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?

[upallnite]

Answer from another thread.

I will say that it was a step toward Him though.

If you do not know where or even what God is, how could you be sure of that statment?

I think God must be sensible.

Was Loki sensible?

It seems reasonable to me that a Creator would pass along some of His attributes to His creation.

Why? What if this hypothetical god wanted something completly diffrent than himself.

as we are His.

I get it now. You are assuming god exists when you try to determine if god exists. That dosn't sound like a good way to approach that question.

I look at the universe and the order of it.

What is orderly about the universe?

I look at the complexity of the galaxies and the wonder and immenseness of them as evidence of Him also.

That sounds like an awfuly big leap. How would a complex galaxie be evidence of the existance of a god?

The idea that what we see around us, (including us) all came about by some cosmic accident makes less sense to me, than the concept of it being designed.

I agree. But who claims this is all an accident. Heck why anthropomorphizing it at all?

Our God-given reason

How do you know this? Couldn't reason have come from another source?

"But if objects for gratitude and admiration are our desire, do they not present themselves every hour to our eyes? Do we not see a fair creation prepared to receive us the instant we are born - a world furnished to our hands, that cost us nothing? Is it we that light up the sun, that pour down the rain, and fill the earth with abundance? Whether we sleep or wake, the vast machinery of the universe still goes on."

No. I do not see a world prepared for me. I also do not see how our existance or lack of existance means god exist.

Some day I may feel differently about this, but for now, I cannot DENY what I see and sense.

How do you see and sense god? Is it like you mentioned above where you see a star and say, "Yep, God exists!"?

I have considered that there is no God.

Did you consider that your reasons for god existing could be wrong?

He must be greater than any one text or any one religion to be God, in my eyes. He must have the capacity to love and forgive on a level that we only have a glimpse of.

Why?

That He does not manifest Himself in physical form to us only keeps my wonder and reverence of Him.

Thats right, the lack of evidence proves he exists! Just like the lack of clouds proves it is raining. Oh, wait...

All of the above along with my own personal life support my belief in His existence.

I hope your personal life gives you lots of reasons to belive because what I found above was assuming god exists, unconnected corelations, a refusal to conisder your self wrong, and anthropomorphizing of events and objects.
[/quote]

[justifyothers]

I hope your personal life gives you lots of reasons to belive because what I found above was assuming god exists, unconnected corelations, a refusal to conisder your self wrong, and anthropomorphizing of events and objects.

Sorry you feel this way ........ but that's OK.
I will address this, however - I did not above, nor to my knowledge have I ever demonstrated " a refusal to consider myself wrong."

I remind myself daily that I may be wrong and have expressed this idea many times here. Fortunately for me, I only feel that I would answer to God if I was wrong - I have no ego trip whatsoever about being correct on this forum.

Dude, get back in that kitchen - you NEED a cookie.

[McCulloch]

It seems reasonable to me that a Creator would pass along some of His attributes to His creation.

So our knowledge of God starts by assuming what which seems reasonable to you? I do hope that you revisit this assumption.

If we are made somehow in His image, we must use those characteristics to discern things. I include our minds, intuition, capacity for love and compassion in these attributes.

You assume that these characteristics of humans are the ones that reflect Deity? Why these and not others.

So, if our minds tell us something seems wrong, say about a text or religion, we must surely trust this, as we are His.

So if my mind says that the Bible is wrong then the Bible is wrong. ??

Even when it comes to the bible or other texts. Religion and the bible are steps that point to God. Ultimately though, we must use the whole of who we are.

Begging the question, aren't we? Religion and the Bible presuppose God.

I look at the universe and the order of it. I look at the complexity of the galaxies and the wonder and immenseness of them as evidence of Him also. The idea that what we see around us, (including us) all came about by some cosmic accident makes less sense to me, than the concept of it being designed.

I look at the stars and see that they are distributed in the sky in no apparent order. I look at the complexity of nature and see that there is no divine justice or love. You seem to believe in God from the argument of incredulity, that is you don't understand how we could have happened except by an act of God.

Our God-given reason can allow us to accept science as the discovery of His creation. We must allow our knowledge of Him to grow through our discoveries. This is sensible and reasonable.

Which scientific discoveries are those which allow us to grow in our knowledge of God? They seem to be missing from my recent science readings.

I also believe that God does interact with us on some level.

Do you have any basis for that belief?

[ST_JB]

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?

The knowledge about God is implanted in us – it is innate to mankind.

Even those who are living in a secluded… the most uncivilized ethnic group has the knowledge of the existence of a supreme being (but not necessarily the One True God).

This kind of knowledge is what made man seek his creator. Some thought god is the heavenly body that gives light to earth, others thoughts of creatures that crawl, fly and swim in the waters or walk on earth, others simply ignore this knowledge and chose not to seek his Creator.

Still the question is… is there any proof of God’s existence???

Some people seek God through human intelligence, others seek God through awareness, also there are people who seek God through experience, there are also through data and facts.

There’s so many ways to seek God. The knowledge of God is already there… what man wants is the physical evidence of God’s existence and not the knowledge of it.

Man wants evidence that would correspond to his intellect… actually to his limited intellect. We wanted God to work in ways that are of human limitations. Unfortunately, God doesn’t work like that.

There were claims of supernatural phenomena that were said to be of heaven’s guide but only a handful of people were lucky enough to experience and put to scientific test whatever that is available to him. And they are the true skeptics.

Some claim to be skeptical to supernatural beings and all the acts associated to it but none of them did really try to examine, test and have made progress in examining the factual circumstances surrounding the claims - - and we call them detractors.

The knowledge about God is what made man seeks God.

The lack or failure to recognize the “manifestations” of God’s works is what made some abandon this knowledge.

[bernee51]

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?

The knowledge about God is implanted in us – it is innate to mankind.

Even those who are living in a secluded… the most uncivilized ethnic group has the knowledge of the existence of a supreme being (but not necessarily the One True God).

On what basis can you claim that this 'knowledge' is of god and not some other form of knowledge?

This kind of knowledge is what made man seek his creator. Some thought god is the heavenly body that gives light to earth, others thoughts of creatures that crawl, fly and swim in the waters or walk on earth, others simply ignore this knowledge and chose not to seek his Creator.

Mankind evolved from primate ancestors. At some stage in that evolution there occurred and evolution in consciousness which gave this primitive primate the ability to self reflect. All of a sudden it could ask of itself "Who am I?". it was in this moment that gods were born.

The knowledge you claim is of god is in fact knowledge of 'self'

Still the question is… is there any proof of God’s existence???

No.

.Man wants evidence that would correspond to his intellect… actually to his limited intellect. We wanted God to work in ways that are of human limitations. Unfortunately, God doesn’t work like that.

Isn't that convenient...

...but how do you know this to be a 'fact'?

[ST_JB]

The knowledge about God is implanted in us – it is innate to mankind.

Even those who are living in a secluded… the most uncivilized ethnic group has the knowledge of the existence of a supreme being (but not necessarily the One True God).

On what basis can you claim that this 'knowledge' is of god and not some other form of knowledge?

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

This kind of knowledge is what made man seek his creator. Some thought god is the heavenly body that gives light to earth, others thoughts of creatures that crawl, fly and swim in the waters or walk on earth, others simply ignore this knowledge and chose not to seek his Creator.

Mankind evolved from primate ancestors. At some stage in that evolution there occurred and evolution in consciousness which gave this primitive primate the ability to self reflect. All of a sudden it could ask of itself "Who am I?". it was in this moment that gods were born.

The knowledge you claim is of god is in fact knowledge of 'self'

That is what is known as knowledge through NATURAL REASON.

Still the question is… is there any proof of God’s existence???

No.

My above phrase you quoted is part of the whole and shouldn’t be taken apart from the rest of my post. It form part of the points I wanted to get across and intends not seeks answers from anyone.

.Man wants evidence that would correspond to his intellect… actually to his limited intellect. We wanted God to work in ways that are of human limitations. Unfortunately, God doesn’t work like that.

Isn't that convenient...

...but how do you know this to be a 'fact'?

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.

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

[Dragon]

....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'?)?

[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.

[realthinker]

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?

The knowledge about God is implanted in us – it is innate to mankind.

Even those who are living in a secluded… the most uncivilized ethnic group has the knowledge of the existence of a supreme being (but not necessarily the One True God).

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.

This kind of knowledge is what made man seek his creator. Some thought god is the heavenly body that gives light to earth, others thoughts of creatures that crawl, fly and swim in the waters or walk on earth, others simply ignore this knowledge and chose not to seek his Creator.

Still the question is… is there any proof of God’s existence???

Some people seek God through human intelligence, others seek God through awareness, also there are people who seek God through experience, there are also through data and facts.

There’s so many ways to seek God. The knowledge of God is already there… what man wants is the physical evidence of God’s existence and not the knowledge of it.

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.

Man wants evidence that would correspond to his intellect… actually to his limited intellect. We wanted God to work in ways that are of human limitations. Unfortunately, God doesn’t work like that.

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?

There were claims of supernatural phenomena that were said to be of heaven’s guide but only a handful of people were lucky enough to experience and put to scientific test whatever that is available to him. And they are the true skeptics.

Some claim to be skeptical to supernatural beings and all the acts associated to it but none of them did really try to examine, test and have made progress in examining the factual circumstances surrounding the claims - - and we call them detractors.

The knowledge about God is what made man seeks God.

The lack or failure to recognize the “manifestations” of God’s works is what made some abandon this knowledge.

[Dragon]

....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?