How certain are we that God exists?

[tonyrey]

Are you absolutely certain of that?

I obviously don’t claim to be infallible but I cannot find any logical defect in your reasoning.uch::dts:

 

[KingCoil]

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCoil
Sorry for the typo from my part.
Thanks for catching it, and no worries.

Quote:
Dear Jochoa, I really wonder how you can extrapolate paragraph 460 from the Catholic Catechism into a rejection of inferential certainty of God’s existence in favor of direct certainty.
I am not sharing that CCC#460 rejects inferential certainty because I find it to support both inferential and direct certainty. However, since I know CCC#460 more fully recognizes direct human certainty of God, and we, in this discussion, have already concurred on inferential certainty of God’s existence, it is only logical to me that we seek to concur on direct human certainty of God because direct human certainty of God yields the Heavenly Experience!

Thank you very much for all your time, consideration, and sharing of your perspective! I have greatly enjoyed our discussion, and I look forward to more!

the Heavenly Experience!

That the Heavenly Experience! is the evidence that leads to the direct certainty of God’s existence, that is acceptable to everyone claiming to have encountered within themselves the experience; but it is a direct certainty that is not as certain as the certainty of the nose in the face of man.

The trouble here with the Heavenly Experience! is that it is all within the folks who experience it, it is not the common experience of all folks who do have a nose in the face.

Die hard skeptics tell us that experience within the person is not reliable for the knowledge of objective reality like the nose in our face, because it suffers from what is or I might call the weakness of subjectivism.

Besides, the Heavenly Experience! can be effected by a person within himself by the use of drugs.

Anyway, we might concur on the following outline of certainty for mankind:

Human certainty of the existence of something

I. Direct certainty

A. Based upon the experience of an external object outside the mind accessible to sense contact of every person, so it is based on an object in the factual world external to man.

B. Based on the experience of an internal object within the person like in his brain or mind, so it is not based on an object external to man, but only internal to man.
II. Inferential certainty – based on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts
​

So, we want to concentrate on concurring on inferential certainty: that it is possible and necessary and sufficient for man, because that is the certainty on which I for one know that honest skeptics and honest atheists, who both are sincerely searching for proof of the existence of God, will be convinced on the existence of God

Now, as we know that or we concur that in concept God is the creator of the universe, again in concept He is therefore more huge than the whole universe and more subtle than the minutest particles, fields, forces, laws of physics and laws of nature, all and everything that make up the composition of the universe and the universe as a whole one item.

Here is why I have this process for coming to the inferential certainty of God from concept to existence:

…]

For all affairs of mankind, inferential certainty is necessary and is sufficient when we cannot have direct certainty.

So, let me show you how we arrive at the inferential certainty of God’s existence:

1. The universe exists.
2. In the universe everything in it has a beginning.
3. Wherefore everything in the universe has need of a cause to bring it to existence.
4. Next, scientists tell us the universe as a whole has a beginning.
5. Wherefore the whole universe as one item has need of a cause to bring it to existence.
6. Let us go into the universe to observe and examine everything and come to conclusion that everything in it has a beginning: so everything in the universe has a cause.
7. For the universe as a whole and as one item, scientists tell us it has a beginning: so the universe as a whole and as one item has a cause.
8. Conclusion: we have inferential certainty of the existence of the cause of the universe as one whole, one item, and also everything in the universe that makes up the composition of the universe, and we identify the cause of the universe as corresponding to the concept of God in the Christian faith, namely, as the creator of the universe.

That is the argument from the concept of God to the existence of God by way of inference from the logic and the facts: that everything with a beginning has a cause (the logic) and the facts that everything making up the universe does have a beginning, and scientists tell us the whole universe has a beginning.

KingCoil

 

[HelenRose]

To quote Abraham Skorka, Rabbi and close friend of Pope Francis:

“I am 98 percent certain that God exists. The 2 percent doubt keeps me humble.”

 

[KingCoil]

…]

Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.

…]

disordered appetites

That is why I submit that honest skeptics and atheists who finally find God did so when they put in check their disordered appetites.

That is a good topic to take up in a psychology dissertation.

KingCoil

 

[GaryTaylor]

Some would suggest that’s everything wrong with psychology today. Its doesn’t address “sin” its a little loosey goosey on “normal” also. Its a good analogy though.

So the baseline is “normal” as opposed to extremes which result in symptomatic behaviors. Obesity, bulimia, anorexia and so forth, these too can be triggered by depression and supported by stimulants as opposed to nutrients such as marijuana, alcohol, cigarettes.

That’s why a bible should go along with every degree. Then there would be a baseline for “normal” in relation to understanding human nature.

Par excellence for behavior is what? Whats the model we would shape society through positive reinforcement?

I think you hit the nail precisely on the head. Sigmund Freud committed suicide, being a follower of Charles Darwin I suppose he found the emptiness to much to bear. Course he could have looked “outside” himself to God and cooperated with the grace offered.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I think you hit the nail precisely on the head. Sigmund Freud committed suicide, being a follower of Charles Darwin I suppose he found the emptiness to much to bear. Course he could have looked “outside” himself to God and cooperated with the grace offered.

Not that it changes your moral evaluation of the action, but it’s probably worth mentioning that Sigmund Freud was struggling with cancer in his jaw. It’s possible that the reported pain is what was too much to bear and not the apparent emptiness. That may be why he went with medically assisted suicide.

 

[KingCoil]

Know of any serious psycho-sociology studies on the motivations of militant atheists in their – may I use the word – hostility against God, posing as hostility against religion and folks with religion, in particular Christians.

This is a digression from the topic but I guess it is related because it shows how non- or anti- reason is the attitude of atheists among scientists, and it is already ingrained in scientists that they should be atheist or anti-religion.

Yesterday I just got banned forever from the Physicsforums.com, and the triggering post is the following message below in bold.

Here, I will just reproduce the email notice on my banning:

[See next post.]

 

[KingCoil]

[By email notice]

Physics Forums (pfmail@physicsforums.com)
5:42 AM

Newsletters
To: gertes@hotmail.com

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL!

---

Dear yrreg,

You have received a new private message at Physics Forums from Evo, entitled “You have received a warning at Physics Forums”.

To read the original version, respond to, or delete this message, you must log in here:
physicsforums.com/private.php

This is the message that was sent:

---

Dear yrreg,

You have received a warning/infraction at Physics Forums.

Reason: religious crackpot, already warned​

yrreg:

God is the creator of everything with a beginning.

So He creates and operates the observable and known to man universe which is empirically evident as regards the genuinity and reality of its existence, i.e., the existence of this universe where we are the residents of and the students seeking to know about it.

Please! no more superstitious and magical speculations without empirical evidence.

But you can still think according to the principles of knowledge of the highest level of human cognitive resources to detect how God creates and works or operates the universe of all existence with a beginning, unlike God’s existence that is without beginning because God IS, period.

That is what Christians from way way back always start with their speculations on how the universe of all existence works, but always from the ultimate last and first premise of all premises of knowledge, that God exists, with utmost intelligence, free will, and power.

So, in the murky world QM at that low low low level of physical or material existence God will let socalled probabilities play, but at the end of His day He decides to let your nose continue to be and to operate and to stay put in your face, in your face as not only on your facial skin but also in the frontal part of your head.

Conclusion: the question of how cannot be answered ultimately in the realm of the physics world specially not in the ‘murky’ QM world.

It must at this point yield to the question of who or what, or the existence and operation of God Who is defined in concept by Christians quintessentially in relation to the existence of man and the observable and known to man universe as:

The creator of everything that has a beginning.

physicsforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=479227​

This warning/infraction is worth 10 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=4721425#post4721425
Yrreg:

micromass:

Yrreg:

Forgive me, if you see the direction I am pursuing in this thread, and you feel that it is not allowed for scientists to enter into it; but do tell me why not, is it because it is a taboo-ed direction?

Instead of asking questions, can you just tell us what it is you are trying to do or to argue?

*I have the idea that scientists are claiming the right to not think further from the point of the big bang backward on the ground of taboo on their part.

The point of the big bang – and correct me if I am wrong – is for scientists not a logical point that is in their mind only, but it is a something outside their mind – meaning it is not nothing, so that if there are no scientists at all or even no human mind at all existing, the big bang is still something existing or having existed in its own status, and from that point which was something the universe that is being studied by scientists originated.

So, there has always been something existing or let me say, existence is the default status of the case of all human discourse.

From stock reading I learned that scientists concur that that point, the big bang point (which is not nothing, not just a logical point in their mind) is a * package of unimaginable densely compressed energy; and I accept that, their concurrence.

The mathematics of scientists has enabled them to compute all the way to the big bang point of unimaginable compressed energy. and from this big bang point the universe originated.

So, where do I go from that big bang unimaginable package of compressed energy, aside from knowing that scientists say that it is the origin of the universe?

I go back to the issue that there has always existed something, and that something that has always existed even in the status in which there had not existed the big bang point and the ensuing universe, that something is the what I will call the self-subsisting something – ultimately the origin of everything that has its development in and from the big bang package point of unimaginable compressed energy.

Is that kind of thinking from yours truly taboo-ed with scientists?

Yrreg

*Perhaps a better term could be “no man’s land.”

---

Regards,
Physics Forums

---

*Again, please do not reply to this email. You must go to the following page to reply to this private message:
physicsforums.com/private.php

regards,
Physics Forums

To unsubscribe from PM alert emails please visit this link
physicsforums.com/profile.php?do=editoptions

*This is what I got when I clicked on physicsforums.com/private.php

vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
religious crackpot, already warned
Date the ban will be lifted: Never

*[This notice encountered upon trying to reload my last post in Physicsforums.com at around 4:00 pm of April 17, 2014 Thursday – note from Yrreg.]
*

Happy Easter, everyone!

KingCoil

 

[ThinkingSapien]

*This is what I got when I clicked on physicsforums.com/private.php…]
KingCoil

It appears you’ve exposed your private e-mail address. Are you sure you want to do that? You can edit a post within 15 minutes of having made it.

 

[JackVk]

*This is what I got when I clicked on physicsforums.com/private.php

Happy Easter, everyone!

KingCoil

“Religious crackpot”. Hah! Nice job. You know you’ve won when they go for the insult.

Happy Easter to you too!

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I feel quite certain that God exists though quite uncertain about all that God is (mystery).

Jesus, I feel certain that he existed and was a fantastic teacher. Risen from the dead, I take on pure faith because I have never seen him and do not know of anyone else who has or has also risen from the dead.

But I believe.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Judging from the forum guidelines I think it is probably better not to get into religious discussions there. Their guidelines say that post mixing science and religion are generally not allowed. It also says “Discussions that assert the a priori truth or falsity of religious dogmas and belief systems, or value judgments stemming from such religious belief systems, will not be tolerated.”

I think Catholic Forums may be a much better forum for the types of discussions that you wish to have

 

[KingCoil]

It appears you’ve exposed your private e-mail address. Are you sure you want to do that? You can edit a post within 15 minutes of having made it.

Can’t see what I should be troubled about, my email provider has a feature by which I delete all mails in a folder with one click.

Besides, as I send out very rarely any email, so it is easy and quick for me to filter everything that I am not expecting.

KingCoil

 

[Mr_Clean]

I would so love to be a fly on the wall when a die hard atheist dies and meets God.

 

[davidv]

“Religious crackpot”. Hah! Nice job. You know you’ve won when they go for the insult.

Happy Easter to you too!

Winning ought not be our objective. Spreading the gospel is our objective. We are to evangelize by word and deed. Getting banned seems to cut one off from doing so.

 

[KingCoil]

Judging from the forum guidelines I think it is probably better not to get into religious discussions there. Their guidelines say that post mixing science and religion are generally not allowed. It also says “Discussions that assert the a priori truth or falsity of religious dogmas and belief systems, or value judgments stemming from such religious belief systems, will not be tolerated.”

I think Catholic Forums may be a much better forum for the types of discussions that you wish to have

That is why I say that scientists nowadays I don’t why and since when have adopted a what I might call professional bias of not thinking beyond the big bang, on what I also might call a taboo – a taboo from my stock knowledge and reading is a superstitious fear behavior of abstaining from a conduct, or topic, or even just the thought because it can bring about some evil, bad luck on you.

It appears that the campaign of Western atheists from post Newton to not let even the foot in the doorway to God, starting in particular with the academic establishment they have succeeded; so that any youth with God in his heart and mind going to the university in the USA comes to assimilate an almost rabid ferocity against God and of course religion, as though they have suffered some grievous wrong from God.

But I wonder why the research communities do not take to examining the psycho-sociology of atheists, whereas they are so keen and vocal with their examination of the psycho-sociology of Christians or religious people, with the conclusion that people knowing God or having a religion are deficient in self-reliance in taking life all by themselves, without any religious crutch from entities beyond the material world.

What about atheists, the way I see them, the militant atheists, they are harboring some imagined grievous grudge against God and the Christian faith and Christians, and acting out their vindictive-ness by rabid enmity in words and in actions against God and anything reminiscent of God and the Christian faith.

With scientists nowadays it is to the rocks with scientific impartiality, in the resolution of what comes in the status in which there had not occurred the status in which the big bang occurred.

In the Physicsforums.com I kept to the General Discussions board, and I maintained what to Wikipedians is an NPOV approach – it seems that they can’t even allow any non-partisan examination of a concept like self-subsisting entity in the totality of existence.

In other words, once aspiring intellectuals become scientific or become so-called scientists or better self-proclaimed scientists, they must adopt the taboo of no thinking beyond the realm of quantifiable things.

KingCoil

 

[Mr_Clean]

The recent direction of this thread made me think of the line from “The Wizard of Oz” - “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”.

If an atheist sees there is an intelligent, creative being behind it all then their world will come crashing down.

 

[jochoa]

Dear King Coil,

Thank you very much for the enjoyable thread! I like your logical approach to knowing God. I find it to have a slight extension to St. Augustine’s First Cause. I still encourage you to strive to know God with direct certainty based upon the experience of an external object outside the mind accessible to sense contact of every person, so it is based on an object in the factual world external to man because such direct certainty is currently possible.

I look forward to reading more of your thoughts!

 

[GaryTaylor]

, they must adopt the taboo of no thinking beyond the realm of quantifiable things.

Which is somewhat understandable and OK, however when you can’t admit to others valid points, then the thinking becomes rather narrow minded. I would take it as a compliment, seriously.

I think we ought to gather with them a couple times yearly for hugs, and coffee to stimulate the conversation. We’ll meet at a neutral sight. Seems theism breeds morality and atheism does not. Just saying

If I took a classroom of 3rd graders, and gave them a quiz on what they really did not know very well yet. Then, as I was leaving the room told them, do not cheat, the Wizard of Oz is watching.

Truth is, and you can do the testing yourself, the results favor the Wizard with less cheating.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

But I wonder why the research communities do not take to examining the psycho-sociology of atheists, whereas they are so keen and vocal with their examination of the psycho-sociology of Christians or religious people, with the conclusion that people knowing God or having a religion are deficient in self-reliance in taking life all by themselves, without any religious crutch from entities beyond the material world.

In short there’s little motivation to do so.

Research in psychology tends to come up with results that have general applicability to a group. Being a minority position there’s an expectation of less applicability. Additionally there is a wide spectrum of attributes that a person that self identifies as an atheist may or may not have. Given the prohibitions of this site I won’t go into details on those, but Strange Notions did a piece on it.

In other words, once aspiring intellectuals become scientific or become so-called scientists or better self-proclaimed scientists, they must adopt the taboo of no thinking beyond the realm of quantifiable things.

I don’t think there’s a prohibition on thinking of non-quantifiable things. But such things would be relegated to a different knowledge domain. Perhaps with the success of a useful non-quantified yet unambiguous model a new knowledge domain could be created. Kind of how Newton’s writings on “natural philosophy” were relegated to the area we now know as physics.