How certain are we that God exists?

[KingCoil]

I am sorry for the misunderstanding. I did not mean to imply that those of us with direct certainty have an incomplete or partial certainty of God’s existence. Instead, I am declaring that since some of us in this discussion, have direct certainty of God’s existence, then we in this discussion have direct certainty of God’s existence. Yet, since others of us do not have certainty of God’s existence, then we have partial certainty because not all of us, in this discussion, are certain.

God, the Creator of the Universe, has given me His Body and His Blood in the Sacrament of Holy Communion. Today, I went to a Catholic Mass, where the Priest, Christ Jesus, transubstantiated the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of the Creator of the Universe. I then ate the Body and drank the Blood.

I look forward to further discussion!

Dear Jochoa, I congratulate you for having such assurance in your Catholic faith, in the aspects of say, sacraments, transubstantiation, etc.

I am into this thread on purely the idea that employing intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts: we can and do get to the inferential certainty of God’s existence as the creator of the universe.

Allow me to emphasize that I am not concerned about anything but without any detraction to them, namely, sacraments, prayers, transubstantiation, state of say sanctifying grace, or even existence of hell and heaven where the saved go to i.e. heaven and the damned get to i.e. hell.

So, I guess you understand my drift here, and I still congratulate you for finding satisfaction with all the spiritual drama of the Catholic faith, but my concern here is with God as creator of the universe, the inferential certainty of which from the part of man is possible and actual.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

I can share with you some of what makes me certain God exists.

I look at Creation and find it impossible for it to exist without being created. I read the Bible and find it impossible to be the mere works of man. It’s too multi-layered, wise, alive and full of prophecies that have been fulfilled to the letter. I look at the lives of the Apostles and Saints and find it impossible they could or would do what they did without God.

On personal experiences that prove God exists. He has spoken to me at least two times with an internal voice that did not belong to me. This included Him having me let my bible fall open and a specific verse came up that spoke directly to why he was talking to me.

I lived very irresponsibly for much of my youth. I played with the occult and was by most definitions a drug addict and an alcoholic. In that period of my life I conversed with spirits using a oiuja board. I now believe they were all demons but it is proof to me there is a “world” beyond what is physical. When I finally left my fallen away life I had an experience one night. I had lost nearly everything, and in desperation, cried out to Jesus. I suddenly felt total peace and relaxation. I could feel somebody’s hand on my shoulder.

I have been given a private revelation that involves the near future. If it comes to pass then there will be more proof soon.

God bless.

That is very impressive and most edifying, and I wished God the creator of the universe would deal with me like the way He showers you with signs of His presence and working in your life, though I have never been such a ‘sinner’ as you had been.

Yes, I have read such accounts of life as the one you had in the past, not at all exemplary, and now you are living in a changed life in which you experience peace and joy and assurance of say salvation in Jesus Christ.

You have yes in your own estimation and others like you, direct certainty of God’s existence and also working in your life.

It’s just that a lot of folks maintain that it is all subjective with you and your direct certainty of God’s existence and working in your life; they want to perhaps see you get God to work a miracle of addressing mankind every morning in worldwide public television in the sky everywhere, and with no human television stations doing the job so He is the only explanation (but die-hard skeptics will postulate extra terrestrial agents, in which case, these skeptics have to produce evidence of the presence and working of extra terrestrial agents, and I will just tell them: "Will you just join me in working to concur on the inferential certainty by which man can and does know God to exist as the creator of the universe, instead of going into what is in effect fiction?).

KingCoil

 

[Mr_Clean]

There is a lot of chatter all over the place concerning the blood moon tetrad and the possibility of more prophecies being fulfilled in the next few years. I encourage anybody who’s looking for a sign to keep their eyes and ears open. The 1st eclipse happens across North and South America starting early tues morning.

 

[KingCoil]

Let us all with intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts see how we can arrive at inferential certainty of God’s existence as creator of the universe.

Which universe are we talking about?

The universe that scientists are talking about and we are living in.

What other universes are there? if not only that one, unless some folks want to go again into fictions of other universes but without any shred of what they call empirical evidence, except the one in which we are actually living in and moving in and having our existence in.

So, how do I – and I maintain others with intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts – infer to the existence of God as the creator of the universe from the existence of the universe?

Does that kind of a statement sound like something is wrong there?

If you see it to be so, let us hear about what is wrong, and we can work together to make a statement that is for you and for everyone and myself correct.

KingCoil

 

[jochoa]

I am into this thread on purely the idea that employing intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts: we can and do get to the inferential certainty of God’s existence as the creator of the universe.

Sounds good! Here was my first line of thinking grounded on logic and facts, which led to my inferential certainty of the Creator of the Universe:

1. I wanted my family and self to experience the greatest amount of peace and joy.
2. After doing the “Love Dare” the first time, although none of the spiritual dares made any sense to me, I discovered the simple formulas of patience gets peace and kindness gets joy. Therefore, I knew if I wanted my family and self to experience the greatest amount of peace and joy, mastering patience and kindness must become most important in my/our life.
3. After studying many philosophical texts, I discovered that the Author of 1 Corinthians 13:4 & 13, shared this formula in the wisest and most graceful manner. Since the writer gave all credit to God, the Creator of the Universe, as the Author of the text, and since no other human philosopher throughout all of history shared the Universal Truth, I had inferential certainty the Creator of the Universe existed.

Thanks for further discussion! I would like to hear your logical and factual basis for the inferential certainty of God’s existence.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

From the purely cerebral point of view, there are not many things about which we can be absolutely certain. That is why the so-called “proofs” for the existence of God are not absolutely convincing, as Pascal and Kant have pointed out. But certainty regarding God has more than one portal through which we can pass. In that regard the portal of hope is more promising than the portal of theology. Without hope we could not even begin to have the portal of theology. Atheism is not merely the denial of theology; it is more fundamentally and profoundly the denial of hope. We only come to theology because we have hope. We do not come to hope because we have theology. Despair is the devil’s antidote to both hope and theology. Look into any atheist’s heart and you see a poverty of hope for knowing God and everlasting life.

 

[KingCoil]

KingCoil;11897298:

I am into this thread on purely the idea that employing intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts: we can and do get to the inferential certainty of God’s existence as the creator of the universe.

Sounds good! Here was my first line of thinking grounded on logic and facts, which led to my inferential certainty of the Creator of the Universe:

1. I wanted my family and self to experience the greatest amount of peace and joy.
2. After doing the “Love Dare” the first time, although none of the spiritual dares made any sense to me, I discovered the simple formulas of patience gets peace and kindness gets joy. Therefore, I knew if I wanted my family and self to experience the greatest amount of peace and joy, mastering patience and kindness must become most important in my/our life.
3. After studying many philosophical texts, I discovered that the Author of 1 Corinthians 13:4 & 13, shared this formula in the wisest and most graceful manner. Since the writer gave all credit to God, the Creator of the Universe, as the Author of the text, and since no other human philosopher throughout all of history shared the Universal Truth, I had inferential certainty the Creator of the Universe existed.

Thanks for further discussion! I would like to hear your logical and factual basis for the inferential certainty of God’s existence.

That line in bold above is based on the authority of a New Testament writer who claims to have divine revelation.

You should try to find out what is his rational explanation based on his intelligent thinking that is grounded on logic and facts, and then adopt it as your own because you exercise also intelligent thinking grounded on logic and fact, and now you don’t have to bring in his authority anymore, for it is now common knowledge on intelligent grounded on logic and facts – but if you prefer you can give the credit to him as a human who also had the same inferential certainty from thinking intelligently grounding himself on logic and facts.

This thread is conducted purely on rational thinking, no bringing in of authorities with divine revelation access.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Let us all with intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts see how we can arrive at inferential certainty of God’s existence as creator of the universe.

Which universe are we talking about?

The universe that scientists are talking about and we are living in.

What other universes are there? if not only that one, unless some folks want to go again into fictions of other universes but without any shred of what they call empirical evidence, except the one in which we are actually living in and moving in and having our existence in.

**So, how do I – and I maintain others with intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts – infer to the existence of God as the creator of the universe from the existence of the universe?

Does that kind of a statement sound like something is wrong there?

If you see it to be so, let us hear about what is wrong, and we can work together to make a statement that is for you and for everyone and myself correct.
**

So, everyone, first let us concur on the statement above from me, about inferential certainty of the existence of God as the creator of the universe from the existence of the universe; do you accept that as a statement perfectly freed of any shadow of deceit in communication or in what we call argumentation?

Please keep in mind that before anything else, we want to concur on all the premises of this question, “How certain are we that God exists?” namely, concurring on words and concepts and that no statement is made founded on fallacious language.

It would be no different from the shenanigan of wicked smart but fraudulent guys who are into scams and or con operations to come to big easy quick money.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

From the purely cerebral point of view, there are not many things about which we can be absolutely certain. That is why the so-called “proofs” for the existence of God are not absolutely convincing, as Pascal and Kant have pointed out. But **certainty **regarding God has more than one portal through which we can pass. In that regard the portal of hope is more promising than the portal of theology. Without **hope **we could not even begin to have the portal of theology. Atheism is not merely the denial of theology; it is more fundamentally and profoundly the denial of hope. We only come to theology because we have hope. We do not come to hope because we have theology. **Despair **is the devil’s antidote to both **hope **and theology. Look into any atheist’s heart and you see a poverty of **hope **for knowing God and everlasting life.

You bring in the word, absolute, in regard to certainty, scil., absolute certainty. I talk about direct human certainty and inferential human certainty.

No tricks up my sleeve but will you please give some examples of absolute certainty in our knowledge of things, say just four?

About hope and despair, these are emotional actuations of humans, like love which is subject to the insight of experienced people from way back from the dawn of consciousness and reason, known to be not only blind but deaf.

I have tried to get someone in this board of philosophy, a sub board to the apologetics main board, to explain what he means by absolute certainty, but he never tried to explain, instead he went into evasive maneuvers like that I am taking him out of context, whatever.

You might give an explanation of what you mean by absolute certainty that I might concur with you on, in that case we will always qualify absolute certainty as so and so certainty – like a certain theoretical physicist a master of what is nothing that can bring forth the universe, he talks far and wide on nothing and requires people to accept that nothing is not nothing in his vocabulary but something, only people thought it was nothing at times past – that is silly, because if people thought that it was nothing in a certain place at a certain time, and it is then proven to be something and not nothing, then it is not nothing to people who know better and now these folks know better, so that theoretical physicist should no longer insist that the universe came forth from nothing, and then bringing in so many deep physics but factual physics supposedly though, which shows to discerning people that yes on that basis then the nothing in the past is not nothing but something.

Lesson for that theoretical physicist but he refuses to learn the lesson, don’t use a word for its exact opposite when you can use already the intended opposite, unless you are in the shenanigan of fooling people with quibbles.

KingCoil

 

[jochoa]

You should try to find out what is his rational explanation based on his intelligent thinking that is grounded on logic and facts, and then adopt it as your own because you exercise also intelligent thinking grounded on logic and fact, and now you don’t have to bring in his authority anymore, for it is now common knowledge on intelligent grounded on logic and facts.

Very interesting explanation! I have never considered my certainty of God in these terms, yet this is precisely how I know Jesus is God, the Creator of Everything, the Holy Trinity.

Once I found out Jesus’ rational explanation based on his intelligent thoughts that are grounded on logic and facts, I could now recognize him as God, for it is now common knowledge of intelligence grounded on logic and facts.

Thanks for further consideration and helping me to understand the science of certainty better!

 

[jochoa]

So, how do I – and I maintain others with intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts – infer to the existence of God as the creator of the universe from the existence of the universe?

By finding out the rational explanation based on intelligent teachings and acts that are grounded on logic and facts of any person declared, from within the universe, to be the Creator of the Universe. If the intelligent teachings and acts of said person are rational and grounded in logic and fact, then one can infer with certainty that the Creator of Everything exists.

Does that kind of a statement sound like something is wrong there?

It could seem wrong with limited thinking, in that if the reader does not consider the possibility of the Creator revealing himself to the created, then it is impossible to know the Creator with certainty.

Thanks for sharing such excellent questions! They have been very enjoyable to ponder!

 

[RedFox0456]

From a mathematical point of view, absolute certainty would mean zero probability of anything else. Since we are inferring the existence of God, absolute certainty of existence means there is no possibility that God does not exist.

God, I imagine coming from a purely inferential point of view, would be that which caused the universe. This leads to other possible subcategories. Is this an impersonal God which has created the universe and then has no interference in His creation? Is this a personal God which interacts and continues to shape the universe?

Contrary to the physics definition of universe, I would be more comfortable with a definition that simply states the universe as “everything.” Otherwise you get left with the current notion that our universe is but one in a complete multiverse (which has no real scientific backing). I take issue with this definition, because it leads to the question, “What caused the multiverse?”

 

[KingCoil]

Originally Posted by KingCoil
You should try to find out what is his rational explanation based on his intelligent thinking that is grounded on logic and facts, and then adopt it as your own because you exercise also intelligent thinking grounded on logic and fact, and now you don’t have to bring in his authority anymore, for it is now common knowledge on intelligent* grounded on logic and facts.

I am not into Jesus Christ, but just into God as creator of the universe.

Now that you bring in Jesus Christ, you should go forth in the universe to look for all the evidence of his earthly sojourn, and from intelligent thinking on logic and facts, conclude to the existence of Jesus Christ once upon a time in AD or CE at least from year 30 to year 33.

Better we keep to God as in concept the creator of the universe, then we don’t have to be looking for Him in terms of some entity we can capture with our sight, because God is in effect more huge than the physical universe and more subtle than the minutest sub-microscopic particles, fields, forces, and whatever laws of physics and laws of nature making up the composition of the universe studied by physicists and physical cosmologists.

We cannot that is why we cannot have direct human certainty of God’s existence, but only inferential human certainty, i.e. by inference from the works of God in the universe and with the universe as a totality.

Of course, you have the privilege of experiencing God within your ‘soul’ or mind or heart, or all of them, soul, heart, mind.

That privilege is not available to a lot of humanity like yours truly.

I am happy for us both that we are enjoying our conversation, please don’t leave me.

KingCoil

*Correction: not intelligent, but intelligence, just a typo.

 

[wmw]

Fr. Spitzer at the Magis Center web site does a very good job of explaining how probable God is. He does reach a number; so, absolute certainty he doesn’t claim. Though it is so high a probability that it is ridiculous and that might be a problem. People cant imagine it being that likely and tend to just dismiss it. Its painful to see peoples hardness of heart,but to see scientists have to harden thier minds againsts seeing the facts it also forces me to believe in the devil as well.

magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_five_other_anthropic_conditions_.28based_on_cosmological_constants.29

 

[KingCoil]

Originally Posted by KingCoil
So, how do I – and I maintain others with intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts – infer to the existence of God as the creator of the universe from the existence of the universe?

So, how do I – and I maintain others with intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts – infer to the existence of God as the creator of the universe from the existence of the universe?

Does that kind of a statement sound like something is wrong there?

It could seem wrong with limited thinking, in that if the reader does not consider the possibility of the Creator revealing himself to the created, then it is impossible to know the Creator with certainty.

Thanks for sharing such excellent questions! They have been very enjoyable to ponder!

---

My intentions for sharing these understandings is to grow myself and others closer to God - The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and Catholicism, AND to subject these reflections to harsh criticisms regarding alignment with Catholicism, for it is the Truth.

teachings and acts
Don’t focus on teachings, focus on the kinds of acts that leave permanent artifacts, like a universe in existence in which we live, move, and have our existence within.

What is the use of teachings and acts which do not leave any permanently lasting artifacts, they are just hot air which gets dissipated and you will not find it anymore once it mixes up quickly and inevitably with the rest of air in the atmosphere.

Creator revealing himself to the created
That were events in the history of the Jews about which it was reported that God revealed Himself as via visible entities and also with accompaniment of fire and smoke and thunder and lightning. Nowadays there are no such visitations from God, so please just focus on the artifacts of God in the universe, the greatest of which is the universe itself; and infer from them to the creator ‘Craftsman’ that is God Himself; wherefore, no need to look for Him in the midst of fire and smoke and lightning and thunder – start with your nose.

So, we are in concurrence that we can and we do inexhorably conclude to the existence of God the creator of the universe by our concentration to “infer to the existence of God as the creator of the universe from the existence of the universe”.

There is no fallacious verbal sleight of hand in that undertaking.

Everyone, do you concur to that?

KingCoil
[/QUOTE]

 

[KingCoil]

Thanks, Red, for your post.

From a mathematical point of view, absolute certainty would mean zero probability of anything else. Since we are inferring the existence of God, absolute certainty of existence means there is no possibility that God does not exist.

God, I imagine coming from a purely inferential point of view, would be that which caused the universe. This leads to other possible subcategories. Is this an impersonal God which has created the universe and then has no interference in His creation? Is this a personal God which interacts and continues to shape the universe?

Contrary to the physics definition of universe, I would be more comfortable with a definition that simply states the universe as “everything.” Otherwise you get left with the current notion that our universe is but one in a complete multiverse (which has no real scientific backing). I take issue with this definition, because it leads to the question, “What caused the multiverse?”

From a mathematical point of view, absolute certainty would mean zero probability of anything else.
Do you notice that mathematics is purely in the mind of man, so if there is no man, there is no human mind to think and do mathematics in his mind; but there is still God with His mind; and God does not put into existence everything that is in His mind: still we know that the universe exists, and that is because He wanted to put something in His mind, the idea of the universe, into objective reality, wherefore the universe exists. That is why I always insist that we must transit from the realm of concepts in our mind to the realm of objects in the factual universe, otherwise it is all thinking which can be logical but still fiction in the mind, nothing of reality in the universe.

impersonal God
As God did create the universe, I submit there is no need to bring in the issue that He is susceptible to our thinking of him as being impersonal; but shall we discuss what it is to be personal and the opposite to be impersonal? That is an idle issue invented by folks who cannot think intelligently on logic and facts with their feet firmly grounded on solid earth.

the universe as "everything"
Yes, I accept that there is the totality of existence which is broader than the universe the one we live in, move in, have our existence within.

a complete multiverse
That is fiction as in science fiction at most; we are into the universe as it exists, not into any fiction no matter that naive folks can talk no end about their fiction.

So, shall we proceed to think i.e. to infer from the existence of the universe to the existence of God as in concept creator of the universe? unless you find something wrong with that thought [repeat]: “to infer from the existence of the universe to the existence of God as in concept creator of the universe.”

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Fr. Spitzer at the Magis Center web site does a very good job of explaining how probable God is. He does reach a number; so, absolute certainty he doesn’t claim. Though it is so high a probability that it is ridiculous and that might be a problem. People cant imagine it being that likely and tend to just dismiss it. Its painful to see peoples hardness of heart,but to see scientists have to harden thier minds againsts seeing the facts it also forces me to believe in the devil as well.

magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#The_high_improbability_of_five_other_anthropic_conditions_.28based_on_cosmological_constants.29

That is why man is limited to inferential certainty of God’s existence.

Inferential certainty is necessary and is sufficient for all the instances of the need for certainty from the part of man in all his affairs whatsoever.

Wherefore when it comes to the question, Does God exist, yes – on inferential certainty which is the only kind achievable by man and it is sufficient though.

KingCoil

 

[tonyrey]

The ultimate basis of certainty is not to be found in our physical experiences but in **our power **to interpret our experiences, both mental and physical…

 

[GaryTaylor]

Right, that’s why I am surer of His existence than of the fact we are sitting in this room chatting. My firm belief is that He reveals Himself daily to every human being, but we shut our ears to the eternal impression of the transmitted message.

How certain are you He doesn’t exist? He even encourages all us insignificant creatures of His to question His very existence, and while He is all about in His awe.

Absolutely marvelous.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No tricks up my sleeve but will you please give some examples of absolute certainty in our knowledge of things, say just four?

1. I am absolutely certain that I exist.
2. I am absolutely certain that others exist.
3. I am absolutely certain that the universe exists.
4. I am absolutely certain that love and hate exist.

These are all certainties of experience. Certainties derived from induction and deduction, however, are less than absolutely certain because they require “leaps” of assent, some of which are more subject to cerebral confirmation than others. Yes, cerebrally we can derive probable certainty about the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. But we cannot derive absolute certainty about either without the experience of either. That is why God gives us avenues of approach to him other than the cerebral ones. Hope is such an avenue; and though it is probably the least stressed of the three theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity, hope is the most fundamental. Without hope, all is lost. Without hope we might legitimately consider suicide as a solution to all our problems. Without hope we are not likely to find love in our lives, nor to find ourselves lovable. Without hope we are not likely to love God, nor feel that we are loved by God.