Proving God's Existence Undermines Faith

Are you certain of this? Apparently not. Thus it is possible to be 100% certain of something. But I digress... Lets not point to a derivitive of something to tell the something that derived it how to go about its business. Science is founded people who know (better than they can know anything else) that they exist. These people have observations about what they, as existing beings, subsequently perceive around them. Science is a derivitive of them knowing they exist. Appeals go up to the supreme court of "I exist" not down to the district court of the petri- dish.If many many people do not know God exists (yet) then all their combined derivitive evidence is worthless against the case of a single individual who knows that he does. Happily the numbers are anything but as skewed as that! If one expects no answers then one embarks in expectation of living a gap-filled life. It seems to be less about not needing God to fill in the gaps and more about not caring whether the gap are filled. Everymans choice. But its early days yet RjB. Those gaps may well become excruciating. If they do, please do remember the parable of the prodigal son. Will you?

Your treacle to my fudge. You wot?

Do you have any empirical evidence to back this up, or is this just another rational assertion?Needless to say, I'd take the empirical observations of many over your certainty.If I told you that it was safe to jump off a building because I was certain that God told me you'd float, would you jump or would you trust the empirical observations of science?This message has been edited by RickJB, 05-11-2006 07:49 AM

Er..this is the faith and belief forum RjB. Emipical evidence might be your currency, but it ain't the currency here. Not at all, I'd know that you worshipped as false a god as the one you acutally do when you kneel at the altar of empiricism

No you can't. But who says Descartes is right? "I am therefore I think" would allow another I AM to row alongside my own I AM and let me know that "I AM too" Reliability can ultimately only be defined by the person themselves. To what other authority can anyone go in order to ascertain relability? An authority I stress, that stands above the individuals ability to know that what they know is reliable? Would I look to people who don't know what I know? Hardly. Or to people who say they know what I know. Hardly. Both can comment - but in the end if a man decides what he knows is reliable then there is no higher court to appeal open to him.If he cannot be reliably informed by himself then he cannot expect to be reliabely informed by any other man. Now can he?This is not to say we are not a playstation game. But in far so as a man can know anything reliably....then that is all there is. His decision is final. A belief is something that stems from knowing God exists. A belief is simply holding that what he says about something is true. I believe the parting of the Red Sea happened - despite any scientific argument to the contrary - because I believe what he says when he speaks to me through his word. I AM's are people. They do more than simply exist.But some beliefs are less nailed down than others because I accept that my thinking might be askew in areas. I might be picking him up wrong. So I wouldn't be as dogmatic about my belief about the activity and purpose of the Holy Spirit indwelling in me as I would my belief that salvation is by faith alone. For example.Knowing God is a bit like knowing anyone else. Once somebody introduces themselves you know they exist. That is concrete. But after that you have to actually get to 'know about' them. And misunderstandings can arise in that realm of knowing. As you go on then more stuff transfers from the fluid into the area of simply "knowing because I know". Salvation by faith alone is an example of a belief turned concrete.This message has been edited by iano, 11-May-2006 01:47 PM

Good. So that's a no then. Nice to have an answer! So it would follow that there is no way of establishing that your certainty (belief) is any more valid than another's, yes?As to the question of jumping, you said you wouldn't because:- Mmmmmmm. Now before you said this:- But now you yourself have just admitted that you would refuse to trust the certainty of another's faith! Doesn't this actually show how worthless your own certainty is when it comes to applying it to the world at large?More to the point, if you refuse to trust the validity of another's rational certainty, then how can you expect others to trust yours?This message has been edited by RickJB, 05-11-2006 08:55 AM

It wasn't an answer, it was telling you not to try to pay for goods in a currency which has no value in this country. I never asked anybody to trust the certainty of my knowledge. I certainly wouldn't place my trust on a matter as serious as this on anyone elses certainty about it (such people are usually called 'the flock' and for good reason). The point was: If I cannot trust my own knowledge on this as being reliable then who elses (secondhand to me) knowledge or its derivitive, empiricism, should I trust?You can repeat self-refuting "no-one can know anything" mantras all day long. Nobody actually believes that in real world land where I live

You have stated this several times before and I still would contend that you draw a false parallel between knowing you exist (because you and independent observers of any kind can repeatably demonstate that you are in fact real) and knowing your god exists (because you have only the evidence of your perceptions that has not been independently verified).That is just plain wrong.

Reversing Descartes' cogito would require you to be aware of your existence without thought which would appear to be problematic to say the least.Even if it were valid it would not be very helpful. It could only let you conclude that if anything else capable of thought existed it could think. (Unless you take it as concluding that anything that exists can think which seems rather silly).

quote:

---

Reliability can ultimately only be defined by the person themselves

---

No, it can't If that were true convincing yourself that you were infallible would really make you infallible. Instead it is likely to make your beliefs less reliable as it would render unable to admit and correct errors.

quote:

---

A belief is something that stems from knowing God exists. A belief is simply holding that what he says about something is true.

---

This is obviously untrue. Because I don't doubt that you claim to know other things than "God exists", and that you beleive things, that God has not said to be true. Moreover simply labelling one belief "knowledge" for no reason represents an attempt to beg the question. So this answer obviously won't do.

On a personal level, one can place trust in friends, family or God - but one just can't expect those relationships to have any meaning outside one's personal life. Trust to your own faith AND accept that others must trust to theirs in the same way.On a scientific level, the key point to placing trust in science is it's depersonalisation - its ideas are based on the amalgamation of empirical observations from many sources. This limits any potential for ideological bias and allows for constant testing. One has to accept, however, that all answers are provisional and subject to further revison. Nothing is settled for all time.Say you go to a doctor, Would you prefer he use his training (the accumulated knowledge of medical science) to help you, or the certainies of his own faith?

Although I don't believe Descartes was right ("I think therfore I am"), he seemed to see the same problem with your point as I do. You are relying on the observations of other unverified selfs to verify the existance your own self ("they think therefore I am"). This is circular.In trying to circumvent this problem Descartes sought verification from witin. Self verification. Which also has its obvious problems. For what can verify itself without being laughed out of court?It would seem that in order to verify that I am a self, I need something outside and 'bigger' than me against which to verify myself. Something solid from which to push off. God at least fits.

All well and good but if the way of determining reality (by the use of multiple possibly unverified sources of verification i.e. ones self and other selves) is flawed, then your way of verifiying your experience (let alone existance) with only unverified verifier i.e. you and only you (good grief this gets convoluted) is vastly more flawed and prone to error.

Dunno about that. People have (myself included) become aware of a state where they can observe the thought process going on in a very detached way: no emotion about the thoughts being observed as they form and move, no thought about the thoughts being thought. Sitting above and seperate to the thoughts as it were.The will, I found, steers the thoughts. Blip and the thoughts would go in this direction. Blip and they would go in that direction. My will threw in the blips - but I wasn't thinking about it. 'I' just wanted it that way. Just raw want. No thought required for want. Thought is just the higher of all the ways one can express will. Who said anything about convincing oneself. One doesn't have to convince oneself that one exists. One know one exists - or I do at least.If reliability about what one knows doesn't ultimately come down to what I know, then where else could it be sought? Please don't say 'from others' - for I cannot use 'others' reliability-unknown knowledge as a means to evaluate the reliability of my own knowledge. That would raise the spectre of I know on the basis of what others know. But whose to say they are right? Majority rule or something? As an aside, do you know you exist or do you just believe you exist. If you say you know you exist then how do you know that (preferably without referring to derivatives of that 'knowing' to support the case)

"Observing" your thoughts requires you to be thinking - otherwise there would be nothing to observe. Your argument requires you make an observation and draw a conclusion from that observation without thinking.

quote:

---

Who said anything about convincing oneself

---

I did. According to you each individual is the highest authority on the reliability of their beliefs. It follows then that if someone believes that they are infallible they really are - or at least no higher authority could say otherwise.

quote:

---

If reliability about what one knows doesn't ultimately come down to what I know, then where else could it be sought? Please don't say 'from others' - for I cannot use 'others' reliability-unknown knowledge as a means to evaluate the reliability of my own knowledge

---

Well you could actually look at how you arrive at a belief, and see if that method works for you in other cases - and if it works for others. Now in the case of faith so far as we can tell it DOESN'T work for some people and we can't see that it does work for anybody. So we can't rationally hold that such beliefs are certain.

quote:

---

As an aside, do you know you exist or do you just believe you exist. If you say you know you exist then how do you know that (preferably without referring to derivatives of that 'knowing' to support the case)

---

I use "know" to refer to beliefs which are in my estimation highly likely to be true and which can be rationally justified. Colloquially I might not even bother to consider the issue of justification, although I would change my mind if I found it that it couldn't be justified.If I were being really strict I would (largely) go with Descartes and assert that my own existence (in some form) is about the only thing that can be known in an absolute sense.

Its not possibly unverified but that they are not verified. Andit isn't that such a system is flawed, it is that it is not in a position to comment in this case. It has nothing at all to say about the knowledge a person has.Thus whilst it may suppose that an indivuals assessment of reliability of knowledge is open to being flaw it has no particular reason to suppose so one way or the other in the individual case. There is no data with which to consider probabilities or possibilites either way. It must remain silent unless it can think of a way to pull itself up by its own bootstraps