How Do We Know That God Exists?

[Ouroboros]

What you have described, Joanna, are dreams that have come true. However, here's how it goes. You have a dream; you wake up and go, "Hey, that was strange." Then you go about your day. During the day, something happens which corresponds with your dream (which by this time has gotten a little hazy in the details), and you go, "Hey wait a minute! I had a dream about this!" But of course, you don't remember all the times that you've woken up from a dream, and then gone about your day and that recollection hasn't happened. Bingo - confirmation bias.

You're absolutely right, and talking about Psychology, add to that mix the recollection of memory. Not everything we think we remember are correct, but is constructed from shards of memories we piece together. I just finished introduction to Psychology over summer, and we read about Elizabeth Loftus a few weeks ago, and how her memory of finding her mom drowned in the pool, was a constructed memory--and wrong, since she learned later it was her aunt Pearl who found the mom in the pool. And then all the problems with source amnesia or encoding failures, who can trust memories to be correct? And especially memories of dreams?

 

We read about hypagogic state, but not about hypnopompic!? It was a compressed semester, reading 16 weeks in 8, so I wonder if we skipped some goodies... dogdangit! I have to look that up.

[godsfavoritecolor]

Joanna, that voice you hear, it's Allah, and Mohammed (pbuh) is his prophet. You'd better pay attention!

[RevOxley_501]

alahhhh ackbar

[sojourner]

Antlerman -I think an important thing that people who hold to a system like this recognize, is that when others say they don't believe in God, it does not mean they aren't inspired the same way you are. All it means is they don't call it God and have other ways to put a face on it, to relate to it, to talk about it with themselves. You may already realize this, but I've seen many, if not most who "believe" not recognize that. They get too focused on the terms and not what they point to.

 

Very good thoughts AM.

 

This is why I think the mystics of the differing religions can commune so easily and find much in common, because they link in their experiences of what is termed spiritual.

 

I was shocked when I first landed on this site and found athiests were also spiritual haha sorry if some would find that term yucky. I dont mean it to be, its just my language.

 

All humanity experiences awe, passion and beauty and many link it to God and many dont but I think we all could recite these experiences. That is a great bridge to me for communication.

 

sojourner

[Antlerman]

Antlerman -I think an important thing that people who hold to a system like this recognize, is that when others say they don't believe in God, it does not mean they aren't inspired the same way you are. All it means is they don't call it God and have other ways to put a face on it, to relate to it, to talk about it with themselves. You may already realize this, but I've seen many, if not most who "believe" not recognize that. They get too focused on the terms and not what they point to.

 

Very good thoughts AM.

 

This is why I think the mystics of the differing religions can commune so easily and find much in common, because they link in their experiences of what is termed spiritual.

 

I was shocked when I first landed on this site and found athiests were also spiritual haha sorry if some would find that term yucky. I dont mean it to be, its just my language.

 

All humanity experiences awe, passion and beauty and many link it to God and many dont but I think we all could recite these experiences. That is a great bridge to me for communication.

 

sojourner

Sojourner!! Nice to see you again. I think you may find Joanna someone you may relate to, when she returns (boy is she in for a surprise here ). Not to derail much here, but I'm celebrating tonight. My job of 10 years ended 3 weeks ago, and I just accepted a new job tonight that looks a lot better in many ways. I start on Wednesday - just after I was getting to enjoy all this biking and fishing I was getting in! OK, back to the thread.

 

P.S. I moved this topic to the Colosseum as I want to preserve it as a serious topic, unlike her other one which got hijacked.

[sojourner]

Hey AM Congrats!!!! I hope it is a great experience for you in your new place.

 

Wow newly refurbished house, new job, got any other new? lol

 

ok back to thread.

[par4dcourse]

In response to the OP: Occam's razor. We don't. Next question.

[.god]

I'm fairly certain that these reasons for belief are neither new or unique, and might even come across as a bit unbalanced. Someone else could have similar dreams, a similar Voice, and so on, and dismiss them as psychological phenomenon. The only difference, as far as I can tell, is that I've chosen to listen -- and to respond.

 

Speaking of psychological phenomenon... how do you know you may not be schizophrenic?

There are many different types of schizophrenia, not just the people you see on the streets talking to themselves.

 

"Schizophrenia (SKITS-oh-FREEN-ee-uh)---one of the most damaging of all mental disorders---causes its victims to lose touch with reality. They often begin to hear, see, or feel things that aren't really there (hallucinations) or become convinced of things that simply aren't true (delusions). In the paranoid form of this disorder, they develop delusions of persecution or personal grandeur. The first signs of paranoid schizophrenia usually surface between the ages of 15 and 34. There is no cure, but the disorder can be controlled with medications. "

 

some common symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia:

- delusions of persecution/grandeur, exalted birth, special purpose, bodily change

- visual and auditory hallucinations

 

I can look up the full description in my abnormal psych text if you like =)

 

And in this state of schizophrenia, your brain my have no choice but to listen and respond. It is very difficult for a person with schizophrenia to determine what is real and what is not.. because your sensory processing organ - your brain is fooling you.

 

 

The problem with many religions is that psychological disorders to not get properly treated if they are attributed to demons, willful disobedience, thetans, past lives, or whatever. Here's a link to one of the more interesting results of the intermingling of christinity and OCD:

http://exchristian.net/testimonies/2004/07...ianity-and.html

 

I get the impression from reading all sorts of deconversion stories online that OCD mixed with christianity can really fuck someone up bad.

[sojourner]

Wow .god that was an incredible read. I am so glad for Winston that he is free.

 

I still retain a form of christianity but like Winston I can so relate to the catharsis he went thru in trancending the old beliefs in a hell and fundamentalism and such to find a much more beautiful inclusive view. It changes the entire creation for you! And you from the inside out!

 

I saved it, by the way thanks for the neat little addition to the forum to save things as pdf, sweet.

 

sojourner

[Heavenslaughing]

So:

The Universe.

It is magnificent. It is beautiful. It is bizarre. It cannot be wholly explained. Every time we think we've got it figured out, we realize that there's more to it. Because I know that I'll never be able to fully comprehend the Universe, I take into consideration, like Hamlet, that there could be "more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

 

How does that constitute knowledge of the existence of God? This is known as an argument from ignorance, and a bad one at that.

 

An argument to ignorance occurs when one makes a positive claim based on a lack of information.

 

Joanna doesn't argue in this section for the existence of God from ignorance; for that matter, she doesn't argue for the existence of God in this section at all. I parse the logic as follows:

 

Empirical observation never uncovers the complete or final truth of the universe; it merely provides working models and tools, which later empirical observation will always displace. Thus, in building her own understanding of the universe, she feels willing to accept evidence in addition to empirical data. It's not a positive claim based on lack of information; it's admissibility of a kind of evidence based on experience. You can criticize that, too, of course, but it's not as straightforward.

 

There follows a list of subjective kinds of evidence that answers why she believes in God, though none of it provides any argument that we should believe the same.

 

So?

 

None of these constitute anything remotely close to "knowing" that God exists.

 

Knowledge is demonstrable. Stating that you "know" (with quotations) God exists is emotional appeals in leiu of reason. It is the rape of fact and logic to suit your own personal desires.

 

"Knowledge is demonstrable." Really? Scientific knowledge is demonstrable. Formal logical knowledge is demonstrable given shared premises. I'm not sure every kind of knowledge is demonstrable. Regardless, as AM mentions above, Joanna appears to intend to communicate here why she believes in God, and provided she doesn't try to turn that into a knowledge claim with the same effects as a demonstrable one, that's fine.

 

So would the woman who drowned her kids because she thinks God told her to is actually hearing from God?

 

I'd like to know if Joanna would agree that the kind of knowledge claim she is making does not permit any attempt to control (much less kill) other people. Does she think it is appropriate to vote for legislation which affects others based on the morality of her God? Did she before? This, for me, is where it matters.

[Asimov]

Joanna doesn't argue in this section for the existence of God from ignorance; for that matter, she doesn't argue for the existence of God in this section at all. I parse the logic as follows:

 

So you are her spokesperson, then? Joanna specifically claimed how we know God exists...that is the title of this thread.

 

Empirical observation never uncovers the complete or final truth of the universe; it merely provides working models and tools, which later empirical observation will always displace. Thus, in building her own understanding of the universe, she feels willing to accept evidence in addition to empirical data. It's not a positive claim based on lack of information; it's admissibility of a kind of evidence based on experience. You can criticize that, too, of course, but it's not as straightforward.

 

The only other kind of admissible data would be rational argumentation.

 

Again, why are you speaking for Joanna?

 

There follows a list of subjective kinds of evidence that answers why she believes in God, though none of it provides any argument that we should believe the same.

 

Except that her topic is "how do WE know that God exists?" So there goes that ad hoc excuse.

 

"Knowledge is demonstrable." Really? Scientific knowledge is demonstrable. Formal logical knowledge is demonstrable given shared premises. I'm not sure every kind of knowledge is demonstrable. Regardless, as AM mentions above, Joanna appears to intend to communicate here why she believes in God, and provided she doesn't try to turn that into a knowledge claim with the same effects as a demonstrable one, that's fine.

 

Knowledge is justified true belief. Joanna, by stating that she KNOWS God exists, is stating that her belief is justified and true.

[Antlerman]

Do you have no room for understanding the meaning of one's words based on the context? Or must we be strictly literal and precise in our use of words such as "knoweldge", "truth", etc. I live in society, and I hear it used all over the place to mean many things, not the stict definition of a logic class. How do you function in society if you take all words as strict and precise? Do you chastice peole who are not stict literalists and use words "wrong"? Do you think we live on the planet Vulcan?

 

Again, the wording of that statement was Ruby's, not Joannas. She just repeated it back, but the context is really clear to me reading it. She's talking about why she believes in God. Are you going to hold her to missuing words, or understand contextually what she means? It's great to clarify words, but you're arguement is not about what she's said, but a criticism of her use of words. Frankly, I don't care about that.

[Asimov]

Do you have no room for understanding the meaning of one's words based on the context? Or must we be strictly literal and precise in our use of words such as "knoweldge", "truth", etc. I live in society, and I hear it used all over the place to mean many things, not the stict definition of a logic class. How do you function in society if you take all words as strict and precise? Do you chastice peole who are not stict literalists and use words "wrong"? Do you think we live on the planet Vulcan?

 

What context? Her topic was specifically "how do WE know that God exists?". It suggest more than just a mere 'I 'know' it in my heart' connotation. Her reasons were meant to convey an objective sense of the word knowledge. This is the Colosseum: "The point of this section is for those members who would like to see and participate in informal, yet serious, debate."

 

This isn't a fireside chat. If she's going to debate seriously, she needs to recognize that her words are going to be scrutinized and criticized if she uses the wrong ones without clarifying her meanings precisely. Wording is extremely important. If you give ambiguous meanings like what Heavenslaughing was stating, it opens doors to shifting goalposts and jumping around without really coming to a point.

 

Again, the wording of that statement was Ruby's, not Joannas. She just repeated it back, but the context is really clear to me reading it. She's talking about why she believes in God. Are you going to hold her to missuing words, or understand contextually what she means? It's great to clarify words, but you're arguement is not about what she's said, but a criticism of her use of words. Frankly, I don't care about that.

 

Who's Ruby?

[Antlerman]

Do you have no room for understanding the meaning of one's words based on the context? Or must we be strictly literal and precise in our use of words such as "knoweldge", "truth", etc. I live in society, and I hear it used all over the place to mean many things, not the stict definition of a logic class. How do you function in society if you take all words as strict and precise? Do you chastice peole who are not stict literalists and use words "wrong"? Do you think we live on the planet Vulcan?

 

What context? Her topic was specifically "how do WE know that God exists?". It suggest more than just a mere 'I 'know' it in my heart' connotation. Her reasons were meant to convey an objective sense of the word knowledge. This is the Colosseum: "The point of this section is for those members who would like to see and participate in informal, yet serious, debate."

 

This isn't a fireside chat. If she's going to debate seriously, she needs to recognize that her words are going to be scrutinized and criticized if she uses the wrong ones without clarifying her meanings precisely. Wording is extremely important. If you give ambiguous meanings like what Heavenslaughing was stating, it opens doors to shifting goalposts and jumping around without really coming to a point.

I can see the source of confusion. I'll take the blame a little here. This topic originally was started in the Lion's Den, but due to another one of her topics getting soiled and derailed by another Christian poster and others complaining of it, I moved this one from there to here to protect it from that happening. Even though the rules state the wording "debate", it also interchanges that with the word discussion. "If a discussion becomes more serious and the debaters would prefer to have a more formal discussion, a moderator can be solicited to move the discussion to the Arena." I didn't view this so much as an debate where word rules should be strictly adhered to, but much more in the spirit of "serious discussion".

 

As far as the word choice of "how do we know God Exists", I pointed out those were Ruby's words. I'm going by her old username before she changed it to R.S. Martin. Here's Joanna quoting Ruby's word's in the OP:

 

"In another thread, R.S. Martin wrote:

 

 

Without referencing age-old excuses like watch-maker theory for God's existence or atonement theory for Jesus' death AND without mimicking the Bible, can you answer these questions:

 

1. How do we know God exists?

2. Why did Jesus have to die?"

 

Joanna then specifically goes on to state the meaning of what she's about to offer as being, not about proof, by what she chooses to believe:

"I'd like to offer my own story about how I've come to trust in a Being known as "God"; but for now I'll start with a very rough summary of why I believe He exists. I cannot speak for others' experiences, hence the "I" instead of "We"."

 

Those were her words from the OP. She is not speaking of proof for others, she is speaking of why she as an individuals chooses to believe.

[Neon Genesis]

Those were her words from the OP. She is not speaking of proof for others, she is speaking of why she as an individuals chooses to believe.

Also, consider that she hasn't been back to respond to our posts, I don't get the feeling she's trying to prove it to us but is explaining why she believes what she does. I hope she hasn't left the site already.

[Spiderwire]

I'd like to offer my own story about how I've come to trust in a Being known as "God"; but for now I'll start with a very rough summary of why I believe He exists. I cannot speak for others' experiences, hence the "I" instead of "We".

 

So:

 

How Do I Know That God Exists?

 

The Universe.

Dreams.

Visions.

Miracles.

A Voice.

Transformation.

 

There are a lot of deep thinkers here and as much as I'd like to be one, I simply don't have it in me. As for your post, what can anyone say, really, about your thoughts and your opinions? They belong to you and I like the fact that you specified that. I'm really just an ol' country boy, so some (many?) of my thoughts are simple and nothing I have to say is earth-shattering in it's importance. But, they're my thoughts and opinions. You've mentioned why you KNOW God exists. I throw in just because I can.

 

Why Am I Not Convinced That God Exists?

 

The Universe.

Yes, it's a magical and mystical place full of unanswered questions alright. No doubt about that. But in all reality, for me, right now my universe is this room where I am right now. It's my world. There are parking lots not even a mile away where things are happening that I have no idea about. There are communities, counties, states, nations, continents, oceans, plantets, stars... ah, you get the idea. I'm a speck in the whole process of things past, present, and future. You mention the complexity of the universe and to me, the hydraulic system of an M18 Dry Support Bridge is every bit as magnificent, beautiful, bizarre, and wholly explainable from where I stand. Things that mankind has created boggle my mind even though I can sit there and read about every nut and bolt in a technical manual. How did we get here? Hell, I don't know. I know my folks made a little lovin' back in August of 1965 and that's how I got here. That's good enough for me. Having the keys to the cosmos isn't a requirement in my life. Could there be a "god" that kicked everything off and is busy at the controls of it all? Maybe. It's of little concern to me, though. And if there is, what difference does it make if I believe this "god" is there or not? If this "god" is there, I'm certain he doesn't care what I think. If this "god" isn't there... life's just gonna keep rollin' along like it's done for a long, long time and I'll still need to be on time for work tomorrow.

 

Dreams.

I had a dream a few nights ago that I was driving an ammunition truck in Korea and the road was bright red and, as I was coming out of the mountains, it looked like it was shaped like a huge rollercoaster track ahead of me. I was thinking, "Shit! I'm loaded with ammo! How am I gonna navigate this road? If I overspeed the transmission, I'm screwed!" Another recent dream involved my wife flashing her genitalia at me at a formal dinner party. I won't even go into the dreams I've had where very attractive and highly aroused young ladies were on me like a bum on a bologna sammich. I'm not seeing any mystical supernatural force's hand in ANY of my dreams. I have a hunch that my brain is still kicking around even while I'm asleep. I may be onto something there because my puppies kick around and bark when they're crashed out, too. Maybe they're chasing cats, digging up bones, or driving ammunition trucks down red rollercoaster-shaped roads in Korea? But really, I don't have a clue.

 

Visions.

I do share this one with you - I have had visions. However, I was in my late teens and I had taken LSD. I ain't gonna lie... I ate that stuff like candy for a couple of years and, boy howdy, did I see, feel, think, and imagine some craaaaazy shit. It was fun while it lasted, but one bad trip cured me of wanting to do that anymore. No religious experiences, however. I knew it was just the dope.

 

Miracles.

I watched a guy pray that a chainsaw would fire up one time... he gave it a tug and sure enough, that sucker kicked right off. Some folks standing there said it was a miracle. I've heard the word miracle tossed around for so many things that it almost becomes like the word "awesome". It's just a word. I don't know if there's ever been an actually proven miracle or not and it really doesn't matter to me if there was anyway. Wild shit happens every day all over the world. My wife caught a five pound largemouth bass this weekend - THAT was a fucking miracle! And, the fillets were magnificent.

 

A Voice.

I've heard the powerful, startling, and real voice you describe. It tells me things like, "If you keep driving while you're this tired, you're gonna wreck your truck and maybe kill your wife and kids... you'd better think about what's important. Pull over an take a break." It also tells me, "That looks hot... I wouldn't touch that if I were you." It tells me mystical things like, "Why is the earth spoiling off the right side of the blade like that? Should I pitch the moldboard forward a bit more so I'm not cutting so much? Yeah, that makes sense." Don't get me wrong - it's also told me things like, "Give 10% of your income to the church." It's even told me, "Dude, she'll never find out... you can pull this one off. No problem." Sometimes it's wise to listen to the voice and sometimes it's not.

 

Transformation.

Basic Combat Training and the entire process that involves is a dramatic transformation. So is drug addiction and alcoholism. Weight Watchers or becoming an Amway distributor is as "transforming" as Christianity or any other religion or cult if you give it your full attention. When I learned to operate a bulldozer, I only THOUGHT I knew what REAL earthmoving was... then, I found the motorized grader and now I see the finer points of earthmoving and ditching and elevation markers.

 

 

I'm not putting you down or ridiculing you at all. I promise I'm not. I guess I'm just saying that there is a broad spectrum of how people see things and how they view their world. You spoke of yours and I've spoken of mine. I think as long as we don't go around fighting and killing about it, there isn't any real harm done, is there? But unfortunately, because they KNOW there is a God, some folks fly airplanes into buildings, drown their babies, have hundreds of folks drink poison Kool-Aid, and all kinds of other nasty stuff like that. Man, I wish they wouldn't do those things.

[Asimov]

Those were her words from the OP. She is not speaking of proof for others, she is speaking of why she as an individuals chooses to believe.

 

 

I see, my mistake.

[Heavenslaughing]

So you are her spokesperson, then? Joanna specifically claimed how we know God exists...that is the title of this thread.

....

Again, why are you speaking for Joanna?

 

I don't view myself as speaking for her so much as having read her differently enough to merit discussion of the results of the different readings. I was reading her in the context that Antlerman described from her previous posts, while you were quite reasonably reading her in context of the title of the thread. You recognized the difference just above, so no need to belabor that further.

 

Knowledge is justified true belief. Joanna, by stating that she KNOWS God exists, is stating that her belief is justified and true.

 

I might agree that knowledge is justified belief, but justified true belief? How do you intend "truth?" Under most definitions of the word, I would call the "truth" criterion anti-scientific. Newton's theory of gravity wasn't "true," and neither is Einstein's, but both have served as the best provisional forms of justified belief we available, and since the evidence for them is empirical, they're the sort of justifiable belief to which anyone with sufficient education can subscribe. Quantum physics also strikes me as justifiable knowledge in the same sense, but if we introduce the truth criterion, we have a problem, since several base propositions of the Standard Model for quantum physics and the Einsteinian model for regular physics are contradictory. (I am a fan of Heim physics as the best form of justifiable knowledge to transcend this divide, but that is a different story.) If "truth" becomes our standard for knowledge or for its justification, we have to jettison practically everything we claim to know.

 

So, what different claims for justification exist? Other than empirical evidence, you say:

The only other kind of admissible data would be rational argumentation.

 

I don't see why this should be the case. I do believe that Spiderwire wrote an excellent response for why none of the bases for Joanna's belief strike him as convincing. I don't see how that undermines the validity of subjective forms of data for subjective forms of belief. Maybe you don't think that it does, and your statement on admissible data here applies only to the "How We Know God Exists" argument, in which case I probably agree.

[Asimov]

I might agree that knowledge is justified belief, but justified true belief?

 

That is the classical concept, yes. As far as I know, with a few other qualifiers, it is the definition used in most philosophical concepts.

 

How do you intend "truth?" Under most definitions of the word, I would call the "truth" criterion anti-scientific.

 

A truth is a statement that is logically valid and evidentially valid. It certainly isn't anti-scientific, unless you're arguing for truth with absolute certainty. Science allows us to obtain knowledge to within a specific degree of accuracy. So when looking at concepts like Evolution, while some of the finer points may require fine-tuning or more evidence to flesh out, the general aspect of Evolution is true. We have a larger certainty of truth in this aspect, whereas we don't in other aspects of science.

 

You can't make a blanket statement about science and its theories.

 

Newton's theory of gravity wasn't "true," and neither is Einstein's, but both have served as the best provisional forms of justified belief we available, and since the evidence for them is empirical, they're the sort of justifiable belief to which anyone with sufficient education can subscribe.

 

Newtons theory of gravity is true within a certain scope of application. Einsteins's theories are also true within a certain scope of application. That's why we use both. We can look at Scientific theories that have been falsified, and state that they are not true.

 

Quantum physics also strikes me as justifiable knowledge in the same sense, but if we introduce the truth criterion, we have a problem, since several base propositions of the Standard Model for quantum physics and the Einsteinian model for regular physics are contradictory. (I am a fan of Heim physics as the best form of justifiable knowledge to transcend this divide, but that is a different story.) If "truth" becomes our standard for knowledge or for its justification, we have to jettison practically everything we claim to know.

 

Only if you rigidly adhere to absolute certainty, which is impossible in pretty much anything except tautologies.

 

I don't see why this should be the case. I do believe that Spiderwire wrote an excellent response for why none of the bases for Joanna's belief strike him as convincing. I don't see how that undermines the validity of subjective forms of data for subjective forms of belief. Maybe you don't think that it does, and your statement on admissible data here applies only to the "How We Know God Exists" argument, in which case I probably agree.

 

Because she might be justified, she might believe it, but it can also be not true.

[Heavenslaughing]

A truth is a statement that is logically valid and evidentially valid. It certainly isn't anti-scientific, unless you're arguing for truth with absolute certainty. Science allows us to obtain knowledge to within a specific degree of accuracy. So when looking at concepts like Evolution, while some of the finer points may require fine-tuning or more evidence to flesh out, the general aspect of Evolution is true. We have a larger certainty of truth in this aspect, whereas we don't in other aspects of science.

 

You can't make a blanket statement about science and its theories.

 

Thanks for your thoughtful response. Philosophy of science, how scientific knowledge operates, and how it relates to other forms of knowledge all count as topics I frequently discuss, but knowledge as discussed by philosophers or in classical epistemology doesn't so much. Too frequently, truth does get implicitly defined around absolute certainty or objective facuality, as if humans had either readily available. I've become unaccustomed to using the language of truth, for reasons I'll expand on. I believe I can continue a portion of this discussion with direct relevance to the thread.

 

The case of evolution provides a worthy case to explore one point you made. We can argue a great deal over how evolution and its particulars happen, but on the basic point that evolution occurs, we have a very large certainty of its truth, in the sense of its logical and evidential validity. Even here, as you say, we virtually never have absolute certainty of truth. We have greater and lesser degrees. True and untrue cannot exist here in a binary relationship; with few exceptions, much anything we could claim as knowledge would fall between very certain or bloody unlikely. Moreover, when a scientific theory receives extremely strong support, we generally do not expect it to continue in some sort of J-curve as it approaches but never quite meets absolute certainty; instead, we mostly expect its eventual displacement by something broader, more elegant, or more supported by evidence. Knowledge subject to empirical scrutiny is remarkable not so much for the degree of certainty it establishes as for the degree of uncertainty it is willing to tolerate.

 

The picture gets more complicated when we consider how, even among scientists, significant debates occur among brilliant and logical minds using the same data. For everything below a high degree of certainty, contradictory claims can meet the stated requirements for truth, and insofar as different camps will believe different claims, they will have different knowledge. Logical and evidential validity never exist as objective attributes of a claim; they are necessarily judgements made by people capable of examining logic and evidence. This doesn't mean I subscribe to a solipsistic world or deny the existence of an objective reality. It means that human beings operate by connected subjectivities, and since only human beings make truth-claims (at least that we can understand), the locus of truth is within argument, not some reality external to it. So when "we" have a larger certainty of truth, this "we" is not a universal one by virtue of the logic or the data in themselves.

 

Newtons theory of gravity is true within a certain scope of application. Einsteins's theories are also true within a certain scope of application. That's why we use both. We can look at Scientific theories that have been falsified, and state that they are not true.

 

In this case, the same people (you and me) can both hold contradictory propositions to be true, because truth operates within a certain scope of application, not as an absolute. Most, maybe all, knowledge is contextual. Even tautologies only operate within conversations among people holding to the same basic rules of logic. Many forms of knowledge can operate with much more narrow scopes of application.

 

Because she might be justified, she might believe it, but it can also be not true.

 

Can something be true, believed, and not justified? If we gave an example of someone believing something arbitrarily which happened to be empirically and logically valid, it would seem that we would have a ready example, but since these forms of validity are not objective attributes of a claim, but instead human evaluations, they do not exist separate from such evaluation, and hence not separate from the process of evaluation. For this reason, I take evidential and logical validity as the form of justification necessary for what I will accept as my kind of knowledge, not as a criteria for knowledge separate from justification. The difference splits hairs, but I make it to reduce the risk of mistaking a judgement about evidence for a property of the universe, and for sake of recognizing that there might be forms of knowledge other than my own.

 

Knowledge is uncertain, partial, and provisional, and what is remarkable about positive science is that it accepts this. The result of these attributes of logical and evidential validity is that they point not so much to what is actual about the world as to what we can actuate in the world. Knowledge has more to do with coping with the world capably than with representing it objectively. For this reason, I prefer terms such as felicitous versus infelicitous over true versus false for any claim beyond those involved with very direct evidence. More of the time, I'll simply say something is supported by logic or by evidence, operating under the justified belief that this kind of justification leads to the most effective kinds of knowledge.

 

In this sense, I would agree that I lack any reason to accept Joanna's beliefs as true, but I would accept them as felicitous in a very narrow scope of application: as a means for Joanna to create meaning in her life. Inside this scope, her claims even amount to a form of knowledge. Because she doesn't seem to be arguing for the truth of her claims beyond this scope, I'm willing to take her arguments as valid (but subject to discussion) as opposed to simply invalid (in which case, I usually don't bother discussing).

[PocketAces]

In another thread, R.S. Martin wrote:

 

 

Without referencing age-old excuses like watch-maker theory for God's existence or atonement theory for Jesus' death AND without mimicking the Bible, can you answer these questions:

 

1. How do we know God exists?

2. Why did Jesus have to die?

 

Remember, I've read the Bible. I've done a degree in theology. AS HAVE MANY OTHERS HERE. Many here have been ministers or missionaries or in some other way involved in "the Lord's work." But when we really searched out the foundations of the religion we professed and trusted we found no foundations were there. We were left with the choice to lie about personal beliefs or deconvert. As stated, it was not so much bad treatment by Christians as it was bad theology that caused our deconversion. Christianity is custom-made for bad Christians--it does not withstand intellectual scrutiny.

 

You think the story is compelling and I'm still at the place where I want to see answers if answers exist. Let's hear the answers.

 

 

 

As I said earlier, these are big questions, if not THE questions of life. One forum post cannot possibly answer them -- at least not in a way that would satisfy everyone.

 

I'd like to offer my own story about how I've come to trust in a Being known as "God"; but for now I'll start with a very rough summary of why I believe He exists. I cannot speak for others' experiences, hence the "I" instead of "We".

 

 

So:

 

How Do I Know That God Exists?

 

 

 

The Universe.

 

It is magnificent. It is beautiful. It is bizarre. It cannot be wholly explained. Every time we think we've got it figured out, we realize that there's more to it. Because I know that I'll never be able to fully comprehend the Universe, I take into consideration, like Hamlet, that there could be "more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

 

 

Dreams.

 

For reasons still not wholly known to me, I've been given glimpses of the future via dreams, and these glimpses have come true. Not once, but repeatedly. I would be lying if I said that this wasn't disturbing at times. I'd love more than anything to chalk it all up to coincidence, or even quantum physics, but I can't.

 

 

Visions.

 

Likewise, I've experienced profound experiences and insights, even while awake.

 

 

Miracles.

 

They have been small, but meaningful.

 

 

A Voice.

 

A lot of people claim to "hear" from God; therefore I cannot expect anyone to believe me when I say that God has spoken to me. I cannot even fully describe the voice, except to say that it's somehow more audible than my own thoughts -- powerful and startling and real.

 

 

Transformation.

 

This, for me, is the most powerful convincement. It's not just a matter of a few tweaks here and there to my personality; it's a complete overhaul. I am slowly being changed from the inside out. I thought I was a fairly nice, loving person, but now I know I've been called to real Love, which is quite a different thing altogether. Being raised in a "Christian" environment, I thought I understood what that meant. I was wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm fairly certain that these reasons for belief are neither new or unique, and might even come across as a bit unbalanced. Someone else could have similar dreams, a similar Voice, and so on, and dismiss them as psychological phenomenon. The only difference, as far as I can tell, is that I've chosen to listen -- and to respond.

 

 

 

 

 

 

J

the only thing i can really say is this:

 

you offered no proof that this is God. one cannot say all this and thus the conclusion would be "God". human experience is deep, and the mind is a powerful instrument. so there's no real reason to say that all the things you've stated here is, proof of God, or shows there is a god out there. we would need reasoning that this leads to god. all that you have offered us here is that these are natural things that your experiencing that has nothing with the divine, or god/gods.

[Guest kcdad]

How Do I Know That God Exists?

 

The Universe.

Dreams.

Visions.

Miracles.

A Voice.

Transformation.

 

I only want to address one issue... hearing voices and/or audition. There is only one way we "hear" voices. Someone vibrates air using a larynx and the air waves enter our ear and the tympanic membrane translates that air movement into chemical and electrical signals... our brains then retranslate those signals into something we recognize... because we have "heard" it before. You can not understand or decipher something you have never head before... it sounds like static, or rap music...

 

God has no voice box... God is not physical. God can not produce words out of the air and wind.

 

So... if you are hearing voices and there is no one producing the sounds, your brain is having an audition... a sound hallucination. It is a serious but relatively harmless brain malfunction.

 

Here's the other obvious point: How do you "know", or why do you suspect that the voice you "heard" was from the Creator of the universe? Why would you imagine it would have selected you out of 6.8 billion people on the planet to speak to? How do you know it wasn't (to humor your spiritual fantasies) the devil or some demon or angel?

[Guest kcdad]

Transformation.

 

This, for me, is the most powerful convincement. It's not just a matter of a few tweaks here and there to my personality; it's a complete overhaul. I am slowly being changed from the inside out. I thought I was a fairly nice, loving person, but now I know I've been called to real Love, which is quite a different thing altogether. Being raised in a "Christian" environment, I thought I understood what that meant. I was wrong.

 

 

One more observation:

It's not just a matter of a few tweaks here and there to my personality; it's a complete overhaul. I am slowly being changed from the inside out.

 

Please reread this and tell me if it is inconsistent or am I reading it wrong ?

 

Are you completely changed or gradually changing?

 

So are you transformed (a new creation in Christ), or are you transforming?

 

"real Love".... what does that look like?

[mwc]

God has no voice box... God is not physical. God can not produce words out of the air and wind.

And why not? You sure seem to know a lot about this "thing."

 

Seems to me that a "god" could be a giant hunk of slag. Or maybe some huge lump of mucus for that matter.

 

But I imagine I need to understand a "god" as some type of energy or a sort of quantum goo-gah. A "force" of a sort that twiddle twaddles the nether noodles the soul. I'm sure you'll be more than happy to provide an ample lack of anything to support your positive claim as to what "god" is. I look forward to it's absence.

 

mwc

[Guest kcdad]

God has no voice box... God is not physical. God can not produce words out of the air and wind.

And why not? You sure seem to know a lot about this "thing."

 

Seems to me that a "god" could be a giant hunk of slag. Or maybe some huge lump of mucus for that matter.

 

But I imagine I need to understand a "god" as some type of energy or a sort of quantum goo-gah. A "force" of a sort that twiddle twaddles the nether noodles the soul. I'm sure you'll be more than happy to provide an ample lack of anything to support your positive claim as to what "god" is. I look forward to it's absence.

 

mwc

 

I stand by my negation of god's physicality. Since it is a negative statement that can neither be proved nor disproved, I'll call upon you to provide a single example or a possibility (other than some all-knowing, omnipotent, all-loving, omnipresent slag or mucus) of something or someone outside of time and space that is physical.