How to know the true God

@Leadfoot,

The realization that 'self' is a fiction....a transient social construction. Decisions are then not as likely to be tempered by 'self interest'.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

The realization that 'self' is a fiction....a transient social construction. Decisions are then not as likely to be tempered by 'self interest'.

That explains much of what you've said.

For the purpose of finding out 'what is', the value of abandoning self interest is huge.

But that should never be confused with denying one's own existence. Reality must never be denied if you ever hope to find 'what is'.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

. . . The fact that in most parts of the world there is a correlation between intelligence and atheism makes your attempt at analogy ridiculous.

Any correlation that may be found between intelligence and atheism is irrelevant. It may very well be explained by the pervasive inclination of humans to resist submission to any authority, for there certainly is also a positive correlation between intelligence and obfuscation. In fact, even 'believers' will often resort to claims that 'god works in mysterious ways' in order to escape personal responsibility.

Leaving us to contemplate the central issue in today's universe: God's right to set standards for his creation.

1 Reply

@neologist,

I do not believe intelligence has anything to do with religious belief.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I do not believe intelligence has anything to do with religious belief.

Agreed.
Nor does it have anything to do with the existence or non existence of God.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

At the mention of 'what is' I refer to you my extensive posting history concerning 'naive realism'. Generally speaking I have taken the pragmatists position that 'what is' equates to 'what works' between communicators. 'Believers' can validly argue for 'the existence of God' between themselves, but a god concept has no functional value for atheists. And 'concepts' are all 'human communicators' have got !

2 Replies

@fresco,

Well stated. I like and agree with

Quote:

And 'concepts' are all 'human communicators' have got !

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

Generally speaking I have taken the pragmatists position that 'what is' equates to 'what works' between communicators. 'Believers' can validly argue for 'the existence of God' between themselves, but a god concept has no functional value for atheists. And 'concepts' are all 'human communicators' have

No. Not really. In your opinion perhaps. However, where do opinions really matter when it comes to anything concerning a truth?

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Sorry it took so long to get to this:

Glennn wrote:

The confusion lies in your failure to understand the implications of what you have written.

I wrote:

The point I was hoping to make is that, although God has the power to anticipate the future in its entirety, he is under no obligation. Folks may read the last page of the whodunnit; but we are not compelled to do so. Would it profit authors to place denouement on page 1?

This assurance that God will not interfere in our choices is essential to our quality of free will,

Glennn wrote:

I then rightly asked you how the god's choice to be aware of the knowledge of the end from the beginning would interfere in our choices? Still waiting for your answer to that.

Already answered. Perhaps I could be more clear: Foreknowledge means no choice. We would be nothing but puppets.

Glennn wrote:

I also asked you to point me to any reference from which you learned what you said concerning the obligation issue. Am I correct in assuming that that statement was based on your assumption concerning the mind of the god?

You assume much.
So, for starters:
First of all, consider the fact that our entire system of jurisprudence is based on the assumption of free will (free choice), perhaps based in part upon words such as these:

Quote:

"I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live . . . (Deuteronomy 30:19)

1 Reply

@onevoice,

Pragmaticists tend to argue that 'truth' equates to 'what it is good to believe'. Obviously value judgments of 'goodness' tend be transient and context specific. Theists attempt to negate this with their absolutist concept of 'eternal truth'...the very essence of their hypothetical 'deity'. They have the psychological desire for 'closure' against the void of their relative insignificance....'the safe haven of the womb'.....'the unconditionally loving protective parent'....etc. It all constitutes a self valedictory psychological security net...a hypothetical insurance policy demanding regular 'faith payments' but with debatable evidence of ever paying out ! Wink

1 Reply

@onevoice,

Since truth is in the eye of the beholder, everybody has the options presented to them to believe or not to believe.
I see religion as an accident of birth. I chose not to believe.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Since truth is in the eye of the beholder, everybody has the options presented to them to believe or not to believe.
I see religion as an accident of birth. I chose not to believe.

I believe it's "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", CI. The idea that truth might be relative, is a convenient dodge.
Glad to see your use of the word 'chose', though.

1 Reply

@neologist,

When it's about religion or politics, it's a truism, not a dodge.

0 Replies

@neologist,

Quote:

Foreknowledge means no choice. We would be nothing but puppets.

Here you go again, assuming to know the mind of the god. You are of the belief that the god operates under the same principles and limitations as humans. Perhaps this would be a good time for you to provide some scriptural support for your claim that the god does not know the beginning to the end. I was under the impression that the god knows what you're going to ask for even before you ask it. So . . .

Quote:

The point I was hoping to make is that, although God has the power to anticipate the future in its entirety, he is under no obligation. Folks may read the last page of the whodunnit; but we are not compelled to do so. Would it profit authors to place denouement on page 1?

This assurance that God will not interfere in our choices is essential to our quality of free will,

When I said that the confusion lies in your failure to understand the implications of what you have written, I was referring to your supposition that, though the god can know the future in its entirety, it can opt to not know if it so chooses. First of all, you made that up. And your followup statement concerning the god's non-interference being essential to our quality of free will implies that if the god opted to see the future, it might interfere. So, again with your assuming to know the mind of the god and what motivates it.

The contradiction in your thinking becomes apparent when one considers that you don't see the god's decision to wipe out mankind in a fit of rage as an interference with free will choices. Of course, I could point to the parting of the Red Sea and other such things as also being proof of the god's interference with the free will choice of humans, but there's no need for me to do that, is there?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Just curious. When you tell theists that they do not know the mind of God, what basis does an atheist have to make such a statement?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

When you tell theists that they do not know the mind of God, what basis does an atheist have to make such a statement?

The basis for that statement comes from the book about the god.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

But the book does not have much to say about that. It directs you to go directly to the source to know his mind.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Whatever little the book has to say about that, why don't you quote it?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

It says things like :

'The spirit will guide you into all truth'
And,
'If any man lacks wisdom, let him ask for it'.

It never says or implies that the book is everything you need to know.

3 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

It never says or implies that the book is everything you need to know.

But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about humans like Neologist presuming to know the mind of the god and what motivates it. What does the book or the god have to say about that?

2 Replies

How to know the true God

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know