How certain are we that God exists?

[ynotzap]

We may know God’s existence, but how do we prove He is the Creator of the Universe, we have to show logically how this is. God’s existence, and God the Creator are two different concepts, how do we show or reconcile these two concepts unless we show more detail that would logically prove the fact that God exists, is the same God the Creator, we have qualified Him as the Creator, we went from a universal truth, to a specific truth. He is the prime mover, the un-created creator, the un-moved mover, the un-caused cause how do we prove this? The proofs are found in metaphysics under different studies, eg. The cosmological , study of the universe, the science of being, ontology, psychology, the study of the soul and life. These are difficult studies, and as you said take time and effort. I don’t believe that many people would go that far, because it is difficult. But we can use the self-evident principles to bring many arguments to a halt, and maybe even confound the opponent. eg. To show him his illogical thinking by what we do know, and critiquing his reasoning, analyzing for truth, or falsehood.

 

[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

Have you read about how there is a testing we can do to prove that we exist, which amounts to direct experiential knowledge of our existence?

I have expounded on this proof several times in previous posts, and I will show you here, aside from saying that I have dealt with this matter before and you just have to look it up (that is what some posters here are always into, but never bringing forth now what they said before).

Here is the way to prove to anyone talking about how he and all humans cannot prove that they exist.

First, you bring an index finger from him to point to and touch the nose in his face, then you bring out from your pocket a pair of garden pruning shears.*

Then you ask him, "Are you doubting that you exist, wherefore you are also doubting that your nose in your face exists?

In which case will you let me prune just a part of your nose off your face, so that you will experience the partial loss of the existence of your nose, this means there was a part of your nose which existed before in your nose, and now no longer exists because it has been cut off?

Do you now have certainty that you exist or you still need more proof, from me pruning another portion of your nose off your face?

Eventually I will get a much bigger industrial size pair of pruning shears and cut off your head from your body, that will prove to others that you existed before but now no longer, even though it does not prove to you because you will no longer be around existing, to arrive at certainty of your erstwhile existence.

That is what I call proof by testing.

You see, people like to use words and concepts to prove or disprove things, in that way one can prove or disprove everything with manipulating words and concepts.

Bring the issue to actual real life and put it to a testing, then people will not anymore seek to manipulate words and concepts to prove or disprove things, except only in the inept realm of just manipulating words and concepts.

KingCoil

*Garden pruning shears

 

[ynotzap]

Th

Have you read about how there is a testing we can do to prove that we exist, which amounts to direct experiential knowledge of our existence?

I have expounded on this proof several times in previous posts, and I will show you here, aside from saying that I have dealt with this matter before and you just have to look it up (that is what some posters here are always into, but never bringing forth now what they said before).

Here is the way to prove to anyone talking about how he and all humans cannot prove that they exist.

First, you bring an index finger from him to point to and touch the nose in his face, then you bring out from your pocket a pair of garden pruning shears.*

Then you ask him, "Are you doubting that you exist, wherefore you are also doubting that your nose in your face exists?

In which case will you let me prune just a part of your nose off your face, so that you will experience the partial loss of the existence of your nose, this means there was a part of your nose which existed before in your nose, and now no longer exists because it has been cut off?

Do you now have certainty that you exist or you still need more proof, from me pruning another portion of your nose off your face?

Eventually I will get a much bigger industrial size pair of pruning shears and cut off your head from your body, that will prove to others that you existed before but now no longer, even though it does not prove to you because you will no longer be around existing, to arrive at certainty of your erstwhile existence.

That is what I call proof by testing.

You see, people like to use words and concepts to prove or disprove things, in that way one can prove or disprove everything with manipulating words and concepts.

Bring the issue to actual real life and put it to a testing, then people will not anymore seek to manipulate words and concepts to prove or disprove things, except only in the inept realm of just manipulating words and concepts.

KingCoil

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

That may be effective in proving that he exists, but we are talking about the certainty of God’s existence, an unsensed Being one that can’t be demonstrated, we have to resort to truth found in the sensed world, and proper interpretation of that truth, through logic, and its principles. The only way we can prove the existence of a spiritual being is by a spiritual faculty, called “intelligence” If the spiritual being can not be demonstrated, then we must resort to the effects caused by it’s existence. Like a man fishing, he doesn’t see the school of fish, but he does see the ripples on the surface of the water. He casts his net, he catches the fishes that he didn’t see. He reasoned from the effects the school produced on the surface of the water. We must abstract the unseen facts from the seen, or sensed realities. We come to the reality of thoughts and ideas and this is were the trouble begins, to separate the truth, from the false. Men’s minds are already handicapped by the influence of feeling that condition knowledge, they can be prejudiced by hate, or bias by love,these are forms of ignorance and ignorance itself, big obstacles to knowing the truth. We can’t escape these truths I know that God knows these truths, and thats why He" endowed" the Church with divine assistance, the gift of “infallibility” in her teaching on Faith and morals. to guide the faithful to and with the “Absolute Truth”

 

[jimmy]

I am pretty certain that I exist, so I am pretty certain that God exists. The answer to both is the same.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Well, thank goodness we don’t have to justify our reasons for believing God exists. Read the Catechism. It gives us certain knowledge of the existence of God which cannot be doubted. We can place our complete trust in the teaching of the Church in these matters.

For those pining for philosophical reasons I suggest Thomas Aquinas and Peter Kreeft. These are trusted thinkers.

Linus2nd

 

[KingCoil]

Th
That may be effective in proving that he exists, but we are talking about the certainty of God’s existence, an unsensed Being one that can’t be demonstrated, we have to resort to truth found in the sensed world, and proper interpretation of that truth, through logic, and its principles. …]

I am talking about the first very first certainty that we must establish with atheists who are sincere and rational, and that is that we are sure we exist, and how to prove it, by testing.

I notice that folks here still don’t get the whole thrust of this thread, on how are we certain that God creator of the universe exists, from reasoning, not from believing.

So, the first ever certainty we have to establish with atheists who are sincerely seeking for the rational foundation of proof for the existence of God, is that we first reason to the certainty of our existence.

You see, sincere atheists are skeptics, even adopting the position that man cannot prove that he exists, it could be that everything with man is just an illusion, or it is all like a matrix movie.

From that doubt they follow with the submission that so much more or correctly so much less can we be certain of God existence, since we are not even able to prove that we ourselves exist.

And my proof is to ask atheists to undergo the testing of our existence by submitting ourselves to risk the loss of our existence, first with our life itself by endangering it, with for example, pruning the nose off our face, or worse pruning the head off our neck.

You see, ynotzap, how can you talk on logic with atheists when they already start with the doubt of our existence: the pseudo argue this way: as we already are in doubt of our existence, how much more are we then in doubt of God’s existence.

The proof is to test them on the danger to the loss of existence by amputating one’s body’s parts.

That is the very first and fundamental certainty to establish with atheists.

The second certainty to establish with atheists is that there has always been something, or there has never been nothing from which something came forth.

That is the pseudo argument of atheist cosmologists, that God is not needed to bring about the universe because nothing is the origin of everything.

So, I ask you, ynotzap, how can you show these atheist cosmologists that nothing cannot be the origin of anything whatsoever. by manipulating words and concepts?

KingCoil

 

[ynotzap]

If one can not accept the self-evident obvious truth, then I’m dealing with a person who has lost contact with reality, and anything I say won’t change anything. there are such people, I believe they call them schizophenics I wouldn’t be violent with them by cutting of their nose, and if I did, they may not understand why I did it. There are skeptics, and the skepticism varies in degrees. If he is totally skeptic then he backed himself into the corner of absurdity, and I would be wasting my time trying to convince him of anything. For those who vary in the degree of skepticism, if they are looking for rational answers I would do my best to supply the answer, but if they are not really looking for an answer, anything I say will be ignored or rejected. I need to know who I am reasoning with. St.Paul said (if you will excuse my reference to revelation) Because they deny God and they can know Him, God leaves them to their irrationality. Meaning even reason won"t help. We make a stand for truth and our belief and if they are rejected, like Paul, we move on, and maybe even wipe the dust of our shoes. People have issues, and it’s a condition, and not one that is necessarily looking for a reason.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The problem is that Descartes used a similar argument, " I think, therefore I am. " And that didn’t go very far.

Linus2nd

 

[ynotzap]

When I stated that I could prove my existence (to myself) by stating that I know that I know I was stating a self-evident truth, one of self awareness, not one of logic, which Descartes used in order to prove his existence. Of course the logic is there too in the fact that if I didn’t exist, I couldn’t be aware that I know that I know. this is the power ,of the Soul, to be able to reflect on itself, a feat that is physically impossible. It is not one of logic, it is self-evident, it needs not proof. You ask a material scientist to solve this phenomenon and you receive no answer.

 

[KingCoil]

When I stated that I could prove my existence (to myself) by stating that I know that I know I was stating a self-evident truth, one of self awareness, not one of logic, which Descartes used in order to prove his existence. Of course the logic is there too in the fact that if I didn’t exist, I couldn’t be aware that I know that I know. this is the power ,of the Soul, to be able to reflect on itself, a feat that is physically impossible. It is not one of logic, it is self-evident, it needs not proof. You ask a material scientist to solve this phenomenon and you receive no answer.

I am now acting as an atheist and hard core skeptic but I am rational and seek your explanation of how you are certain that you exist and I exist.

Okay, tell me, Oh Christian, what do you mean by self-evident truth; even your Savior was asked that question by Pilate, and it seems Pilate didn’t bother to wait for the Savior to answer, I guess Pilate did not think he should waste his time with more words and concepts from Jesus to no purpose at hand.

37Therefore Pilate said to Him, “So You are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” 38Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?” And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews and said to them, "I find no guilt in Him.…

So, dear ynotzap, no talk, just show how you and I can be certain that you and I exist, by some other means than talking, in particular not about socalled self-evident truth.

I will be acting as an atheist and a hard core skeptic from here onward.

KingCoil

 

[ynotzap]

I am now acting as an atheist and hard core skeptic but I am rational and seek your explanation of how you are certain that you exist and I exist.

Okay, tell me, Oh Christian, what do you mean by self-evident truth; even your Savior was asked that question by Pilate, and it seems Pilate didn’t bother to wait for the Savior to answer, I guess Pilate did not think he should waste his time with more words and concepts from Jesus to no purpose at hand.

So, dear ynotzap, no talk, just show how you and I can be certain that you and I exist, by some other means than talking, in particular not about socalled self-evident truth.

If you deny self-evident proof, you are not in contact with reality. Instead of acting as an atheist, you are becoming one.

It’s amazing that you are blind to your own reasoning!! You demonstrated this lack of understanding in you “classical” example of using a pair of pruning shears to cut the nose off an atheist to prove to him that he existed.
How did you ever arrive to the conclusion? Did you think by cutting off his nose would remind him that he did exist, because he felt the pain. And that if he didn,t exist he couldn’t feel the pain? Did you think by seeing him, and that by seeing himself, and touching his nose that his senses would prove to him he existed?

Or is it because by you seeing him and he seeing himself and touching his nose is self-evidence, and needs no logical proof The existence of the atheist and of yourself, and his nose, and the shears manifests themselves because they exist, and existence make them sefl-evident. Being aware of objective reality , its presence is made known by it’s self-evidence. If it didn’t exist,logically there would be no self-evidence.

As for a hard-core skeptic one that can not be sure of anything because he can’t trust his senses, or the veracity of what his senses sense, combined with the doubts that he can not really know the truth, or part of the truth, rationalizing with him would be futile and a waste of time.

As for Pontius Pilate stating “What is Truth?” Jesus shared the truth with Him. Pilate knew Jesus was innocent of the charges brought by the Jews. Pilate found the it was "expedient " to tun Him over to the Jews, because the Jews threaten to report Pilate to the Roman authorities that Jesus was an “insurrectionist” because He called himself a King. Pilate apparently was “Job Scared” He didn’t care about truth, like a lot of people.

So it is not necessarily the lack of truth or reason that people make the choices that they do, but what serves their desires, the deadly power of the human will, and the ignorance of their minds

You did it to yourself again. Stick with the Church and her thinking, its’ done with the gift of “infallibility” bestowed on her by Divine Assistance, and you will never go wrong.

I rest my case. God bless you amigo!(quit downrating posters when you are not satisfied with their reasoning, it us uncharitable)

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

See the properly formatted text of ynotzap as follows. ]

Quote ] Originally Posted by ynotzap

Originally Posted by KingCoil ]
I am now acting as an atheist and hard core skeptic but I am rational and seek your explanation of how you are certain that you exist and I exist.

Okay, tell me, Oh Christian, what do you mean by self-evident truth; even your Savior was asked that question by Pilate, and it seems Pilate didn’t bother to wait for the Savior to answer, I guess Pilate did not think he should waste his time with more words and concepts from Jesus to no purpose at hand.

Quote ]
Originally Posted by John 18:37-38
37Therefore Pilate said to Him, “So You are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” 38Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?” And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews and said to them, "I find no guilt in Him.…
unquote ]

So, dear ynotzap, no talk, just show how you and I can be certain that you and I exist, by some other means than talking, in particular not about socalled self-evident truth.
unquote ]

​

If you deny self-evident proof, you are not in contact with reality. Instead of acting as an atheist, you are becoming one.

It’s amazing that you are blind to your own reasoning!! You demonstrated this lack of understanding in you “classical” example of using a pair of pruning shears to cut the nose off an atheist to prove to him that he existed.

How did you ever arrive to the conclusion? Did you think by cutting off his nose would remind him that he did exist, because he felt the pain. And that if he didn,t exist he couldn’t feel the pain? Did you think by seeing him, and that by seeing himself, and touching his nose that his senses would prove to him he existed?

Or is it because by you seeing him and he seeing himself and touching his nose is self-evidence, and needs no logical proof The existence of the atheist and of yourself, and his nose, and the shears manifests themselves because they exist, and existence make them sefl-evident. Being aware of objective reality , its presence is made known by it’s self-evidence. If it didn’t exist,logically there would be no self-evidence.

As for a hard-core skeptic one that can not be sure of anything because he can’t trust his senses, or the veracity of what his senses sense, combined with the doubts that he can not really know the truth, or part of the truth, rationalizing with him would be futile and a waste of time.

As for Pontius Pilate stating “What is Truth?” Jesus shared the truth with Him. Pilate knew Jesus was innocent of the charges brought by the Jews. Pilate found the it was "expedient " to tun Him over to the Jews, because the Jews threaten to report Pilate to the Roman authorities that Jesus was an “insurrectionist” because He called himself a King. Pilate apparently was “Job Scared” He didn’t care about truth, like a lot of people.

So it is not necessarily the lack of truth or reason that people make the choices that they do, but what serves their desires, the deadly power of the human will, and the ignorance of their minds

You did it to yourself again. Stick with the Church and her thinking, its’ done with the gift of “infallibility” bestowed on her by Divine Assistance, and you will never go wrong.

I rest my case. God bless you amigo!(quit downrating posters when you are not satisfied with their reasoning, it us uncharitable)

unquote ]​

You still have not come to how you prove to others from your experience and their experience that you both including yours truly are certain of the existence of the nose in our face.

Your idea that you have self-evident truth of the nose in your face, therefore you know of your existence, but what about fellow humans, how do you prove to them that they exist?

Is it not by also exchanging your experience with them and thereby come to concurrence that as with the nose in each one’s face, so also each one is into existence?

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

My purpose in this thread is to show atheists that God exists is the rational position to adopt, the opposite is the irrational position.

At this point I am into establishing with atheists that we humans, they and us, exist.

That is the first premise for all humans to adopt who are into the issue whether God exists or not; because unless we are sure i.e. certain that we exist, it is irrational to talk about God existing: for if we ourselves humans are not sure we exist, then it cannot be otherwise than that God existing is also and even more for us, unsure – that follows.

It is like if we are not sure that we exist, then we also are not sure our parents exist.

How do I establish with atheists that they and I exist?

By showing him that there is a difference between existence and non-existence, for example when a human dies he no longer exists, that is immediately obvious to any human who has seen someone now dead but before was alive, i.e., previously existing and now no longer.

Another example, show atheists who doubt that we humans exist, with a piece of paper which now I hold in my hand, and then I set it on fire and it burns and it becomes burnt ashes, so there is a difference between existence and non-existence, in the fact that a piece of paper was existing earlier but now no longer: so also with humans.

That is not a proof by words and concepts but by testing which we all living humans can experience with seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, smelling, and with also our each one’s consciousness of our each one’s internal experiences of our each one’s self and all the activities in our self which we do have awareness of, like that for example with a stomachache.

So, dear fellow theists here, please do not bring in our faith, etc., like divine revelation, to talk with atheists how we do really exist, but conduct a testing with them.

Now that we have succeeded in getting atheists to concur with us that we have certainty of our existence, we proceed to work with them to arrive also together that the world outside ourselves exist, i.e. the universe outside ourselves.

From these two premises, that we exist and the universe exists, then we can continue to keep on with atheists who are sincerely concerned with the issue whether God exists or not, to discuss how God exists or does not exist, from the facts that we exist and the universe exists.

That is what I call rational approach to the issue does God exist?

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

And how do we prove to atheists that the universe exists?

Science tells us that there was a time when humans did not exist, but the universe was already existing.

And the universe is still existing, now with also the presence of humans.

So, as humans like theists and atheists are certain that they exist, that means we all humans, and as we all take science to be the certain knowledge of facts in reality, as distinct from theories in science, then we are sure that the universe exists which includes ourselves as part of the universe – no need for atheists to inquire whether we exist but not the universe which is just all in our mind.

And how do we theists prove to atheists that the universe outside ourselves is NOT just all in our mind, nothing in objective reality?

Well, we can tell them that for the sake of argument we can assume that the universe exists in our mind, so let us go forth and exist and live and operate in the universe that exists only in our mind; it does not make any difference for us, even though you atheists love to go into verbal paradoxes just to make an obvious fact so all messed up with your manipulation of words and concepts.

No trouble with us theists, you atheists and we theists can still exist and live and operate in the universe that exists only in our mind, as also with the universe that exists independently of our mind, from our part – if you want to entertain a fiction in your mind and imagine reality to be a fiction you are living in, it is okay with us, we are not going to debate with you forever on your fiction.

Now, can we have a beer together, for you all in the universe in your mind, and for us all in the reality of the existence of the universe independent of and outside our mind – and we will all atheists and theists still enjoy the beer.

As you atheists uphold science, then shouldn’t it be about time you give up all such fictions, and come down to the scientific reality of the existence of the universe outside our mind, the universe that exists before we arrived into existence, and it will continue to exist long after we have become extinct.

Do you notice, dear readers, that when you exchange thoughts with atheists on the issue of God existing or not existing, you will sooner than later meet with all such fictions from atheists, like that there is no design in nature, it is all chaos and randomness, and also that the universe came forth from nothingness.

That is the instinct self-embedded instinct in folks I call fanatical atheists, who have a phobia of opening their minds to the reality of design, for example, just the nose in our face and in their face is already a most conspicuous instance of static and dynamic design, and the existence of a cause creator of the universe which cannot be rebutted by recourse to the absurdity of infinite regress.

The lesson here is to first screen out the fanatical atheists from the atheists who are sincerely with open mind into the quest for the resolution of the issue God exists or not, on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

How do we filter out fanatical atheists?

First, of course we have to put up a list of the telltale signs of a fanatical atheist.

One of these telltale signs is the insistence that man cannot prove to himself that he exists, therefore he cannot either prove to himself that God exists.

This kind of a claim is all in the mind, because the atheist notwithstanding that he claims he cannot be sure he exists, still he conducts himself normally just like anyone else human, going though his everyday routines of personal life and social life.

So, it does not matter at all in any way in his life outside his mind, that he has this idea that he cannot prove to himself that he exists, except to put up a make-believe mental drama, that he cannot prove to himself he exists, and thereby also others cannot prove to themselves either that they exist, not to themselves and not to fellow humans.

And also more important to him and his fellow fanatical atheists, therefore man cannot prove that God exists.

What is the logic here, that as man cannot prove to himself and fellowmen that man exists, then he cannot prove to himself either that God exists.

This is a tall order, but not really a tall order, because the first order of the day is to rebut his mental attitude that he cannot prove to himself he exists…

I always take this tack when I come across a fanatical atheist who resorts to this mental trick of putting up a wall against his own access to God, by namely insisting that there is no proof, not to himself and not to fellowmen, namely, all mankind cannot prove to themselves each individually to himself and all together cannot prove to themselves mutually as a collective group to one another, that they exist at all.

What is my tack here?

First order of the day is to rebut his denial that he can prove to himself he exists.

Simple, it is to bring the fanatical atheist to come to concur that his statement, one cannot prove to oneself and all mankind also cannot mutually prove to each other that each to himself and all mankind respectively to one another cannot prove existence of themselves to themselves, to come to concur with me namely that such a statement is all in the mind but in everyday reality life, the fanatical atheist conducts himself as genuinely existing: so everyday he wakes up and goes about life to make a living and to have a life.

That is the most crucial distinction between something in the mind only but of no critical impact on everyday actual life from the physiological routines of eating, breathing, washing up, to the task of earning a living, managing a home and conducting the domestic life of marriage and family, or for singles how to keep busy and enjoyable without marriage and family.

At this point the fanatical atheist will insist that, No I am not just into something that is merely in my mind but does not impact on my everyday life.

This fanatical atheist will tell us that he is more free, at peace, under no stress to be so attached to life since life is an illusion, or like in a matrix movie, or closer to ‘reality’ it is all a dream.

How do I turn his mind to come to realization that he does not truly have this kind of an attitude of giving no heck of any concern for staying alive by keeping himself safe from injury and death itself because life is all an illusion, a matrix movie, a dream?

By resorting to a testing of his attitude whether it is all words but when the event should occur to himself that he must act urgently with all his might to save himself from injury and death, he does take all the effort to overcome or flee the situation of danger to life and limb confronting himself.

With this kind of a testing, what I call pruning the nose challenge.

I take a pair of garden pruning shears* out of my pocket and grab his nose with one hand as I proceed to cut off the tip of his nose with my other hand, using the shears.

He will exert the most urgent force to take hold of my hand holding the shears to prevent me from cutting off his nose tip.

So, that proves to us both that life is not an illusion, not a matrix movie, and of course not a dream only.

Still, you cannot stop this fanatical atheist from going about telling everyone that man cannot prove to himself and neither the whole of mankind to one another that man exists.

And it is at this point that I have to flee from such a character like the plague.

I guess the fanatical atheist is into the unforgivable sin.

The lesson here is that expereince is the ultimate basis of any proof of existence of ourselves and also of God Who is so distant from us and yet on intelligent thinking grounding ourselves on logic and fact, He is – at the risk of the pseudo charge that I am into pantheism (on that matter, later) That in Which we live and move and have our existence.

KingCoil

*Garden pruning shears

 

[KingCoil]

My present concern is to establish the premises for exchange of thoughts with sincere atheists who really care to know in a rational manner whether God exists or not.

First premise is that we you and I and all humans exist; unless we are sure we exist at all, it is irrational to even just talk.

And how do we prove that we exist?

By testing ourselves whether we dare to undertake any action by which we can cause the extinction of our existence, specifically our life; how? by first try removing the tip of our nose, or as with Yakuza members, cut off conveniently with a pair of garden pruning shears to show remorse for their lack of intelligence in their life of being a gangster, in your case for lacking the intelligence to know that you exist.

Second premise is that the universe exists because if we alone exist without the universe, then what is the use we can’t do anything without the universe, we might as well be God before He created the universe, but God without ever having created the universe is a very bored God; so for the sake of not existing in a very bored existence, we owe it to ourselves to accept the existence of the universe.

But how do we really prove that the universe exists, aside from talking about being a very bored God Who still has not yet created the universe?

Again, we must resort to the testing of extinguishing or damaging our existence, in particular our life, by again with the multiple testing equipment of the now familiar pair of garden pruning shears.*

This is a test which is founded on experiencing, and we know at least when we think intelligently grounding ourselves on logic and facts, that experience is the ultimate foundation of sure knowledge; experience itself is the consciousness of consciousness, i.e. we know that we are conscious when we take the act of reflecting on our being conscious: experience is consciousness and consciousness itself is existence, that is for humans, unlike for say a pebble – when you are in a comatose condition i.e. not conscious, you are not existing as a human but as a piece of vegetating meat erh vegetating pebble.

So, summing up at this point:

First premise of our thread here on how we are certain that God exists:

That we exist.

Second premise:

That the universe exists.

The third premise is that the atheists we are exchanging thoughts with are sincere atheists not fanatical ones.

KingCoil

*Garden pruning shears

 

[KingCoil]

And how do we screen out the fanatical atheists?

By testing them with the ever convenient pair of garden shears.

And it is with the pruning shears that fanatical atheists expose themselves to be fanatical, i.e. not rational: they will not submit themselves to the testing on themselves with the shears, still they go on and on and on with declaring that they cannot be sure that they exist, and they cannot be sure that the universe exists, so they cannot be sure either and most of all God exists at all.

That is the first telltale sign that an atheist is a fanatical atheist, not a sincerely rational atheist, as I have said in my previous post here:

KingCoil:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12042713&postcount=382

How do we filter out fanatical atheists?

First, of course we have to put up a list of the telltale signs of a fanatical atheist.

One of these telltale signs is the insistence that man cannot prove to himself that he exists, therefore he cannot either prove to himself that God exists.

The second telltale sign that we are dealing with fanatical atheist is that he will declare that the universe, that includes us, came forth from nothing, nothing, completely nothing, neither anything whatsoever and definitely not God either.

And pray, we ask fanatical atheists, how can nothing ever at all be the origin of the universe, as one of them is famous with his quote, “The Cosmos – another name for universe accent on its beauty, design, and order,-- is all that is or was or ever will be.”

Simple, one of his fellow fanatical atheists still alive and talking will tell us, “It is because ‘Nothing is unstable,’”

If I were one of his unthinking fans I would explain to you, my dear readers here, It is like this, nothing is similar to boiling water, it is unstable, so it will enact something to itself like turning itself into water droplets which we call water vapors.

That is a sure sign of a fanatical irrational atheist, by his utterance of bizarre nonsense speech.

The third sign of a fanatical irrational atheist is his recourse to ignorance accompanied by a feigned aura of humility, like this: you ask him what is the explanation for the big bang, and he will declare “We cannot know and must not presume to know, that is arrogance of the nth degree; we must be humble to admit our incapacity to know anything at all beyond the big bang.”

So you ask him, Are you not supposed to think on the basis of your experiences in life? like for example you are driving aimlessly for fun and then suddenly realize that you are lost in a strange big city and you can’t find your way out, so what are you going to do, say to yourself that you must be humble and not arrogate to yourself the capacity to know that there is a world outside this big strange city: as you are possessed of experiences in life and you are intelligent, do you not at once come to the idea that as you and this big strange city did not come from nothing at all, for from nothing at all not anything at all can come about, and I did come into this big strange city by driving for fun aimlessly, so there is a world outside this city and I just have to continuing driving in one direction and then in another until I get to succeed in landing into an exit from it, as I had landed into entering it by fun driving."

But no, with the fanatical irrational atheist, he will insist and declare again and again, man has no capacity to think beyond the big bang and must be humble, to not arrogate to himself the capacity to know anything at all beyond the big bang.

Summing up for a last time the premises of this thread, how certain we are that God exists:

1. That we exist.
2. That the universe exists.
3. That we are dealing with sincere rational atheists, not with fanatical irrational atheists; and how do we screen out fanatical irrational atheists: by either one of these three telltale signs exhibited by them, or all of the three signs:
   a. Fanatical atheists will insist and declare time and again they are not sure they exist, much less sure the universe exists, and therefore with certainty God exists at all.
   b. Fanatical atheists will insist and declare again and again, that the universe came forth from nothing.
   c. Fanatical atheists will insist and declare again and again that they cannot know what lies beyond the big bang, and it is arrogance to attempt to think about it at all.
   ​

And what about sincere rational atheists, how do we identify them?

We talk with them from the standpoint of intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, and when they also proceed from intelligent thinking grounding themselves on logic and facts, then we know that we are dealing with sincere rational atheists, not with fanatical irrational atheists.

KingCoil

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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

Our knowledge of anything begins with one self evident fact, the world outside our intellect is real and it is only because it is real that we know anything. Because all our knowledge begins at our sense reception of the data provided by the external world. Without that we wouldn’t know anything, even ourselves. Without this self evident fact we are reduced to the status of a dumb animal.

Linus2nd

 

[KingCoil]

quote ]

Originally Posted by KingCoil
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?

/quote ]

Our knowledge of anything begins with one self evident fact, the world outside our intellect is real and it is only because it is real that we know anything. Because all our knowledge begins at our sense reception of the data provided by the external world. Without that we wouldn’t know anything, even ourselves. Without this self evident fact we are reduced to the status of a dumb animal.

Linus2nd

I concur with you on what you say above, congratulations to us both that we agree.

That is the way to talk with sincere atheists who are really in search for the rational proof that God exists – or not exists, namely, first seek concurrence with them on we exist and the universe exists.

What I cannot understand from you is your bringing in divine revelation and also your authorities, when atheists are not interested in divine revelation and authorities but only in facts and logic.

Logic is reasoning, facts are founded on experience, first and foremost is our consciousness, and consciousness itself is an all total experience of the reality of our each one’s existence of being alive and operating.

You see, Linus2, when we talk with atheists we notice that they unwittingly shift from God to religion and back to religion and God, and on and on: they have I dare even say grudges against religion, in particular Christianity – but they fail to get the fact correctly that God is not religion and religion is not God.

So, if I may, I propose that when you talk with them, please abstain from bringing in religion in the guise of revelation and your theologians, who are more often than not posing as philosophers, plain philosophers instead of actually doing the philosophy in theology and not pure philosophy (not philosophy as subservient to theology).

 

[KingCoil]

Now, let us we two put in concise precise clear simple words what we concur on:

1. We exist, that is based on our experience of ourselves and the universe.
2. The universe exists, that is based on our experience of the universe with our external senses and out internal grand experience of consciousness.

Let me explain, I refer to the consciousness of everything we have access to directly and also very important, indirectly, namely of things beyond our immediate contact by inference on logic and facts from our senses i.e. external senses of sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch, most crucially of course including our internal consciousness.

I cannot emphasize too much that consciousness is the total and all experience that is the basis of our contact with objective reality, so that for us humans consciousness the experience of consciousness and the experience of consciousness itself is identical to existence and life.

You use the term self evident, please avoid that term when talking with atheists, because that is an overly abused term from the part of theologians posing as philosophers plain and purely philosophers, if you mean that the concept is certain then use the term ‘experientially sure’.

Thus, you say it is self evident that we exist, don’t say it that way, say instead we are experientially sure that we exist.

Now, if you don’t concur with me, then explain why, why you don’t think that it is better that you abstain from using the term self evident when talking with atheists about the issue God exists or does not exist.

Dear readers, now Linus2 will pop out from this thread and then after several posts from me, suddenly pop in again and take up some materials already eons away from my present concern on how to and what premises to establish, when we are talking with sincere atheists who do really want to know how rationally man can come to the existence of God.

KingCoil