How certain are we that God exists?

[Jim_Baur]

Kingcoil:

I would hold the judgment that it is absolute certainty was all that we can know was made by at least one BEING. The complexity is beyond our abilities to comprehend.

In our Creeds we say: “I believe.”

There is a huge step of faith from the common sense of a maker to a personal loving God.

I like your term inferential certainty.

I won’t write any more for this post, I may have already said too much.

 

[KingCoil]

Kingcoil:

I would hold the judgment that it is absolute certainty was all that we can know was made by at least one BEING. The complexity is beyond our abilities to comprehend.

In our Creeds we say: “I believe.”

There is a huge step of faith from the common sense of a maker to a personal loving God.

I like your term inferential certainty.

I won’t write any more for this post, I may have already said too much.

My point is that we must not ever take for granted that God is the creator of the universe and even also of anything at all that exists with a beginning.

If your God is not the role doer of creator cause of the universe and of anything and everything with a beginning, then what does it profit your God being a loving God and you loving God?

This might be too harsh to say: your God is an idol and you are obsessed with an idol; in this respect a graven image that folks given to idol worship must save the idol when the house is on fire; and some have taken to stealing idols of their neighbors or family members, because their own idols are not as efficacious for the earthy purposes their own idols can grant the satisfaction of.

Please do not leave me, I invite you to continue to participate with your (name removed by moderator)uts whatever, insofar as it is relevant to the issue of “How certain are we that God exists?”

So, anything at all about God and His conduct in relation to man and the universe, that is relevant; anything about existence, that is relevant; anything about certainty human certainty, that is relevant.

Never too much of all these matters, and the more we talk intelligently on logic and facts about them, the better we come to concurrence on them, so that we will not be talking past each other’s head which is insane communication.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Originally Posted by KingCoil
So, dear posters here who are into absolute certainty with your existence of God, please give your concept of absolute, absolute certainty, and the division of human certainty.

Your division of human certainty should launch from the standpoint that certainty here is concerned with man being sure of some fact in reality outside his mind.

And the fact here has to do with the existence of God outside of concepts in the mind of man, and the existence of God as the creator of the universe, etc., and an absolute being.

Now, notice that man is not an absolute being, only God is an absolute being; therefore, there cannot be anything absolute not even in concept in your mind, and consequently anytime you say your certainty is absolute about the absolute being that is God, that is already erroneous thinking, for your not being an absolute entity cannot arrive at all to any absolute certainty.

I would still suggest that you re-do your division of human certainty so that it conveys how man arrives at the sure-ness in his knowledge of God creator of the universe existing, namely:

Item: Man is sure of something at all based on his direct experience of that something.

Item: When man cannot experience something directly, then he still nonetheless comes to know the fact of the existence of that something through inference, i.e. by intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, which facts are already known to him from direct experience.

What are things which man cannot experience directly?

Things like for examples, dark matter, dark energy, and in the present thread, God the creator of the universe.

Always start your examination of certainty from the standpoint of how man is sure of his knowledge of a fact in reality outside his mind, namely, by direct experience, and when direct experience is not possible then by inferential thinking.

Okay, Jochoa, give me examples of things you know for certain to exist from direct experience, and things you know for certain to exist by inferential thinking.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Dear Jochoa, I like very much to examine your division of certainty and my division of certainty.

…]

Certain

• A. Direct certainty is founded on absolute beings
• 1. Known for sure; Known by God; ex. God is the Holy Trinity
• 1. Knowledge of God known by a human; ex. God is the Holy Trinity
• B. Inferential certainty is founded on temporal beings, without consideration of God.
• 1. A firm belief directly proportional to the perceived alignment of an object in question and reasonable analysis of one’s environment. ex. One who believes God does or does not exist.

…]

…]

HUMAN CERTAINTY

• A. Direct certainty founded on immediate experience of a fact
• 1. On the existence of a fact outside the self of a human
• 1. On the existence of a fact inside the self of a human
• (a) That is common for every human, e.g., the fact of a stomach inside a human
• (b) That is in a group of humans or only in one particular human
• • Example of a group of humans, consider humans who have photographic memory,
• [ii] Example of one particular human, consider Einstein, author of theory of relativity
• B. Inferential certainty – founded on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts

…]
Okay, dear Jochoa, allow me to request you to enlighten me on what you want to convey in this line from your division of certainty, in this line in bold big font]:

Certain

• A. Direct certainty is founded on absolute beings
• 1. Known for sure; Known by God; ex. God is the Holy Trinity
• 1. Knowledge of God known by a human; ex. God is the Holy Trinity
• B. Inferential certainty is founded on temporal beings, without consideration of God.
• 1. A firm belief directly proportional to the perceived alignment of an object in question and reasonable analysis of one’s environment. ex. One who believes God does or does not exist.

On your part, you point out to me what just one particular line you will request me to explain in more plain, concise, easy words.

HUMAN CERTAINTY

• A. Direct certainty founded on immediate experience of a fact
• 1. On the existence of a fact outside the self of a human
• 1. On the existence of a fact inside the self of a human
• (a) That is common for every human, e.g., the fact of a stomach inside a human
• (b) That is in a group of humans or only in one particular human
• • Example of a group of humans, consider humans who have photographic memory,
• [ii] Example of one particular human, consider Einstein, author of theory of relativity
• B. Inferential certainty – founded on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts

KingCoil*

 

[jochoa]

Your division of human certainty should launch from the standpoint that certainty here is concerned with man being sure of some fact in reality outside his mind.

fact
noun
a thing that is indisputably the case.
synonyms: reality, actuality, certainty;

Since certainty and fact are synonymous, your understanding of certainty either makes assumptions or is circular, in that synonymous substitutions reveal:

Direct certainty founded on immediate experience of something certain (a fact)

Certainty founded on the knowledge of absolute beings establishes the facts you present in your definitions. If I am mistaken that your use of facts is not synonymous with certain, please share your understanding of fact.

KingCoil:

Okay, Jochoa, give me examples of things you know for certain to exist from direct experience, and things you know for certain to exist by inferential thinking.

jochoa:

Certain

• A. Direct certainty is founded on absolute beings* 1. Known for sure; Known by God; ex. God is the Holy Trinity* 2. Knowledge of God known by a human; ex. God is the Holy Trinity
• B. Inferential certainty is founded on temporal beings, without consideration of God.* 1. A firm belief directly proportional to the perceived alignment of an object in question and reasonable analysis of one’s environment. ex. One who believes God does or does not exist.

Examples of things known with Direct Certainty

• (A1) God knows with direct certainty that He is the Holy Trinity as spoken through His Catholic Church.
• (A2) I know with direct certainty that God is the Holy Trinity as declared by the Catholic Church.* (A2) I know with direct certainty that bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of God in Catholic Masses.

Examples of things known with Inferential Certainty

• (B1) I currently have inferential certainty that the users I interact with on Catholic Answers are fully human.

KingCoil:

I would still suggest that you…conveys how man arrives at the sure-ness…

Perhaps I will begin with this; Rational beings, humans, can arrive at direct certainty by resolving the following:
In consideration of God, as the Creator of Everything, we, in this discussion, must concur on what is this person’s greatest creation, why create it, and what must logically happen to fulfill this creation? Once we concur on resolutions, we can then compare historical texts claimed to be divinely-declared with our resolutions to test for alignment. If a historical text aligns with our resolutions, then we have direct certainty of the knowledge acquired. If no divinely-declared text aligns with our resolutions, then we have inferential certainty of our resolutions because we are not absolute beings.

I look forward to further discussion!

 

[jochoa]

Dear Jochoa, I like very much to examine your division of certainty and my division of certainty.

Same Here!!!

KingCoil:

Okay, dear Jochoa, allow me to request you to enlighten me on what you want to convey in this line from your division of certainty, in this line in bold big font]:

1. A firm belief directly proportional to the perceived alignment of an object in question and reasonable analysis of one’s environment. ex. One who believes God does or does not exist.

One main point I want to convey from the use of “a…belief” is that certainty limited to the foundation or reasoning of a temporal or non-absolute being cannot be known with absolute certainty.
A secondary point is that one must accept a definition of the object in question in order to determine quality of alignment.

On your part, you point out to me what just one particular line you will request me to explain in more plain, concise, easy words.

As I mentioned earlier, what is your understanding of fact?

Thank you very much for the extremely enjoyable and very challenging discussion!

 

[jochoa]

Example of Inferential Certainty: One who believes God does or does not exist.

I should have included that the point of my example of inferential certainty is certainty without consideration of an absolute being is subjective, therefore:

1. Some humans have certainty of God not existing because their understanding of God and their best analysis of their environment do not align.
2. Some humans have certainty of God existing because their understanding of God and their best analysis of their environment align.

Thanks for further consideration!

 

[KingCoil]

About your statements to the effect that certainty and fact are synonymous, I see that you are mistaken.

You manipulate words but you get them mixed up.

Certainty is in the man, fact is outside the man but he can get to know the fact and be possessed of certainty about the fact being in objective reality.

Forgive me, Jochoa, but you use your brain in a most to my impression and forgive me again confusedly manner.

About this text from you,

Originally Posted by jochoa
B. Inferential certainty is founded on temporal beings, without consideration of God.

1. A firm belief directly proportional to the perceived alignment of an object in question and reasonable analysis of one’s environment. ex. One who believes God does or does not exist.
​

Can you just use other words to rewrite your text above in bold big font, instead of introducing more ideas and concepts and terms to further impede any sense by which readers can get to understand what you really want to convey if you do have anything at all sensible to convey.

Suppose I ask you tell me in other words the following sentence addressed by you to me:

Please bring me to your home.

The re-worded version of the sentence must effect me to even just take your hand in my hand to enable you to follow me as I draw you gently but effectively to my home.

Use even 100 words if you need to, but make the reworked sentence clearly intelligible.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Dear Jochoa, I am very much tempted to observe that you are purposely into gibberish, either to make fun of this thread or to play the dummy’s role in your whatever fervid drama here.

KingCoil

 

[jochoa]

Dear Jochoa, I am very much tempted to observe that you are purposely into gibberish, either to make fun of this thread or to play the dummy’s role in your whatever fervid drama here.

I consider you a great friend of mine for the shared interest in this topic. I apologize if I come across as into gibberish or making fun or playing dumb. I am doing my best to comply with your requests to learn as much as possible from this experience, however, I am not near as smart as you. This discussion has actually been my single most favorite discussion on the internet to date. I hope you may consider these words truthful to overcome the temptation of considering me as disingenuous. I really look forward to further discussion!

Certainty is in the man, fact is outside the man but he can get to know the fact and be possessed of certainty about the fact being in objective reality.

Alright, I understand the distinction you make. The only struggle I have with this is my understanding of schizophrenia, which is heavily based on the movie, “Beautiful Mind.” If a schizophrenic person can be “fooled” into thinking the objects they directly sense in their environment are in objective reality, whose to say any one of us, any group of us, or perhaps all of us can’t be “fooled” into thinking the objects we directly sense in our environment are in objective reality. Although I am not a fan of this extended style of thinking, I definitely recognize it is an option. After all, since I know I directly/tangibly sense God, the Creator of Everything, and you know direct certainty of God, the Creator of Everything, isn’t possible, then either I am “fooled” or you are not sensing all that is there. For me, this extended style of thinking leads back to, the only way we can be certain about anything is for the certainty to be founded on an absolute being, whether through being absolute or knowing the knowledge of an absolute being.

KingCoil:

Forgive me, Jochoa, but you use your brain in a most to my impression and forgive me again confusedly manner.

No worries at all, my friend! Although it is considered more so complicated thinking, I get this perception frequently from my wife, parents, priest(s), friends, and co-workers. I greatly appreciate your patience with me throughout this discussion! I am doing my best to continually simplify my understandings.

KingCoil:

Can you just use other words to rewrite your text…

Ah, I can see clearly now the reasoning for the confused thinking!!!

jochoa:

A firm belief directly proportional to the perceived alignment of an object in question and reasonable analysis of one’s environment. ex. One who believes God does or does not exist.

Reworded: A level of confidence in the possibility of something actually existing, which is founded on one’s understanding of the object and his/her surroundings.

As for a couple of requests from me to you, please use another word(s) for fact in your definition of certainty. Also, do you recognize God has spoken to humans? Although I assume you do because you mentioned, “I have two sessions with God every week,” and “a DIY relationship with God,” I wonder how you reconcile your interactions with something and your understanding of that something not capable of being immediately experienced and sensed?

Thanks for further consideration, and I definitely look forward to more discussion!

 

[Slaney]

My point is that we must not ever take for granted that God is the creator of the universe and even also of anything at all that exists with a beginning.

Nor take for granted that He died for you +++

 

[KingCoil]

Dear Jochoa, were you an attentive and concentrated pupil when you were in school, in case you are already no longer in school

Look at the big font text below and the small font text below, that undesirable conduct from you is what parents who are attentive to their kids will notice sooner than later, that a kid is not attentive and concentrated on a subject, but will always digress either because it’s a sickness with him or he is into mischief.

Originally Posted by KingCoil
Certainty is in the man, fact is outside the man but he can get to know the fact and be possessed of certainty about the fact being in objective reality.

Your disagreeable conduct is the reason why I see you with direct experiential human certainty that you are into mischief here, and I will no longer read your posts as to react to you; if and when you are no longer into mischief here, then send me a pm.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Dear readers here, I think we can have a good discussion with atheists who do have an open mind and sincerity to come to the rational explanation of why God creator of the universe exists, and that is a certain conclusion from intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

You see, atheists say that folks who believe in God are not being rational, they ae not using their reason to think intelligently grounding themselves on logic and facts; we have to wherefore reason with them, and bring them to certainty that the existence of God is the rationally sure conclusion, whereas the irrational attitude is with them, with their wrong thinking that God exists is an irrational statement.

Here is my division of human certainty.

HUMAN CERTAINTY

• A. Direct certainty founded on immediate experience of a fact
• 1. On the existence of a fact outside the self of a human
• 1. On the existence of a fact inside the self of a human
• (a) That is common for every human, e.g., the fact of a stomach inside a human
• (b) That is in a group of humans or only in one particular human
• • Example of a group of humans, consider humans who have photographic memory,
• [ii] Example of one particular human, consider Einstein, author of theory of relativity
• B. Inferential certainty – founded on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts

Do you notice the word experience in big font in the very first line above, namely:

A. Direct certainty founded on immediate experience of a fact.

I cannot emphasize ever too much that experience is the ultimate foundation of our knowledge, so that without it at all, we cannot know anything at all, and we might as well be a non-conscious being although alive and vegetating.

Let us imagine that a baby was born in a comatose condition, and it never comes out of that condition; that means that it cannot at all react to and interact its environment, and therefore there is no way it can experience anything at all: not of the external environment and not of its own internal environment, as for example like folks who are conscious and breathing, they experience breathing all the time.

Existence and life are founded on our continuous experience of all the indicators within ourselves of existing and living, once we don’t experience anything at all thus we do not react and interact at all with our external environment and neither with our internal environment, we are for all purpose of existence and life, dead and non-existing as a human biological entity.

So, by experience we come to human certainty that we exist and live and operate.

At this point atheists and hard-core skeptics will state that we cannot ever be ‘absolutely’ certain that we are really existing and living and consciously acting, etc., etc., etc.

How can we out-talk such folks as to make them come to certainty that they and we exist and live and operate?

Not by talking and talking and talking as they are doing, talking and talking and talking, but by acting with performing testing with them to physically bringing them to their contact with the objective reality of their existence, life, and operation.

Like this (with an atheist or hard-core skeptic):

1. We bring his right hand index finger to his nose
2. and take out from our pocket a pair of garden pruning shears*
3. and proceed to prune his nose off from his face.

That will really if the man is not insane and not unconscious, frighten him to his rational senses.

No, there is no absolute certainty of our existence, and we will not convince anyone by talking and talking and talking, but by testing.

That is what I call direct experiential certainty, it takes care of all atheists and hard core skeptics to either act with certainty that they exist and live and operate, or get to become an extinct race from not reacting and interacting with reality as to preserve and conserve their continuous existence, life, and operation in the midst of all the dangers of nature everywhere and all the time.

No, we cannot and thus do not have absolute certainty, but for all purposes of having a life and enjoying it and doing something with it, we have direct experiential or functional certainty of our existence, life, and operation.

Tomorrow, more on direct human certainty, and eventually we will go into inferential human certainty.

KingCoil

Garden pruning shears
http://i60.tinypic.com/2ec3ksg.jpg

 

[KingCoil]

[noparse] QUOTE ][/noparse]Originally Posted by KingCoil

Originally Posted by jochoa

Originally Posted by KingCoil
Certainty is in the man, fact is outside the man but he can get to know the fact and be possessed of certainty about the fact being in objective reality.

Alright, I understand the distinction you make. The only struggle I have with this is my understanding of schizophrenia, which is heavily based on the movie, “Beautiful Mind.” If a schizophrenic person can be “fooled” into thinking the objects they directly sense in their environment are in objective reality, whose to say any one of us, any group of us, or perhaps all of us can’t be “fooled” into thinking the objects we directly sense in our environment are in objective reality. Although I am not a fan of this extended style of thinking, I definitely recognize it is an option. After all, since I know I directly/tangibly sense God, the Creator of Everything, and you know direct certainty of God, the Creator of Everything, isn’t possible, then either I am “fooled” or you are not sensing all that is there. For me, this extended style of thinking leads back to, the only way we can be certain about anything is for the certainty to be founded on an absolute being, whether through being absolute or knowing the knowledge of an absolute being.

…]

​

Your disagreeable conduct is the reason why I see you with direct experiential human certainty that you are into mischief here, and I will no longer read your posts as to react to you; if and when you are no longer into mischief here, then send me a pm.

• The ‘>’ in the preceding line is the link to the whole text from the start of this post to ‘[UNQUOTE]’ below. ]*

[noparse] UNQUOTE ][/noparse]

Dear Jochoa, thanks for your pm inviting me to exchange thoughts with you in Google Hangout about your disagreeable conduct in this thread.

No need, just change your attitude and behavior, and start with reacting to my proof on how to bring atheists and hard-core skeptics to certainty that they really exist, as to be concerned about and take action against having their existence extinguished from hostile forces be it from humans or from nature itself.

I will then judge whether you are genuinely and effectively into productive relevant interaction here, or still into all kinds of digression to sow mischief here.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Dear readers here, I think we can have a good discussion with atheists who do have an open mind and sincerity to come to the rational explanation of why God creator of the universe exists, and that is a certain conclusion from intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

You see, atheists say that folks who believe in God are not being rational, they ae not using their reason to think intelligently grounding themselves on logic and facts; we have to wherefore reason with them, and bring them to certainty that the existence of God is the rationally sure conclusion, whereas the irrational attitude is with them, with their wrong thinking that God exists is an irrational statement.

Here is my division of human certainty.

HUMAN CERTAINTY

• A. Direct certainty founded on immediate experience of a fact
• 1. On the existence of a fact outside the self of a human
• 1. On the existence of a fact inside the self of a human
• (a) That is common for every human, e.g., the fact of a stomach inside a human
• (b) That is in a group of humans or only in one particular human
• • Example of a group of humans, consider humans who have photographic memory,
• [ii] Example of one particular human, consider Einstein, author of theory of relativity
• B. Inferential certainty – founded on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts

Do you notice the word experience in big font in the very first line above, namely:

A. Direct certainty founded on immediate experience* of a fact.

I cannot emphasize ever too much that experience is the ultimate foundation of our knowledge, so that without it at all, we cannot know anything at all, and we might as well be a non-conscious being although alive and vegetating.

Let us imagine that a baby was born in a comatose condition, and it never comes out of that condition; that means that it cannot at all react to and interact its environment, and therefore there is no way it can experience anything at all: not of the external environment and not of its own internal environment, as for example like folks who are conscious and breathing, they experience breathing all the time.

Existence and life are founded on our continuous experience of all the indicators within ourselves of existing and living, once we don’t experience anything at all thus we do not react and interact at all with our external environment and neither with our internal environment, we are for all purpose of existence and life, dead and non-existing as a human biological entity.

So, by experience we come to human certainty that we exist and live and operate.

At this point atheists and hard-core skeptics will state that we cannot ever be ‘absolutely’ certain that we are really existing and living and consciously acting, etc., etc., etc.

How can we out-talk such folks as to make them come to certainty that they and we exist and live and operate?

Not by talking and talking and talking as they are doing, talking and talking and talking, but by acting with performing testing with them to physically bringing them to their contact with the objective reality of their existence, life, and operation.

Like this (with an atheist or hard-core skeptic):

1. We bring his right hand index finger to his nose
2. and take out from our pocket a pair of garden pruning shears*
3. and proceed to prune his nose off from his face.

That will really if the man is not insane and not unconscious, frighten him to his rational senses.

No, there is no absolute certainty of our existence, and we will not convince anyone by talking and talking and talking, but by testing.

That is what I call direct experiential certainty, it takes care of all atheists and hard core skeptics to either act with certainty that they exist and live and operate, or get to become an extinct race from not reacting and interacting with reality as to preserve and conserve their continuous existence, life, and operation in the midst of all the dangers of nature everywhere and all the time.

No, we cannot and thus do not have absolute certainty, but for all purposes of having a life and enjoying it and doing something with it, we have direct experiential or functional certainty of our existence, life, and operation.

Tomorrow, more on direct human certainty, and eventually we will go into inferential human certainty.

KingCoil

*Garden pruning shears
http://i60.tinypic.com/2ec3ksg.jpg

Here again is the pathetic character of a Jochoa Jr. into bringing up the ‘Matrix’ movies, and want to engage in endless argumentation about the whole rig-up of reality is all illusion, or the bizarre ‘no free will’ atheists and hard-core skeptics that man has no free will.

See next post for continuation. ]

 

[KingCoil]

Continuation ]

I once read a fable from the collection of Aesop Jr. about a demonic philosopher socalled by himself, I mean calling himself a philosopher though he is in fact a demonic philosopher to my assessment, not simply a philosopher.

QUOTE ] From Aesop jr.:

Once upon a time a self-called philosopher came unto a small kingdom ruled by a man given to intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

This was one thinker who would not stand for any gibberish from his subjects, he has a very practical mind how to deal with folks who are into gibberish at the cost of real life and communication among his subjects.

One of his public peace and order and security officials – aka nowadays as a policeman reported to him that some philosopher has just came to town and is preaching in every public square that all life is just illusion and man has no free will.

“Your majesty, how shall we deal with this philosopher, because some folks are no longer happy with life, convinced that life is all an illusion and they have no free will,” this policeman asked the king.

And this is the instruction given to the policeman:

Secure him in the pillory* with this inscription hanging from his neck, “I am a preacher of life is illusion and we no free will.”

From that moment onward nevermore had any gibberish talking philosopher dared visit this kingdom.

​

UNQUOTE]

In today’s society we just pay no attention to these folks unless they disturb public peace and order and security or even get violent, in which case we put them behind bars or in a strict isolation cell in a mental asylum.

KingCoil


earlyamericancrime.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Pillory-Chambers-1908.png

 

[davidv]

Here again is the pathetic character of a Jochoa Jr. into bringing up the ‘Matrix’ movies, and want to engage in endless argumentation about the whole rig-up of reality is all illusion, or the bizarre ‘no free will’ atheists and hard-core skeptics that man has no free will.

See next post for continuation. ]

Reported as a violation of forum. Address the post not the poster.

 

[KingCoil]

I will now post my last message on the subject of we cannot be ever sure of our own existence.

I say my last message, but I will change my mind as soon as I feel the need to add another one to make more clear to readers how to out-reason atheists and hard core skeptics, whose last argument against God is that we cannot ever be sure that we exist, so we cannot be sure that God exists either – which is a non-sequitur.

Why non-sequitur?

Simple, if you cannot ever be sure that you exist at all, how can you draw the conclusion that you cannot be sure either that God exists; what is sequitur is that then you keep silent, stop talking because whatever you say is not of any certainty value to yourself, so do not talk anymore; otherwise you are acting against the rule of coherency and consistency between your principle and your action.

You see, dear readers here, atheists and hard core skeptics will tell me that my reasoning is founded upon the employment of a pair of garden pruning shears and the pillory, against folks who argue that we cannot be sure of our own existence, life, and operation.

Not at all, because I am into arguing against you atheists and hard core skeptics that you are not conducting yourselves in accordance with the rule of coherency and consistency between your principle and your behavior.

It is like this, you are acting as teachers, teaching humans to look at existence, life, and operation as all illusion and we have no free will; but you yourselves take existence, life, and operation, in particular free will, most seriously so that you do take the greatest care to keep alive thus in existence, and do exercise free will by not allowing yourselves to have your nose pruned off with garden pruning shears from yours truly, or put you in the pillory under the sky exposed to cold, and heat, and rain, and harsh winds, also wild animals, and of course hunger and thirst and definitely, extinction of your biological operation, your life, and hence your existence altogether as a living operating human.

So, you don’t merit at all that your listeners take you seriously, because you don’t practice what you preach, that is the ground to not take you seriously because you yourselves do not accept your own teaching, namely, that man’s existence, life, operation are all illusion, and man has no free will.

We therefore need not take your words seriously, you are lying; therefore we will not be taken in by your lies.

Dear readers, here is a good point and one which I always have in mind in talking with atheists and hard core skeptics, namely, the distinction between talk and action: if you talk and want your listeners to take you seriously, then your action must follow your talk; otherwise you are lying, and hope to make fools of us with taking your words seriously as to put them into actions.

The broader idea here is that there must be coherency and consistency between concepts in our mind which we take seriously and actions in our life outside our mind, namely, that actions should cohere and conform with the concepts in our mind, and concepts should dictate actions.

Practical application:
When atheists and hard core skeptics tell mankind that there is no intelligent design in the world and definitely not from any God, everything is random and uncertain and thus exhibiting nothing at all of intelligent design but chaos.

Bring their index finger to point at the nose in their face, and ask them if the nose is not intelligently designed, suppose we prune it off and then you get a cosmetic surgeon to design a better nose for yourselves?

And also most crucially important, suppose your nose is not intelligently designed, then how come you are breathing with it all the time and you depend on it to stay stable and functioning all the time, together with the rest of your respiratory system, isn’t that intelligent design?

Now, you think that it is still not intelligently designed both as regards the static design and the dynamic design, then you better replace your nose and all the work of your respiratory system with an artificial medically devised respiratory machine, what is known as a breathing machine, availed off with people whose respiratory system is not working decently?*

KingCoil

• CPAP and BIPAP machines
  http://i61.tinypic.com/sv5my8.jpg

 

[KingCoil]

Dear readers here, more on experience as the most fundamental ground for our contact with objective reality and the reality itself of our own existence and consciousness by which we have personal certainty of ourselves existing, living, and operating.

Without experience ever, then man can just exist no different from a vegetating plant – on the assumption that a vegetable is not possessed of any consciousness at all and operates like a programmed machine.

I think we can have a good discussion with atheists who do have an open mind and sincerity to come to the rational explanation of why God creator of the universe exists, and that is a certain conclusion from intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

You see, atheists say that folks who believe in God are not being rational, they believers in God are not using their reason to think intelligently grounding themselves on logic and facts; we have to wherefore reason with them, and bring them to certainty that the existence of God is the rationally sure conclusion, whereas the irrational attitude is with them, with their wrong thinking that God exists is an irrational statement.

Here is my division of human certainty.

HUMAN CERTAINTY

• A. Direct certainty founded on immediate experience of a fact
• 1. On the existence of a fact outside the self of a human
• 1. On the existence of a fact inside the self of a human
• (a) That is common for every human, e.g., the fact of a stomach inside a human
• (b) That is in a group of humans or only in one particular human
• • Example of a group of humans, consider humans who have photographic memory,
• [ii] Example of one particular human, consider Einstein, author of theory of relativity
• B. Inferential certainty – founded on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts

Do you notice the word experience in big font in the very first line above, namely:

A. Direct certainty founded on immediate experience of a fact.

I cannot emphasize ever too much that experience is the ultimate foundation of our knowledge, so that without it at all, we cannot know anything at all, and we might as well be a non-conscious being although alive and vegetating.

Let us imagine that a baby was born in a comatose condition, and it never comes out of that condition; that means that it cannot at all react to and interact its environment, and therefore there is no way it can experience anything at all: not of the external environment and not of its own internal environment, as for example like folks who are conscious and breathing, they experience breathing all the time.

Existence and life are founded on our continuous experience of all the indicators within ourselves of existing and living, once we don’t experience anything at all thus we do not react to and interact at all with our external environment and neither with our internal environment, we are for all purpose of existence and life, dead and non-existing as a human biological entity.

So, by experience we come to human certainty that we exist and live and operate.

At this point atheists and hard-core skeptics will state that we cannot ever be ‘absolutely’ certain that we are really existing and living and consciously acting, etc., etc., etc.

How can we out-talk such folks as to make them come to certainty that they and we exist and live and operate?

Not by talking and talking and talking as they are doing, talking and talking and talking, but by acting with performing testing with them to physically bringing them to their contact with the objective reality of their existence, life, and operation.

Like this (with an atheist or hard-core skeptic):

1. We bring his right hand index finger to his nose
2. and take out from our pocket a pair of garden pruning shears*
3. and proceed to prune his nose off from his face.

That will really if the man is not insane and not unconscious, frighten him to his rational senses.

No, there is no absolute certainty of our existence, and we will not convince anyone by talking and talking and talking, but by testing.

That is what I call direct experiential certainty, it takes care of all atheists and hard core skeptics to either act with certainty that they exist and live and operate, or get to become an extinct race from not reacting and interacting with reality as to preserve and conserve their continuous existence, life, and operation in the midst of all the dangers of nature everywhere and all the time.

No, we cannot and thus do not have absolute certainty, but for all purposes of having a life and enjoying it and doing something with it, we have direct experiential or functional certainty of our existence, life, and operation.

Tomorrow, I will talk about human certainty in regard to the thought in our mind like 1 + 1 = 2, isn’t that an absolute truth or an absolute certainty, not only just a say inferential certainty?

Dear readers, please react to my thinking, and if you need more explanation from me, please do not hesitate to put up here in public your need for more explanation from me about my ideas on human certainty and the existence of God as a fact.

When you ask questions, then your mind, brain, is working, otherwise you could be just into regurgitating data on rote memory without any in depth understanding of things at all.

I just desire to post my ideas here to test them with candid genuine thinkers who proceed on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts

KingCoil

Garden pruning shears
http://i60.tinypic.com/2ec3ksg.jpg

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Of course we don’t have to adopt the definitions in the dictionaries because dictionaries are made by man and we can have a lot of definitions not known to the men who put up dictionaries…

Now, about you statements to the effect that you have absolute certainty that God exists, and that is from divine revelation; may I just invite you to examine whether divine revelation the fact is a piece of information that you are absolutely certain to have taken place?

By absolutely certain, I mean with no shadow of doubt. Yes, there is no shadow of doubt that this Divine Revelation has taken place.

But forgive me, absolute means (and I have said this already several times) not in reference to anything at all, not in relation to anything by which the thing being absolute is measured by or compared to.

Well, it would be obvious to those whose native tongue is English. Just regard it as a colloquialism which modifies the verb and meaning " without a shadow of doubt. "

That is why man cannot have absolute certainty of God existing but only inferential certainty, that is in reference to his human way of knowing something as to be inferentially certain or sure that it exists outside his mind in concepts.

In order to prove that you would have to disprove the fact of a Divine Revelation. I do not discount the value of inferential reasoning. But the best that can ever do is to lead us to the God of Aristotle or of Thomas Aquinas. A very limited God indeed.

So, will you agree with me that you make divine revelation the criterion for absolute certainty, when divine revelation is relative to each man and each religious group, how they understand the quality and the quantity of divine revelation they possess.

Divine Revelation comprises One body of Truth. That body of truth exsists fully in the Catholic Church. Those individuals and groups outside the Catholic Church do not possess the Whole Truth about Divine Revelation. So Divine Revelation is not relative, it is absolute. It is the acknowledgment of that Truth which is relative.

And you know, there is more divine revelation in the Catholic church than in the Protestant churches.

So, how can you say that you have absolute certainty of God existing owing to your possession of divine revelation, whereas others also say perhaps the same thing that they have absolute certainty of God existing on divine revelation, but the quality and quantity of divine revelation with them is lesser on both counts of quality and quantity than with the Catholic faith.

All I can say is that all men will be judged on how they respond to the degree of Divine Truth that they possess.

Linus2nd