How certain are we that God exists?

[KingCoil]

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.

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.

How can that kind of certainty that is based on your experience and feeling be absolute?

That is why I always ask people who bring in absolute certainty to work with me to come to concurrence on what is absolute certainty.

What about that absolute certainty is diametrically the opposite of relative certainty; what you describe to be absolute is as you describe it, relative: for it is relative to your experience and feeling.

KingCoil

 

[ynotzap]

Not by human works does salvation come to man but by Faith in Jesus Christ, so that no one will take the credit that belongs to Jesus alone. I said it many times reasoning can take you to the door, but it is faith that will carry you over the threshold. We experience the reward of Faith is seeing what we believe.

I witnessed to my experience of my Christian Catholic Faith, and gave my experiencial knowledge of the certainty of Gods’ existence, but for some reason my posts were deleted. I know private revelation is forbidden in the forum. I find it strange that our protestant brothers share these experiences, but we are not allowed. These experiences concur with my Catholic Faith, and can give you some insight to the questions you ask, and the promises the Jesus gave. “If you love Me, and keep my commandments my Father and I will manifest ourselves to you” My Catholic faith gave me the knowledge that led me rationally to Gods’ existence, and my personal experiences and rational abilities. But it was the living of my Faith, a gift of grace from Jesus Christ that confirmed my reasoning and led me to the gift of “Awareness of God” It wasn’t a product of my reasoning, or my imagination. I was just attending Mass when it happened. another time just before receiving Communion, I wasn’t expecting these occurrences at any time. Ponder this thought "Why did Jesus appear to just certain ones, and not to the world when He resurrected from the dead, He could have ended all arguments about His divinity?perhaps another thread?

 

[KingCoil]

**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.

**Conviction doesn’t require absolute certainty. **

For your information I don’t subscribe to the idea of absolute certainty with man.

But just for the sake of intellectual exercise, let us talk about what you have in your mind about the concept absolute certainty.

Here goes:

Forgive me, but have you any definite concept of what is absolute certainty?

Please don’t use a term unless you have a definite concept of it and others concur with your concept of that term.

Otherwise it means anything you have in your mind which can be nothing others have of it in their minds, thus all using that term are talking past each other’s head, and that is no intelligent exchange of ideas, but non-communication altogether.

Okay, dear Sapien, tell me what is your concept of absolute certainty and tell me its opposite.

Where or in what subject is absolute certainty to be found?

And how does one come to absolute certainty?

KingCoil

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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.

How can that kind of certainty that is based on your experience and feeling be absolute?

We can be absolutely certain that the heart has reasons reason cannot understand (Pascal). When you know God in an intimate way, in your heart as well as in your head, you know there is more conviction than you can get from the head alone, which always protests too much that everything is relative and uncertain. People who do not know God in their hearts cannot understand this because they lack the dimension of absolute heartfelt conviction. This is why the early Christians were willing to die for Christ. You would never die for Christ if you were not full of absolute conviction that Christ is worth dying for.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

**Conviction doesn’t require absolute certainty. **

For your information I don’t subscribe to the idea of absolute certainty with man.

I don’t either. But I subscribe to the idea of absolute certainty with God.

Please don’t use a term unless you have a definite concept of it and others concur with your concept of that term.

Otherwise it means anything you have in your mind which can be nothing others have of it in their minds, thus all using that term are talking past each other’s head, and that is no intelligent exchange of ideas, but non-communication altogether.

Yes, I have conceded this already in earlier posts. The person who is not connected with God cannot have any certainty about God because he lacks the heartfelt dimension. But it does not follow that, because the Christian cannot transfer his absolute certainty to another, he does not have absolute certainty.

And how does one come to absolute certainty?

As I have already said a few times: by giving one’s heart AND head to the experience of God.

 

[KingCoil]

Dear Charelem, are you aware that we are not getting to any concept of what is absolute certainty?

As you are the one experiencing absolute certainty, I propose that you be the one to present what you have for a concept of absolute certainty.

KingCoil

 

[zippy2006]

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.

Okay, so you do believe that direct certainty of God is logically possible?

You put you inquiry thus:

1. 
   *]Do you believe that God’s existence cannot be known with direct certainty?
   *]If not, why not?

1. 
   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"
   

   1. 
      *]Do you personally have the direct certainty of God’s existence?
      *]If not, why not?

1. 1. 
      
      Two points:
      
      1. 
         *]Belief is always present. I asked if you believe the proposition, “God’s existence cannot be known with direct certainty.” There is nothing non-rational about belief, it is a basic building block of rational discourse. You are confusing it with religious belief or divine faith.
         *]Your revision of (1) incorrectly states my question. I was not asking if you have had experience of God, I was asking if you believe God can be known with direct certainty.
         

         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.

         You keep doing this. You keep giving vague “arguments” against the possibility of having direct certainty of God’s existence. So again, I ask if you believe this proposition to be true or false: “It is possible for God to be known with direct certainty.” Do you believe that proposition is true, or false?

 

[KingCoil]

Okay, so you do believe that direct certainty of God is logically possible?

Two points:

1. 
   *]Belief is always present. I asked if you believe the proposition, “God’s existence cannot be known with direct certainty.” There is nothing non-rational about belief, it is a basic building block of rational discourse. You are confusing it with religious belief or divine faith.
   *]Your revision of (1) incorrectly states my question. I was not asking if you have had experience of God, I was asking if you believe God can be known with direct certainty.
   
   You keep doing this. You keep giving vague “arguments” against the possibility of having direct certainty of God’s existence. So again, I ask if you believe this proposition to be true or false: “It is possible for God to be known with direct certainty.” Do you believe that proposition is true, or false?

1. 
   "It is possible for God to be known with direct certainty." Do you believe that proposition is true, or false?
   
   I am telling now as I told you earlier that for myself it is “No, I cannot know God exists with direct certainty.”
   
   Please, will you just stop making me answer for the whole mankind!
   
   Do I “believe that proposition is true, or false?”
   
   You mean the proposition from you or as written and presented by you, namely:
   “It is possible for God to be known with direct certainty.”
   
   My answer, it is not possible for myself to know God with direct certainty, so I am one of humans who maintain that that proposition is false.
   
   Now, I see that from your part you want to insist that all mankind accept that proposition to be true; well, who gives you the right and the office to speak for all mankind? or you just go ahead and usurp that right and office?
   
   So, as you to my observation usurp the right and the office to speak for all mankind, for you then the proposition as written and presented by you namely, “It is possible for God to be known with direct certainty” is true.
   
   Well, that is all within your right to free speech, but do take the caution at least in your exercise of free speech to not also in the process arrogate to yourself the right and the office to speak for the whole of mankind.
   
   You also asked for explanation of my reply, and I gave the explanation in brief discourse with my answer to your question, now you are complaining that I am going vaguely with my reply to you.
   
   You see, you prefer to talk impersonally and also negatively, please abstain from such approaches in talking.
   
   Say or ask “Do all humans accept this proposition to be true, etc.”
   
   Here is what you asked me earlier:
   1. Do you believe that God’s existence cannot be known with direct certainty?
   2. If not, why not?
   But to date you have not presented your concept of certainty and your concept of absolute certainty.
   
   I have presented my concept of what is for humans certainty and what is direct human certainty and inferential human certainty, see my post #1.
   
   Now, sir, please let us talk about what is certainty from your part, what is direct certainty from your part, and what is absolute certainty from your part; so that we can work to come to concurrence on mutually accepted meanings of certainty, direct certainty, inferential certainty, absolute certainty, and for the love of God, always in regard to humans, not impersonally from nowhere or just out of the blue.
   
   And thus we can both say with mutual concurrence what is for humans or for mankind certainty, direct certainty, inferential certainty, absolute certainty.
   
   And as regards absolute certainty, I like to talk with you whether any human can attain to absolute certainty on the existence of God.
   
   When you react to this post, just pick one specific point from me for us to go into, this will save us from having to attend to so many points.
   
   KingCoil

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’m reordering some of your previous message to group related comments.

For your information I don’t subscribe to the idea of absolute certainty with man.

Ok.

But just for the sake of intellectual exercise, let us talk about what you have in your mind about the concept absolute certainty.

That’s fine.

Forgive me, but have you any definite concept of what is absolute certainty?

Okay, dear Sapien, tell me what is your concept of absolute certainty . . .]

Absolute Certainity is commonly understood to be a belief with no possibility of doubt. Though people will also use it to label what they think to be perfect and complete knowledge for a domain of information. Though it is possible in either case for the absolute certainty to be held in a proposition that is thought to be true, but not actually true. To use an example, a schizophrenic may have absolute certainty on something. But he may (or may not be) mistaken.

Schizophrenia may sound like an extreme example, but there’s a number of ways in which a person that is otherwise mentally healthy can be wrong about something for which s/he is confident. Some people recognize this and consider that they could be wrong about anything. Philosophically this puts a person in the position of absolute certainty most likely being impossible. Though it seems there are few that assume the extreme form of this position called “radical skepticism” in which one assumes the philosophical position that knowledge is most likely impossible.

. . .]and tell me its opposite.

As for opposite, the opposite of certainty is doubt.

Extreme doubt in all things would be radical skepticism, mentioned above

Please don’t use a term unless you have a definite concept of it and others concur with your concept of that term.

Before agreement on the use of a term can be agreed to the term must be introduced. I think your request is self contradicting so I can’t (and won’t) comply with it. If a term is introduced and some one has question of disagreement on how the term is applied in the conversation s/he can ask about it; like what you are doing in this exchange with the phrase absolute certainty.

Otherwise it means anything you have in your mind which can be nothing others have of it in their minds, thus all using that term are talking past each other’s head, and that is no intelligent exchange of ideas, but non-communication altogether.

I’m glad we are having a dialog instead of a monolog. There’s potential to fill in misunderstandings and eliminate ambiguities as long as the participants are open to doing so.

Where or in what subject is absolute certainty to be found?

That varies not only with the subject, but the person whose mind is being applied to the subject. So I don’t think I can give you an answer that you would find satisfying. There are some that would argue “Cognito, ergo sum.” But based on studies on reactions to overwhelming emotional experiences and how one’s sense of self is in part dependent on their emotional state it seems that even that proposition could be made doubtful to some.

Based on the work of the neuroscientist António Damásio (see Descarte’s Error) there’s an emotional component to certainty too.

BTW: Since a theological proposition is the motivation of this thread it’s worth pointing out that some people follow a religious tradition without absolute certainty in it. Their feelings of certainity can range from “this might be true” to “I don’t think it’s true, but this is what my family/social group has historically done.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Dear Charelem, are you aware that we are not getting to any concept of what is absolute certainty?

As you are the one experiencing absolute certainty, I propose that you be the one to present what you have for a concept of absolute certainty.

I do believe “absolute certainty” is self evident as a concept. It needs no defintion, and any definition would be merely saying the same thing in different words. One can give examples of absolute certainty. For example, I am absolutely certain that I exist. Are you going to ask me to prove it? Of course not. So we can have absolute certainty about some things, including my absolute certainty of your existence as well.

Absolute certainty about God is an experience of both the mind and the heart united in the conviction that God exists and that we have a loving relationship with him. As pointed out earlier, this absolute certainty is not possible if we are not united both in mind and heart to God. That is why atheists cannot (or will not) break through the wall that obstructs their experience of God. Their hearts are closed to God. They do not want to know God, for whatever reason.

But many religious people have known God intimately, and they have no doubt that the God they know is real because God is a living presence in their lives. Many religious people have given their lives entirely to God, have labored in his vineyard, and have died in his cause. I don’t believe they would do such a thing if they harbored for a moment the notion that God might not exist. Again, this absolute certainty cannot be proven to others, cannot be transferred to others, if others are not likewise open to the intimacy of God’s love.

 

[KingCoil]

I’m reordering some of your previous message to group related comments.

Ok.

That’s fine.

Absolute Certainity is commonly understood to be a belief with no possibility of doubt. Though people will also use it to label what they think to be perfect and complete knowledge for a domain of information. Though it is possible in either case for the absolute certainty to be held in a proposition that is thought to be true, but not actually true. **To use an example, a schizophrenic may have absolute certainty on something. But he may (or may not be) mistaken.

Schizophrenia may sound like an extreme example, but there’s a number of ways in which a person that is otherwise mentally healthy can be wrong about something for which s/he is confident. Some people recognize this and consider that they could be wrong about anything. Philosophically this puts a person in the position of absolute certainty most likely being impossible. Though it seems there are few that assume the extreme form of this position called “radical skepticism**” in which one assumes the philosophical position that knowledge is most likely impossible.

As for opposite, the opposite of certainty is doubt.

Extreme doubt in all things would be radical skepticism, mentioned above

Before agreement on the use of a term can be agreed to the term must be introduced. I think your request is self contradicting so I can’t (and won’t) comply with it. If a term is introduced and some one has question of disagreement on how the term is applied in the conversation s/he can ask about it; like what you are doing in this exchange with the phrase absolute certainty.

I’m glad we are having a dialog instead of a monolog. There’s potential to fill in misunderstandings and eliminate ambiguities as long as the participants are open to doing so.

That varies not only with the subject, but the person whose mind is being applied to the subject. So I don’t think I can give you an answer that you would find satisfying. There are some that would argue “Cognito, ergo sum.” But based on studies on reactions to overwhelming emotional experiences and how one’s sense of self is in part dependent on their emotional state it seems that even that proposition could be made doubtful to some.

Based on the work of the neuroscientist António Damásio (see Descarte’s Error) there’s an emotional component to certainty too.

BTW: Since a theological proposition is the motivation of this thread it’s worth pointing out that some people follow a religious tradition without absolute certainty in it. Their feelings of certainity can range from “this might be true” to “I don’t think it’s true, but this is what my family/social group has historically done.”

Thanks for your post.

You give the example of absolute certainty:
**To use an example, a schizophrenic may have absolute certainty on something. But he may (or may not be) mistaken. **

That is not, forgive me, an example of absolute certainty but an example of a human not having absolute certainty, because you add, “But he may (or may not be) mistaken.”

Here is my example of something that (I will not use the term absolute certainty) humans have direct human certainty of, the nose in your face and the nose in or face and we both have a nose in our face and we have eyes and hands to see and touch mutually each other’s nose.

I do not use the term absolute certainty because humans do not have absolute certainty.

Now, you don’t accept my statement that humans do not have absolute certainty, then give an example by which a human has absolute certainty of, and then we will analyze your example to concur or to not concur from my part with your example of absolute certainty, on the basis of the concepts of absolute and the concepts of certainty.

Okay, give an example of absolute certainty, because the example you gave (see your post above) is no example of absolute certainty but of a mentally and emotionally compromised human whom you describe as "But he may (or may not be) mistaken."

Dear Sapien, at this point you will accuse me of indulging in perverse semantics.

Please do not, because if I were indulging in perverse semantics I would not be giving an example of what I call direct human certainty, namely, the nose in your face and in our face and we both are seeing and touching each other’s nose.

That is the way to come to concurrence on what a concept is all about in regard to the factual reality of existence in the universe or even broader in the totality of existence whatever, give examples.

When you reply to my post, please just give an example of absolute certainty, but not the one about some schizophrenic having absolute certainty on something, "But he may (or may not be) mistaken."

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

I do believe “absolute certainty” is self evident as a concept. It needs no defintion, and any definition would be merely saying the same thing in different words. One can give examples of absolute certainty. For example, I am absolutely certain that I exist. Are you going to ask me to prove it? Of course not. So we can have absolute certainty about some things, including my absolute certainty of your existence as well.

Absolute certainty about God is an experience of both the mind and the heart united in the conviction that God exists and that we have a loving relationship with him. As pointed out earlier, this absolute certainty is not possible if we are not united both in mind and heart to God. That is why atheists cannot (or will not) break through the wall that obstructs their experience of God. Their hearts are closed to God. They do not want to know God, for whatever reason.

But many religious people have known God intimately, and they have no doubt that the God they know is real because God is a living presence in their lives. Many religious people have given their lives entirely to God, have labored in his vineyard, and have died in his cause. I don’t believe they would do such a thing if they harbored for a moment the notion that God might not exist. Again, this absolute certainty cannot be proven to others, cannot be transferred to others, if others are not likewise open to the intimacy of God’s love.

Thanks for your post.

You say:
"I do believe ‘absolute certainty’ is self evident as a concept."

And I say I do not believe “absolute certainty” is self evident to me," where do we go from there?

From there we recognize that we must avoid bringing in belief when we want to be rationally analytic instead of bringing in belief.

If everyone you talk to speak on the basis of his belief in this or that thing, then to be intelligent it is about time that you all go into rational analysis of the certainty of for example the nose in the face of everyone.

What is the rational analysis of the certainty of the nose in each one’s face, when you all decide to no longer bring in belief?

Here: you all look at and touch your own nose and each other’s nose; and if someone still insists that his nose is just his belief in his nose, then you all who do not indulge in belief(s), challenge him to do this test by himself and you all will do it also on him, namely, hit his nose with a sledgehammer hard.

That is the way to arrive at direct human certainty of the existence of the nose in our face.

You also say:
"It [absolute certainty] needs no defintion, and any definition would be merely saying the same thing in different words. One can give examples of absolute certainty. For example, I am absolutely certain that I exist. Are you going to ask me to prove it? Of course not."

You mean there is no way to prove that you exist, to me, and I exist to you?

What about the test I have proposed above about how we can arrive at the direct human certainty of the nose in our face, by looking at and touching each other’s nose, and also if need be hitting our nose and each other’s nose with a sledgehammer?

Is that absolute certainty by way of a sledgehammer?

Still no for myself, but I will call it direct human certainty.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

The thread is on “How certain are we that God exists?”

My position is that humans cannot have direct certainty of God’s existence, but only inferential certainty.

Now, it turns out that there are posters here who not only have direct certainty but even absolute certainty of God’s existence.

My position is that both direct certainty and socalled absolute certainty of God’s existence are impossible on the part of humans, but inferential certainty is available by intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

And that is what we are now determining, on your part who insist that you have direct and even absolute certainty of God’s existence from your experience of God, that you are right, and I am showing you why you are wrong.

KingCoil

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And I say I do not believe “absolute certainty” is self evident to me," where do we go from there?

You don’t believe it is absolutely self-evident to you that you exist?

From there we recognize that we must avoid bringing in belief when we want to be rationally analytic instead of bringing in belief.

If everyone you talk to speak on the basis of his belief in this or that thing, then to be intelligent it is about time that you all go into rational analysis of the certainty of for example the nose in the face of everyone.

What is the rational analysis of the certainty of the nose in each one’s face, when you all decide to no longer bring in belief?

Here: you all look at and touch your own nose and each other’s nose; and if someone still insists that his nose is just his belief in his nose, then you all who do not indulge in belief(s), challenge him to do this test by himself and you all will do it also on him, namely, hit his nose with a sledgehammer hard.

That is the way to arrive at direct human certainty of the existence of the nose in our face.

How do I hit God in the nose with a sledgehammer to find out if he exists?

On the other hand, I can feel his love in my heart and be absolutely certain he exists.

You also say:
"It [absolute certainty] needs no defintion, and any definition would be merely saying the same thing in different words. One can give examples of absolute certainty. For example, I am absolutely certain that I exist. Are you going to ask me to prove it? Of course not."

You mean there is no way to prove that you exist, to me, and I exist to you?

There is no need to if I experience you. Are you obsessed with analytical proofs for everything?

What about the test I have proposed above about how we can arrive at the direct human certainty of the nose in our face, by looking at and touching each other’s nose, and also if need be hitting our nose and each other’s nose with a sledgehammer?

Is that absolute certainty by way of a sledgehammer?

Again, you seem to think it necessary to hit God’s nose with a sledgehammer to be absolutely certain of God’s existence? I think that is overkill.

 

[KingCoil]

Thanks for your post

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCoil View Post
And I say I do not believe “absolute certainty” is self evident to me," where do we go from there?

You don’t believe it is absolutely self-evident to you that you exist?

From there we recognize that we must avoid bringing in belief when we want to be rationally analytic instead of bringing in belief.

If everyone you talk to speak on the basis of his belief in this or that thing, then to be intelligent it is about time that you all go into rational analysis of the certainty of for example the nose in the face of everyone.

What is the rational analysis of the certainty of the nose in each one’s face, when you all decide to no longer bring in belief?

Here: you all look at and touch your own nose and each other’s nose; and if someone still insists that his nose is just his belief in his nose, then you all who do not indulge in belief(s), challenge him to do this test by himself and you all will do it also on him, namely, hit his nose with a sledgehammer hard.

That is the way to arrive at direct human certainty of the existence of the nose in our face.

How do I hit God in the nose with a sledgehammer to find out if he exists?

On the other hand, I can feel his love in my heart and be absolutely certain he exists.

You also say:

"It [absolute certainty] needs no defintion, and any definition would be merely saying the same thing in different words. One can give examples of absolute certainty. For example, I am absolutely certain that I exist. Are you going to ask me to prove it? Of course not."

You mean there is no way to prove that you exist, to me, and I exist to you?

There is no need to if I experience you. Are you obsessed with analytical proofs for everything?

What about the test I have proposed above about how we can arrive at the direct human certainty of the nose in our face, by looking at and touching each other’s nose, and also if need be hitting our nose and each other’s nose with a sledgehammer?

Is that absolute certainty by way of a sledgehammer?

Again, you seem to think it necessary to hit God’s nose with a sledgehammer to be absolutely certain of God’s existence? I think that is overkill.

---

Thomas Aquinas
“We must love those whose opinions we share and those whose opinions we reject. Both have labored in the search for truth and both have helped us in the finding of it.”

You have reproduced my post with your reactions all within my post quoted by you.

You have several points.

I propose that you pick out one point, any one point from me which you want me to react to.

Go to my post and quote verbatim my words faithfully expressing the concerned point, tell me what you find unacceptable to you, and I will react to you on that point as regards your reactions.

When we have finished with that one point, you can bring up another point in a new post.

KingCoil

ANNEX Snapshot of my post #141:
forums.catholic-questions.org
/showpost.php?p=11928532&postcount=141

 

[ThinkingSapien]

You give the example of absolute certainty:

**To use an example, a schizophrenic may have absolute certainty on something. But he may (or may not be) mistaken. **

When you reply to my post, please just give an example of absolute certainty, but not the one about some schizophrenic having absolute certainty on something, "But he may (or may not be) mistaken."

Certitude is applied to belief, a mental state. I specifically used schizophrenia as an example because in that example it’s more obvious that one’s certitude can be non-congruent with the actual states of the objects referenced in the belief. As I said before an otherwise mentally healthy person can feel certain about something that is false. The impact of emotions on belief is one of the factors that can bring about certitude. Some one may be absolutely certain that another loved one won’t betray him and even confronted with evidence of the betrayal he may be unable to to change his belief on the matter.

Here is my example of something that (I will not use the term absolute certainty) humans have direct human certainty of, the nose in your face and the nose in or face and we both have a nose in our face and we have eyes and hands to see and touch mutually each other’s nose.

Well, know. We don’t actually know this about each other. It’s an assumption that we may both make about each other.

I do not use the term absolute certainty because humans do not have absolute certainty.

Okay, that’s fine. If you don’t want to apply absolute certainty to humans I’m fine with that. My reasons for this may be different.

Now, you don’t accept my statement that humans do not have absolute certainty,. . .]

That’s quite the opposite of the position I’ve taken. You might have forgotten that I was saying that absolute certainty is an unnecessarily high goal to aim for in a conversation.

Dear Sapien, at this point you will accuse me of indulging in perverse semantics.

That’s incorrect. I’ve no plans to do so, nor have I ever done so. So I’ll exclude a response that what you had written after this since it’s contingent on the above being true.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I propose that you pick out one point, any one point from me which you want me to react to.

Go to my post and quote verbatim my words faithfully expressing the concerned point, tell me what you find unacceptable to you, and I will react to you on that point as regards your reactions.

Rather than look at your past posts, let’s start fresh.

I would ask you to look again at the title of this thread. This thread, which you started, is not about whether we can be certain of a truth regarding each other, but whether we can be certain of the experience of God, and whether we can be uncertain, relatively certain, or absolutely certain. Can you agree that this is what the thread should be about, and that we can stop talking about “hitting our nose and each other’s nose with a sledgehammer”?

I maintain that we can have absolute certainty of the existence of God if we have a relationship with God that involves the spiritual understanding of God both in our minds and in our hearts.

Do you agree or disagree with this?

 

[KingCoil]

…]

Originally Posted by KingCoil
Here is my example of something that (I will not use the term absolute certainty) humans have direct human certainty of, the nose in your face and the nose in or face and we both have a nose in our face and we have eyes and hands to see and touch mutually each other’s nose.

Do you mean when we two are together you cannot know that in my face and in your face there is a nose, by looking at my nose and touching it and I looking at your nose and touching it, and we exchange our information on having seen the nose in each other’s ace and having touched it?

And you can only make an assumption?

Let us stick to this matter for the present.

KingCoil

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Do you mean when we two are together you cannot know that in my face and in your face there is a nose, by looking at my nose and touching it and I looking at your nose and touching it, and we exchange our information on having seen the nose in each other’s ace and having touched it?

And you can only make an assumption?

You seem to now be asking about a slightly different scenario than what I responded to. In response to

we both have a nose in our face and we have eyes and hands to see and touch mutually each other’s nose.

We’ve not met. We’ve not seen each other or touched each other. So for the moment we operate off of hypothetical assumptions about each other. If you asked to meet I could easily fool you by sending a proxy and familiarizing the proxy with our exchanges. There is no way for you to tell it is really me or not. There are an uncountable number of ways that uncertainty could be introduced.

But like I said earlier, we operate with incomplete and imperfect knowledge. Despite these potential sources of doubt we find a way to navigate the world and interact with other people anyway.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from a mobile device.

 

[KingCoil]

…]

I maintain that we can have absolute certainty of the existence of God if we have a relationship with God that involves the spiritual understanding of God both in our minds and in our hearts.

Do you agree or disagree with this?

Well, you are making a conditional statement, first do realize the condition in yourself, then declare that you have already established a relationship with God in your mind and heart, and from that relationship you know from absolute certainty that God exists.

Okay, have you effected the relationship with God?

Better you don’t bring in a conditional statement, give an example of absolute certainty to you of something factually existing like the nose in your face and the nose in the face of your friend, or family member or anyone who can be in physical contact with you, so that you both can see the nose in each other’s face and also touch it, and exchange information on the experience of each other seeing the nose and touching the nose in oneself’s face and also in the other’s face, and concur that there is a nose in each other’s face.

And you both concur that that is absolutely certain that there is a nose in each one’s face.

Now, you apply that idea of absolute certainty to your experience of God.

Is that the same kind of absolute certainty you have from your experience of God, as from your experience of the nose in your face and also in the face of your close friend, etc.?

In which case, you have what I call direct certainty of the nose and also direct certainty of God, but the first kind of direct certainty is of an object that is outside your mind, heart, soul, self whatever, while the second direct certainty is of an object that is experienced within your soul, heart, mind, self whatever.

No need to call that absolute certainty.

But we have not yet concurred on what is to be our agreed on concept of absolute certainty.

Let us first work to get to concur on what is absolute certainty.

Allow me to start first, with the word absolute, it means not relative, is that all right with you?

In my next post I will suggest to you that certainty has to do with the feature in human information on the existence of an object, the feature by which we can verify again and again everytime we have doubts about the object existing.

For example, the existence of ice cream is a piece of information which piece of information has this feature by which when we have any doubts about the existence of ice cream, we can just go and get some in the nearest cold grocery, and eat it – there we have certainty, the direct kind of certainty that ice cream exists.

What do you say, will you accept my invitation to analyze what is certainty?

For myself, the word means a (I am repeating myself) feature of human information by which humans can verify the existence of something he has information about, by experiencing its existence again and again as often as he doubts that the object is existing.

Again, for example, you have the information – that means knowledge. that there is a parking meter outside your house, then you start to doubt it, so you look out the window and assure yourself that yes there is a parking meter outside.

So, what do you say, let us start with certainty as a feature in human information of an object existing, by which feature we can assure ourselves that it is in fact existing by for example looking at it again, and even touching it again, etc., by applying our external senses to it.

That is certainty of the existence of an object outside our self, which is direct certainty; there is also direct certainty of an object that is within our self, for example, the experience of discomfort in an elbow, some aching for a concrete experience, like what I feel right now with my left elbow as I type this post.

Tell you what, as you can notice that I want to get down to facts of everyday’s life in our discussion, on what is certainty and the kinds of, and the kind that is in regard to God’s existence, shall we first examine more carefully what exactly is the word certain all about?

The way I see it, it is a feature of human information on the existence of something, by which feature a human can again and again as often as he is in doubt as to the existence of that something, assure himself that it in fact exists, by looking at it again, touching it again, etc., applying to it our external senses.

That is the most fundamental of certainties.

KingCoil