C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
But materialism is the doctrine that only material things exist.
How do you prove that spiritual things cannot exist?
- Status
How do you prove that spiritual things cannot exist?
K
KingCoil
Guest
No, from my stock knowledge of the Catholic faith, the knowledge of God in concept as the creator of the universe need not be founded on faith only, it can and is proven from reason and this proof is inferentially certain, namely, on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.
And that is a dogma of the Catholic Church, that God as creator of the universe can and is known to exist from reason, and not only from divine revelation, or from reason as natural revelation, i.e., from the evidence of an existing universe.
There must be some statement in the collections of Catholic dogmas to the effect that God can and is known from reason also.
Natural revelation? From my stock knowledge, natural revelation is the universe, because from the existence of the universe which we can and do know from our natural reason, we can and do come to the inferential certainty that there is a creator of the universe which corresponds to the God in the Christian faith, as this God of the Christian faith is described first and foremost as the creator of heaven and earth, i.e. of the universe.
KingCoil
K
KingCoil
Guest
Here is my authority on reason can and does come to the knowledge of God existing, otherwise let him who rejects be anathema.
KingCoil
ENJOY!
KingCoil
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I agree, professor
. I think there may be many other concepts that fit in this category. For example, a person that has never experienced love may find it hard to understand until having a personal experience of love (for now I am skipping over the classifications for the different types of love). There are some experiences that are deeply personal. For some types of events even if a scenario were replication a person finding himself in the scenario may still have a different experience than another person in the same scenario.
K
KingCoil
Guest
I propose that first we prove that there is existence.But materialism is the doctrine that only material things exist.
How do you prove that spiritual things cannot exist?
Then we will next sort out the kinds of existence, that is the logical approach.
And please, try to talk in a positive format, not in a negative format: because it is impossible to prove something to not exist unless we humans can have access to the most exhaustive totality of all existence whatsoever – which requires that we be God creator of the universe.
So instead of stating: “How do you prove that spiritual things cannot exist?”
Say: “How do you prove that spiritual things exist?”
And when in fact you cannot do it after endless attempts, then you can say to yourself, “No, I cannot prove spiritual things do not exist: because I cannot have access to the exhaustive totality of existence whatsoever.”
KingCoil
K
KingCoil
Guest
That is why we must all who claim to experience inner things inside our selves ask ourselves what behaviors do we execute on account of that experience, and observe whether our behaviors concur or not.I agree, professor
If not, then we are experiencing different things.
KingCoil
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
One cannot say that materialism is a positive doctrine. In fact, it says “nothing immaterial exists.” That is a negative universal and is not provable. You can endlessly try to prove nothing immaterial exists, but you can’t do it. Materialism therefore is always an assumption that defies proof. While materialism always demands proof for the existence of spirit, it never demands proof for materialism. Ironic, no?
When you say, “No, I cannot prove spiritual things do not exist: because I cannot have access to the exhaustive totality of existence whatsoever,” you are saying only a partial truism. We can indeed have access to the existence of spirit, but only if we have our minds open to it, and not closed to it by the so-called fact of atheism. Atheism short-circuits our access to the experience of spirit.
K
KingCoil
Guest
Dear brother, I am not espousing materialism by which I am of the position that only material things exist.
My purpose in this thread is to expound on my idea that inferential certainty of God existing is possible, it is necessary, and it is sufficient.
Forgive me, but you seem to be insisting that I have positions which you are trying to argue against.
Okay, here is the portion of the snapshot of post #71 which might enlighten you on my concern in this thread.
Best regards,
KingCoil
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
I see it is likely that I misunderstood your drift. Very sorry about that. Probably happened because I did not follow the entire thread that closely.
I believe that inferential certainty of God’s existence is both possible and sufficient. I’m not so sure about the necessary aspect of it. The position of the atheist is certainly that there is no proof that **necessarily proves **the existence of God. That is why I think you really cannot persuade the atheist except by resorting to Pascal’s Wager (which is not a proof so much as a plea that it is necessary to believe without proof).
J
jochoa
Guest
I find that your inferential certainty of God existing is definitely possible; although good, not necessary by nature of inference; and although adequate in knowing God’s existence, not sufficient in totality of purpose.
- It is definitely possible in that it is an idea not only declared, but also factual and logical.
- Inference by nature requires a free mind to conclude, therefore it is not something that is needed, but rather something that is wanted.
- It is insufficient in resolving the purpose in knowing God exists. If you declare that God, the Creator of Everything, cannot be directly known, then what does it matter knowing God exists?
Z
zippy2006
Guest
I think this is basically right. It would certainly be considerably difficult to prove that you cannot experience God directly, and KingCoil has given us no reason to believe it is not possible.
It seems to me that that is what you are saying. For example:
Presumably you are presenting an exhaustive dichotomy here, and direct certainty is equivalent to non-inferential certainty.
Are you distinguishing internal subjective experience from “Encountering God within the self”? On what basis? And how are either of these things not simply equivalent to non-inferential certainty?
Yes, you gave a long version of the Kalam cosmological argument here. That’s fine. But you’ve also asserted that God cannot be known by direct certainty (or non-inferentially), which is what I’ve been addressing. You do so here, here, here, and elsewhere.
I’m wondering if you want to give an argument for that position, or if you are unable to argue what you have asserted so strongly. If you prefer that I do not use the word “non-inferentially,” your position could be stated as, “God’s existence cannot be known with direct certainty.”
That’s my point: Knowing God inferentially is neither required nor necessary. Neither is it sufficient (for salvation), but that is beside the point.
Okay.
K
KingCoil
Guest
There are sincerely honest atheists and skeptics with an open mind and can do intelligent thinking on logic and facts and they found God; that is why we come to them even in the internet explaining how it is possible to come to the fact that God exists.
It is my frustration with some atheists that they have closed their minds totally and irrevocably against thinking intelligently on logic and facts, and they will resort to the insistence that as man cannot know anything with absolute certainty, then God exists is not absolutely certain, so why bother.
That is the fallacy of absolute certainty which is impossible with man.
What is possible with man or humans is human certainty and not absolute certainty; and human certainty is necessary, and sufficient in all the affairs of man by which he can live his life and make sense of it.
That is why when I meet anyone who brings up absolute certainty, I always try to get him and me to work as to concur on what is absolute certainty, but I never succeed to get him and me or with me to work on what is absolute certainty, in particular in regard to what I call fanatical bigoted atheists; but even Christians will not discuss with me what is absolute certainty, because they have a phobia making them run away from this issue of what is absolute certainty.
My position is that absolute certainty does not exist with humans, but with the absolute being, God.
What we have is what we must name human certainty, the certainty that is accessible to humans by the use of his reasoning faculty doing intelligent thinking on logic and facts.
KingCoil
K
KingCoil
Guest
For folks who on faith know God exists as per concept the creator of the universe or of heaven and earth, they don’t need to come to the inferential certainty of God existing as [repeat] creator of the universe.
It is for folks who do not have faith that they can still come to know God exists as per concept creator of the universe on inferential certainty, which then I submit that inferential certainty is possible, necessary, and sufficient for them, namely, to come to the knowledge that God exists first and foremost as the creator of the universe.
From that initial knowledge on inferential certainty of God existing, then a person can build his Christian religion by faith, first and foremost that Jesus Christ is the Son of God made man, who did come to save man.
I think the example of a human coming to God’s existing on inferential certainty is Antony Flew, but he never acquiesced to the Christian religion.
KingCoil
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
This I agree with. Human certainty is not absolute certainty. If it were, there would be no reason for faith. As Jesus said to the apostle Thomas: “Blessed are those who have not seen, but believe.” This is Jesus explicitly allowing that human certainty of the type we have been talking about (that is, inferential certainty or “intelligent thinking based on logic and facts”) is not absolute even though it is relatively certain.
But there is another kind of certainty that is experiential, and I think there is a case to make that this kind of certainty can be absolute if the person feels he is intimately connected to the Lord in such a way that he cannot imagine himself not connected. Such an absolute certainty, of course, as I said earlier, cannot be communicated or transferred to others. Others must experience it for themselves. That is why people who do not have the experience of knowling and loving God (people like Sigmund Freud, for example) think that people who claim to have this experience are really suffering from delusions. But it seems to me fanciful that if you have not experienced God personally you can say with any kind of certainty, relative or absolute, that God is an illusion.
K
KingCoil
Guest
Earlier I divided human certainty into:
Item - Direct which based on experience of an object external to man, for example, ice cream or the nose in the face of your friend.
Item - Inferential which is oriented toward an object external to man but which man cannot have direct contact with because the object is overly massive or extremely subtle, for example, God in concept as the creator of the universe.
Later I subdivided direct certainty on the basis of the object of the man’s certain knowledge, namely, into oriented toward an object external to his inner self, and object oriented to within his inner self.
I brought up the sub-class of direct certainty on an object internal to the self of a person because some folks here claim to know God from internal experience of God, so that God is certain for them – but not certain to humans who cannot go into the self of the person to verify his inner experience of God.
Tell you what, put your inquiry into one precise and concise statement, and I will try to explain my position.
KingCoil
Z
zippy2006
Guest
*]Do you believe that God’s existence cannot be known with direct certainty?
*]If not, why not?
K
KingCoil
Guest
There are folks who claim to know God within their soul, heart, mind, self whatever but not as having contacted an external object God from their external senses.
They experience God inside their self, and know from their Christian faith that God is first and foremost the creator of the universe.
So, their certainty of God is grounded on their internal experience of God, then they learned from their religion like the Christian faith that God is first and foremost the creator of the universe.
I call their human certainty as direct but grounded not on an external object God, but on their experience of a presence whatever in their soul, or heart, or mind, or self whatever.
Do I believe in such a kind of direct certainty of God?
I personally do not believe in such a direct certainty of God as I have not experienced something like they do; but I respect their kind of direct certainty, certainty of their experience of God which then they learned that He is the creator of the universe first and foremost in his relation to man and the universe.
You put you inquiry thus:
As I am into rational considerations on the certainty by man of God existing, not on any kind of belief, I propose that you present your inquiry in the positive format and without bringing in belief. thus"
No, I don’t personally have the direct certainty of God’s existence, neither as an external object of my external senses, nor as the object of my internal experience within my soul, heart, mind, self whatever: because God is too immense an external object to be experienced by my external senses, and neither as an object to my inner experience (not with my external senses), because I cannot experience God internally as to capture His immensity and subtlety.
What certainty then do I have of the existence of God?
Insofar as in concept the creator of the universe, I have the inferential certainty of His existence as the creator of the universe.
KingCoil
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
God does not expect us to know Him in His immensity and subtlety. After all, the finite cannot absorb the Infinite. It does not follow that because you cannot know God in “His immensity and subtlety,” you cannot know God at all. By a direct experience with God through Jesus Christ, who is certainly knowable, you have access to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. But if you deny the reality of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, both man and God, it’s easy to see why you won’t directly experience God at all.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Conviction doesn’t require absolute certainty. You may be aiming for a goal that is unnecessarily high to accomplish your goal. The apparent impossibility of absolutely certainty is more of a philosophical position. But people don’t necessarily make decisions or experience conviction from absolute certainty. Our knowledge about our universe is incomplete. Our perceptions are imperfect. We operate with imperfect certainty on many things.
If you are speaking with some one that is in complete opposition to your stance than engaging in a conversation from complete opposition may have a low success rate in convincing some one. I don’t want to explain all the reasons and mental processes on why this is the case but will for now refer to the book Mistakes were Made but Not By Me that speaks about this at considerable length.
A better method may be a slower one. Instead of starting off establishing certainty start off establishing possibility.
K
KingCoil
Guest
By whatever certainty you know God to exist, please come to the information and accept it even on faith, that first and foremost in relation to man and the universe, He is the creator of the universe.
Why? Because if you do not accept God as first and foremost in concept the creator of the universe, then your god as represented by your own idea of God (which is not according to His role as creator of the universe first and foremost) is not worth any kind of subservience from you.
KingCoil
- Status