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?

[bernee51]

bernee51,

Most of what I "assume" (as you put it) is based upon simple reasoning. I must exist or you would not have acknowledge my existence by answering my post.

And from this you extrapolate the existence of a creator deity?

Therefore, I am.

Are you?

Can you answer the question "Who am I?"

A hint - anything that is an object in your awareness does not answer the question.

I did not create this universe. It was here when I got here. Judging from the fact that people that I have known that have since died, the universe will continue to be around long after I am gone.

And...

If there was a "Big Bang," as most scientists believe, there had to be some force that set the universe into motion.

All the Big Bang proposes is a theory of the origins of the universe as it is observed.

You can call it God. You can call it intelligent design. You can even call it Hank for all I care. One can only reasonably conclude that "some force" existed before time.

And that 'force', if such a thing exists or existed, may very well be this universe itself - which may have always existed and will always exist in some shape or form.

God, in some form, may well and truly have given birth to the universe as we know it - and, for all I know, destroyed himself in the process. That is not the issue I have with the god concept. It is the 'baggage' that believers attach to this concept which is the issue. The 'baggage' I refer to is clearly evident in the myriad holy 'scriptures' which purport to to put flesh on the bones of their deity.

[bernee51]

.... 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?

...

How can I know that there is a God?

I've skimmed through a number of the posted replies and not found one that addresses your question as framed.

There is however the argument that 'Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food'.

Ask yourself: Why do we care so much about fair play? Even a small child will complain that 'it's not fair!' but where does that notion come from?

... So what model/authority, consciously or otherwise, are we refereing to when we say something is wrong?

The human appetite for justice implies a food source.

And that food source is our humanity

In so much as our humanity is a quality that distinguishes us from the animal kingdom, yes.

We are not separate from the animal kingdom. We are a species in the kingdom known as animalia.

We feed each other. But where has that quality originated?

Evolution. The evolution of the individual relies on egoism. The evolution of community relies on altruism.

[uncommonman]

I did not say that a diety exists because I exist. Your question was if I knew I existed. Don't change the subject.

I am that I am...nothing more, nothing less.

I do not necessarily "put flesh on the bone" of a diety. Far from it. I will, however, acknowledge that the opposite my well be true...since I am both flesh and bone.

[bernee51]

I did not say that a diety exists because I exist. Your question was if I knew I existed. Don't change the subject.

Which you either did not answer or (I assumed) provided this as an answer: "Most of what I "assume" (as you put it) is based upon simple reasoning. I must exist or you would not have acknowledge my existence by answering my post."

Id so, who's changing the subject?

I am that I am...nothing more, nothing less.

Your answer then to the question "Who am I?" is "I am"?

I do not necessarily "put flesh on the bone" of a diety.

Necessarily?

I did not refer to you at any time as putting "put flesh on the bone of a diety" (sic). Yet you identify with this?

[Aardvark]

.... How can I know that there is a God?

There is however the argument that 'Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food'.

Ask yourself: Why do we care so much about fair play? Even a small child will complain that 'it's not fair!' but where does that notion come from?

... So what model/authority, consciously or otherwise, are we refereing to when we say something is wrong?

The human appetite for justice implies a food source.

And that food source is our humanity

In so much as our humanity is a quality that distinguishes us from the animal kingdom, yes.

We are not separate from the animal kingdom. We are a species in the kingdom known as animalia.

We feed each other. But where has that quality originated?

Evolution. The evolution of the individual relies on egoism. The evolution of community relies on altruism.

I did not say say we are separate from the animal kingdom but that we are differentiated by this quality we call humanity/humanism. I'm quite happy to call myself Pan Narrans (story telling chimp) instead of Homo Sapiens (wise man) provided you don't expect me to hold other animal species to the same standards we expect from people and that you don't expect other species to join us in taking responsibilty for the environment (to have dominion over the world, as the Genesis story puts it).

In the evolution of the individual we expect ego, the defender of the self, but to be born with an ability to 'altru' (sorry, I know altruism does not have a verb form, but it should) is asking alot of genetics alone. My assertion is that we're born with a sense of what is fair even before it gets honed by our intelligence and extelligence (cultural intelligence).

[Biker]

...Births, deaths and just about anything is a cause to remember and worth noticing…
Happy Easter to the East and the West, both Easter days, and a Peaceful Passover to all. What else goes on? Spring Equinoxes, any others?

I think 21 March was also Mawlid...the celebration of the Prophet Mohammed's birthday - which I think is actually the anniversary of his death.

That's cool.
How about Hindu or Buddhists? They must have something, and Native Americans.
I bet everyone has one this time of the year.

That's uncool.

From the historical record:
"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. If you know me, you will know my Father also..." John 14:6-11.

It is very simple, you don't believe!

Biker

Biker,
cool or not, some of us came to know God BEFORE knowing Christ's part in Him. Paul warns us against assuming people are not saved just because they have not adopted the new religon - Romans 2:14-16 - so unless you know the people you're addressing very well indeed you cannot say whether or not their conscience bears witness to them.
And if they choose to celebrate special days 'who are you to judge the servant of another? ...the Master is able to make him stand.' - Romans 14:4

Aardvark,
I am not quite sure how to respond to you?
What you say might be partially true, had I been judging?
But, I am not.
It is called "Debating Christianity and Religion".
I am debating.
It seems that you are doing what you claim that I am, but I'm not sure, being a Christian Theist, I give one the benefit of the doubt, first, discernment comes later.

some of us came to know God BEFORE knowing Christ's part in Him.

Now I am really confused?
How does one "know God" apart from Christ?
Define "know God" in this context?

Paul Warns us against assuming people are not saved just because they have not adopted the new religion (Rom. 2:14-16).

Hmmm, first you assume that I assume? Your assumption is wrong.
Second, I am not convinced that Pauls letter to the Romans chapter 2 verses 14-16 say what you project? Would you mind fleshing that out a bit, after you place the three verses back into context.

So unless you know the people you're addressing very well indeed you cannot say whether or not their conscience bears witness to them.

How well do you know me?
This speculation would be quite humorous, if not so ironic. Are you attempting humor? Since, your the new guy.
In addition, I care not about speculating about ones conscience, when I have 6,000 plus posts of the individual.

who are you to judge

I'm not!
Are you?
I am debating "with a very clear conscience"!

...the Master is able to make Him stand. Romans 14:4

To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. (Romans 14:4)

Who, is this addressed to?
Make your case for your use for the Scripture?

Biker

[Aardvark]

...Births, deaths and just about anything is a cause to remember and worth noticing…
Happy Easter to the East and the West, both Easter days, and a Peaceful Passover to all. What else goes on? Spring Equinoxes, any others?

I think 21 March was also Mawlid...the celebration of the Prophet Mohammed's birthday - which I think is actually the anniversary of his death.

That's cool.
How about Hindu or Buddhists? They must have something, and Native Americans.
I bet everyone has one this time of the year.

That's uncool.

From the historical record:
"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. If you know me, you will know my Father also..." John 14:6-11.

It is very simple, you don't believe!

Biker

Biker,
cool or not, some of us came to know God BEFORE knowing Christ's part in Him. Paul warns us against assuming people are not saved just because they have not adopted the new religon - Romans 2:14-16 - so unless you know the people you're addressing very well indeed you cannot say whether or not their conscience bears witness to them.
And if they choose to celebrate special days 'who are you to judge the servant of another? ...the Master is able to make him stand.' - Romans 14:4

Aardvark,
I am not quite sure how to respond to you?
What you say might be partially true, had I been judging?
But, I am not.
It is called "Debating Christianity and Religion".
I am debating.
It seems that you are doing what you claim that I am, but I'm not sure, being a Christian Theist, I give one the benefit of the doubt, first, discernment comes later.

some of us came to know God BEFORE knowing Christ's part in Him.

Now I am really confused?
How does one "know God" apart from Christ?
Define "know God" in this context?

Paul Warns us against assuming people are not saved just because they have not adopted the new religion (Rom. 2:14-16).

Hmmm, first you assume that I assume? Your assumption is wrong.
Second, I am not convinced that Pauls letter to the Romans chapter 2 verses 14-16 say what you project? Would you mind fleshing that out a bit, after you place the three verses back into context.

So unless you know the people you're addressing very well indeed you cannot say whether or not their conscience bears witness to them.

How well do you know me?
This speculation would be quite humorous, if not so ironic. Are you attempting humor? Since, your the new guy.
In addition, I care not about speculating about ones conscience, when I have 6,000 plus posts of the individual.

who are you to judge

I'm not!
Are you?
I am debating "with a very clear conscience"!

...the Master is able to make Him stand. Romans 14:4

To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. (Romans 14:4)

Who, is this addressed to?
Make your case for your use for the Scripture?

Biker

Well I may have misunderstood you but I'm not judging you in the sense of writing you off. What I AM doing is challenging your juxtapostition of posts on the celebration of special days (in Judaism, Islam, Hinduism...) with a key scripture on salvation being from Christ alone. It looks as though you're saying celebratory days are uncool because they do not point people to the Father.

Given the time you've spent posting on here I assume that you know more about the beliefs of the people you say are writing these uncool things. I do not know how conscientious they are yet, but if I go on the above information it could be that they, not to mention others who observe this debate, celebrate festivals as unto God - which Paul says is possible for christians to do (hence some celebrate the pagan festivals of Astarte/Easter and Saturnalia/Christmas ...) This is why I cited Romans 14. If we can celebrate pagan festivals with a clear conscience why not Islamic or Hindu ones?

The Romans 14:4 quote is addressed to the people of Rome who Paul found to be looking down on one another over differences in celebrations and food. Below is the from the NIV (In my RSV it has 'Master', in my Greek Interlinear it has 'Theos' or 'God' is able to make him stand):
Romans 14:
3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone.

I paraphrased this before in the interests of brevity. Appologies if it seemed I was taking it out of context or caused confusion.

The same is the case with the Romans 2:14-16 quote which I here put in it's broader context, again from the NIV:
12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
NB. The brackets do not appear in the Greek or other modern translations.

I assert that Salvation does indeed come from Christ alone, but the above quote shows that conscience is the primary issue on which we are to be judged. If gentiles of Paul's time may be condemned OR saved on the day of judgement why not the non-christians of today? This is why I put 'just' in italics when I said we cannot assume someone is not saved just on the basis of their not being believing christians. Cathar and Bernee may have consciences as clear as our own, in which case the matter of who can know God is more complicated than what you give verbal assent to (ie. believing in Christ or Christian doctrine).

The principle in Romans 2 cuts both ways. Haven't you encountered people who say they're christians, as if to get the salvation bit, but who don't behave as if they know their sins are forgiven and thus don't 'do what the law requires'?

If it helps you understood where I'm coming from my testimony is this:
As I began to seek out what is good and true, age 18 in 1981, I had an encounter with a demonic presence. I had no belief system in place but prayed that if there was a higher god to save me from this thing and from my accompanying helpless (near suicidal) despair. I had this sensation of warmth and joy, a term that became important to me - keeping in the joy - and it guided me over the following three years into the arms of Christ's body, the church.
During those intervening 3 years I resisted concluding that this joy was from the Christian God, but I did so according to such integrity as I had then - with a clear conscience. And God did not give up on me or push me, He gently taught me and brought me into contact with His people. And still does.

[bernee51]

In the evolution of the individual we expect ego, the defender of the self, but to be born with an ability to 'altru' (sorry, I know altruism does not have a verb form, but it should) is asking alot of genetics alone. My assertion is that we're born with a sense of what is fair even before it gets honed by our intelligence and extelligence (cultural intelligence).

I agree - we are genetically disposed towards altruism. This altruism was at first limited to our 'tribe'. As we have evolved it has change so that those who hold an aperspectival view tend to be altruistic towards all 'creation'.

[Aardvark]

In the evolution of the individual we expect ego, the defender of the self, but to be born with an ability to 'altru' (sorry, I know altruism does not have a verb form, but it should) is asking alot of genetics alone. My assertion is that we're born with a sense of what is fair even before it gets honed by our intelligence and extelligence (cultural intelligence).

I agree - we are genetically disposed towards altruism. This altruism was at first limited to our 'tribe'. As we have evolved it has change so that those who hold an aperspectival view tend to be altruistic towards all 'creation'.

Genetically disposed is a good way of putting it. Though I suspect (I won't say I believe it because it's still an idea I'm pondering) we inherit something that is so complex that it can be called spiritual. Books by Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen explore the theme of emergent properties, giving illustrations of Langton's Ant and the Mandelbrot set. The principle of emergence shows how simple rules (as in physics) produce comlex/chaotic patterns before surprisingly producing new levels of order. What we see in the Mandelbrot is ever increasing complexity as we zoom in, or apparent simplicity as we zoom out. Langton's Ant produces a random pattern before suddenly branching off in a pattern of road building.
Are you already familiar with these? If not they are worth looking up.
Here I'm concerned with what appears to be a parallel with my understanding of the term 'revelation'. The moral code, in my understanding, is unchanging but emerges from or is revealed by the complexity of human behaviour.
I don't know where this line of thought will lead, but I'm interested to know what you, given your prodigy status on here, make of this.

As to our tribal origins, we're not just tribal but we're made up of barbarian elements too. Barbarians can be defined as groups who have thrown off the restraints of the tribal rules to pursue things like honour and strength. In civilisations like Carthage, barbarians were employed in defence of the realm while home grown barbarians like Hanibal were used to attack Rome. Similarly the Aryans made their mark on history when Zoroaster united the tribes with the Barbarians who'd learned to ride horses. By way of modern analogy, in certain stories we portray ourselves as Vulcans and Clingons (Star Trek) and as children who want the security of rules in opposition to children who want power (Lord of the Flies). But we seem to be a synthesis of the rigid and the anarchic.

Bad rules result in increasing anarchic or revolutionary resistance until better rules emerge. However, what Israel did was adopt good rules (with bad ones mixed in, but most people/cultures would agree with core commandments, looking after the poor...) but applied even the good rules in bad ways, resulting in the followers of Christ starting a focussed revolution aiming to exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees (Matthew 5:20) who represented the law but were getting in the way of the spirit of it (Matthew 23:2-12).
I do not know of any philosophy that has managed to reveal more of the moral code than Jesus'. Even greats like Ghandi based his Satyagraha - 'truth/love-force' - on Jesus' example.

[bernee51]

Genetically disposed is a good way of putting it. Though I suspect (I won't say I believe it because it's still an idea I'm pondering) we inherit something that is so complex that it can be called spiritual. Books by Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen explore the theme of emergent properties, giving illustrations of Langton's Ant and the Mandelbrot set. The principle of emergence shows how simple rules (as in physics) produce comlex/chaotic patterns before surprisingly producing new levels of order. What we see in the Mandelbrot is ever increasing complexity as we zoom in, or apparent simplicity as we zoom out. Langton's Ant produces a random pattern before suddenly branching off in a pattern of road building.
Are you already familiar with these? If not they are worth looking up.

mandlebrot and fractals I am familiar with.

Here I'm concerned with what appears to be a parallel with my understanding of the term 'revelation'. The moral code, in my understanding, is unchanging but emerges from or is revealed by the complexity of human behaviour.
I don't know where this line of thought will lead, but I'm interested to know what you, given your prodigy status on here, make of this.

Moral code IMHO is evolving - changes over time. It don't believe it is an absolute as the characteristic of 'unchanging' which you use would suggest.

As to our tribal origins, we're not just tribal but we're made up of barbarian elements too. Barbarians can be defined as groups who have thrown off the restraints of the tribal rules to pursue things like honour and strength. In civilisations like Carthage, barbarians were employed in defence of the realm while home grown barbarians like Hanibal were used to attack Rome. Similarly the Aryans made their mark on history when Zoroaster united the tribes with the Barbarians who'd learned to ride horses. By way of modern analogy, in certain stories we portray ourselves as Vulcans and Clingons (Star Trek) and as children who want the security of rules in opposition to children who want power (Lord of the Flies). But we seem to be a synthesis of the rigid and the anarchic.

Barbarians could be seen as a tibal subset, with a moral code particular to barbarianism.

Bad rules result in increasing anarchic or revolutionary resistance until better rules emerge.

Rules result in an outcome. Good/bad are value judgements.

However, what Israel did was adopt good rules (with bad ones mixed in, but most people/cultures would agree with core commandments, looking after the poor...) but applied even the good rules in bad ways, resulting in the followers of Christ starting a focussed revolution aiming to exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees (Matthew 5:20) who represented the law but were getting in the way of the spirit of it (Matthew 23:2-12).
I do not know of any philosophy that has managed to reveal more of the moral code than Jesus'. Even greats like Ghandi based his Satyagraha - 'truth/love-force' - on Jesus' example.

The Eightfold Path of buddhism is one I would suggest is equal, if not superior to that of Jesus as is expressed in christianity.