How can I know that there is a God?

[McCulloch]

I've been debating many issues here for some time now, but the single most important one, in my opinion is this. There are those who claim that they know that God exists. How does one come to that knowledge? Do they really know that God exists or do they simply suppose or assume that God exists?

If your answer is that I cannot know, then you are as much of an agnostic as I am. If you answer is that some holy book says so, then you have only pushed the question onto that book. I also have what I think is the second most important question.

How can I know that there is a God?

[ST_JB]

The conclusion that a deity is likely responsible for existence and for the disposition of human consciousness after death is indeed widespread. That shows only the consistency of human cognizance. It does not prove the conclusion to be true.

….neither to be false.

Cognizance exists to seek metaphysical truth. Physical discoveries are part of that process.

No, the supposition of God is there. That supposition is based on the circumstances of human condition and conclusions based on what human logic understands to be necessary to cause that condition.

In other words, we recognize existence, or own and that of everything around us. We don't witness creation on that order of magnitude. We cannot cause that sort of creation. Everything must be created, so there must be a creator. That creator must be greater than Man. There is none like that walking around here, but we can guess some of such a being's characteristics. Let's give it a go, and then we'll worship what we suppose that to be, because it's gotta be something powerful!

The idea of god is very logical. That logic has been exercised routinely around the world throughout history. That makes the logic genuine, but not necessarily the conclusions.

The belief in the existence of God is not based solely in the supposition that there must be a God. The knowledge about God is what natural reason tells man in his quest to answer the question why.

As one person asks… Why do you think human cognizance goes beyond the instinct that guides animal survival, why human cognizance is endowed with the ability to seek answers to questions that ask why?

If the idea of God is very logical and the logic is genuine as you said but not necessarily the conclusion… then what alternative can you offer??? Will it be logical and logically genuine as well???

If you can recognize this limitation of human intellect, why can you feel confident in any conclusion regarding God? Why do you accept the intellect and the conclusions of the Christian or aother sect but not feel that others are worthy?

I believe I have properly responded already to this question in my previous post for Dragon.

And I repeat:
The subjection of "supernatural" to scientific method is what I was talking about when it comes to limitations of human intellect.








_________________________
"Some people live in darkness not because of the absence of light but because of the absence of common sense" - ST_JB

[Dionysus]

/\ Typical Catholic-Augustinian dogma - "not faith alone, but also reason." Hence the Catholic Church is and always will be the first of the Churches to succumb to modernity, for it admits of a rival.

[ST_JB]

....that the knowledge about God can be known through NATURAL REASON.

The use of human intellectual as basis for understanding supernatural phenomena is actually the common gauge of man to measure the validity of such events.
However, as limited as it is, the human intellect… no matter how advanced our understanding on the created world (physical) science continuously fails us in giving answers to even natural phenomena.

Are you saying that "NATURAL REASON" (although you don't define what that is) is a different tool to "human intellectual" (do you mean 'human intellect'?)?

Sorry if I wasn't that clear in my post.

The last paragraph of my last post, I guess answers your question. I have identified that field of human intellect I was referring to when I say "Human Intellect."

It is the subjection of "supernatural" to scientific method.

OK, so we have 'natural reason' and 'human intellect' (the scientific method). Are these different forms of reason, one capable of apprehending god and the other incapable? If they *are* different, in what ways are they different and are they both available to all human beings?

Never did I make any claim on matters you were talking about. So please do not confuse yourself.

Natural reason is the use of human intellect. Same as scientific method is the use of human intellect as well.

[bernee51]

The use of human intellectual as basis for understanding supernatural phenomena is actually the common gauge of man to measure the validity of such events.

I do not know of any supernatural phenomena. Anything that happens in the natural world, explainable or not, is a natural phenomenom.

However, as limited as it is, the human intellect… no matter how advanced our understanding on the created world (physical) science continuously fails us in giving answers to even natural phenomena.

And...?

Now that is where some people want to fit in their understanding about God.

Ah I see..."I don't know how X happened ergo 'goddidit'"

The argument from ignorance has never been very strong evidence for the existence of the supernatural.

[ST_JB]

/\ Typical Catholic-Augustinian dogma - "not faith alone, but also reason." Hence the Catholic Church is and always will be the first of the Churches to succumb to modernity, for it admits of a rival.

This is a very good topic to discuss with. I just hope you can substantiate your claim so as to level the grounds for discussion.

I shall wait.

[ST_JB]

The use of human intellectual as basis for understanding supernatural phenomena is actually the common gauge of man to measure the validity of such events.

I do not know of any supernatural phenomena. Anything that happens in the natural world, explainable or not, is a natural phenomenom.

However, as limited as it is, the human intellect… no matter how advanced our understanding on the created world (physical) science continuously fails us in giving answers to even natural phenomena.

And...?

Now that is where some people want to fit in their understanding about God.

Ah I see..."I don't know how X happened ergo 'goddidit'"

Ah I see... "I do not know how God happen to exist ergo 'x' is the cause.

The argument from ignorance has never been very strong evidence for the existence of the supernatural.

If you cannot substantiate this claim, then we will know how great you are in the used of "argument from ignorance" if there is such.









_____________________________
"Some people live in darkness not because of the absence of light but of the common sense." - - ST_JB

[Dragon]

OK, so we have 'natural reason' and 'human intellect' (the scientific method). Are these different forms of reason, one capable of apprehending god and the other incapable? If they *are* different, in what ways are they different and are they both available to all human beings?

Natural reason is the use of human intellect. Same as scientific method is the use of human intellect as well.

OK, so they are both different words for the same thing.

the human intellect… fails us in giving answers to even natural phenomena.

So natural reason can tackle supernatural issues like the existence of god but is not well suited to explaining the natural world? That is standing the conventional view of human intellect on its head - I doubt you will find many serious scholars to back up this theory!

[Dionysus]

/\ Typical Catholic-Augustinian dogma - "not faith alone, but also reason." Hence the Catholic Church is and always will be the first of the Churches to succumb to modernity, for it admits of a rival.

This is a very good topic to discuss with. I just hope you can substantiate your claim so as to level the grounds for discussion.

I shall wait.

Certainly.

Thomas Aquinas, the most influential theologian the Church has to offer, claimed that belief in God could be justified upon logical grounds - and not just any God, but BibleGawd Himself. His prime argument to this effect was the 'unmoved mover': everything must have a cause, ergo something must have caused every other cause to be caused (are you following?)

This presumes:

1. Causality: 'A causes B'. Yet this is identical to saying that 'A = B'; the concept of causality erroneously infers an artificial division between cause and effect when, in truth, they are one and the same. Applying this to God leaves us with a God who is his own Creation - a ludicrous proposition, but one which entails

2. The 'unmoved mover': The most obvious objection is, what caused God? That He is self-caused, as the above infers - because God must precede everything - is absurd.

3. Even supposing the above two refutations were not enough, this leaves a plethora of creator deities and in no wise supports the positing of the Christian God as the only truly extant deity.


Ultimately, however, we have Catholicism to thank for the 'death of God': by acknowledging reason as being of equal import to faith, it paved the way for the subsequent undermining and devaluation of the moral imperative (to knowledge) which has since put Christianity to the lie. The Renaissance is unthinkable without the influence of this teaching on the humanities - although, truth be told, the Dark Ages too are quite incomprehensible without the rise of Christianity.

[ST_JB]

/\ Typical Catholic-Augustinian dogma - "not faith alone, but also reason." Hence the Catholic Church is and always will be the first of the Churches to succumb to modernity, for it admits of a rival.

This is a very good topic to discuss with. I just hope you can substantiate your claim so as to level the grounds for discussion.

I shall wait.

Certainly.

Thomas Aquinas, the most influential theologian the Church has to offer, claimed that belief in God could be justified upon logical grounds - and not just any God, but BibleGawd Himself. His prime argument to this effect was the 'unmoved mover': everything must have a cause, ergo something must have caused every other cause to be caused (are you following?)

This presumes:

1. Causality: 'A causes B'. Yet this is identical to saying that 'A = B'; the concept of causality erroneously infers an artificial division between cause and effect when, in truth, they are one and the same. Applying this to God leaves us with a God who is his own Creation - a ludicrous proposition, but one which entails

The General Causality Arguments simply states that nothing exists or happens without sufficient reasons for its existence or occurrence either in itself or something else. That is whatever that exists or happens is not possible to exists or occur unless it exists of absolute necessity or self-existent.

This principle is valid and applied by scientists to explain the phenomena in physics.

If at one time nothing is in existence… then it would have been impossible that something out of nothing have begun to exist.

Applying this to God means that there exists that is Uncaused – The FIRST CAUSE.

2. The 'unmoved mover': The most obvious objection is, what caused God? That He is self-caused, as the above infers - because God must precede everything - is absurd.

What is not absurd anyway? …that at one time there is nothing in existence… then at some point in time something have begun to exist???

If the phenomena in physics be observed in this discussion… it would be impossible to postulate how an inanimate “something” that cannot be “created” nor can be “destroyed” suddenly begun to exist from nothing.

The law of physics completely explains this phenomenon that nothing exists without a sufficient cause to exist or to happen. Thus, explains the “First Cause” - the Unmoved Mover.

3. Even supposing the above two refutations were not enough, this leaves a plethora of creator deities and in no wise supports the positing of the Christian God as the only truly extant deity.

Please refer to the above posts… should you need to discuss further… kindly state your case against it.

Ultimately, however, we have Catholicism to thank for the 'death of God': by acknowledging reason as being of equal import to faith, it paved the way for the subsequent undermining and devaluation of the moral imperative (to knowledge) which has since put Christianity to the lie. The Renaissance is unthinkable without the influence of this teaching on the humanities - although, truth be told, the Dark Ages too are quite incomprehensible without the rise of Christianity.

Can you explain further how Catholicism is the caused for the ‘death of God’?

You made assumptions here that are unsupported.

St. Thomas simply affirms that faith can be explained through reason.

... that is the use of a posteriori, or inductive reasoning in the existence of God.

By the way... St. Augustine is the most revered and influential among all the theologians of the Church...

[realthinker]

The conclusion that a deity is likely responsible for existence and for the disposition of human consciousness after death is indeed widespread. That shows only the consistency of human cognizance. It does not prove the conclusion to be true.

….neither to be false.

Granted, it also does not prove it false. But to make any claim of truth based on something unproven and to manipulate the behavior of others based on that truth is disingenuous.

Cognizance exists to seek metaphysical truth. Physical discoveries are part of that process.

No, the supposition of God is there. That supposition is based on the circumstances of human condition and conclusions based on what human logic understands to be necessary to cause that condition.

In other words, we recognize existence, or own and that of everything around us. We don't witness creation on that order of magnitude. We cannot cause that sort of creation. Everything must be created, so there must be a creator. That creator must be greater than Man. There is none like that walking around here, but we can guess some of such a being's characteristics. Let's give it a go, and then we'll worship what we suppose that to be, because it's gotta be something powerful!

The idea of god is very logical. That logic has been exercised routinely around the world throughout history. That makes the logic genuine, but not necessarily the conclusions.

The belief in the existence of God is not based solely in the supposition that there must be a God. The knowledge about God is what natural reason tells man in his quest to answer the question why.

As one person asks… Why do you think human cognizance goes beyond the instinct that guides animal survival, why human cognizance is endowed with the ability to seek answers to questions that ask why?

If the idea of God is very logical and the logic is genuine as you said but not necessarily the conclusion… then what alternative can you offer??? Will it be logical and logically genuine as well???

I do have an alternative reason for the idea of god and for the prominence of religion throughout history. In short, the idea of God arose from the need to explain two things that Man can never experience, the beginning of everything and the consequence of death. Man's intellect and ability to think abstractly has lead about every early civilization to recognize those two problems and to arrive at a similar sort of explanation. The answer to such problems must necessarily have greater attributes than Man and there is nothing we observe that is that way, so there must be something unobservable with those attributes. It's logical and consistent, but it's still just an idea. It's an explanation that has worked in the fashion that Man has needed it to work.

The other attributes of God and its effects on daily life grew out of the evolution of society. Societies that have more consistent behavior and pass that from generation to generation and can overcome the intellectual and often physical conflict that arises from ignorance are more successful. Religion provided that consistency and offers answers backed by an authority that is unchallengeable and who applies dire consequences that cannot be disputed. They cannot be proven, but God's other attributes -- retribution in the form of natural effects for wicked ways -- were enough to let religion flourish in early society. The very fact that God cannot be proven and that the consequences of behavior and disbelief cannot be observed is what has let it survive and be so effective. Religion is what made early society work.

Until, that is, one religion comes into contact with another. Then there is conflict. Two incompatible and unprovable ideas will not coexist without conflict, unless there is no meaningful consequence to those ideas. I think this is where we're heading. Religion serves the individual and the small community, but it its struggling to maintain its significance on a higher level. That's why the fundamentalists are so active. They're trying to hang on. They can't imagine a world where religion is not driving everything. They don't want to acknowledge another way of making decisions.