How certain are we that God exists?

[KingCoil]

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

Okay, what exactly are you talking about in regard to the certainty of the nose in the face of a human who is totally complete, is that certain knowledge or what knowledge.

You will now say that you did not bring up the nose; yes, you did not bring up the nose, but you have a nose I can assume because the nose is a normal appendage of humans, and it is everyday that we come to folks with a nose in their face, exceptionally we can also meet a human without a nose, but that is an unusual rarity.

You do notice that I want to get down to the facts of everyday’s life and events: start first with certainty in this sphere of human existence.

This thread is about “How certain are we that God exists?”

And my approach is to start from the facts and events of everyday’s life on how we are certain at all of anything at all on this level of existence with us humans – first, with everyday’s life and events; where do you want to start?

I extend to you the same invitation I have just presented to Charlem.

KingCoil

KingCoil

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Okay, what exactly are you talking about in regard to the certainty of the nose in the face of a human who is totally complete, is that certain knowledge or what knowledge.

With respect to me, you can’t be certain about my identity or my visual features or for that matter whether I am one person or more than one person collaboratively writing; we’ve only had indirect interactions with each other through this forum. I may assert certain things about myself and you may or may not be convinced of those things.

With respect to a random person that you’ve met if it looks like the person has a nose go with it. If you’ve got something to share that is contingent on some person having a nose go ahead and share it. Most transactions with another person don’t require that their facial anatomy be validated and it doesn’t matter if they have a nose, have a prosthetic attachment from a doctor of rhinoplasty, or something else. It’s something of little consequence so I think going through trying to verify the person really has a nose may be extreme overkill.

Though, as Charlemagne said unless this is going to progress up to touching the nose of Yahweh I think this is a dead end trail.

You will now say that you did not bring up the nose;

You’ve got to stop with the predictive statements on my behaviour and perceptions. They’ve all been wrong so far.

You do notice that I want to get down to the facts of everyday’s life and events: start first with certainty in this sphere of human existence.

That’s fine. So how do you go from feeling certain that a person you see has a nose and concluding from that propositions about a god-concept and the existence of an entity that matches the concept?

This thread is about “How certain are we that God exists?”

Certitude on that matter varies from one person to another.

And my approach is to start from the facts and events of everyday’s life on how we are certain at all of anything at all on this level of existence with us humans – first, with everyday’s life and events; where do you want to start?

Being a person that doesn’t make the positive assertion that a sentient entity is responsible directly or indirectly for the world in which we live I could not tell you where to start. I react to god-propositions that others make to me, but I’ve got no motivation to assert any myself.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

King,

I wish you would stay on topic. We are not talking about the certainty of the nose on your face.

We are talking about the certainty of God.

Do you believe we must compare the certainty of God with the certainty of the nose on your face?

I don’t think so.

Do you believe we can have no certainty about the existence of God?

If so, on what grounds do you believe this?

Again, please don’t compare apples and oranges. Please don’t compare your certainty about God with your certainty about the nose on your face.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Do you believe we can have no certainty about the existence of God?

If so, on what grounds do you believe this?

Again, please don’t compare apples and oranges. Please don’t compare your certainty about God with your certainty about the nose on your face.

+1 to what Charlemagne said!

 

[RACJ]

Me, 100%. That doesn’t mean that I understand HIs ways, but existence would be impossible without Him. Rob

 

[VincentChristop]

This question may only be answered by the way one perceives God.

I believe God is the universe itself. Therefore I can prove that God exist based on my belief of him.

But as for the Abrahamic God. One must have faith in order to believe in him.

Unfortunately I do not doubt a Abrahamic God exist, but not as the creator of all things.

A creator of all things would not have such frivolous rules and morals in my eyes. The emphasis on “salvation” only through him is of a selfish desire that only humans contain. Therefore I cannot find it in my heart to follow all the rules that the abrahamic God imposes, but some of his teachings are surely just and righteous. Some I do not agree with, but I believe in a lot of his teachings.

 

[KingCoil]

Thanks for your post, Charelem and Sapien.

I refer you to my last post prior to the present one.

See the text in bold and be guided accordingly.

Okay, what exactly are you talking about in regard to the certainty of the nose in the face of a human who is totally complete, is that certain knowledge or what knowledge.

You will now say that you did not bring up the nose; yes, you did not bring up the nose, but you have a nose I can assume because the nose is a normal appendage of humans, and it is everyday that we come to folks with a nose in their face, exceptionally we can also meet a human without a nose, but that is an unusual rarity.

**You do notice that I want to get down to the facts of everyday’s life and events: start first with certainty in this sphere of human existence.

This thread is about “How certain are we that God exists?”

And my approach is to start from the facts and events of everyday’s life on how we are certain at all of anything at all on this level of existence with us humans – first, with everyday’s life and events; where do you want to start?

I extend to you the same invitation I have just presented to Charlem.

**

Everything I say about the certainty of the nose in our face is related to the existence of God; my idea is that as we can be certain of the nose in our face, then we can also be certain of the existence of God; but there is a difference between our certainty of the existence of the nose in our face and the existence of God, let me add, as creator of the universe.

What is the difference?

The difference is that with the nose we have immediate access to its entirety with our external senses, but with God owing to His immensity and also subtlety we cannot have immediate access to His entirety at all.

Wherefore we do not have direct access to God as we do with the nose, but we have inferential access by our intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Your insistence if I am correct is that you have absolute certainty of God’s existence; so, do you notice that we have this difference, in that I maintain humans have only inferential certainty of God, but you maintain humans have absolute certainty of God.

Now, to my understanding absolute certainty with God is not possible to man, but only inferential certainty.

But we have first to work together to know what is certainty and then what is absolute certainty and also of course what is inferential certainty, so that we can work out as to mutually acknowledge that you are wrong and I am right, or I am wrong and you are right.

So, let us start with the most fundamental certainty we have any idea of at all, namely, the certainty of our information that we do have a nose in our face.

From the concurrence that we do have certainty of the nose in our face, we can then proceed to know and understand what we should understand by (though we might not accept it) by absolute certainty from your part, and by inferential certainty from my part.

But again, we must work together to understand on your part and from your part, what do you understand by the word absolute used as a qualifier of the word certainty, as in absolute certainty.

On my part and from my part, I have to expound to you what I mean by the qualifier word, inferential, in inferential certainty.

So, are you going to talk about certainty of the nose or not; if not, then propose something that you want me to work on together with you so that we will concur on the meaning of the word certainty.

Please do not stray from this instant matter, what object do you want to propose for us to work on together and attain concurrence on what is certainty, i.e., certainty without any qualifier words like absolute and like inferential.

In your next post, from each of you both and others who care to join in, please just propose what object you want me to join you in examining in regard to its existence, namely, that our information of its existence is certain.

Or what exactly do you want to do with this topic, “How certain are we that God exists?”

And please, don’t tell me that you already said this or that but I am not giving you attention; just tell me in brief words what you want me to attend to now, and I will attend to it if I see it is relevant to the topic of this thread.

Now, if you maintain that it is relevant even though I maintain it is not relevant, I guess you just have to start your own thread on whatever you care to advocate.

Okay, please, I repeat:
[Just in case you don’t want to talk about the nose in regard to certainty of its existence with us all humans] In your next post, from each of you both and others who care to join in, please just propose what object you want me to join you in examining in regard to its existence, namely, that our information of its existence is certain.

KingCoil

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So, are you going to talk about certainty of the nose or not; if not, then propose something that you want me to work on together with you so that we will concur on the meaning of the word certainty.

Sure, let’s say we agree we are all certain we have noses. What’s next?

In your next post, from each of you both and others who care to join in, please just propose what object you want me to join you in examining in regard to its existence, namely, that our information of its existence is certain.
KingCoil;11932071:

just tell me in brief words what you want me to attend to now, and I will attend to it if I see it is relevant to the topic of this thread.

You are using a very grainular bottom-up approach to explain. A problem with this approach is that there’s not necessarily any apparent connection between what you’ve shared so far and the conclusion that you want to get to. You may end up loosing people that think that the conclusion might never be reached in a timely taking this approach.

Instead might I suggest doing with a top down approach. In other words start of with the main high-level ideas that support your conclusion and then start going into detail about them.

 

[KingCoil]

This question may only be answered by the way one perceives God.

I believe God is the universe itself. Therefore I can prove that God exist based on my belief of him.

But as for the Abrahamic God. One must have faith in order to believe in him.

Unfortunately I do not doubt a Abrahamic God exist, but not as the creator of all things.

A creator of all things would not have such frivolous rules and morals in my eyes. The emphasis on “salvation” only through him is of a selfish desire that only humans contain. Therefore I cannot find it in my heart to follow all the rules that the abrahamic God imposes, but some of his teachings are surely just and righteous. Some I do not agree with, but I believe in a lot of his teachings.

You are outside the present concern, but it is okay with me.

You say:

Unfortunately I do not doubt a Abrahamic God exist, but not as the creator of all things.

Unfortunately for you as you put it yourself quite explicitly because then you have made of your God one of the hypothetical lesser gods of literature, and you as one of the children of lesser gods. Hahaha.

I ask you if God did not make everything that is not God Himself, why bother at all with Him, at all?

But VincentC, I am now into examining the concept of certainty in all its generic reach, and I say that certainty is a feature of human information, etc., see my post #149:

Post 149

…]

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.

• I already presented my exposition on what is certainty right in this post where I said I would talk about it next. ]*

So, everyone, let us now engage in the serious exercise of working together to concur on the most fundamental idea of certainty.

KingCoil

 

[VincentChristop]

You are outside the present concern, but it is okay with me.

You say:

Unfortunately for you as you put it yourself quite explicitly because then you have made of your God one of the hypothetical lesser gods of literature, and you as one of the children of lesser gods. Hahaha.

I ask you if God did not make everything that is not God Himself, why bother at all with Him, at all?

But VincentC, I am now into examining the concept of certainty in all its generic reach, and I say that certainty is a feature of human information, etc., see my post #149:

So, everyone, let us now engage in the serious exercise of working together to concur on the most fundamental idea of certainty.

KingCoil

KingCoil I am sorry to inform you that their is no absolute truth or certainty in unity.

God is infinite in the matter that we all perceive him to be different. We all have our own truths therefore there cannot be a absolute truth, hence infinite.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I ask you if God did not make everything that is not God Himself, why bother at all with Him, at all?

In some theological views the referent of the word “God” is not necessarily thought to be the creator of all things. For example, Mormon’s see God/Elohim/Yahweh as one god of many and if they meet they requirements after death a Mormon believe’s that s/he can be exalted to be the God or Goddess of a world. It’s a much preferred state than going to spirit prison after death.

 

[KingCoil]

KingCoil I am sorry to inform you that their is no absolute truth or certainty in unity.

God is infinite in the matter that we all perceive him to be different. We all have our own truths therefore there cannot be a absolute truth, hence infinite.

You bring in the word infinite, what do you mean by infinite?

By the way, what is your idea of certainty? That is the immediate concern from the author of this thread at the present moment.

But I like to hear from you what you understand by the word you bring in, infinite.

KingCoil

 

[PJM]

=KingCoil;11901415]I am not arguing my thread because I am a defector from Catholicism.

Were I not any defector from Catholicism, I would still be arguing my thread.

Let me see if you know the position of the Catholic Church on how reason is the foundation of faith, so that unless you have reason your faith would be of no avail to you in terms of making sense.

That is the dogma of the Catholic Church, that man must be first rational before he can take up the Christian Catholic faith in a manner that makes sense to himself.

Anyway, tell me where I have gone against the Catholic faith in my expatiation and advocacy of the present thread.

KingCoil

Your position brings to mind two questions:

[1] Have you ever considered WHY we exist?

Isaiah 43: verses 7 & 21
“And every one that calleth upon my name, I have created him for my glory, I have formed him, and made him. & This people have I formed for myself, they shall shew forth my praise”

[2a] The Book of Genesis cleary sates that humanity Cf. “Is MADE in the Image and likeness of God”

Gen. 1: 26-27 “And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.”

Now God never showed “His face” [His person] in the Old Testament, but only as a voice, a flaming bush, a cloud, and so on. WHY? Because He IS a Spiritual Reality. John 4: 23-24 " But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeketh such to adore him. God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth."

So then my friend this raises two additional questions:

HOW does humanity emulate our Spiritual God?

WHY does humanity resemble our Spiritual God?

[2 b] In the Universe their are BILLIONS of stars, galaxies and planets; BUT ONLY ONE; Planet earth can be PROVEN to support the life forms we are aware of.

On Planet Earth, with hundreds of thousands of “Living THINGS” ONLY ONE; only humanity can choose to rationaize, choose to love and or choose to hate: WHY IS THIS?

In order to rationalize, love or hate requires in an absoulate sense the following attributes:

a mind [not speaking here of the brain]

A intellect [not meaning ones "IQ]

and a freewill

All of these attributes are “spiritual things” LIKE OUR GOD; and are permantey attached to mans Soul [defined here as the source and activator of all life forms]

Like God who is ETERNAL; this “other self”; our Spiritual self cannot be killed and never dies. Its the part of us that WILL face Gods necessaryly Just and Fair Judgment; based on our lives decissions here on earth, while we still have our bodies; which, I remind you return to DUST when we die.

Genesis 3:19 “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return.”

It is precisely the manner that humanity alone DOES emulate our God that REQUIRES God follow His owh physical laws of “Cause and effect” with actions DO cause consequences.

These Consequences MUST [fairness and Divine Justice] last for Eternity; and that is where Heaven, Hell and Purgatory are a critical part of God Plan for Creating man “in HIS Image.” Amen!

God Bless and enlighten you my friend,

Patrick

 

[KingCoil]

In some theological views the referent of the word “God” is not necessarily thought to be the creator of all things. For example, Mormon’s see God/Elohim/Yahweh as one god of many and if they meet they requirements after death a Mormon believe’s that s/he can be exalted to be the God or Goddess of a world. It’s a much preferred state than going to spirit prison after death.

I should not attend to your post because you are not into the immediate present concern on what is your idea of the most fundamental concept of certainty.

Anyway, we are not concerned here with concepts of God outside Christianity, where in Christianity namely the first and foremost concept of God is that He is the creator of the universe.

Please, now, propose an object if you don’t like the nose in our face, for us to examine in regard to the certainty of its existence; so that we can concur on what is the fundamental idea of certainty, which fundamental idea must be realized in every instance of the use of the word certainty in reference to anything at all, including God Himself.

Here is again my precise and concise statement of what to me is certainty:
KingCoil_post_149:

…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.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Your position brings to mind two questions:

[1] Have you ever considered WHY we exist?

Isaiah 43: verses 7 & 21
“And every one that calleth upon my name, I have created him for my glory, I have formed him, and made him. & This people have I formed for myself, they shall shew forth my praise”

[2a] The Book of Genesis cleary sates that humanity Cf. “Is MADE in the Image and likeness of God”

Gen. 1: 26-27 “And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.”

Now God never showed “His face” [His person] in the Old Testament, but only as a voice, a flaming bush, a cloud, and so on. WHY? Because He IS a Spiritual Reality. John 4: 23-24 " But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeketh such to adore him. God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth."

So then my friend this raises two additional questions:

HOW does humanity emulate our Spiritual God?

WHY does humanity resemble our Spiritual God?

[2 b] In the Universe their are BILLIONS of stars, galaxies and planets; BUT ONLY ONE; Planet earth can be PROVEN to support the life forms we are aware of.

On Planet Earth, with hundreds of thousands of “Living THINGS” ONLY ONE; only humanity can choose to rationaize, choose to love and or choose to hate: WHY IS THIS?

In order to rationalize, love or hate requires in an absoulate sense the following attributes:

a mind [not speaking here of the brain]

A intellect [not meaning ones "IQ]

and a freewill

All of these attributes are “spiritual things” LIKE OUR GOD; and are permantey attached to mans Soul [defined here as the source and activator of all life forms]

Like God who is ETERNAL; this “other self”; our Spiritual self cannot be killed and never dies. Its the part of us that WILL face Gods necessaryly Just and Fair Judgment; based on our lives decissions here on earth, while we still have our bodies; which, I remind you return to DUST when we die.

Genesis 3:19 “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return.”

It is precisely the manner that humanity alone DOES emulate our God that REQUIRES God follow His owh physical laws of “Cause and effect” with actions DO cause consequences.

These Consequences MUST [fairness and Divine Justice] last for Eternity; and that is where Heaven, Hell and Purgatory are a critical part of God Plan for Creating man “in HIS Image.” Amen!

God Bless and enlighten you my friend,

Patrick

Thanks for your exhortation.

I call myself a defector from Catholicism.

That does not mean that I stop knowing God creator of the universe exists.

You see, there are many ways to defect (the word is of course pejorative) from Catholicism; perhaps I should call myself an ultra-self-liberalized Catholic.

It is like being an ultra-self-liberalized Catholic, one is practically off on a tangent from Catholicism, wherefore a defector from Catholicism in effect – regrettably that is a pejorative term.

Anyway, my immediate concern is to get folks to work to concur on what is the fundamental concept of certainty, so that we have certainty with the existence of our nose as we have certainty of the existence of God creator of the universe: what is the common denominator of man’s certainty of the nose in his face as also of God creator of the universe?

KingCoil

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Anyway, we are not concerned here with concepts of God outside Christianity, where in Christianity namely the first and foremost concept of God is that He is the creator of the universe.

Okay, so specifically Yahweh.

Please, now, propose an object if you don’t like the nose in our face, for us to examine in regard to the certainty of its existence; . . .]

I replied to that earlier.

 

[Aloysium]

onoes! I missed the nose discussion. Who knows, maybe it can be revived.

:twocents:

This sounds weird, I’m sure, but
I would say that I am more certain of God
than I am about the nose on my face.

Now, I know that my nose exists because:

• I can touch it. It allows me to smell except when it gets stuffed up.
• I recall, at some point having a huge red zit on the end that was very painful and caused people to stare and make me blush.
• I know a bit about its anatomy from books and such.
  I perceive, think and communicate about it.

I know God exists because of what is obvious - that I exist,
while I do absolutely nothing to make this happen.

To me, my nose is less real than this existence, this being that I am.
My nose is a part of me, but a “me” that is “out there” like other things that I know perceptually and cognitively.
While my nose is me, I cannot be as sure of it as I am of my being, since even when I am not thinking, I am.
Although there does exist the possibility that “consciousness” may break the bonds of intellectual structure, allowing it to flow through levels of cellular and biological being,
my own experience tells me that the “isness” of the nose, comes through the senses or in thought.
This “I am” must focus on specific feelings or thoughts that bring my nose into experiential existence. This is how I know this is my nose, because I cannot do the same with your nose.

As mysterious as is this basic reality that is existence itself, it does have a structure.
That structure doesn’t include boundaries in time or space, and you can’t actually measure it.

What we are doing here points to a main feature of being: it is relational.
We relate to the world and even ourselves: that is the how and why we know we have, or may not have a nose.
The wonder that is who we are, here connects, bringing us into each other’s awareness.

Trying to understand the nature of relationship,
it seems obvious that love is the perfect relationship in which lover and beloved are united in mutual self-giving.
At any rate, stuff like that flows from the reality that is existence.

God, perfect in the eternal relationship of the Trinity, and
as Love itself, relates to the world as its creator, maintainer, and its ultimate destiny.

The teachings of the church go further in explaining and complete an understanding what this is all about
than any other philosophical, theological, scientific, etc system of thought.

 

[KingCoil]

…]

Originally Posted by KingCoil
Please, now, propose an object if you don’t like the nose in our face, for us to examine in regard to the certainty of its existence; . . .]

Please forgive me, but would you please save me the trouble of looking up your post where you replied to me earlier on what object you would propose in place of the nose for us to work on in order that you and I will come to concurrence on the most fundamental idea of what is certainty.

Just tell me what object you had brought up earlier in your next post, just one word, like this, in place of nose, you mentioned perhaps your mouth, or ear.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

onoes! I missed the nose discussion. Who knows, maybe it can be revived.

:twocents:

This sounds weird, I’m sure, but
I would say that I am more certain of God
than I am about the nose on my face.

Now, I know that my nose exists because:

• I can touch it. It allows me to smell except when it gets stuffed up.
• I recall, at some point having a huge red zit on the end that was very painful and caused people to stare and make me blush.
• I know a bit about its anatomy from books and such.
  I perceive, think and communicate about it.

I know God exists because of what is obvious - that I exist,
while I do absolutely nothing to make this happen.

To me, my nose is less real than this existence, this being that I am.
My nose is a part of me, but a “me” that is “out there” like other things that I know perceptually and cognitively.
While my nose is me, I cannot be as sure of it as I am of my being, since even when I am not thinking, I am.
Although there does exist the possibility that “consciousness” may break the bonds of intellectual structure, allowing it to flow through levels of cellular and biological being,
my own experience tells me that the “isness” of the nose, comes through the senses or in thought.
This “I am” must focus on specific feelings or thoughts that bring my nose into experiential existence. This is how I know this is my nose, because I cannot do the same with your nose.

As mysterious as is this basic reality that is existence itself, it does have a structure.
That structure doesn’t include boundaries in time or space, and you can’t actually measure it.

What we are doing here points to a main feature of being: it is relational.
We relate to the world and even ourselves: that is the how and why we know we have, or may not have a nose.
The wonder that is who we are, here connects, bringing us into each other’s awareness.

Trying to understand the nature of relationship,
it seems obvious that love is the perfect relationship in which lover and beloved are united in mutual self-giving.
At any rate, stuff like that flows from the reality that is existence.

God, perfect in the eternal relationship of the Trinity, and
as Love itself, relates to the world as its creator, maintainer, and its ultimate destiny.

The teachings of the church go further in explaining and complete an understanding what this is all about
than any other philosophical, theological, scientific, etc system of thought.

You say:

This sounds weird, I’m sure, but
I would say that I am more certain of God
than I am about the nose on my face.

How do you prove to yourself that you are more certain of God existing than you are certain of your nose existing.

And also prove to others.

But first, you should tell people what is your concept of God, and how you transit from the concept of God to the existence of God.

Then also since we are into certainty in this thread, namely, “How certain are we that God exists?” And as you say you are more certain of God than you are certain of your nose, tell folks in less than 50 words what is your idea of certainty.

So, two items when you write in reply to this post from yours truly:

1. What is your concept of God?
2. What is your concept of certainty (in less than 50 words).

KingCoil

 

[Ignatius]

. . . . .
So, let us be concise and of course also precise, I propose that we keep to these two terms in regard to certainty, namely:

1. Direct certainty – founded on direct experience of an object
2. Inferential certainty – founded on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

What do you guys here say?

KingCoil

It is virtually impossible that there is no God. See:
New Proofs for the existence of God, contributions of Contemporary Physics and Science by Dr. Robert Spitzer.