How do i know God is real?

@certainly existent,

If you studied Heidegger you might remember his adage "language speaks the man". In other words the language we are born into constructs "one's world", or provides us with ready made selective spectacles. So constructivism is not a matter of inventing neologisms. It is a matter of language constraining cognition (ref: Sapir-Whorf hypothesis), a point similarly arrived at by Wittgenstein with his: "the limits of my language are the limits of my world".

You keep stressing "rationality" which I take you as parochially meaning "argument from axioms". But monotheistic religion in its widest sense is anything but "logical" since its basic premise is the logical paradox of "an uncreated creator". Departing from parochially equating "logicality" with "rationality", we can of course argue that any religion has its own rational basis, but the plethora of diverse religious beliefs mitigates against selecting any one of them as "superior". In short, religion like cultural and linguistic conditioning, appears to be merely an accident of birth.

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

I have looked into it. There is nothing that would lead me to believe a magical being created the universe. I legitimately don't know how the universe began (if ANYONE knew we wouldn't be having this discussion). I just stated what my favorite theory on the universe is. Nowhere did I say it were true and nowhere did I say I could provide evidence for it. That's the difference between 90% of all Young-Earth Creationists and myself.

You claim to have looked into it. Yet your insistence on the Young Earth Creationist straw man belies your claim.

1 Reply

@neologist,

I don't follow your point here.

Would you like me to include all creationists, then? One is slightly less ignorant than the other.

2 Replies

@JimmyJ,

You take the young earth point of view seriously in spite having seen its inconsistency with the Bible.
Very convenient.
Now you may do as you wish.

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

BTW, I don't consider myself a creationist in spite of my belief in creation.
Those calling themselves 'creationists' have given the Bible a bad rap as have those calling themselves 'christian'.

0 Replies

@neologist,

What exactly about the young-Earth point of view is inconsistent?
You can actually look up the genealogical calculation from the Bible itself for how old the Bible says the Earth is....

1 Reply

@fresco,

I'm not really arguing from a religious perspective. With the labels we have put upon things and the semantics available to us (whatever this be dependent upon (even if that thing is ourselves)) along with this tool we call reason, I am essentially saying that the only items of thought that cannot be copied or simulated are omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience and this has further logical consequences.

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

What exactly about the young-Earth point of view is inconsistent?
You can actually look up the genealogical calculation from the Bible itself for how old the Bible says the Earth is....

No. Man's history in the seventh day is about 6000 years. You did notice the seventh day has not yet ended, right? BTW, how far back would you think man's recorded history takes us?

1 Reply

@neologist,

Quote me where it says the 7th day is still going. Lol I think you made that up, good sir.

That depends on your definition of recorded history. Do you mean all records (fossil records, etc)? Or do you mean just written history.

I would assume written history coincides with the invention of writing.

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

Quote me where it says the 7th day is still going. Lol I think you made that up, good sir.

Moses carefully recorded the end of the first through sixth days. Then, in Chapter 2, vs. 4, he lumps the first six days together. I think it not an oversight to have left out the end of the seventh.

JimmyJ wrote:

That depends on your definition of recorded history. Do you mean all records (fossil records, etc)? Or do you mean just written history.I would assume written history coincides with the invention of writing.

Yes, written.

1 Reply

@neologist,

So in other words there are no passages that confirm what you're saying?

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

So in other words there are no passages that confirm what you're saying?

Belief sans citation has not impeded you. I, at least, can mount a reasonable explanation.

1 Reply

@certainly existent,

Quote:

I am essentially saying that the only items of thought that cannot be copied or simulated are omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience and this has further logical consequences.

And I am saying that those terms involving the prefix "omi" are merely absolutist expressions of human limits which tautologically cannot be copied ! There are no "logical" consequences of a tautology, only psychological ones like the potential insignificance of one's own existence. Religious ideas involving "omni" are attempts at closure of a psychological void such that our existence is anchored or cocooned in a "purposeful something greater than ourselves". I have described one esoteric alternative psychological solution involving meditational experience of dissipation of self prior to death and emergence with "the ineffable whole"...the cutting of any hypothetical anchor chain. ("Ineffable" is the term which transcends the simplistic usage of "omni")

0 Replies

@neologist,

So just to confirm again, you don't have any quotes from the Bible confirming your claim?

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

So just to confirm again, you don't have any quotes from the Bible confirming your claim?

Would you still be an atheist if I were to provide such? Then why should I make the effort?

1 Reply

@neologist,

Quote:

Would you still be an atheist if I were to provide such? Then why should I make the effort?

I'd still be an atheist because it's only confirming that the Bible (a book which I belief to be nonsense) says something.

However, for the sake of the argument, you don't have any quotes do you?

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

I wrote:

Would you still be an atheist if I were to provide such? Then why should I make the effort?

JimmyJ wrote:

I'd still be an atheist because it's only confirming that the Bible (a book which I belief to be nonsense) says something.

However, for the sake of the argument, you don't have any quotes do you?

I don't have any quotes telling me it's wrong to snort cocaine, either. But I know the scriptures well enough to realize it is.

2 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

I don't have any quotes telling me it's wrong to snort cocaine, either. But I know the scriptures well enough to realize it is.

Where in the scriptures do you get the idea that snorting cocaine is wrong?

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

. . .Where in the scriptures do you get the idea that snorting cocaine is wrong?

Cleanse yourself of every defilement of flesh. . . (2 Corinthians 7:1) There's more, if necessary.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
. . .Where in the scriptures do you get the idea that snorting cocaine is wrong?
Cleanse yourself of every defilement of flesh. . . (2 Corinthians 7:1) There's more, if necessary.

Various drugs can defile the flesh, e.g. alcohol and caffeine. So can all of the various nutrients and most of the vitamins and minerals. You're inferring your conclusion about snorting cocaine.

1 Reply

How do i know God is real?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know