Is it a belief?

[juanluna]

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."

[cacian]

God is a generic word for a higher being. Faith is to think there is another life somewhere else.
To assume it is a HE is shorsighted. To assume a higher being is unique and rules by himself is dictatorship of another kind.

[Phocion]

Of course it is: belief does not constitute knowledge in any way.

[blazeofglory]

Belief is blind faith, something that does not hinge on any logical conclusion

[bulfinch]

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."

"I have faith in God" doesn't mean what you think it means. Having faith in God constitutes belief in God's judgements.


Of course it is: belief does not constitute knowledge in any way.

belief constitues spiritual knowledge. a kind of knowledge that doesn't rely on reason of any kind.

[Freudian Monkey]

To me "I know God exists" means roughly the same as "I don't want to explore the foundations of my belief" or "I'm not willing to learn about other people's views". It's a mantra that by default rejects all opposing arguments.

[cafolini]

To say that God does not exist is the same as saying pastrami does not exist. I prefer pepperoni. But why would an atheist find a need to talk about talk that doesn't exist?
ROFLMAO

[Paulclem]

To me "I know God exists" means roughly the same as "I don't want to explore the foundations of my belief" or "I'm not willing to learn about other people's views". It's a mantra that by default rejects all opposing arguments.

How do you explain late conversions and conversions from one religion to another? How do you explain scientists with faith? One thing I have noticed is the assumption that people who have some faith are stupid for their belief. In fact they have experienced what others can't access- even people of the same faith, and come to their own conclusions. Others rely on their culture and family to guide them. That's not an illogical thing to do.

[cafolini]

How do you explain late conversions and conversions from one religion to another? How do you explain scientists with faith? One thing I have noticed is the assumption that people who have some faith are stupid for their belief. In fact they have experienced what others can't access- even people of the same faith, and come to their own conclusions. Others rely on their culture and family to guide them. That's not an illogical thing to do.

One good way of putting it. I agree. Still it could be translated to some form of thousands of mantras apart from the most popular ones.

For exaple Wooouuu, Seeeeee, Peeeeee, Etceteraaaaa.

[E.A Rumfield]

Everyone has their own bs reason for living. Some people come up with quite beautiful excuses, other more boring people just use the God bs.

[caddy_caddy]

belief constitues spiritual knowledge. a kind of knowledge that doesn't rely on reason of any kind.

I liked your term " the spiritual knowledge " but unfortunately because we live in a materialistic world most do not take it seriously.
You know , everyday when taking the bus I meet Syrian refugee. I ask myself how don't they collapse ? They lost everything behind them ; some have one plastic bag others don't have except their clothes; they have no future ; most of them don't know where to go, yet you feel they are strong people and you admire them. You ask yourself from where do they get this strength?
My neighbor is Syrain; some of her relatives come to her . When I ask them how are u doing ? They answer " alhamdullillah :Thanks to God !!!
It's very strange to thank God even in that horrible situation!!
That's the difference between a believer and a non-believer.
They are not angry of God; they don't blame Him for their suffering ; they don't accuse him of being evil and allowing evil.
Never, never , never.
That's very astonishing!!
On the contrary they get more attached to God and their faith go stronger.
you cannot understand this unless u see that strength in their souls; how they are able to cope with their situation and never surrender. I feel ashamed of myself when I'm depressed and they are not.
The strength they feel by their bond with God is for them the evidence for his existence.
Are they stupid because they do so ? Is it really necessary to argue with those people and ask them about an empirical evidence for what they think?
What does matter if it's an illusion or reality ?
It's their only way of survival , so let it be; Wether it's a fancy , a lie ; let it be.
It's sth very subjective and it 's not neccessary to objectify it to prove we are rational and not idiot.
I always think that God be "exists" for those who want Him to exist. If u asK Him to be ( exist)He will answer you and be( exist)for you.
The existence / Being is sth subjective not objective. You want God to exist to believe in Him.
I think it's the other way : Believe in God and He will be for you.

[Freudian Monkey]

How do you explain late conversions and conversions from one religion to another? How do you explain scientists with faith? One thing I have noticed is the assumption that people who have some faith are stupid for their belief. In fact they have experienced what others can't access- even people of the same faith, and come to their own conclusions. Others rely on their culture and family to guide them. That's not an illogical thing to do.

The people who convert from one mode of belief to another obviously see that something in their previous mode of belief was lacking, do they not?

Most people who use the phrase "I know God exists" use it as a rhetoric phrase, since often such rhetoric statements are a part of their sociocultural environment and it's meant to strengthen the cohesion of the community in question, among other things. At least that's my humble understanding of most religious communities. I don't claim that people who use the phrase are stupid, but rather that most of them never even question the meaning of the statement due to it's rhetoric nature or they simply have limited point of reference.

As I said before, the phrase "I know God exists" by default rejects all opposing arguments, which makes it a truly unphilosophical and arrogant statement. Believing in god's existence is thoroughly acceptable choice, but to say that one knows that god exists is not something that falls under Socrates' definition of wisdom.

[Paulclem]

The people who convert from one mode of belief to another obviously see that something in their previous mode of belief was lacking, do they not?

That was my point.

Most people who use the phrase "I know God exists" use it as a rhetoric phrase

I'm sorry, but neither I nor you know most people. The best we can say is in my experience.

but rather that most of them never even question the meaning of the statement due to it's rhetoric nature or they simply have limited point of reference.

I think we can agree that we've met people who are like this, but most? I don't think people are generally illogical. There are reasons for their belief - culture, experiences, examples of others, family. My point is that there are too many peope who hold a belief in God for them to be dismissed and labelled as being subject to inferior though/ thinking.

"I know God exists" by default rejects all opposing arguments

By the time they have got to that statement, one would hope that a person has considered it in all its implications, and I'm sure many do. As I said, there are people who would or could not.

By the way - I missed your post, hence my late reply.

[Freudian Monkey]

The people who convert from one mode of belief to another obviously see that something in their previous mode of belief was lacking, do they not?

That was my point.

Wouldn't an experience like this make a person more conscious of the fact that his/her faith may not be the only absolute truth and maybe a little cautious for using phrases like "I know so-and-so exists"?


Most people who use the phrase "I know God exists" use it as a rhetoric phrase

I'm sorry, but neither I nor you know most people. The best we can say is in my experience.

Granted, we're all trapped in our little hermeneutic sandboxes. But the point I'm making still stands. The phrase is often used as nothing more than a rhetoric statement without taking into account it's philosophical implications.



but rather that most of them never even question the meaning of the statement due to it's rhetoric nature or they simply have limited point of reference.

I think we can agree that we've met people who are like this, but most? I don't think people are generally illogical. There are reasons for their belief - culture, experiences, examples of others, family. My point is that there are too many peope who hold a belief in God for them to be dismissed and labelled as being subject to inferior though/ thinking.

"I know God exists" by default rejects all opposing arguments

By the time they have got to that statement, one would hope that a person has considered it in all its implications, and I'm sure many do. As I said, there are people who would or could not.

By the way - I missed your post, hence my late reply.

Unfortunately I don't share your optimistic view of people as thoroughly intelligent beings that are highly conscious of all the factors that affect their behavior. Again I've never said that religious people are inferior, at most I imply that they have limited point of reference to the rhetoric statement in question. It's similar to implying that Albert Einstein had limited point of reference to New Guinean initiation rites, but this doesn't make him an idiot savant, does it? In highly cohesive communities where everyone "knows" that god exists, this phrase easily becomes an inductive truism that even highly intelligent members of the community rarely question. We all have limited points of reference to many topics.

[Paulclem]

Wouldn't an experience like this make a person more conscious of the fact that his/her faith may not be the only absolute truth and maybe a little cautious for using phrases like "I know so-and-so exists"?

.

Yes, so there are people - believers - who, whilst having committed to the religion are generally tolerant and also better aware of other religious ideas.

[Paulclem]

Granted, we're all trapped in our little hermeneutic sandboxes. But the point I'm making still stands. The phrase is often used as nothing more than a rhetoric statement without taking into account it's philosophical implications.



Unfortunately I don't share your optimistic view of people as thoroughly intelligent beings that are highly conscious of all the factors that affect their behavior. Again I've never said that religious people are inferior, at most I imply that they have limited point of reference to the rhetoric statement in question. It's similar to implying that Albert Einstein had limited point of reference to New Guinean initiation rites, but this doesn't make him an idiot savant, does it? In highly cohesive communities where everyone "knows" that god exists, this phrase easily becomes an inductive truism that even highly intelligent members of the community rarely question. We all have limited points of reference to many topics.

Perhaps we are bobbing around the balance of probabilities of how many are unthinking of their religion, and those who are more considered. We could both probably point to examples of both in our experience.

[Freudian Monkey]

Yes, so there are people - believers - who, whilst having committed to the religion are generally tolerant and also better aware of other religious ideas.

And, after realising that their previous mode of belief was flawed, maybe less eager to use phrases like "I know so-and-so exists"?


Perhaps we are bobbing around the balance of probabilities of how many are unthinking of their religion, and those who are more considered. We could both probably point to examples of both in our experience.

You're right, we are. Maybe it's more constructive to debate 'ought' rather than 'is'. Do you agree that if people would be more considerate and aware of other modes of belief apart from their own, they would be less likely to use phrases like "I know so-and-so exists"? If so, whould this be a preferable state of affairs?

[BienvenuJDC]

I am one of those people that believe that the earth is round and that the sun in the center of our solar system (but not the center of the universe). However, I also know that the earth is round, and I also know that the sun is the center of our solar system. Does anyone here know that all matter is comprised of atoms? It is a possibility that there are people out there that have studied the evidence enough that they CAN know that there is an Almighty Supernatural Creator. What is rather humorous is that there are people in this thread that think that they KNOW that someone else CAN'T know something that they themselves have dismissed as unknowable. How would you know that?

[Freudian Monkey]

I am one of those people that believe that the earth is round and that the sun in the center of our solar system (but not the center of the universe). However, I also know that the earth is round, and I also know that the sun is the center of our solar system. Does anyone here know that all matter is comprised of atoms? It is a possibility that there are people out there that have studied the evidence enough that they CAN know that there is an Almighty Supernatural Creator. What is rather humorous is that there are people in this thread that think that they KNOW that someone else CAN'T know something that they themselves have dismissed as unknowable. How would you know that?

As of today the existence of god is not verifiable by empirical evidence. The existence of atoms and the sun being the center of our solar system on the other hand can and have been scientifically verified. You don't have to believe in these theories to know that they are true as long as you understand the scientific theories that prove their validity. On the other hand you have to take a leap of faith to "know" that god does or doesn't exist, since science doesn't offer an answer to that question. I'm sure that unphilosophical people who lived before the Copernican Revolution unswervingly believed, or rather they knew, that earth was the center of the universe since all available knowledge seemed to lead to that conclusion. To me this is rather humorous.

I argue that Socrates was right about the nature of wisdom.

[cacian]

As of today the existence of god is not verifiable by empirical evidence. The existence of atoms and the sun being the center of our solar system on the other hand can and have been scientifically verified. You don't have to believe in these theories to know that they are true as long as you understand the scientific theories that prove their validity. On the other hand you have to take a leap of faith to "know" that god does or doesn't exist, since science doesn't offer an answer to that question. I'm sure that unphilosophical people who lived before the Copernican Revolution unswervingly believed, or rather they knew, that earth was the center of the universe since all available knowledge seemed to lead to that conclusion. To me this is rather humorous.

I argue that Socrates was right about the nature of wisdom.
I think the nature of belief is intricate and complex. The human mind is very sensitive and can overload and becomes jammed. So the more theories and fallacies and the more skepticism disbelief and disregard. The belief of god in the nature of thing is not vital and conditional and therefore one can do with or without. It is subjective and entirely personal.
Arguing for or against is just another ongoing theoretical mismanagement of ides men wish to embody themselves with because it is easier and requires less effort. Intellectually it is not stimulating.
What is however more interesting is to further out those beliefs into something more useful and practical such as the belief in one self. That in the grand schemes of thing is more urgent but more rewarding in the long term. Religions unfortunately do not advance in intellectual capability but what does is the power to think for oneself and not rely on others.
At the center of all religions is a god. At the center of a human body is a mind. Why not use that instead. At least we know we have one.

[Freudian Monkey]

I think the nature of belief is intricate and complex. The human mind is very sensitive and can overload and becomes jammed. So the more theories and fallacies and the more skepticism disbelief and disregard. The belief of god in the nature of thing is not vital and conditional and therefore one can do with or without. It is subjective and entirely personal.
Arguing for or against is just another ongoing theoretical mismanagement of ides men wish to embody themselves with because it is easier and requires less effort. Intellectually it is not stimulating.
What is however more interesting is to further out those beliefs into something more useful and practical such as the belief in one self. That in the grand schemes of thing is more urgent but more rewarding in the long term. Religions unfortunately do not advance in intellectual capability but what does is the power to think for oneself and not rely on others.
At the center of all religions is a god. At the center of a human body is a mind. Why not use that instead. At least we know we have one.

I agree with most of what you said. Arguing about dogmatic concepts isn't always intellectually constructive, but unfortunately they're a necessity for the conversation to meet certain standards. However if you mean to imply that all intellectual debating about unknowable concepts is not stimulating and therefore not important, I have to disagree. If there is no discussion about unknowable concepts, we can never reach a consensus about matters related to them. If there is no discussion, people have no means for wholly understanding why unknowable concepts are unknowable.

[osho]

Who said God does not exist?

God is not there
God is in the here
God is not a separable entity

There is no no-god situation
Everything has godliness
Grains of sand, leaves of trees,
Mountains and hills
Rivers and rivulets

I do not see anything other than God
God is not a statue

Or a particular prayer we make in sermonic ways
Not a worship we perform at monasteries, mosques or temples
God dwells everywhere

This universe is God manifestation

I do not know there is anything other than Godliness

I have no words to identify or disambiguate God
I have no metaphors, idols and ideals or labels
All submerge into something ineffable

We are on the reverse path
The way our religious beliefs lead us nowhere

Return home for you are straying
Find God in your own abode

Your elder parents want worship
Your tender tots want care
Your society need charity

Your work is your devotion

Pray through soothing words

Rather than noising in a closed chamber

You call temple, mosque, Gurudwara, monastery

[cacian]

We could to compare god to my theory of a coin a pound in money. If you take a coin and place it in your hand you feel its weight. The weight is as much the pound/coin proof of existence then it is with one's faith with god. Once the coin is out sight the weight is forgotten but the image or the look of it we retain. Memory favours looks shapes over weight.
So all in all whilst we are not able to retain what god is in terms of meanings or our belief of god existence we can certainly memorize its concept and the image of what god may or may not represent. It really is that simple.

[osho]

Cacain's postulation is noteworthy when it comes to understanding God. God is not the thing, the object but what is in the thing. The apple and its dimension are not opportune. and even the color is immaterial and the essence is finally the taste that melts down into our body.

God is not what we take them to be but what remains after all else and faith goes with this