admit whatever He says and why He created everything and what He wants from us.

One interesting thing i like to share with u guys in the end..He says before creating the things He made one attribute compulsory to Him that is His merci. He said before creating i decided that i must showed my merci upon everyone in every situation. you dont see He doesnt interfare in the exam nor give immediate response at your bad doings killing etc. but He provided each n everyting necceassry for this test. He not only mentioned the questions and also gave the knowledge of the answers through messengers also set the situations and the things we need so that we can easily give time to that questions..

the most interesting thing i tell u about His promise showing His bounties and merci if u just consider that for the whole life one just have to solve a question " is there any God? ". if one fail to solve this question then is there any expectation should be made for the reward? a work which u dont do or complete would u ask for wages ? you know that i know a promise of God that if a person who in his full life come to the conclusion that " there is no god But Allah" the One and Only, and say one time from his mouth with fully understanding in his whole life, u know what is the reward is being promised by God? is there anyone who can give the answer ? who think God is like a beast they should listen the reward. Hell's fire cant touch that Man. this is also the promise of God. He is truthful. He is truth. He doesnt do against his words. take my word. He is the Man of word. is there anyone again who start a quarel that why i said Him "Man" as Man of word?
There is also a saying of Prophet that a person who shed a single tear in the way of God / in search/ in fear of going far away from Him/ in love of God also for this person Hell's fire has been forbidden. this is also a promise. then who is more poor busniness mind who know this and didnt save his/her trillions years of life unlimited life. ???

thanks ...

[Varenne Rodin]

Our scientists aren't afraid of A.I. Lots of their efforts have been blocked or slowed down by religious "ethics" groups. One thing is for sure, Google is smarter than me.

As for me "misunderstanding God," what is there to understand or misunderstand? Ramblings of lunatic humans. Rubbish.

[G L Wilson]

Only knowledge and understanding existed for Bertrand Russell, the ego and the soul were fallacies to him. For example, the man who rushes in trafific has a sort of knowledge but no understanding of any sort.

[Jack of Hearts]

Welcome back Mr. Wilson!






J

[Varenne Rodin]

Welcome back Mr. Wilson!


Seconded.

[G L Wilson]

Knowledge is a form of contempt, i.e., what is necessary, we sometimes neglect.

Thank you all for your kind regards.