How certain are we that God exists?

[KingCoil]

Welcome to this thread, please read post 1 and post 101, for a proper orientation to the thread. Thanks. * See below for the reproduction of posts 1 and 101. ]*

===========================

Now, let us all go into the four definitions from posters here.

#178 from KingCoil
Certain means that a piece of information like there is a nose in our face can be verified again and again if we doubt it, by applying our senses like sight to experience its presence.

#186 from Ypopp
The level of certainty of the existence of something depends on probability of the existence of a possible alternative. The lower the probability of the possible alternative, the higher the level of certainty. Absolute certainty means that the something to which it refers has no alternative, 2+2=4 for example.

#208 from Sapien
A state of having a feeling of confidence for an idea/proposition or feeling of trustworthiness for an object or person.

#214 from Jochoa
a firm belief directly proportional to the perceived alignment of the reasonable analysis of one's environment and an object in question.

I think I should take on a new tack.

Let each author explain his definition.

Here, I will start.

#178 from KingCoil
Certain means that a piece of information like there is a nose in our face can be verified again and again if we doubt it, by applying our senses like sight to experience its presence.

The purpose of a definition of a word or a concept which is represented by a word is to enable a human who is literate to proceed from the definition of the word/concept to identify the object, event, situation, etc. existing in the factual reality of the universe outside his mind, corresponding to the word/concept in his mind.

So, the definition of the words, certain, certainty, must enable the literate human to go forth in the universe outside his mind to know or to point out, from the definition, to himself and to others what objects, events, situations, etc. are certain or are endowed with certainty.

Now we humans go to the question, who or what is certain or endowed with certainty, that is part of the definition of a word/concept: to be able to answer who or what is certain or endowed with certainty.

The who is man or man’s mind, and the what is about something outside a man’s mind to be existing.

Read my definition of certain:
#178 from KingCoil
Certain means that a piece of information like there is a nose in our face can be verified again and again if we doubt it, by applying our senses like sight to experience its presence.

What is man or we humans certain about or have certainty about? In my definition I say that man or we humans are certain about a piece of information, like for example the information that there is a nose in the face of man.

And why are we certain? Because we have had the experience all the time that we touch a nose in our face, we see a nose in our face, we can point to the nose in our face to folks who don’t know the meaning of the word nose in English.

At this point, I will just jump to the idea that the foundation of certainty in man is his experience; if you have never experienced the nose in your face, because you owing to a freak accident when you were born you lost your nose, but as you live with fellow humans, you can and do experience with your sight and touch the nose in the face of everyone else.

So, you have two pieces of information that are certain for you, namely, * I don’t have a nose, but [ii] everyone else has a nose.

Now, some smart guy asks you how can you be certain that you have no nose and everyone else has a nose, or prove to me that you have no nose and others everyone has a nose?

You tell the smart guy, Try to pinch my nose if you can, but I can pinch your nose, and if you don’t believe me that I can pinch your nose, then I will get a sledge hammer and hit your nose with it.

Now, read again my definition of certain (and certainty) the word and the concept,

#178 from KingCoil
Certain means that a piece of information like there is a nose in our face can be verified again and again if we doubt it, by applying our senses like sight to experience its presence.

KingCoil

ANNEX

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=101

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11889096&postcount=1
Part 1


forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=101
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11889096&postcount=1
Part 2

Apr 19, '14, 3:41 pm #101
​

Well. let’s go back to the topic of this thread.

Here are the snapshots of my division of human certainty and my argument for the inferential certainty of God’s existence.

Part 1 division of human certainty
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11893837&postcount=25

Part 2 argument for God
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11900782&postcount=55

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Let each author explain his definition.

I’ve tested my definition on an 8 year old and found that at his literacy level the concept seems to have been sufficiently grasped. Admittedly his literacy level is above others in his age group. But I don’t think it’s above us within these forums. At any rate I don’t see that further explanation is necessary except in lieu of specific questions being presented. So if you have further specific questions about my definition feel free to ask them.

 

[KingCoil]

Welcome to this thread, please read post 1 and post 101, for a proper orientation to the thread. Thanks. * See below for the reproduction of posts 1 and 101. ]*

=============================

Originally Posted by KingCoil
Let each author explain his definition.

Dear Sapien:

I am very happy that I can always count on you to interact with me.

But you often interact in a manner that you do not cooperate at all, like in the present instance, you do not explain your definition.

Please explain your definition.

Also, you all the time go into sporadic reactions to anything that you fancy in my messages, line by line.

No need.

Just keep to the topic of the thread, “How certain are we that God exists?”

I mean, don’t react to everything that you fancy in my messages, I do have the habit of making ‘obiter dicta’, but I always in my posts go to the thrust of the thread I am writing about, or to the thrust of the poster I am re-acting to.

Okay, in your reply to this post from me, please just explain your definition.

Again, thanks, Sapien, that I can always count on you to contribute in this thread.

Forgive me, here is another obiter dictum from yours truly.

A web forum is like a live conversation on a subject, now if you in conversation with others on a topic, I am sure you don’t go about with sporadic attention to line by line of a converstaion member’s spiel, but you right away go to his idea in re the subject of the conversation, of course in the process you also bring in your obiter dicta, but please no need to re-act sporadically line by line.

Forgive me, it is like you are shooting in a lot of directions with your camera, when everyone just expects everyone else to attend to the say hunt like the hunt for BigFoot,

KingCoil

ANNEX

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=101
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11889096&postcount=1
Part 1
http://i60.tinypic.com/28ipxme.jpg

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=101
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11889096&postcount=1
Part 2
http://i58.tinypic.com/2qu53s9.jpg

Apr 19, '14, 3:41 pm #101
​

Well. let’s go back to the topic of this thread.

Here are the snapshots of my division of human certainty and my argument for the inferential certainty of God’s existence.

Part 1 division of human certainty
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11893837&postcount=25
http://i62.tinypic.com/20rmph0.jpg

Part 2 argument for God
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11900782&postcount=55
http://i61.tinypic.com/vdmn15.jpg

 

[KingCoil]

Welcome to this thread, please read post 1 and post 101, for a proper orientation to the thread. Thanks. * See below for the reproduction of posts 1 and 101. ]*

=========================

**Because I was asked not to leave the thread, and somehow part of my posts were deleted, I can’t give my full experience for certainty. **

Posted by King Coil:
l. Direct certainty: Based upon the experience of an external object outside the mind accessible to sense contact (sense experience) of every person, so its based on an object in the factual world external to man
2. Inferential certainty: Based on the experience of an internal object within the person like his brain or mind so it is not based on an object external to man but only internal to man.

First, dear ynotzap, I can’t recall you having contributed a definition of certain or certainty.

But it is all right, I have taken a new tack which is to get contributors to explain their respective definition.

Second, I don’t delete posters’ messages, and I can’t do that; if you miss parts of your message in my citation of your messages, it is not deletion but concentration on what I think is relevant to the thrust of the thread here, “How certain are we that God exists?”

Okay, please it is not prohibited at this junction of the thread to present your own self-thought up definition and formulated in your own words of certain or certainty

So, please do your thinking and contribute your definition of the words/concepts of certain or certainty.

For your information, here again are the four definitions so far from four posters of their own respective thought-out and self-formulated definition of the word certain or certainty.

#178 from KingCoil
Certain means that a piece of information like there is a nose in our face can be verified again and again if we doubt it, by applying our senses like sight to experience its presence.

#186 from Ypopp
The level of certainty of the existence of something depends on probability of the existence of a possible alternative. The lower the probability of the possible alternative, the higher the level of certainty. Absolute certainty means that the something to which it refers has no alternative, 2+2=4 for example.

#208 from Sapien
A state of having a feeling of confidence for an idea/proposition or feeling of trustworthiness for an object or person.

#214 from Jochoa
a firm belief directly proportional to the perceived alignment of the reasonable analysis of one’s environment and an object in question.

Now, you have in your present post brought forth an important aspect of certain, certainty for the understanding of the words/concepts, certain, certainty.

You have just described subjective thinking, the internal object is an idea, which is not based on the real object sensed, but ones’ own thoughts and not the external object revealed by the senses If this is the case, you lost contact with reality and your logic will be not lead you to the truth. The idea must always be in contact with the objective world , the world that is sensed

If you have read this thread from the first post #1 to the last post, you will have noticed and also kept in mind that I always bring forth my idea that the whole universe or the total realm of existence whatsoever which is broader than just the universe accessed by man in particular by scientists, insofar as man is concerned has two parts, namely, the part which is the mind of man, and the part that is outside the mind of man and independent of his mind: so that even though there is no mankind at all, that part outside the mind of man exists just the same.

So, my definition of certain the word/concept has not gone into the part of existence in the mind of man, that is the sphere where man can talk about what is truth, what is 1+1=2, what is the meaning of beauty, etc., what is the meaning of “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts,”* etc., yes even in a way ‘nothing’ exists in the mind of man, it cannot exist outside at all,

I hope you get my drift.

Continuation in next post ]

*That of course has need of reservations and qualifications to make it certain.

KingCoil

ANNEX

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=101
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11889096&postcount=1
Part 1
http://i60.tinypic.com/28ipxme.jpg

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=101
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11889096&postcount=1
Part 2
http://i58.tinypic.com/2qu53s9.jpg

Apr 19, '14, 3:41 pm #101
​

Well. let’s go back to the topic of this thread.

Here are the snapshots of my division of human certainty and my argument for the inferential certainty of God’s existence.

Part 1 division of human certainty
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11893837&postcount=25
http://i62.tinypic.com/20rmph0.jpg

Part 2 argument for God
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11900782&postcount=55
http://i61.tinypic.com/vdmn15.jpg

 

[KingCoil]

Continuation ]

My purpose in my definition is to get people’s attention to the idea that the experiential contact with the external universe which is distinct to and from the world of man’s mind, is the most fundamental and initial understanding of certain or certainty.

From this experiential contact with what is certain or certainty, man by inferential reasoning, i.e. intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts come to the certainty of a lot of things and ideas that are beyond the immediate direct contact of his senses and consciousness.

Hope you get my drift.

Now, we are into availing ourselves of the definitions presented by brave souls who contributed their self-thought out definitions of certain, certainty, in their own self-formulated wording.

Tell you what, your thought about subjectivity and objectivity I think that is what you are driving at, is good for furthering my explanation of my definition; please react to my explanation of my definition, in #250.
Repeat] forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11953118&postcount=250.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Welcome to this thread, please read post 1 and post 101, for a proper orientation to the thread. Thanks. * See below for the reproduction of posts 1 and 101. ]*

=====================================

Posted by King Coil:

Inferential thinking; based on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts (facts make it external)-objective thinking)

Direct certainty
B. Based on the experience of an internal object within a person like his mind, so its not based on an object external to man, but only internal to man (internal to man makes it subjective thinking , not subjected to external objects which make it facts)

From my fallible mind you have contradicted yourself

You are quoting words out of context.

Tell you what, give the links to the quotes you are bringing forth so that you have 100 words coming before the excerpt you cite above and 100 words coming after the excerpt you have cited above.

Do not go along with a nitpicker’s heart.

In addition to being precise and concise in your use of excerpts. you must not neglect to bring up all the instances of the author’s use of the term direct certainty, inferential certainty; otherwise you are not going after all the facts and of course nothing but the facts, and don’t forget words in context.

About not going along with a nitpicker’s heart.

It is like, forgive me, that you say to a forest ranger that he is wrong in describing the forest as green, by showing him that there is right in front of you both a dead tree.

Dear ynotzap, again forgive me, but do not build your intellectual life on conducting yourself as a nitpicker, go for the genuine challenge, in the present context, think out a definition in less than 50 words of the word, certain, or certainty.

Go and read at least the Annex below.

KingCoil

ANNEX

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=101
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11889096&postcount=1
Part 1
http://i60.tinypic.com/28ipxme.jpg

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=101
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11889096&postcount=1
Part 2
http://i58.tinypic.com/2qu53s9.jpg

Apr 19, '14, 3:41 pm #101
​

Well. let’s go back to the topic of this thread.

Here are the snapshots of my division of human certainty and my argument for the inferential certainty of God’s existence.

Part 1 division of human certainty
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11893837&postcount=25
http://i62.tinypic.com/20rmph0.jpg

Part 2 argument for God
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11900782&postcount=55
http://i61.tinypic.com/vdmn15.jpg

 

[KingCoil]

I really love to untangle the supposedly self-contradiction knot in my exposition of what is direct human certainty (two kinds) and what is referential human certainty, but it is going to take a lot of excerpts from my posts here.

Take notice that I never use the term objective thinking, you use that term to dig up what to you is a contradiction.

I must not myself be a nitpicker in your regard, best to let you go on in your happy mood that you have found a self-contradiction in my expatiation of concepts here in this thread.

Just read all the instances of my exposition of direct human certainty, two kinds of, and inferential certainty based on intelligent thinking that proceeds on logic and facts, there you have it again, the word facts.

Have a good weekend.

But honestly, I really enjoy to untangle the to you a self-contradiction knot in my posts here; perhaps tomorrow I will give you a report to show how you are too rash in making your wrong judgment.

Of course, first I will examine your allegation, and then I will compare your allegation to my words in re direct (human) certainty and inferential (human) certainty.

KingCoil

 

[jochoa]

No need to go into how much it means to you even if God is not the creator of the universe, but He is all good, all just, all merciful, etc.

For the record, I directly know God is the Creator of Everything.

To provide an explanation of my understanding of certain without consideration of God, the Creator of the Universe:
A firm belief directly proportional to the perceived alignment of an object in question and reasonable analysis of one’s environment.

I first recognize this certainty is firm because it is in the least founded on personally sensed experience.
Next I recognize this certainty is a belief because it is from the perspective a created entity. Anything that is created, without consideration of history shared by the Creator, cannot directly experience the time prior to being created.
Next, the firmness of the belief is directly proportional because the greater the alignment of conceptual understanding with physical experience generates greater firmness of belief, and vice versa.
I then shared the object in question because one will have a personal understanding of the object seeking to be verified.
Last, the personal environment refers to the thoughts, feelings, remembrance & expectations, and events happening in one’s life.

Now, let us all go back to working on the definitions of certain, certainty, to forge one that is acceptable to all us four who have the courage and resourcefulness to have come forth and from our own thinking and writing, produced a definition of certain, certainty.

After further analysis of your understandings of certain, God, and inferential reasoning, I find the Creator of the Universe is uncertain. The reason is because your inference is founded on everything directly experienced is known to have a cause, not necessarily a creator. Therefore, although your inference would establish inferential certainty of God, the Causer of the Universe, it fails to establish inferential certainty of God, the Creator of the Universe.

Thank you very much for the enjoyable and challenging discussion! You are far smarter than me, and I am enjoying learning to understand some of what you are saying!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

But you often interact in a manner that you do not cooperate at all, like in the present instance, you do not explain your definition.

Please explain your definition.

That’s false. I’ve provided a definition and an example. And I’ve already said that if you need further explanation then ask questions about what I’ve said. You’ve not asked and further questions, so you’ve not received further responses on the definition.

I don’t have access to your mind, so I don’t know what it is that you might not understand, find ambiguous, or confusing. You’ll need to disclose that information if you want me to form a response to it. What about my definition do you find incomplete or in need of further explanation?

Also, you all the time go into sporadic reactions to anything that you fancy in my messages, line by line.

No need.

Just keep to the topic of the thread, “How certain are we that God exists?”

No promises. But my focus will probably be reciprocal.

A web forum is like a live conversation on a subject, now if you in conversation with others on a topic, I am sure you don’t go about with sporadic attention to line by line of a converstaion member’s spiel, but you right away go to his idea in re the subject of the conversation, of course in the process you also bring in your obiter dicta, but please no need to re-act sporadically line by line.

In this way it’s not like a live conversation. If some one in a conversation says something that requires further explanation, is disagreeable, or worthy of an immediate response there’s an ability to interject questions and comments. That doesn’t match how we interact here. You post a message, I respond, and then wait about another 24 hours to get another response. Live conversations don’t have such large blocks of time of no interaction between the parties in them. I think a better (but dated) metaphor is that this forum conversation is like communicating by written letter, not like a live conversation. Instant Messaging comes closer to matching live conversation.

 

[ynotzap]

I have a hunch that no matter what I say, it won’t be accepted You stated

Direct certainty
Based on the experience of an internal object within the person like his brain or mind so it is NOT not based on an object external to man, but ONLY internal to man.

Rewrite of the same meaning of the statement above:
Based on thought, not evidence from the 5 senses but only on man’s thoughts (subjective reasoning.) This results in truth becoming relative. In relative truth their can’t be any kind of certainty truth is subjected to what ever the person believes You qualified your statment when you included the words NOT AND ONLY

By repeating you statment over and over don’t make them any truer. Maybe I missing something. Your thoughts seem confusing, redundant, and almost like you are making up your own dictionary. I use the common webster dictionary I think you do your homework but until you clarify my possible misunderstanding by analysing my statment and showing me where it is wrong in a concise manner, I can’t go further

Something else you apparently are using the inductive method of truth. inference to arrive at the truth. Proceeding from what is known, to what is unknown.

The deductive method is proceeding from the unknown to the known. This might be the best way to deal with an atheist who denies the existence of the Known? Its hard enough to deal with the problem and have to deal with understanding the OP I believe your answers should be short and concise so that we can understand them. It’s not so much quantity of ideas, but quality. It seems like you a trying, but other posters are having problems too It’s time consuming and I think most posters are competent that you don,t have to explain everything, they have certain knowledge too. I find it painful as I suspect other poster have too, and its not necessary. You should simply state your convictions, and let other posters figure it out,critique it
with dialogue. Trust them, they can handle it You have been very polite and I appreciate it and I believe others do too. So we approach each others as brothers in Christ striving to know the truth and spred it around. We are all fallible, its a very good reason to Trust the Church founded by Jesus.

 

[opusAquinas]

rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil1000/Nagel.pdf

 

[zippy2006]

"It is possible for God to be known with direct certainty." Do you believe that proposition is true, or false?

I am telling now as I told you earlier that for myself it is “No, I cannot know God exists with direct certainty.”

Please, will you just stop making me answer for the whole mankind!

Do I “believe that proposition is true, or false?”

You mean the proposition from you or as written and presented by you, namely:
“It is possible for God to be known with direct certainty.”

My answer, it is not possible for myself to know God with direct certainty, so I am one of humans who maintain that that proposition is false.

Now, I see that from your part you want to insist that all mankind accept that proposition to be true; well, who gives you the right and the office to speak for all mankind? or you just go ahead and usurp that right and office?

So, as you to my observation usurp the right and the office to speak for all mankind, for you then the proposition as written and presented by you namely, “It is possible for God to be known with direct certainty” is true.

Well, that is all within your right to free speech, but do take the caution at least in your exercise of free speech to not also in the process arrogate to yourself the right and the office to speak for the whole of mankind.

I asked you a question, and you’ve shown you’re either unable or unwilling to answer it. I didn’t come to the philosophy forum to talk about your opinions. Propositions are either true or false, they aren’t true for some people and false for others. Philosophers talk about whether things are true or false, they don’t say, “This is true for me but maybe it’s false for you.” Holding that truth exists isn’t arrogance. It’s either possible for humans to know God with direct certainty, or else it’s not. There is no middle ground. Farewell.

 

[KingCoil]

Posted by King Coil:

Inferential thinking; based on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts (facts make it external)-objective thinking)

Direct certainty
B. Based on the experience of an internal object within a person like his mind, so its not based on an object external to man, but only internal to man (internal to man makes it subjective thinking , not subjected to external objects which make it facts)

From my fallible mind you have contradicted yourself

Well, ynotzap, I am here and I want to talk to you about your having found a contradiction in my words.

I was thinking very eagerly to search all my instances of “direct certainty” and “inferential certainty” of course understood as human certainty, in my writings here, but that will take a lot of time and work, just to show to you that if you have done that, then you will realize that I don’t contradict myself when I post here: because as I write I am all the time checking simultaneously whether I am into something against some other things earlier I had written here, and if I notice that, then right away I resolve the trouble and write as to not contradict what I said earlier.

It is your wrong or deficient take of my words, owing to your desire to be a nitpicker.

Anyway, I will just point out to you why your socalled discovery is wrong.

You say this (below) is my statement, without any verbatim reproduction of my words, but with your own addition (words from you in bold), and no links:
supposedly King:

Inferential thinking; based on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts (facts make it external)-objective thinking).

You see, you added already your own words to my text, “(facts make it external)-objective thinking).”

You understand wrongly that I mean by inferential thinking subjective thinking, as opposed to your use of the term objective thinking which to you is grounded on facts.

Were you not the poster who came up with your mention of subjectivity and objectivity in man’s knowledge of or acquaintance with things?

I have to my recall not used the terms subjectivity and objectivity; what I routinely maintain is the distinction between things inside the mind, heart, brain, self, etc., of man, and things outside man, found in the universe independent of man’s mind, heart, brain, self, etc.

So, you have made a wrong assumption that by inferential thinking I am talking about your subjective thinking as opposed to objective thinking.

All thinking is in the mind of man, period.

Do you concur to that? You don’t? Okay, then tell me some thinking of man that is not made in his mind and by his mind.

Next, you have a deficient idea of what are facts:

Here, in these words from you, you belie your deficient idea of what are facts: (facts make it external)-objective thinking.

To you facts are to be found only in the realm outside man’s mind, brain, soul, spirit, self, etc.

That is wrong!

Because there are facts inside you, in your internal experiences which internal experiences others don’t see or hear or touch, etc.

What internal facts do I refer to?

What about when you are hungry and you see people eating, then you experience also the desire to eat and physiologically your mouth starts salivating, that is an internal fact with you.

Now, others have such an experience also; okay, what about a stomachache or say just a simple discomfort that is not manifested by you with a grimacing countenance in your face.

Those are internal facts to man, to every man, even though they are not known by others in regard to your internal facts, but they also have such internal facts, experiences.

I will stop at this point, because if you do really have the have the skill and habit of intelligent honest thinking, grounding yourself on logic and facts, you will realize that your allegation of my contradiction is due to your overly zeal to be a nitpicker, leading you to dispense with genuinely honest intelligent thinking etc.

Dear readers here, do you notice that I always address a concern of posters here, if it is relevant to the topic of this thread, “How certain are we that God exists?”

I am very unhappy with posters here who will just insist that they have already said this or that or everything, and I have just to look it up.

Like I ask posters to explain their definitions of certain, certainty, and this poster will not so it, but sooner than later as already is his routine, he will insist that he has all the explanation in his posts, and I just have to look it up.

You see any seeker of facts and certainty should be very eager to set forth his ideas again and again, instead of insisting he has already said this or that, and I should take the time and trouble to look it up.

That is a most anti-intelligent and emotionally infantile attitude.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

I asked you a question, and you’ve shown you’re either unable or unwilling to answer it. I didn’t come to the philosophy forum to talk about your opinions. Propositions are either true or false, they aren’t true for some people and false for others. Philosophers talk about whether things are true or false, they don’t say, “This is true for me but maybe it’s false for you.” Holding that truth exists isn’t arrogance. It’s either possible for humans to know God with direct certainty, or else it’s not. There is no middle ground. Farewell.

Okay, you tell me what you know to be the answer so that it is the correct answer for you that should come from me when it is not an opinion.

Do it this way, assuming that you (me) are intelligent and honest and logical and grounded on facts, this should be your answer, instead of an opinion.

It is like someone going inside a shop keeps saying that the item he wants to see in the store is not what the shopowner is showing him; so the shopowner tells him to please bring me an example of what you are looking for, or get someone with the possession of that item you are looking for, bring him with you and with that item in his hand.

So, sir, please tell me what to you I must answer so that it will be accepted by you to be the correct answer whatever, and not an opinion, etc., etc., etc.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

I answered everyone here as they appeared in the previous days; if today my answers have not taken account of your latest posts, now that I have read them, they the posters don’t, forgive me, seem with the same people to be adding anything new or different as to show some change in them in previous days.

So, we are still working out the concurrence of what is certain, certainty.

My position is that man knows God as creator of the universe with inferential human certainty.

What I see with others here, is that they know God to exist as creator of the universe with or on direct human certainty and even absolute certainty.

And of course there are the routine nitpickers here, so I will just request nitpickers to produce their definitions of what is certain, certainty in less than 50 words, and then give an explanation of your precise and concise definition.

But it is okay also if you don’t produce your definition in less than 50 words but you have things to say about my definition and my explanation – only at least produce your explanation of whatever concept of certain and/or certainty in your mind whatever that is, even though you do not produce a definition in less than 50 words.

The requirement for you to produce in less than 50 words your definition is for you to do serious thinking intelligent at that and grounded on logic and facts.

KingCoil

 

[jochoa]

My position is that man knows God as creator of the universe with inferential human certainty.

Although God as Creator of the universe is factual, when I agree with your definition of certain and consider your inferential justification, I find your position to be unwarranted. Here is why:

So, let me show you how we arrive at the inferential certainty of God’s existence:

1. The universe exists.
2. In the universe everything in it has a beginning.
3. Wherefore everything in the universe has need of a cause to bring it to existence.
4. Next, scientists tell us the universe as a whole has a beginning.
5. Wherefore the whole universe as one item has need of a cause to bring it to existence.
6. Let us go into the universe to observe and examine everything and come to conclusion that everything in it has a beginning: so everything in the universe has a cause.
7. For the universe as a whole and as one item, scientists tell us it has a beginning: so the universe as a whole and as one item has a cause.
8. Conclusion: we have inferential certainty of the existence of the cause of the universe as one whole, one item, and also everything in the universe that makes up the composition of the universe, and we identify the cause of the universe as corresponding to the concept of God in the Christian faith, namely, as the creator of the universe.

Your justification is based on the logical fact of everything in the universe has a cause. Therefore, your understanding of inferential certainty warrants God, the Causer of the universe, but not necessarily God, the Creator of the universe.

 

[opusAquinas]

Of what we cannot speak of, we must pass over in silence.

 

[ynotzap]

Dear brother Coil:

I have not made a false assumption as you say. You have made the false assumption.

By saying inferencial thinking grounded on ( I add-true) logic, and facts (facts make it external-objective thinking) I am saying you are in contact with reality and the statment is TRUE

QUOTE YOUR STATMENT: So you have made a wrong assumption that by inferential thinking I am talking about your subjective thinking as opposed to objective thinking, Do you concur… no I can’t

By internal I take it to mean in the mind, an idea, or conviction not feelings, this belongs to the body and brain, the intelligence of man is spiritual, a faculty of the soul. And if this is the case, and I know with certainty it is I know for a fact that any thoughts of personal conviction may or may not be in accordance with objective reality (external evidence) truth become what one wants it to become, relative. and this kind of subjective thinking can never be the path to aquiring the certainty of truth. Truth is apart and absolute in itself, and exists apart from our thinking. This condition exists in our society today as we speak. The natural laws are bent to suit the person’s desires not the objective truth.

 

[ynotzap]

As I see your approach to the certainty of truth, you have used what I believe to be inductive reasoning, where one goes from what is known to the unkown (effect to cause)
The Existence of God and the reasoning to arrive to that truth.
Deductive reasoning of the certainty of truth is going from the unknown to the known ( cause to effect
By reasoning to arrive to the existence of God. In all of this I always stand to be corrected.

 

[KingCoil]

For the record, I directly know God is the Creator of Everything.

To provide an explanation of my understanding of certain without consideration of God, the Creator of the Universe:
A firm belief directly proportional to the perceived alignment of an object in question and reasonable analysis of one’s environment.

I first recognize this certainty is firm because it is in the least founded on personally sensed experience.
Next I recognize this certainty is a belief because it is from the perspective a created entity. Anything that is created, without consideration of history shared by the Creator, cannot directly experience the time prior to being created.
Next, the firmness of the belief is directly proportional because the greater the alignment of conceptual understanding with physical experience generates greater firmness of belief, and vice versa.
I then shared the object in question because one will have a personal understanding of the object seeking to be verified.
Last, the personal environment refers to the thoughts, feelings, remembrance & expectations, and events happening in one’s life.

After further analysis of your understandings of certain, God, and inferential reasoning, I find the Creator of the Universe is uncertain. The reason is because your inference is founded on everything directly experienced is known to have a cause, not necessarily a creator. Therefore, although your inference would establish inferential certainty of God, the Causer of the Universe, it fails to establish inferential certainty of God, the Creator of the Universe.

Thank you very much for the enjoyable and challenging discussion! You are far smarter than me, and I am enjoying learning to understand some of what you are saying!

This time I have read all the new posts of today and also of yesterday.

I am sure that I sent you a line yesterday in a post where I also sent a line each to other posters.

In that line intended for you, I asked you to present your concepts respectively of cause of the universe and of creator of the universe, so that I can see what for you is the difference between them.

Please, dear Jochoa, tell me what is the difference between cause of the universe and creator of the universe.

And please do not tell me that you have already written about that and I just have to look for it.

KingCoil