Two more ways to convince a skeptic that God is real

[Pallas_Athene]

As said before, ONLY God can give evidence of his existence. No human person or institution is qualified to speak for God. So here I will present two surefire methods which God could apply (if he wanted to - Insh’ Allah) to convince any skeptic that he exists.

The first one uses omniscience. God gets together with a skeptic (or even better a whole bunch of skeptics) on the night when the numbers of a lottery (for example Powerball) are drawn. The drawing is televised, of course. The skeptics will use all sorts of recording devices, but no communication to the outside. One minute before the numbers are drawn God will tell the winning numbers, and also the names and addresses of the winners (it may happen that there will be no jackpot winner, but there will a few lesser winnings). The “one minute” interval is important. It makes sure that the witnesses are unable to act on the prediction. Since “omniscience” is impossible for anyone but God, this nice little “parlor trick” becomes a PROOF, not just evidence for God’s existence.

The second one uses omnipotence. The same scenario applies, but God will listen to the skeptics who will say which numbers they want to be the winners. God knows if any of them tries to “rig” the game, and tries to call his own set of winning numbers and so he rejects those. When the numbers are agreed upon, God will make sure that those numbers will be drawn, in the correct sequence. Since only God can do that, it is another PROOF for God’s existence.

I can already foresee some objections about some space aliens, or mass hypnosis or something equally inane. There are no space aliens. Recording devices cannot be hypnotized. Some of the recording devices can be placed into bank vaults, under strictly controlled supervision so that no kind of “cheating” can occur.

I am sure there will be some other people who will acclaim (indignantly) that God would not be willing to participate in such “parlor games”. That is not the issue. The problem was to create a surefire experiment which would convince any skeptic that God exists, and also has “omnipotence” and “omniscience” as two of his attributes. (There is no way to prove God’s benevolence, of course).

Have fun with it.

Disclaimer: I created these scenarios to prove that the assumption of Aquinas (For those who believe, no proof is necessary and for those who don’t believe, no proof is possible) is incorrect. It would be very easy (for God) to prove his existence. Too bad that he does not do it.

 

[1neophyte]

As said before, ONLY God can give evidence of his existence. No human person or institution is qualified to speak for God. So here I will present two surefire methods which God could apply (if he wanted to - Insh’ Allah) to convince any skeptic that he exists.

The first one uses omniscience. God gets together with a skeptic (or even better a whole bunch of skeptics) on the night when the numbers of a lottery (for example Powerball) are drawn. The drawing is televised, of course. The skeptics will use all sorts of recording devices, but no communication to the outside. One minute before the numbers are drawn God will tell the winning numbers, and also the names and addresses of the winners (it may happen that there will be no jackpot winner, but there will a few lesser winnings). The “one minute” interval is important. It makes sure that the witnesses are unable to act on the prediction. Since “omniscience” is impossible for anyone but God, this nice little “parlor trick” becomes a PROOF, not just evidence for God’s existence.

The second one uses omnipotence. The same scenario applies, but God will listen to the skeptics who will say which numbers they want to be the winners. God knows if any of them tries to “rig” the game, and tries to call his own set of winning numbers and so he rejects those. When the numbers are agreed upon, God will make sure that those numbers will be drawn, in the correct sequence. Since only God can do that, it is another PROOF for God’s existence.

I can already foresee some objections about some space aliens, or mass hypnosis or something equally inane. There are no space aliens. Recording devices cannot be hypnotized. Some of the recording devices can be placed into bank vaults, under strictly controlled supervision so that no kind of “cheating” can occur.

I am sure there will be some other people who will acclaim (indignantly) that God would not be willing to participate in such “parlor games”. That is not the issue. The problem was to create a surefire experiment which would convince any skeptic that God exists, and also has “omnipotence” and “omniscience” as two of his attributes. (There is no way to prove God’s benevolence, of course).

Have fun with it.

Disclaimer: I created these scenarios to prove that the assumption of Aquinas (For those who believe, no proof is necessary and for those who don’t believe, no proof is possible) is incorrect. It would be very easy (for God) to prove his existence. Too bad that he does not do it.

That is a level of crazy I had not yet encountered. Well done.

 

[dmar198]

As said before, ONLY God can give evidence of his existence. No human person or institution is qualified to speak for God. So here I will present two surefire methods which God could apply (if he wanted to - Insh’ Allah) to convince any skeptic that he exists.

The first one uses omniscience. God gets together with a skeptic (or even better a whole bunch of skeptics) on the night when the numbers of a lottery (for example Powerball) are drawn. The drawing is televised, of course. The skeptics will use all sorts of recording devices, but no communication to the outside. One minute before the numbers are drawn God will tell the winning numbers, and also the names and addresses of the winners (it may happen that there will be no jackpot winner, but there will a few lesser winnings). The “one minute” interval is important. It makes sure that the witnesses are unable to act on the prediction. Since “omniscience” is impossible for anyone but God, this nice little “parlor trick” becomes a PROOF, not just evidence for God’s existence.

The second one uses omnipotence. The same scenario applies, but God will listen to the skeptics who will say which numbers they want to be the winners. God knows if any of them tries to “rig” the game, and tries to call his own set of winning numbers and so he rejects those. When the numbers are agreed upon, God will make sure that those numbers will be drawn, in the correct sequence. Since only God can do that, it is another PROOF for God’s existence.

I can already foresee some objections about some space aliens, or mass hypnosis or something equally inane. There are no space aliens. Recording devices cannot be hypnotized. Some of the recording devices can be placed into bank vaults, under strictly controlled supervision so that no kind of “cheating” can occur.

I am sure there will be some other people who will acclaim (indignantly) that God would not be willing to participate in such “parlor games”. That is not the issue. The problem was to create a surefire experiment which would convince any skeptic that God exists, and also has “omnipotence” and “omniscience” as two of his attributes. (There is no way to prove God’s benevolence, of course).

Have fun with it.

Disclaimer: I created these scenarios to prove that the assumption of Aquinas (For those who believe, no proof is necessary and for those who don’t believe, no proof is possible) is incorrect. It would be very easy (for God) to prove his existence. Too bad that he does not do it.

I like the examples you give. They both pick out something only God could do, have Him do it, and then the atheists conclude that He must be real.

There was a very creative scene in Bruce Almighty where Jim Carey tries to test Morgan Freeman to prove that he is God. He has him guess all the fingers he holds up behind his back multiple times, and when God seems to get one wrong Jim finds out that his hand got additional fingers to reach the right sum. He has God answer questions about his past and private life that only God could know. What if He told you exactly what you were thinking, every time? Every number you suggested? All that stuff.

Or how about this: what if you told Him to create something, anything from a new color to a giant statue ten thousand feet high, and He did it? Wouldn’t that be proof? It would be pretty persuasive, anyway.

I think the clever part of all this is in this sentence: “Since only God can do that, it is another PROOF for God’s existence.”

Trent Horn discusses more examples like this in this article:

New Support for the Cosmological Argument
catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/new-support-for-the-cosmological-argument

He considers these examples of what would convince atheists that God exists: “An amputated limb is healed with prayer,” “A message announcing that God exists appears in the sky in every known language,” “A towering giant says he is God and through an act of will rearranges the solar system.”

He points out that all of those boil down to the idea that God must be the cause if the person being tested can make something happen that goes beyond natural causes. And Trent then points out that the appearance of the universe itself from nothing goes beyond natural causes. The article explains it in more detail, but essentially the kinds of examples atheists want (lottery numbers and writing in the sky) are all surpassed by the one God has given us: a universe.

Pallas Athene, please let me know what you think of the article.

 

[wmw]

Lucifer may want to play these sorts of games. How can you be sure that he and his demons couldn’t do these things also?

 

[Frankenfurter]

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Your ‘tests’ could be passed by advanced technology not conceived yet. Therefore the tests fail to prove anything since they could be passed in the future by technology.

You need a proof of God that will hold up over time too.

You are making the classic argument for the ‘God of the cracks’. You have reduced God to only those things that we cannot explain. Over enough time, the cracks go to zero. Therefore the God of the cracks go to zero BECAUSE of how you have defined him.

Why do some discount what they see and experience as being un-related to God and only place God in the unexplainable? That is a defacto rejecting of God a priori.

These kinds of tests play directly into atheist hands since they have within them the assumption of the atheist.

Why reject God in the ordinary, in the explainable, in the understandable? It is in these things that we actually see him the clearest.

Who says that we only need God for magic?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Your ‘tests’ could be passed by advanced technology not conceived yet. Therefore the tests fail to prove anything since they could be passed in the future by technology.

You need a proof of God that will hold up over time too.

You are making the classic argument for the ‘God of the cracks’. You have reduced God to only those things that we cannot explain. Over enough time, the cracks go to zero. Therefore the God of the cracks go to zero BECAUSE of how you have defined him.

Why do some discount what they see and experience as being un-related to God and only place God in the unexplainable? That is a defacto rejecting of God a priori.

These kinds of tests play directly into atheist hands since they have within them the assumption of the atheist.

Why reject God in the ordinary, in the explainable, in the understandable? It is in these things :thumbsup:that we actually see him the clearest.

Who says that we only need God for magic?

You sir…nailed it!

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Lucifer may want to play these sorts of games. How can you be sure that he and his demons couldn’t do these things also?

I am sure he could. Lucifer is many things, intelligent and cunning are two of his stand-out qualities. Good point!

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Your ‘tests’ could be passed by advanced technology not conceived yet. Therefore the tests fail to prove anything since they could be passed in the future by technology.

You need a proof of God that will hold up over time too.

You are making the classic argument for the ‘God of the cracks’. You have reduced God to only those things that we cannot explain. Over enough time, the cracks go to zero. Therefore the God of the cracks go to zero BECAUSE of how you have defined him.

Why do some discount what they see and experience as being un-related to God and only place God in the unexplainable? That is a defacto rejecting of God a priori.

These kinds of tests play directly into atheist hands since they have within them the assumption of the atheist.

Why reject God in the ordinary, in the explainable, in the understandable? It is in these things that we actually see him the clearest.

Who says that we only need God for magic?

And why would God want to “prove” himself anyway? If people choose to be atheists, God is not going to interfere with their free will. Those of us who have a personal relationship with him know him. We no more need “proof” of his existence than we need proof of the existence of our next door neighbor or best friend, etc.

 

[You]

…
Disclaimer: I created these scenarios to prove that the assumption of Aquinas (For those who believe, no proof is necessary and for those who don’t believe, no proof is possible) is incorrect. It would be very easy (for God) to prove his existence. Too bad that he does not do it.

when Aquinas said no proof is possible I’m sure he meant no proof was possible to convince a skeptic to believe and change. As the devil knows God exists but he will not change. It is possible to have Gods existence proven to you to your satisfaction and for you to refuse to change to conform to your newfound knowledge of the Truth.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I like the examples you give. They both pick out something only God could do, have Him do it, and then the atheists conclude that He must be real.

Ok, that was the intent.

There was a very creative scene in Bruce Almighty where Jim Carey tries to test Morgan Freeman to prove that he is God. He has him guess all the fingers he holds up behind his back multiple times, and when God seems to get one wrong Jim finds out that his hand got additional fingers to reach the right sum. He has God answer questions about his past and private life that only God could know. What if He told you exactly what you were thinking, every time? Every number you suggested? All that stuff.

It is almost the same an my experiment, except “God” cheats. A “real” God would not need cheating. But that is a minor issue.

I think the clever part of all this is in this sentence: “Since only God can do that, it is another PROOF for God’s existence.”

That is how I see it.

Trent Horn discusses more examples like this in this article:

Sorry, it does not work. It is as incorrect as all the other purported arguments.
P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2. The universe began to exist.
C. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
P1 is an unsupported metaphysical assumption.
P2 is an unsupported physical assumption.
Before anyone brings up the Big Bang, it does NOT say that the universe suddenly and inexplicable popped out of nothing. But let’s stick to the subject.

---

Number One isn’t surefire!

A skeptic could say…“that dude’s psychic!!” (or telepathic, a mindreader, clairvoyant, etc, etc. Because just because a God doesn’t exist, doesn’t mean abilities don’t exist).

Not good enough. Even if there WOULD be psychics they could not read the future, simply because the future has no happened YET.

Okay, I gotta say…I don’t think #2 is surefire, either.

I interviewed this guy once for a story…his name is Lior Suchard. He pulled of mental feats I could not believe nor explain.

I am sure you could not, and I could not do it either. But any competent magician COULD. The only ones who are qualified to detect cheating are the professional “cheaters”, the stage magicians. Under properly designed and executed circumstances (double blind, etc.) all the psychics fail to perform. God, of course would succeed.

But you have a point. No one can convince an irrational person or an imbecile (is there any difference?) who refuses to consider his senses and their implications. I had only the rational skeptics in mind, who do not believe because they find the proffered “evidence” insufficient.

---

Lucifer may want to play these sorts of games. How can you be sure that he and his demons couldn’t do these things also?

Whether God or Satan, it does not matter. Two peas in a pod.

---

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Your ‘tests’ could be passed by advanced technology not conceived yet. Therefore the tests fail to prove anything since they could be passed in the future by technology.

Seeing the future is impossible, because there is nothing to “see” yet. Most believers assert that the Omni-max attributes only exist for God.

Why reject God in the ordinary, in the explainable, in the understandable? It is in these things that we actually see him the clearest.

Who says that we only need God for magic?

Because he hides behind the clouds and does not show his face.

---

And why would God want to “prove” himself anyway?

It is not the question. The point was to design a thought experiment which would be a proof for skeptics. (People don’t “choose” to be atheists or skeptics.)

---

when Aquinas said no proof is possible I’m sure he meant no proof was possible to convince a skeptic to believe and change. As the devil knows God exists but he will not change. It is possible to have Gods existence proven to you to your satisfaction and for you to refuse to change to conform to your newfound knowledge of the Truth.

I don’t want to speculate about what Aquinas “meant” to say. Of course, if a successful experiment would PROVE that God exists, there would be no more need for faith, there would be KNOWLEDGE. A change of behavior is irrelevant.

 

[inocente]

Disclaimer: I created these scenarios to prove that the assumption of Aquinas (For those who believe, no proof is necessary and for those who don’t believe, no proof is possible) is incorrect. It would be very easy (for God) to prove his existence. Too bad that he does not do it.

That quote didn’t sound like Aquinas, and seems it’s by someone named Stuart Chase.

The line attributed to Aquinas is instead “To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible”, but I couldn’t find a source, and it seems to be a paraphrase of what Aquinas actually said: “Unbelievers are in ignorance of things that are of faith, for neither do they see or know them in themselves, nor do they know them to be credible. The faithful, on the other hand, know them, not as by demonstration, but by the light of faith which makes them see that they ought to believe them, as stated above”. (ST II-II-1 Art. 5 - newadvent.org/summa/3001.htm)

You’ll see it’s about faith not proof.

(I’m no fan of Aquinas so could well be wrong about where he says it, please would any passing Thomist check).

 

[Pallas_Athene]

That quote didn’t sound like Aquinas, and seems it’s by someone named Stuart Chase.

The line attributed to Aquinas is instead “To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible”, but I couldn’t find a source, and it seems to be a paraphrase of what Aquinas actually said: “Unbelievers are in ignorance of things that are of faith, for neither do they see or know them in themselves, nor do they know them to be credible. The faithful, on the other hand, know them, not as by demonstration, but by the light of faith which makes them see that they ought to believe them, as stated above”. (ST II-II-1 Art. 5 - newadvent.org/summa/3001.htm)

Quite possibly. I am only interested in the “meat” of the concept, not the actual verbiage.

You’ll see it’s about faith not proof.

And when “proof” is available, then “faith” becomes unnecessary.

 

[You]

Quite possibly. I am only interested in the “meat” of the concept, not the actual verbiage.

And when “proof” is available, then “faith” becomes unnecessary.

Not so. Many have had “proof”. But *it *is not sufficient proof for them.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Not so. Many have had “proof”. But *it *is not sufficient proof for them.

Then it is not “proof”. When I am confronted with a[sup]2[/sup] + b[sup]2[/sup] = c[sup]2[/sup] for any triangle with a right angle in it, that is a proof. And no need for “faith” in the veracity of the Pythagoras theorem.

What you talk about is “evidence”, and NOT all kinds of evidence are sufficient. The two concepts are not interchangeable.

 

[Frankenfurter]

Then it is not “proof”. When I am confronted with a[sup]2[/sup] + b[sup]2[/sup] = c[sup]2[/sup] for any triangle with a right angle in it, that is a proof. And no need for “faith” in the veracity of the Pythagoras theorem.

What you talk about is “evidence”, and NOT all kinds of evidence are sufficient. The two concepts are not interchangeable.

Pythagoras’s theorem may be proof for you, but that is only because you already have experienced the truths of the foundational things: algebra, basic math. Your objective proof is still only valid for a small subset of people who have the experience of the more basic experiences. All proofs are custom-made for the person needing the proof. It is dependent on their background and experiences. There is no getting around that.

The proof you are looking for is a 2-way street. You cannot separate yourself from it.
The proof is a mapping of knowledge of one thing into the mind of another. You and your background and your experiences are intimately involved and are in fact the entire subject of the activity of proving.

God already exists, objectively. The problem is how to wrap your mind around that given that you have not experienced him directly as others have.

I have pointed out that your feigned attempts at proof actually have the assumption of God’s nonexistence built into them (but apparently you did not realize that). That suggests that you have a bias and are attempting to prove something that you want to be true - that you have already made your conclusion, and will be going around and around in circles with your own logic re-enforcing its own built in biases. Perhaps Aquinas was correct. No proof is possible, for you.

 

[inocente]

Quite possibly. I am only interested in the “meat” of the concept, not the actual verbiage.

But the meat is entirely different - faith not proof.

And when “proof” is available, then “faith” becomes unnecessary.

I think maybe you’re mixing up a priori and a posteriori. You can prove a theorem in math but you can’t prove that the Sun will rise tomorrow. We can’t be absolutely certain that the Earth won’t be destroyed or knocked off its orbit or whatever. All we can say is that from our past experience, the Sun will probably rise tomorrow, we can have faith that it will rise tomorrow.

I think that’s how most people approach the God proposition, whether their experience leads them to believe or otherwise. There may be some who want proof for or against, but if they don’t also ask for proof that the Sun will rise tomorrow (which is impossible to get) then they’re being inconsistent.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I have pointed out that your feigned attempts at proof actually have the assumption of God’s nonexistence built into them (but apparently you did not realize that).

Well, I recall the Uri Geller-type of charlatans, who say that one must believe that paranormal events are real, and THEN they can experience them. No wonder that those events never materialize when skeptics are present. Not because the skeptics “chase them away”, but because they don’t exist in the first place.

That suggests that you have a bias and are attempting to prove something that you want to be true

Nonsense. Whether I want this “stone” to be here has no bearing on its existence, and its existence can be PROVEN, even if I have a bias against it.

---

You can prove a theorem in math but you can’t prove that the Sun will rise tomorrow.

You are absolutely correct. But I am talking about something else. I am not looking at some future event, I am looking at the current existence of something. Does this stone exist, which I hold in my hand? There is no need for faith that my senses convey the correct information about the objective world. What would I use to validate it?

I think that’s how most people approach the God proposition, whether their experience leads them to believe or otherwise. There may be some who want proof for or against, but if they don’t also ask for proof that the Sun will rise tomorrow (which is impossible to get) then they’re being inconsistent.

Let me repeat. My question is not whether the Sun will be there tomorrow, it is whether the Sun is there NOW?

And a quick reminder. The word “faith” is one of the most abused words. It goes from having absolutely no evidence to all the way of 99.999… percent certainty. Actually it also incorporates beliefs for which not only there is no evidence, but all the evidence are against that particular belief. In other words, it goes from blind faith to almost Cartesian certainty.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I am sure there will be some other people who will acclaim (indignantly) that God would not be willing to participate in such “parlor games”. That is not the issue. The problem was to create a surefire experiment which would convince any skeptic that God exists, and also has “omnipotence” and “omniscience” as two of his attributes. (There is no way to prove God’s benevolence, of course).

.

Yes I would say you do disrespect God and try to reduce him and his goodness to parlor games. The kingdom of heaven is spread upon this world but people like you do not see it. God is all around in the form of people who believe in him and follow his teachings as best they can.

Here is a passage from Matthew 25.

*“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’*

Christians are the body of Christ. We are his hands and feet. Yes there is a lot of evil in this world, but slamming God is not the way to get rid of evil. There is no way to create a mathematical rule or a syllogism to prove God’s existence. That is child’s play. He is way beyond that. You get proof of God’s existence through your heart and soul, not by playing silly little parlor games (she said indignantly!)

 

[inocente]

Let me repeat. My question is not whether the Sun will be there tomorrow, it is whether the Sun is there NOW?

It takes eight minutes for light from the Sun to reach us, so the Sun could have disappeared five minutes ago and you won’t know for another 3 minutes. Funny thing, time.

And a quick reminder. The word “faith” is one of the most abused words. It goes from having absolutely no evidence to all the way of 99.999… percent certainty. Actually it also incorporates beliefs for which not only there is no evidence, but all the evidence are against that particular belief. In other words, it goes from blind faith to almost Cartesian certainty.

Thanks, but I don’t need reminders since we now both have iron-clad empirical evidence that I’m a much greater skeptic than you, because you didn’t check the attribution of the quote in your own OP, you took it on faith, while I looked it up even though I’d no axe to grind and nothing to lose.

Because that’s what we True Skeptics™ do.

Currently then, you’re well ahead of me on this faith stuff, since you used faith when writing your OP and I didn’t use any in checking it out.

btw I’m so much of a skeptic I could never believe in the god of your OP scenarios, to me that would raise a big red flag, it’s exactly the kind of trick a Uri Geller or Lior Suchard would do, maybe on a grander scale, but stage magic all the same.

Most peoples’ beliefs are formed not through so-called proofs but through what they experience. Imho if your experience takes you down a particular road, fine, that’s for you to determine for yourself, but by the same measure if others’ experience takes them down other roads, that’s their decision.

 

[Frankenfurter]

Nonsense. Whether I want this “stone” to be here has no bearing on its existence, and its existence can be PROVEN, even if I have a bias against it.

God is not a stone. He takes a bit more work if you want to have knowledge of him.

Stone is something you apparently already have faith in, believe in and have knowledge of. Think back to when you learned what a stone was. As a child you had no knowledge of it. How did that process work? In all cases you will find that the pattern of a human gaining knowledge of new things is basically: faith, followed by belief, followed by experience-based knowledge.

Children first gain ‘object permanence’ when they begin to have faith that an object still exists even when it goes behind something and can’t be seen. They learn next to believe in things as being real even when they are not around them. They come to knowledge over time after having many experiences with the object and understand how it relates to their world.

When you learned math, at first it was not clear what the point was. But you had have faith in your teachers or parents when they told you that it was important, and you chose to continue. After a while you began to believe in the operations as being consistent and having some value. After time you gained new knowledge like the Pathagorian theorem based on this math.

There are scientists working to find a cure for cancer right now. They have FAITH that one exists (even though it doesn’t yet). After making some strides, perhaps in a certain type of cancer, they begin to beleive in the cure being possible. That changes their approach to being more deliberate and determined. Finally, after testing the treatment and seeing it work and understanding the mechanisms they come to have knowledge of their new cure.

These are examples of the process of the human mind coming to knowledge of something new to them. It happens through faith, belief and finally experience-based knowledge.

You are trying to jump to right knowledge of God first. But nothing that you have learned has ever worked that way. Even your knowledge of Stone. It has always involved the earlier steps. God is much more difficult because he has so many more facets and features. It will take much more effort on your part to come to have knowledge of him. if you don’t have faith in him, then you may never get there. And no that is not a Charlatan’s trick, that is how all knowledge is acquired.