I know God exists & the court of highest appeal is me.

I frequently have cause to make a statement along the lines of "I know God exists" or "I am as sure of God's existance as I am of the existance of this computer screen sat in front of me".Such statements are usually issued in response to folk who tell me that I "can only believe that God exists" or I "can only think that God exists but cannot be sure he does exist". They sometimes pose "how do you know it's God and not Shiva?" type questions too.How do I know it's God and not Shiva indeed! The simple answer is that everything I know to be the case relies in the first instance on my trusting my perception of reality to equate to actual reality. If my perception happens to line up with reality then what I know to be the case is actually the case. If my perception does not correspond to reality then what I know to be the case is not actually the case. It should be clear that there is no way for me to verify that any of my root perceptions correspond to any reality that might exist. It seems to be an automatic thing to simply assume they do correspond.Everyone (assuming my perception as to their existance is correct) is in the same boat as me, yet many here seem to suppose they are not. Ask some folk the question: "how do you know you are a walking, talking, embodied person - and not a brain in a jar?" and they immediately begin to reason in a circle. They point to aspects of the world outside (which they assume is real) to verify the reality of the world outside (which they assume is real). Or they dismiss the question as useless and in doing so, tacitly dismiss the question "how do you know it's God and not Shiva?" as useless.A number of such discussions are cluttering up threads so I figure to bring them under one roof here. If promoted I'll copy some posts I need to respond to here and reply.NB: I am not saying that my knowing God exists is offered as evidence for Gods existance (other than by weight of testimony alone). Nor am I saying that my knowing God exists says anything about God existing in any absolute sense. God exists for me just like everything else exists for me: I perceive him to exist and assume that this perception, like all other root perceptions regarding reality, actually reflects reality.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Assuming I can reword your biased phrasing I would tend to disagree. Your phrasing compares apples with pears. "Independently corroborated evidence" vs. "personal belief" engages in the kind of assumption you say you are logically avoiding. It would be better to say "perception of many" vs. "perception of the one"Assuming objective reality exists then it might not be perceived in the same way and to the same degree by all people. That 10,000 people perceive in fashion x and only 1 person in fashion y, means that different people perceive reality in different ways / to different extents. Truth - as in absolute truth - requires some way of stepping outside the reality in order to observe the reality in its totality. Truth is not arrived at by majority rule. I would disagree. That you don't exist doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. It could be that part of his interaction with me takes place in a virtual reality.You are right in saying that I have no means whereby I can absolutely demonstrate (to myself or others) that anything exists. Which only goes to demonstrate that knowing a thing - whilst the very highest we can attain to - doesn't mean it absolutely is the case. True. The perception of the one could be truer than the perception of the many - in absolute terms.

I don't. And I say that no one can. We just assume our perception of reality is what reality is.The point I am trying to make has less to do with engaging in existentialism. It has more to do with neutralising the existentialist objections some raise to my statement "I know God exists".They ask me "how do you know that what you perceive is real is real". I say "I don't know - and neither do you. So why raise such a dead-end objection?" I don't know if anything I know is the case (in absolute terms). I just assume that what I perceive as reality is real. Just like you do. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Not that your being inaccurate but it all sounds little artificial, Larni.You wouldn't apply such clunky language when it comes to believing that the reality you perceive to be objective is objective. You just say you know there is a pc screen on front of you. Nor would you use such clunky language to believe the thought you had 5 seconds ago actually occurred 5.87 (and counting) seconds ago. You would say you know you thought what you thought 9.6 seconds ago.Knowing might be considered 100% certain belief. At least as certain as the belief that the objective reality is indeed objective. You can't be more certain than that.

If you follow the section down I arrive at this conclusion.

A key point being made is that "appraisal of evidence" has nothing to do with our deciding that the reality we perceive is objective.We have no means to appraise whether we are brains in jars or walking talking beings - the evidence will appear the same to both.

My argument amounts to me saying I know God exists but cannot know whether my knowledge is objective knowledge or not.The preliminary point of my arguing so is to point out to everyone else that they sail in the same boat as me regarding anything they say they know.The concluding point of my arguing so is to stalemate the objection "how do you know it is God and not Shiva". The question is as useless as the question "how do you know you are not a brain in a jar" I know there is a pc screen on front of me just as much as I know that God exists and just as much as I know what I thought 5 seconds ago. I don't add "non-conclusively" to pc screens or thoughts. Nor do I to God.

The trouble is that you cannot tell which it is. This... ...won't tell you which it is. The brain in a jar can take a stroll in the countryside (lets call it a virtual countryside) as easily as can a 'real' person. That's the whole point of the dilemma of the brain in a jar.What I do is assume that my perception of being a 'real' person (and not a brain in a jar) accurately reflects whatever the reality might be. I cannot demonstrate this to be the case - even to myself. My trusting my perception to-be-the-case is the highest court of appeal for what is real and not.
For instance... Given that the reality in which these conclusions occur is an assumed-to-exist reality, all these conclusions are subject to that same assumption. I do indeed find out more about the assumed reality - just not in the sense of being enlightened as to the accuracy of my starting assumption. We might call all these assumed sub-conclusions...er...assumed sub-conclusions.I cannot test the overarching hypothesis: "I perceive reality as objective and external". Nor can I test the equally apparent hypothesis - the one called "I perceive God to exist" My being a brain in a jar means I exist and that the reality I perceive doesn't. The reality I perceive is being fed into my brain by scientists or something. It doesn't necessarily mean that God doesn't exist - not unless the scientist turns off that signal that is. As we might now see, neither of us can tell. I know what I assume and I think it's what you assume. I think we both assume our perception of reality is that it is objective and external to us.My perception happens to include you as real and God as real. Your only has me as real. Which is a matter of perception only.

True. What we can all say is that "I know x - subject to my perception of reality accurately reflecting whatever the actual reality happens to be."

Okay.- Stop!This is about the me making a statement born out of the position I find myself in. I'll modify "we are" to "I am" so as to highlight where the divergence in view might come from.- True.- True. Note that I do not assume they will perceive reality as I will perceive it. It seems obvious they don't. And there are also times when I can't tell whether they perceive it as I do: how do they see 'red' for instance?- Inserting "I" instead "we" results in me disagreeing. I perceive something and their perception differs from mine. They are 'wrong' only insofar as their perception differs from mine.- This is a confusing statement. Remembering that we are approaching this from my perspective: I don't assume something is true because others agree with me. I assume something is true based primarily on my trusting my own perceptions. Sometimes others agree with my perception, sometimes they don't. What occurs after that can vary. Sometimes my perception comes into line with theirs, sometimes it doesn't.- We might need to clarify the above confusion before progressing. To comment in the way I think I can though.By inserting "I" instead of "we", we can see that reproducibility indicates that I perceive the same thing in the same way again and again.- Agreed. Knowledge interchangeable with perception.- Inserting "I" for "we" again. Both God and monitor are personal perceptions. The monitor belongs to a class of my perception called perceptable by all others. God belongs to the category called perceptible to some others in not necessarily repeatable way.Then there are the contents of my thoughts - which belong to the category perceptable only to me (and God - assuming my perception reflects reality correctly)- Seeing as the monitor is deemed to belong in that category by virtue of it's satisfying the categories entry criteria perfectly, this statement is kind of circular.- Similarily circular?- Granted. But this is about the reality I perceive. Which includes the monitor and God. The fact "we" can perceive the one and not the other says only that in the totality of all my perceptions, some are shared by others at times and not shared by others at other times.I am still left as the highest court in assuming my perceptions as accurately reflecting reality. What another perceives is not necessarily here or there. I submit that everyone is in the same boat as me regarding whatever it is that forms the totality of their perceptions.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I use the word in much the same way as I use it in the sentence "I know what I thought 5 seconds ago" or "I know a bird flew past my window"

I do not necessarily agree.When you say "independantly corroborated" you mean by x number of similar individuals to the single individual whose individual perception is judged prone to error/delusion.But if the single individuals perception is prone to error then the multitudes perceptions are rendered suspect. x number perceiving the same thing tells us that x number perceive the same thing. Not that what they perceive less likely to be error prone than one particular individuals. You have not assumed objective reality true. But you have assumed that if true then majority perception will reflect that reality more truly.

I don't deny that nature has that effect on me - but then again I'm saved. I deny that a lost person must necessarily draw the conclusion "agoddidit" from nature. Note that Percy's OP placed the onus on the individual to conclude God from nature for themselves. As if man could work his way to God rather than God working his way to man.I'm not an evolutionist, I'm a creationist and for the duration of my post count here have never taken any other position. I've no idea how old the earth is but were it 6000 years old as some have calculated then I've no problem with that.

I've no idea. I can see why what I said might lead you to think what you thought (and led them to think what they thought too perhaps).Sometimes when fishing I can be a bit obscure. If the fish aren't biting like

Could I request some clarification Modulous? It has to do with a leap made out of the very area I am concentrating on. I'm going to insert "I" for "we" so as to underline my starting OP position. This option needs to be brought back into the play. It will become apparent why in a minute. To bring it back in, I, the possible brain-in-a-jar might respond to my own question thus:"It doesn't matter who I think I am discussing with. The apparent fact is that I am discussing with someone and it's more fun than doing nothing." There is no particular reason given by which I should pick "brain-in-jar" over "we-exist" (or vice versa). I seem to have automatically gone down the route of assuming my senses inform me about an reality external to myself. I have assumed what you suggest I assume. I have assumed.. The tests you give weight to appear to apply to matters occurring in the Post-Assumption-Zone. They don't seem to be intended for evaluating the accuracy or otherwise of the inital assumption suggested by you ("we exist")But the point of the OP is that God is as real to my senses as is the reality you suggest I assume exists. I don't test the "we exist" assumption (for want of a way of doing so) nor do I test the assumption "God exists" (for want of a way of doing so).How should I progress with your post?Edited by iano, : No reason given.