How certain are we that God exists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter KingCoil
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
KingCoil said:
But Linus2, perhaps you care to present your division of human certainty?

So, you could start with the big division into absolute and relative?
Click to expand...
I have just posted an answer to this. I don’t care to debate it.
By the way, forgive me, but the Catholic Church has more divine revelation that the Protestant churches, because the Catholic Church has written divine revelation and oral divine revelation, the latter is called tradition.
Click to expand...
And the Catholic Church has a better in a way quality of divine revelation than with the Protestant churches. because the Catholic church has the Pope and the ecumenical council to ascertify to Catholics what doctrines and what disciplines are genuinely from divine revelation, by their infallible pronouncements and declarations of the doctrines and disciplines which are promulgated as to be infallible doctrines and disciplines divinely revealed by God.
Click to expand...
That makes all Catholic doubly absolutely certain on the teaching by the Catholic church that God exists, and I add and the existence of God as creator of the universe is known to man even by just reason alone, i.e., intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.
Click to expand...
Which is the reason why all people should be Catholic.

Linus2nd

Cheers,

KingCoil
 
Dear Linus2, thanks for your reaction.

I will not any further exchange thoughts with you on what is the meaning of absolute certainty, that for me as I understand it in reference to its being a certainty in man that is not with reference to anything at all, it does not exist.

Now, you want to explain why you have absolute certainty according to your no shadow of a doubt, etc. etc., etc., I will just propose to you not to live in a shadow.

In brief, you are entitled to your opinion, and for me to continue to exert effort to make you see things in an intelligent light grounded on logic and facts, that is futile.

So I bid you good-bye to your definition without any shadow of doubt as you live in a shadow world, on your issue that you have the correct definition of what is absolute certainty.

Now, dear Linus2, what do you say about your understanding of my concept of inferential certainty, that is founded not on direct experience of the object man is certain or sure about in regard to its objective existence, like for example, the nose in man’s face, in your face as also in my face?

You have returned to this thread at a point when I am into my exposition on what kind of certainty is or we have in regard to the statement 1 + 1 = 2?

I call it as of now (for I look for useful and genuine (name removed by moderator)uts from readers here who are also like myself into intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts and not living in a shadow world, to change my ideas) a direct certainty, because it is based on direct human experience that everytime folks count 1 thing and then they count another 1 thing, they know that they have counted 2 things.

Here again is my division of human certainty:
Code: 
    HUMAN CERTAINTY
        [INDENT]A. Direct certainty founded on immediate experience of a fact
            [INDENT]1. On the existence of a fact outside the self of a human

            2. On the existence of a fact inside the self of a human
                [INDENT](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
                    [INDENT]* 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
[/INDENT][/INDENT] B. Inferential certainty – founded on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts
[/INDENT][/INDENT]

If you want to call it (1 + 1 = 2) absolute certainty, then please for the enlightenment of readers do not bring in shadow, we are not living in a shadow world, but first present your division of human certainty, so that readers will know on what division of human certainty you are relating yourself to with your absolute certainty, or whatever certainty you are possessed of in regard to the statement 1 + 1 = 2.

Dear readers here, I will try to establish that 1 + 1 = 2 is certain in us, in our mind, and it is founded on direct experience from ourselves of the objective world of reality like the nose in our face.

I must commend you, Linus2, for returning to this thread; please do not take a leave of absence and then suddenly pop in again and want to argue about a point already explained by me pages ago.

When you are into moments when your mind is free, try to think on how a thread can go on and on and on without anything certain after so many pages.

One of the reasons is because folks do not keep to it until they come to concurrence, or at least agree that they have reached the demarcation boundary of what I will call an impasse, and then it is up to readers to decide on their intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts who is into the correct position, of course in the light of intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

And please, Linus2, do not bring in divine revelation, I am not into any revelation but I am into reason, because I want to explore the insistence of atheists and hard core skeptics that they have reason on their side with their conclusion that God existing is an irrational statement, so why bother to discuss it at all?

And also, get out of your shadow world.

PS
I was thinking that perhaps folks like you have a predilection of using the word absolute as meaning very, so absolute certainty is very certain; no that is not acceptable in a thread on reasoning; the term is too fuzzy to be taken seriously by serious thinkers, better you be rational and stick to reasoning, call it inferential certainty, no need to appeal to anything emotive like very.

KingCoil*
 
KingCoil said:
Dear Linus2, thanks for your reaction.

I will not any further exchange thoughts with you on what is the meaning of absolute certainty, that for me as I understand it in reference to its being a certainty in man that is not with reference to anything at all, it does not exist.

Now, you want to explain why you have absolute certainty according to your no shadow of a doubt, etc. etc., etc., I will just propose to you not to live in a shadow.

In brief, you are entitled to your opinion, and for me to continue to exert effort to make you see things in an intelligent light grounded on logic and facts, that is futile.

So I bid you good-bye to your definition without any shadow of doubt as you live in a shadow world, on your issue that you have the correct definition of what is absolute certainty.

Now, dear Linus2, what do you say about your understanding of my concept of inferential certainty, that is founded not on direct experience of the object man is certain or sure about in regard to its objective existence, like for example, the nose in man’s face, in your face as also in my face?

You have returned to this thread at a point when I am into my exposition on what kind of certainty is or we have in regard to the statement 1 + 1 = 2?

I call it as of now (for I look for useful and genuine (name removed by moderator)uts from readers here who are also like myself into intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts and not living in a shadow world, to change my ideas) a direct certainty, because it is based on direct human experience that everytime folks count 1 thing and then they count another 1 thing, they know that they have counted 2 things.

Here again is my division of human certainty:
Code: 
    HUMAN CERTAINTY
        [INDENT]A. Direct certainty founded on immediate experience of a fact
            [INDENT]1. On the existence of a fact outside the self of a human

            2. On the existence of a fact inside the self of a human
                [INDENT](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
                    [INDENT]* 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
[/INDENT][/INDENT] B. Inferential certainty – founded on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts
[/INDENT][/INDENT]

If you want to call it (1 + 1 = 2) absolute certainty, then please for the enlightenment of readers do not bring in shadow, we are not living in a shadow world, but first present your division of human certainty, so that readers will know on what division of human certainty you are relating yourself to with your absolute certainty, or whatever certainty you are possessed of in regard to the statement 1 + 1 = 2.

Dear readers here, I will try to establish that 1 + 1 = 2 is certain in us, in our mind, and it is founded on direct experience from ourselves of the objective world of reality like the nose in our face.

I must commend you, Linus2, for returning to this thread; please do not take a leave of absence and then suddenly pop in again and want to argue about a point already explained by me pages ago.

When you are into moments when your mind is free, try to think on how a thread can go on and on and on without anything certain after so many pages.

One of the reasons is because folks do not keep to it until they come to concurrence, or at least agree that they have reached the demarcation boundary of what I will call an impasse, and then it is up to readers to decide on their intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts who is into the correct position, of course in the light of intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

And please, Linus2, do not bring in divine revelation, I am not into any revelation but I am into reason, because I want to explore the insistence of atheists and hard core skeptics that they have reason on their side with their conclusion that God existing is an irrational statement, so why bother to discuss it at all?

And also, get out of your shadow world.

PS
I was thinking that perhaps folks like you have a predilection of using the word absolute as meaning very, so absolute certainty is very certain; no that is not acceptable in a thread on reasoning; the term is too fuzzy to be taken seriously by serious thinkers, better you be rational and stick to reasoning, call it inferential certainty, no need to appeal to anything emotive like very.

KingCoil*

Why don’t you read Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas or even the Plationists. There is no need to " invent " a pholosophy. And how do you hope to convince anyone of anything if you don’t even know if you exist? If you are not sure you exist, I would say that would be a real turn off to your listeners. It sure is with me.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
 
KingCoil said:
First, before anything else we have to work together to come to concurrence on the meanings of the important words used in the title of the thread.

Here are the words of the title:

How
certain
are
we
that
God
exists.

I propose for the present that the important words are the following:

certain
we
God
exists.

So, I will get started with what I know from stock knowledge on the meaning of the word “certain.”

What do I understand by the word certain?

But right away I realize that I must first define what I mean by the word “we” because it is we who are certain, that it is we who are concerned with certainty; I mean we know that we can be certain of things: for there are humans who maintain that certainty is not at all possible, for example, there might be posters here who are not even certain that they are present here in this forum.

And that brings in the question, what to do with folks? who are not certain that they are present at all.

Exclude them from the discussion here, because they are not normal humans, and we want to proceed from the departure point that we are normal humans: it’s like in respect of the right and duty to vote in an election of say the president of the country, only normal humans are entitled to vote, abnormal ones are excluded; and if they are violently abnormal, then we put them in safe keeping, in an asylum, first for our own safety, and second for their own safety.

Okay, who and what are we? who are going to discuss how certain are we that God exists.

We are living entities who do know that we have a nose in our face, and we will be at a disadvantage in life if someone should take away our nose.

Or we accidentally lose our nose due to some mishap.

And there are all the other things that make up each one of us that make up the whole entity we call ourselves, which components if we should lose any of them we will be at some disadvantage in life if not in total demise from life, i.e. we will be dead, meaning, no longer living, and must be put away and out of sight in the cemetery.

Okay, so among normal humans we know who and what we are, so let us not waste further time in coming to concurrence on the meaning of we in the title of the thread.

Next to come to concurrence on is the word, exists.

The noun of the verb to exist is existence, and for the present let us all concur by pointing to ourselves, living normal human beings, as an example of entities who have existence, as opposed to anything without existence, meaning ultimately that we are something instead of nothing whatsoever.

To exist means to be something instead of the diametrically opposite of something, which is nothing; if anyone does not know what is something that is totally opposite to nothing, so that he also does not know what is nothing, then I would propose to him to leave this thread at his earliest convenience.

Now, let us concur on the concept of God.

And I propose in regard to the Christian faith, God is first and foremost the creator of the universe.

So, dear folks here, if you don’t have at least the information datum that in the Christian faith, God in concept is first and foremost the creator of the universe, you can also depart from this thread at your earliest convenience.

That leaves finally the word certain for us all normal existing humans to work together to come to concurrence on what it is to be certain.

I will start with the proposal that to be certain of something existing is for us to experience its presence, its being in physical contact to us, so that if we cannot experience its presence at all, then we cannot be certain of its existence, that is what I call immediate or direct certainty, and I will add, the adjective, human, like this: direct human certainty.

That is the first kind of certainty that we all must possess, so that if you claim to not have immediate human certainty of say the nose in your face, whereas everyone looking at your face tells you, you have a nose, then you are also addressed the invitation to please depart from this thread, because you are not a normal human and cannot be any possessor of certainty whatsoever of any kind at all, from the first and foremost certainty possible to humans, which is direct human certainty.

Next kind of certainty is what I will call indirect human certainty which is not founded on the immediate human experience of an object present, but from intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Let us concur to call indirect human certainty, inferential certainly.

So, let us be concise and of course also precise, I propose that we keep to these two terms in regard to certainty, namely:
  1. Direct certainty – founded on direct experience of an object
  2. Inferential certainty – founded on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.
What do you guys here say?

KingCoil
Click to expand...
Certainty of God depends on faith which varies from person to person. It’s not a “we” question. It’s an individual oriented “you” question
 
babylonfalling said:
Originally Posted by KingCoil
First, before anything else we have to work together to come to concurrence on the meanings of the important words used in the title of the thread.
Click to expand...
You have not been instructed in college with the dogma of the Catholic Church that man can and does know God to exist from reasoning, without divine revelation, even when he has no faith in Christianity.

But to know that God is triune in persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, man needs revelation.

Continuation in next post ]
Click to expand...
 
Continuation ]

And you are stuck with your fascination on your self-imagined discovery that certainty varies with each individual, you are talking about the emotional aspect of feeling certain, on this pseudo understanding you can consult Sapien.

Will you please do some genuine original thinking and come to know that everyone i.e. we know with direct certainty that there is a nose in our face, and from inferential certainty on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, that God exists as the creator/cause of the universe.

Here, let me share with you my definition of what certain means, and also my division of human certainty.

Human certainty, my division of

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11978245#post11978245

Certain, my definition of

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11935292#post11935292

But, have we met before? If so, then please don’t pop in and out because you are talking out of turn all the time.

Now, please do some pesonal original thinking and tell me what kind of certainty man has with this statement, 1 + 1 = 2.

For myself it is direct certainty in man that 1 + 1 = 2, because man experiences that when he counts one 1 thing and then he counts another 1 thing, he has counted two 2 things, that is the experience direct at that which is the foundation of his certainty that 1 + 1 = 2.

Do you accept that, or you have some other kind of certainty for that kind of statement, 1 + 1 = 2?

In which case, please present first your definition of certainty and your division of certainty, otherwise you will be talking out of turn for not having any reference point, as you do not produce any definition of certainty and neither or much less your division of certainty.

Dear readers here, if you have any point you notice in my ideas, please bring it forth, and I will explain the point of your query according to my best intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

KingCoil
 
KingCoil said:
I never say at all that I am not sure I exist, on the contrary for a number of posts already I am rebutting the irrational statements of atheists and hard core skeptics insisting that man cannot even be sure that he exists.

See, you do not stay here but pop in and out and talk out of turn.

Continuation in next post. ]
Click to expand...
I apologize, it was some atheists whom you said may not even think they exist.

P.S. there are no " turns " here. We can comment at any time…
 
KingCoil said:
Continuation ]

And you are stuck with your fascination on your self-imagined discovery that certainty varies with each individual, you are talking about the emotional aspect of feeling certain, on this pseudo understanding you can consult Sapien.

Will you please do some genuine original thinking and come to know that everyone i.e. we know with direct certainty that there is a nose in our face, and from inferential certainty on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, that God exists as the creator/cause of the universe.

Here, let me share with you my definition of what certain means, and also my division of human certainty.

Human certainty, my division of
http://i59.tinypic.com/35a0w8o.jpg
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11978245#post11978245

Certain, my definition of
http://i59.tinypic.com/2iiafkp.jpg
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11935292#post11935292

But, have we met before? If so, then please don’t pop in and out because you are talking out of turn all the time.

Now, please do some pesonal original thinking and tell me what kind of certainty man has with this statement, 1 + 1 = 2.

For myself it is direct certainty in man that 1 + 1 = 2, because man experiences that when he counts one 1 thing and then he counts another 1 thing, he has counted two 2 things, that is the experience direct at that which is the foundation of his certainty that 1 + 1 = 2.

Do you accept that, or you have some other kind of certainty for that kind of statement, 1 + 1 = 2?

In which case, please present first your definition of certainty and your division of certainty, otherwise you will be talking out of turn for not having any reference point, as you do not produce any definition of certainty and neither or much less your division of certainty.

Dear readers here, if you have any point you notice in my ideas, please bring it forth, and I will explain the point of your query according to my best intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

KingCoil
Click to expand...
Oh yes, 1+2 = 4. That is mathematical certainty.
Inferential certainty is not total certainty.
Divine Revelation is total certainty. There is no doubt about that.

Linus2nd
 
You will have to excuse my popping in and out, I am involved in other posts, and I don’t want my limited time to be dominated by one poster. I follow your reasoning, up to a point. I have to give you credit for using the computer better than I can so I will try to explain it the best I can.
Human Certainty, Your first statement I find O.K. (that which exists)
The second statment I find O.K.
It’s your No 2 statment…On the existence of fact inside of man, like a stomach. The trouble I have is that what is inside our bodies is physical, and just as what is outside our bodies is objective and physical. so I don’t understand why a distinction is made., sensed by the senses. Are we thinking…inside the mind, or inside the body,? Facts exist in the mind as ideas. The intelligence of man is a spiritual entity, not a physical one. I need clarification if I am to go further on your reasoning.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
40.png
KingCoil:
Addressing Babylon ]

…]

But, have we met before? If so, then please don’t pop in and out because you are talking out of turn all the time.

Now, please do some pesonal original thinking and tell me what kind of certainty man has with this statement, 1 + 1 = 2.

For myself it is direct certainty in man that 1 + 1 = 2, because man experiences that when he counts one 1 thing and then he counts another 1 thing, he has counted two 2 things, that is the experience direct at that which is the foundation of his certainty that 1 + 1 = 2.

Do you accept that, or you have some other kind of certainty for that kind of statement, 1 + 1 = 2?

In which case, please present first your definition of certainty and your division of certainty, otherwise you will be talking out of turn for not having any reference point, as you do not produce any definition of certainty and neither or much less your division of certainty.

Dear readers here, if you have any point you notice in my ideas, please bring it forth, and I will explain the point of your query according to my best intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

…]
Click to expand...
Oh yes, 1+2 = 4. That is mathematical certainty.
Inferential certainty is not total certainty.
Divine Revelation is total certainty. There is no doubt about that.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
Dear Linus2, do you notice that you are always trying your best or erh worst to digress from the topic of this thread, now by resorting to being funny.

You see, and I have said this nth times already, I am into a rational exposition on how certain man can and is of God existing as creator of the universe; so that atheists with a sincere desire to know on rational grounds the existence of God: can also come to and be certain that God exists, and that on rational grounds.

Your purpose here to all appearances is to try to divert the thread into your kind of philosophy founded on divine revelation and your favored philosophers of bi-millennial lore.

And I have noticed again and again that you want to talk philosophy, while you think that I am not into philosophy; but in fact you are not into rational philosophy but into theology.

Now, I invite you to go with me into what is philosophy for you and for me; can you join me in this digression?

Or you will again as with all posters who have now taken to departure from this thread, because they will not stick to the topic and do intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, or they want to divert it to some off-topic directions in which they think they can parade their self-imagined extensive and deep learning.

Okay, as you parade with waving the flag of philosophy, you tell me what is your idea of philosophy; or you will want me again – because you dare not ever put your neck out to say something that you can defend with reasons for fear that you will be facing genuine reasoning – you prefer that I be the first to give my idea of what is philosophy.

In which case, just tell me if you are still around in this thread that you want me to start the ball rolling on what is philosophy from my part.

KingCoil
 
ynotzap said:
You will have to excuse my popping in and out, I am involved in other posts, and I don’t want my limited time to be dominated by one poster. I follow your reasoning, up to a point. I have to give you credit for using the computer better than I can so I will try to explain it the best I can.
Human Certainty, Your first statement I find O.K. (that which exists)
The second statment I find O.K.
It’s your No 2 statment…On the existence of fact inside of man, like a stomach. The trouble I have is that what is inside our bodies is physical, and just as what is outside our bodies is objective and physical. so I don’t understand why a distinction is made., sensed by the senses. Are we thinking…inside the mind, or inside the body,? Facts exist in the mind as ideas. The intelligence of man is a spiritual entity, not a physical one. I need clarification if I am to go further on your reasoning.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your post, ynotzap.

Here, I will reproduce my division of human certainty and my definition of the word, certain.

Human certainty, my division of

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11978245#post11978245

Certain, my definition of

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11935292#post11935292

You ask:
quote ]
The trouble I have is that what is inside our bodies is physical, and just as what is outside our bodies is objective and physical. so I don’t understand why a distinction is made., sensed by the senses.
unquote ]
​

You see, you have changed my two phrases:
fact outside the self of a human
fact inside the self of a human

into (from you):
what is outside our bodies
what is inside our bodies

The body of a human is not as broad as the self of a human, the self of a human includes everything: body, heart (the emotions), mind, consciousness, memory, ideas, etc., i.e. biology, psychology, knowledge, biases, prejudices, values, morality, etc., etc., etc.

Here is again my division of human certainty, take notice of the lines in bold.

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
The phrase ‘self of human’ is purposely formulated from my part to inform readers that the idea intended is very much broader than ‘body of human’.

So, there are many many material physical things and non-material things in the self of a human that are not outside the self of a human.

For examples: the stomach is inside the self of a human but not outside; photographic memory or mastery of the theory of relativity are inside the self of a human but not outside the self of a human.

Hope you get my explanation.

So, certainty is in the self of a human, it is founded on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Intelligent thinking and logic are in the self of a human.

Facts are divided into two kinds:

Item - Facts outside the self of a human, for example, the fact of the sun in the day sky.
Item - Facts inside the self of a human, for examples, his stomach (a biological fact), mastery of the theory of relativity (a knowledge fact).

Hope you get my explanation.

KingCoil*
 
Now that you explained in more detail, I understand. The way I read it "All that is internally inclusive in the make-up of man, both physical and spiritual. If this is the proper interpretation of your #2 statment, then I agree.
 
Dear readers, thanks so much for your presence here.

My purpose with this thread is to obtain (name removed by moderator)uts from others in order to test my ideas on how I can reason out with atheists the ones that are sincerely into reasoning to the existence of God or non-existence of God.

That is why the title of the thread is “How certain are we that God exists?”

But I am not getting any feedbacks from atheists in this forum at all, on the other hand they were present in my previous threads.

What I get are posts from fellow theists here who are however not into reasoning but into what I call and it is the fact, divine revelation and faith, by which they repeat as from a litany, there is absolute certainty.

Whenever I invite them to do reasoning with me, they will pop out and then pop in again to say that they have already reasoned with me but I am not looking up their texts.

So that is the status quo with posters here who are not reasoning with me, like from Linus2, I asked him to reason with me about what is philosophy, and he has popped out again.

There used to be a poster here now atheist but before Christian or even Catholic I think, but he has most loudly been absent from this thread, whereas he was present in my earlier thread on transiting to the existence of God from the concept of God – if memory serves.

I will now look up some atheists who are active in other threads here in this philosophy sub-board of apologetics, and send them pm’s to come over here and contribute their (name removed by moderator)uts to my idea, on how man can and has inferential certainty of God’s existence from intelligent thinking grounding himself on logic and facts.

So, I will be back here to report on my expedition to look up atheists here.

Right now I am having a lot of trouble because there is some malware that sneaked in into my Windows XP that is making a lot of my routine commands non-responsive, not reacting even like “walking dead.”

Now I have to do with the bare commands in my use of the computer, even though I have executed the system restore already – still no return to my previous happy mood with a lot of convenient commands on my computer and the softwares.

If I don’t come back today, then please know that I am still into putting my computer in order.

I’d better send this post right away before it gets frozen and I have to do a reset and write the whole thing all over again, or see if my continuous recorder of work is still functioning, so that I can at least reconstruct the message in the midst of all the kinds of characters also recorded by this robot.

KingCoil
 
I believe that it is likely that there is a God or Creator, but I cannot be sure of it with absolute certainty.
 
We need an "Encounter with Him Christians , truly converted have had this encounter. Turning from sin and turning to Christ is an encounter of the first kind. There are other Christians who have had a deeper encounter with Jesus, God-man, living a deeper spiritual life. This will never be achieved by reason, or science. They may bring you to the door, but Jesus, God-man has to open it. It is a SUPERNATURAL GIFT. given to those humble and sincere enough to seek it
 
ynotzap said:
Now that you explained in more detail, I understand. The way I read it "All that is internally inclusive in the make-up of man, both physical and spiritual. If this is the proper interpretation of your #2 statment, then I agree.
Click to expand...
Thanks, ynotzap, for your post.

I did not see your post prior to transmitting my post earlier to this one.

My computer has gone berserk, and I work with constant fear that it will conk out anytime.

I don’t know what’s bugging it, but it could be a virus or I have damaged Windows XP in some segment of its routine commands.

Anyway, praise God, I can write even with fear over my shoulder – as you notice, English is not my mother tongue, so please bear with me; when you come across some phrase from me that you don’t understand, just let me know and I will explain to you what I mean.

I have changed my designation from Defector from Catholicism to Catholic on Leave of Absence, because that is to my present mind the best description of my present condition in regard to affiliation with a religion.

I like very much to have a continuing exchange of thoughts with you on the certainty of God existing from man’s reasoning intelligently grounded on logic and facts.

My idea is to get your (name removed by moderator)uts on my ideas so that I can improve them, and also from all others here; but I notice – and please forgive me all others like Sapien and Linus2 and Jochoa – that there are active posters here who simply refuse to engage in reason but to prefer to parade their self-imagined wide and deep learning, albeit talking past the topic and direction of this thread.

This thread is into reason, not into divine revelation and faith.

So, please join me in this adventure, the quest for certainty of the existence of God as the creator of the universe.

First agendum, humans who are intent on proving that God exists or does not exists, we must first above and before everything else, concur that we exist; because if we do not concur on this most ultimate foundation of human discourse or exchange of thoughts, then we are engaged in a senseless enterprise, it would be like guys who talk about breathing when they are not sure that they are breathing, even worse for breathing comes after existing and living while with guys who doubt their own existence they are not even sure that they are present in the world at all as an objective fact.

You see there are atheists who insist that we cannot be sure that we exist, so how much less can we be sure that God exists, wherefore they transit from that platform to the wholesale denial of God existing.

There position is one of extreme skepticism, for they doubt the fact of their existence itself, it is not doubting for example like whether they have enough cash for a burger or not.

These atheists will challenge Christians to prove to them that we they and us exist.

Do you have any undeniable proof that you and I and atheists themselves exist although they with their tongue declare that man cannot be sure that he exists – while they talk and already take for granted that people are listening to them while they are talking?

KingCoil
 
Jerbear said:
I believe that it is likely that there is a God or Creator, but I cannot be sure of it with absolute certainty.
Click to expand...
My position is that we can and do have inferential certainty of God existing, i.e., not from direct experience of God like we experience the nose in our face by looking at it and also feeling each other’s nose, but by intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Here, see my division of certainty and my definition of what is the concept of certain.

quote ]
Code: 
Human certainty, my division of

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11978245#post11978245

Certain, my definition of

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11935292#post11935292

unquote ]

KingCoil
 
ynotzap said:
We need an "Encounter with Him Christians , truly converted have had this encounter. Turning from sin and turning to Christ is an encounter of the first kind. There are other Christians who have had a deeper encounter with Jesus, God-man, living a deeper spiritual life. This will never be achieved by reason, or science. They may bring you to the door, but Jesus, God-man has to open it. It is a SUPERNATURAL GIFT. given to those humble and sincere enough to seek it
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ as the Son of God made man Who died on the cross to redeem mankind from sin and bring him back to God, that is of divine revelation and faith.

That God creator of the universe exists, that is from reason; but for ordinary folks who do not have the time and luxury to engage in intelligent thinking on logic and facts, it is enough that they take the existence of God creator of the universe on faith, and this God is identical to the God Father of Jesus Christ in Christianity.

That is my point, God as creator of the universe is known by man from intelligent thinking grounding himself on logic and facts, and the certainty is from inference: that is why I submit that it is with inferential certainty we humans know God as creator of the universe exists.

KingCoil
 
Yes we can know of the existence of God. Even though His existence can not be demonstrated, we can know about Him through the effects of His existence, eg. The order in the universe, it’s origin, our total dependence, motion, the many forms of life.

I have proof that I exist, I know that I know, and if I didn’t exist this would be impossible. I also know that there was a time I didn’t know of my existence, from this I know I had a beginning If the atheist denies his existence, how can he justify his position. There is one undeniable principle because it is self-evident, it shines by its own light, it needs no explanation: A thing can not be, and be at the same time, it is or isn’t. the principle of contradiction. With these self-evident principles and existing facts one can logically prove the existence of God this kind of thinking is called “deductive” approaching the conclusion from rationalizing from known facts, and their logical conclusion. Inferential thinking is going from the conclusion to the known facts, and logical conclusion of these facts, it uses inference
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top