How do we decide about "things"?

Shortly after my starting here, Crash asked a similar question in passing that has locked in my brain ever since. And one he hasn't being shy in reiterating.How does one explain what it is to know something outside the classic way of knowing things that I exercised for the 38 years I lived prior to being born again?I know God exists and I know that I am a child of his and I know I am going to heaven. All 100% for certain. I am not 100% certain that the flood occurred nor that ToE isn't true. I am convinced the flood happened and I am convinced that ToE is not true. But I do not know these things. I am just convinced given the evidence of other things that I know allied with evidence which seems to point in a particular direction.For 38 years I relied on empiricism in effect (empiricism being all that is received through the 5 senses (and any other natural senses there may be). There were many things I knew without knowing how I knew them but would have had the sense that, had I the time to figure it all out, there would be empirical reasons for my knowing what I knew. "Gut feeling" and "6th sense" would have been names I would have applied (out of convenience) to those things which I knew but had not the time nor interest to trace back, empirically to their empirical source. I would have assumed (and it is probably still the case in many instances of things that I know or knew) that had I the time or inclination, I would be able to trace back those things to their empirical origins. Empirical counts for a lot of what I know. The majority of what I know - if not the most significant of what I know.I'll have a think about your questions and will get back. I can answer but the questions deserve the best answer I can give.Ponder...ponder...ponder

Ya know, maybe it's because I'm having a bad day. Or maybe it's because the first thread I visited today when I came to this site was the pathetic philosophical BS ramble crappola fest put out by Rob here: Message 173. But whatever the cause, I'm tired of reading this sort of nonsense. You know what iano, it's impossible for you to "know" God exits, or that you're a child of his, or that there really is a heaven (let alone whether or not you'll be going there). That is unless, of course, you use a radically different definition of what it means to know something, as proposed by NosyNed in his OP. Oh really? And what is this evidence that supports (or I guess I should say "convinced you of") the Global Flood...other than the Bible? Being convinced of something does not directly correlate with knowing something.For instance: Based on the many other threads in which you have participated, I am convinced that you believe God exists, that you're his kid, and that you'll be going to heaven. However, in reality, I do not know any of those things (and neither do you).Edited by FliesOnly, : Edited to replace a sentence that I somehow mistakenly deleted.Edited by FliesOnly, : Edited to reflect the new knowledge I gained thanks to Jar..."Thanks Jar!"

in your browser address bar will be the url of whatever thread you are reading. It will end in a string that is f=some number, t=some number and m=some number. Those stand for forum, thread and message. If you usemsg=f,t,m in bracketsit will point to a particular message. For example the message you mention is Message 173.You may also use Peek mode to see exactly what was done.

---

http://EvC Forum: How do we decide about "things"? -->EvC Forum: How do we decide about "things"?The above is what happens if I click on the first page and cut and past the contents of the address line (in Internet Explorer) here. If I wanted to copy msg 2 instead I'd copy the above line then edit the coding myself at the end inserting the message number I want to refer to ...=1 becomes ...=2#2. Just like belowhttp://EvC Forum: How do we decide about "things"? -->EvC Forum: How do we decide about "things"? I don't get how you say this. All that has to happen for me to know God exists is for God to exist and for him to reveal himself to me. Patently both of these are possible.He is not to be detected with our 5 senses (not that he couldn't make himself detectable thus - he could). The detector is our spirit which though by default dead (non-operational) and unable to detect the evidence of God, can be brought alive. If it is, like a radio, switched on and tuned in then it will receive the signal that saturates the spiritual airwaves. Spirit is the equipment that operates in this zone, the way physical body is the equipment that operated in this physical zone. The Bible describes man: who he is, what he is like, what he can be expected to do, his hatred of God (as default position), his willingness to go to any lengths to deny Gods call on him etc. His deep desire (as a sinner) to remain independant from God. That is, if you like, a theory about man. So I look at the evidence and I see that man fits how the Bible describes him down to a T.Take the gospel for example. Romans is the book where the gospel is explained in most complete, systematic fashion. The very central fallacy held by fallen mankind and one which Paul demolishes, is mans tendency to hold that he himself can make himself right with God by how he lives his life. "If I live a good life I'll be okay with God" is his thinking. That is the hypothesis if you like. And when I go test it I find this to be exactly the case.All the worlds Religions (Christian directed or otherwise: I use a small 'r' for Christianity as a religion) have man striving to position himself favorably w.r.t. whatever the God/god happens to be. It doesn't matter if its a personal god or some state to be entered into (such as Enlightenment). Man is the one who has to get himself there. All the worlds Religions: you are talking about billions of people here.Casual chats with many many folk who do not believe in God or have some quasi-belief as a result of upbringing reveal the same thing. "God will be okay with me, I'm not such a bad chap" or "If God exists he will be okay with me, I'm not such a bad chap"Try it yourself: God can exist. This you would accept. There can be a Heaven and a Hell. This you would accept. Now, if it turned out there was which do you think God would send you to if you died this minute (God forbid)? And why?Even athiests seem to reckon on striving for some moral standard to be a good thing. They say it is for a), b), c) reasons. They are as horrified as anyone else with rape, murder, greed etc and condemn these things. They reject God but strive to obtain to the same levels that the works-based Religionists suppose God is interested in them achieving. The rational behind it might be different, it might be called humanism instead of Roman Catholicism - the end striven for the same. Reaching a higher moral standard.Its such a universally occuring thing, the one single thinking that the gospel seeks to deflect a man away from, that I cannot but be convinced that the Bible Theory of Man is true.That kind of thing is how I get convinced of things. The evidence fits the theory perfectly.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

You have no evidence, though. You have a bunch of information - your feelings, your untestable proclamations about spirits - which cannot be distinguished from your imagination.The critical feature of real evidence is that it is discernable from falsehood. There's no limit on what can be made-up. (As a friend of mine once said, "the easiest thing in the world is coming up with wrong ideas.")Should I repeat that? Anything can be made-up. That's important. But when everybody has the same sensory experience without agreeing on it beforehand, that's real evidence. All the people who believe in the same God you do have simply been told beforehand what to make up. The proof of this is that people who have never been exposed to Christianity do not have the experience of Jesus Christ (for instance.)Surely you must realize that the information you think you're recieving from your spirit radio can't be distinguished from information that you're simply making up in your imagination. That's why it isn't evidence of any kind - it can't be distingushed from make-believe.

There are some things that we emperically know as well, Iano. We know that we are easily fooled and the more we want to be fooled the more we are. Many different psychological effects (which can be reproduced over and over) affect what we think we "know".As Buz, Rob, Faith and others have pointed out scientists are human and fallable and can be fooled or fool themselves. We know this.That is why, slowly, over the last few centuries, the scientific method - based on empericisim but with a lot of other methods - has been developed to reduce the effects of our individual foibles and failings. (e.g., why do you think the controlled double-blind approach is the "gold" standard in medicine?).Once you allow any other kind of "knowing" how to you handle the concerns about all those psychological effects?Edited by NosyNed, : spelling errors

Here you go Crash...

They are bypassed in the most disarmingly simple way. I am not reliant on me for my knowing. You would have to suppose that God is unable to inform me accurately as to his existance.How do I know God exists for certain. Because God is capable of ensuring there is no mistake on my part. He is the one who brings a persons spirit alive. He is the one who presents the evidence. I have no part to play in him doing this. I do nothing at all. And so there is no mistake to be made by me.

C'mon, Iano.Hell is always for other people. It's a fundamental feature of the construct. Do you really think I can't make up something called "God" who likes atheists better?Could you try and address my point, now?

No. We merely need to recognize that you have no way of discerning the difference between God talking to you and you talking to yourself. Moreover, we have no way of knowing, so your testimony is meaningless.If God was talking to you, you would be the only one. That makes it fairly unlikely. Only if he exists. If he doesn't exist, there's nobody to make sure you're not making things up. God could even exist and simply choose not to correct you.Just because he's capable - and even that's arguable, contingent as it is on his existence - doesn't mean he will. Except think about it. That's enough.

Are you saying the God cannot let me know he exists? That there is something operating that would prevent him doing so?What would that be? I ask you to concentrate on his not being able to resolve the problem rather than me being the problem. Patently nothing I can do could prevent him doing this.

It seemed like a simple enough test to take. But if you do not want to thats fine.

I stand corrected. Have you seen any burning bushes lately? See above. Or so you say...or so you are convinced...but yet you do not "know" this. So my radio is turned off or perhaps turned on but at the wrong frequency? And you know this (either way...on or off) how? Again this is all nice a comfy to assume. And I am completely sure that you are convinced of this...but yet you do not "know" it, iano.Look all the stuff you wrote was a wonderful philosophical argument. It flowed nicely and was fun to read, but when you finish with:I have to step back and say "wha?" You presented no evidence and you have no theory, so I fail to see how you can make this statement.

So your answer to the KNOWN problems of a psychological nature is to simple ignore them and pretend that they don't exist?btw, I'd like to get this off "god existing or not" - since that is likely to be a serious side track. Why don't we stick with something that could be both emperically "known" about and "known" by your method (like the flood or somesuch)? That is, if we must have concrete examples.

One of two things: his nonexistence, or his disinterest.Even if God could be doing it, the much more likely explanation is that you are simply letting yourself know that God "exists." Why are you so special that God is going to prevent you from being wrong? And if you contend the opposite, why are you wrong so often? If he doesn't exist, he's not able. Even if he exists and is able, that doesn't mean that he does. God may have absolutely no interest in correcting your misapprehensions or preventing you from excercizing your imagination. In fact it's a little ridiculous to suggest that, if God exists, he has any interest in monkeying around inside your head to prevent you from believing the wrong thing, when it's obvious that billions of people are allowed to believe the completely wrong thing. I mean, millions don't even believe that God even exists. If God is reaching down to ensure you don't fool yourself, why isn't he doing the same for them?