The Evangelical Universalist Forum

How do I know that I am a believer and saved?

Why would anyone hope Zeus exists?

Keith de Rose argues that there are two main problems with taking that line.

First, people believe things (with honest certainty) that are mutually exclusive. Therefore, a sense of honest certainty is no great guide to knowledge.

Second, people who believe (with honest certainty) that God exists often change their minds.

One day, perhaps, God will be as certain to us as the moon and the sun. Until that day, we must hope. And since we must hope, I will hope for the Very Best.

Allan,

The point of spirituality is to undergo change to where you become a more humble, loving, and compassionate person. This is found in other religions besides Christianity. What Buddhism calls enlightenment Christianity calls being born again. This is what Christ was all about. This is what matters. If you can find humble love and happiness through other means besides Christianity then that’s great. I would say that you have found Christ though if you do.

Allan,

Would another way of saying that be that we presuppose the existence of One True Eternal Good God and choose to believe that He is working to bring about that which is good in his creation?

If so, then I agree.

My question then would be: is there a school of Presuppositionalists that are not Calvinists (eg. other than Van Til or Clarke) ? I’ll have to Google “Keith de Rose” and see who he is.

I get your point, Allan.
However, it would seem strange to me to say that Paidion is mistaken in saying that God is a reality to him. He’s not offering it as a proof of anything.

To say: You cannot even know/you can know that God exists - that is one category of thing.
To say: God is a reality to me /God is not real to me - that is a different category of thing.

I wish I hadn’t sworn off Jargon! :unamused:
Saying : a belief is not knowledge - is to make a conceptual knot where none need exist.
“We cannot know x” - well it depends on what x is, and what type of knowledge is appropriate to x.
Can we know God exists? Yes. Can we change our minds - so we know God does not exist? Yes. tt
Whichever we choose, the important thing is to be able to justify the choice.
Is knowledge a choice? Sure, it can be. I don’t have to believe that hitting my thumb with a hammer will hurt me, though it may be a matter of knowledge to you. But you don’t know if it will hurt me - I could have no feeling in that thumb.

I think de Rose is incorrect. Who am I kidding - it’s probably me that’s wrong, but I don’t know for sure… :laughing:

I don’t presuppose God’s existence as such. I’m happily agnostic about that. I begin with two things: my intuition of the good, and faith in reason.

It seems to me that God is good, bad, or imaginary. If bad or imaginary, we’re doomed. If good, we are saved. Since it’s irrational to hope God is bad or imaginary, I hope he is good. I cannot know if I’m right. I’ll never know. I can only decide how I will live here and now. Will I live as if the good God exists, or will I live as if he doesn’t? I choose the former. Yes, my hope may well disappoint. I don’t deny it. But the alternatives will *certainly *disappoint.

It’s Puddleglum’s Wager. He chooses to seek Aslan, even if Aslan doesn’t exist, because it has to be better than enduring the reign of the Witch.

God seems real to me too, at times. I don’t give this perception much weight because I know, from experience, that tomorrow I may well feel differently.

Yes. The first is objective. The second subjective.

A belief will be real. The object of that belief might be real. If I believe in Elves, that belief is real enough, but the Elves are not.

“I believe in Elves” is knowledge. It accurately describes my subjective, mental state. “Elves are real” is not knowledge. It does not accurately describe the objective world.

Belief in Elves is not knowledge of Elves.

I agree. For example, we cannot know the last digit of pi. Not even God can know the last digit of pi.

I disagree. How can a glorified ape with a pound of brain know that his powers of reasoning extend to this task? I can barely tie my shoelaces. Subjectively, I can think I know God exists, just like I can think the last digit of pi is 6. Objectively, I really haven’t a clue.

Again, no. I can think I know God doesn’t exist. In fact I really haven’t a clue.

Suppose I “know” God exists. Really? How do I know this God isn’t a delusion created in my mind for the amusement of the true God?

Suppose I “know” God does not exist. Really? How do I know the true God isn’t hiding himself from me for reasons of his own? If God wishes to hide, rest assured no man would find him.

“Being finite, I cannot know if God exists, or what he is like if he does.” This is knowledge.

“God is good, bad or imaginary.” This is knowledge.

“It is irrational to seek a bad God.” This is knowledge.

“I choose to be rational, and seek the good God.” This is belief. Or more accurately, it is knowledge about my belief.

A dog can chase its tail all day long, but it doesn’t mean that the tail is at the front.

*It seems to me that God is good, bad, or imaginary. *- Agreed.
*If bad or imaginary, we’re doomed. If good, we are saved. * - Agreed.
*Since it’s irrational to hope God is bad or imaginary, I hope he is good. * - Agreed.
*I cannot know if I’m right. I’ll never know. * - True, in this lifetime.

*I can only decide how I will live here and now. Will I live as if the good God exists, or will I live as if he doesn’t? I choose the former. * - By choosing to live “as if the good God exists” I am choosing to believe He exists (here is my presupposition); otherwise, I’m not really living as if He exists. The first great commandment doesn’t say “You shall love what you imagine to be God with all your heart” - That would be idolatry.

If I said to my wife: “I believe you exist, but can’t be absolutely certain, therefore I am going to love what I imagine you to be.” -She might be inclined to give me some certainty by slapping me across the face. :laughing: Either I am loving her, or I am loving my imagination.

Allan my friend -
You’re wrong in every single thing you have ever said or thought, or any thing you ever will say or think. You have no logical faculties, you are so corrupt morally that you would not know Truth if it bit you on the arse; you probably see dead people; and I worry about your personal hygiene. You make me mad enough that I want to slap my own Mum, God rest her soul.

Just kidding - I don’t really worry about your personal hygiene. :laughing: Or anything else I said above…I think you’re a good fella and I really like your posts. Though naturally I disagree with some of what you think - and that does not matter, really, compared to the greatness of the things we DO agree on.

We apes - and my brain weighs just enough over a pound that I feel superior; yes, I had it weighed - are made in God’s image. I believe that’s an objective fact, btw. (That was some nice wording, there). In any case, I think that ‘knowing’ is a much more fluid word than you are giving it credit for.

But I’m not going to kick a dead horse - no, not you - the whole line of reasoning we’ve been dancing around. No doubt we will re-visit the thoughts at some time. :smiley:

All kinds of blessings to you my brother!
Dave

Alan, I appreciate (to the extent I’m able) what you’re saying. As to God’s existence, it’s true that you can’t prove it with a mathematical formula and you can’t discover it with the Large Hadron Collider (or can you? :wink: ) You can deceive yourself (perhaps) into thinking you feel His presence when all you’ve done in fact is to make a break-through in your meditative practice. It is perhaps more probable than you could prove the necessity of His existence via philosophical and logical proofs, but that’s a bit more esoteric and perhaps too much so for a man of science. For you, it makes all the difference that you seek Him – the unknown and (to your mind) unknowable God who is good. That search will have to be good enough. I trust that if you continue to seek you’ll find Him in the right time. He promised.

But for me, when you say this my first thought is, “then how can anyone know anything at all?” What if I’m just a thought thinking? What if something akin to the Matrix is true? How can I tell whether I’m awake remembering a dream or in a dream remembering waking? Perhaps I’m just a character in someone else’s dream. What makes the evidence of our maths and our sciences and our philosophy so convincing? How reliable is our visual sense? People are constantly seeing things that didn’t happen, or didn’t happen quite that way – or even close. Interview six eye witnesses to an accident and you’ll get six different stories even if they were all standing together on the sidewalk. Are they lying? No. No, for each of them, the accident happened exactly as they describe it. My mom’s memory is failing. She still likes to tell stories though, and her stories are always good. Every time she tells them they change and every time she tells them she firmly believes herself to be telling the absolute truth. For her it is truth. It is fact. She lived it. It’s not a subjective matter for her because she has the empirical evidence of her senses and her personal experience.

My point is that neither you nor I nor anyone else has any true empirical evidence for anything at all. We have the evidence of our six senses (including proprioception of which I’ve only recently learned) and every single one of those senses is subjective. Even our logic is subjective. We don’t know whether we’re acting or reacting only. If the latter, nothing we say here is more than the ripples created by a pebble tossed into a pond. If we had a rock to stand on, then maybe we could deduce true things about the world, but depending only on our amorphous and undependable senses, we have nothing. Many of us want to make human knowledge into that rock, but our knowledge is as changeable as the sea. We think we know things, but we only know in part (very small part). We can know more and more and make things work better for us, it’s true – as in medical science – but we will never ever get there on our own. Never. Depending on our own ability to know good from evil and choose the good is the way of death. At some point we MUST take that leap of faith and simply choose to depend on the life offered us by God in Christ Jesus, and choose to depend on the mind of Christ. Jesus showed us the way to live, to the small extent we were able to receive it, and He continues to show us if we listen to Him.

But if we want to be pleasing to our Father (and by pleasing, I mean the kind of pleasure a father takes in his child, who is learning and maturing through contact with him) then we must believe that He IS. Anyone who comes to God must believe that He IS and that He rewards those who seek Him (presumably the reward of seeking is to find the desired object).

It’s the leap of faith, and Father gives to every person the measure of faith. We of course must act on that faith and choose to believe. It is Indiana Jones crawling out onto the invisible bridge in “The Last Crusade.” When I was a tiny girl I delighted in jumping off the couch when my daddy was anywhere in the room, because I KNEW he would catch me (I remember this). He always did, even if he was standing clear across the room facing the other direction. He might have failed at some point though he did not, but Father cannot fail. There are times that I question, but then I remember the things He’s done for me. I behold the amazing world He created, and I’m comforted. Not because I’m too stupid to know anything of the mechanisms scientists have proposed for the existence of these things, but because I know all these amazing things must have a source – a foundation – and I know that foundation, that rock, is God. Even when I’m in doubt I have no lasting doubt – even when I doubt that I personally can truly hear from Him through the clamor and chatter and confusion of my own mind, I know that HE is available to speak to me just as surely as communication-laden energies are passing through this room, though I cannot perceive them unless I turn on the radio and tune in.

There is no such thing as color though we perceive it via our eyes. You and I are invisible though people think they see us (they really only see light waves bouncing from our bodies – no one has seen US at any time). Sound is as inaudible as a radio signal. We sense movement in our inner ear via hair cells and transmit that to our brains where the conception of sound is manufactured and sorted for meaning. We only perceive “up” and “down” because of tiny crystals responding to gravity in our inner ears – fool those and you can’t even stand on your feet. Touch is nothing but the stimulation of various nerves in our skin (mostly). It’s all in our heads, literally. What we perceive as a smell is just our nervous system reacting to microscopic particles in the air – and if we lose the ability to respond to those, most of our taste receptors don’t function either. Both of those senses are highly subjective and dead easy to fool. Our brains depend on the input of our senses and are, besides that, subject to their own delusions, mispprehensions, miscalculations, false conclusions and confusions and befuddlement.

If you take this inability to know to its logical (imo) conclusion, then we cannot know anything at all. In order to function, we must take a leap of faith and CHOOSE to believe the “evidence” of our senses – at least to some extent. Likewise, without the leap of faith, it is impossible to please God, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He rewards those who seek Him. I believe that it IS possible to find God (when He chooses to so reward our search) and that we CAN know God as much as we can know that wild roses delight our eyes, noses and skin, that the embraces of our loved ones fill us with joy, and that the fire on our hearth keeps us warm. The evidence for God is not less real than the evidence for the fire, and the evidence for the fire is not MORE real than the evidence for God. We are more accustomed to knowing the world through our fleshly senses, yet they can deceive us. We must know God through our spiritual senses. They can likewise deceive us. That doesn’t mean that God cannot be as real to me or to you as the fire or the embrace of love or the wild fragrance of the rose.

Interestingly, Cindy, you’ve recapitulated a very famous argument. From an online wiki:
“The Latin phrase cogito ergo sum[a] (/ˈkoʊɡɨtoʊ ˈɜrɡoʊ ˈsʌm/, also /ˈkɒɡɨtoʊ/,** “I think, therefore I am”) is a philosophical proposition by René Descartes. The simple meaning is that thinking about one’s existence proves—in and of itself—that an “I” exists to do the thinking.
This proposition became a fundamental element of Western philosophy, as it was perceived to form a foundation for all knowledge. While other knowledge could be a figment of imagination, deception or mistake, the very act of doubting one’s own existence arguably serves as proof of the reality of one’s own existence, or at least of one’s thought.”

Google Descartes, Rene and find a whole lot of history that followed him, and reacted to him.

His thought was Copernican - in the sense that Copernicus theorized the Earth revolved around the Sun - a stunning thing at the time. Descartes theorized that the world of objects depended on (revolved around) human consciousness - a stunning thing at the time. Previous to this, so-called ‘naive realism’ , a common-sense approach, said “Look, it’s obvious that THERE is a tree” (simply put). After Descartes, it was possible to say : “THERE is something x feet tall, greenish on the top, brownish on the bottom where it is z feet in width” etc etc - a ‘scientific’, that is, measurable description. Supposedly, that type of description, as in logical positivism (Jargon), gives ‘positive, verifiable’ knowledge - anything else is not REAL knowing.

The history of this train of thought, and it’s effects good and bad on the human condition, is amazing and well worth studying.
It must be stressed that Descartes made a HUGE error in the very beginning - he reduced a human being to a doubting thing. Doubt is easy - I was in a seminar with another student who said “I can doubt this classroom exists”. I said - ‘saying the words “I doubt” are not the same as doubting. We got into a lively debate.
But just as Descartes’ error in reducing humans to doubting things, ignoring all the rest of what we are, in the name of 'Certainty", so also the type of knowledge he arrived at is a reduction of all the things we DO know, that are not based on his “method.”
Don’t get me started…I will have too much fun. :smiley:**

I have an inner perception of “blue” and project it onto the outer “sky”. The sky isn’t blue in itself. The blueness of the sky is generated by my mind. The sky doesn’t even exist as an object. (Can you bring me some in a bottle?) To say the sky is blue tells you something about my mind. It tells you nothing about the sky. The same is true of every perception. Taste, sound, color, shape, texture, temperature, speed… all these things are inner perceptions that we project outwards. They are not characteristics of the outer world (assuming this mysterious and unknowable outer world even exists). They are all the products of my mind.

Or putting it another way, how does the sky appear to a bat? Why should your inherent perception of the sky be closer to reality than a bat’s inherent perception? What does a bat “see” when it squeaks heavenward?

You have an inner perception of your wife. You project it outwards onto the outer world. You do not (and cannot) know how well your inner perception maps onto the outer world. How many men have said, “And all these years I thought I knew her! She was a beautiful Russian secret agent and I never suspected a thing!” Well ok. Not many men have said this. But you get the picture.

I think it’s idolatrous to think we can know anything about God at all. We must live by faith from first to last. ie. we will never know. Holy, holy, holy. Separate, separate, separate. The infinite God is inherently unknowable, “hidden in unapproachable light. No man has seen him, nor can he be seen.” His thoughts are not our thoughts.

But this is no different to you and your wife. She is inherently unknowable. Her thoughts are not your thoughts. Her true self, her mind, her perceptions, are quite invisible to you. You must infer her inner existence from her bodily actions, her words etc. You relate to her, you believe in her existence, you have confidence in her good intentions by faith alone. You can never, ever know.

In the same way, I can only infer God’s existence and kindly intent by observing the material world, especially (for me) the life of Christ. But I might be wrong. God might be toying with us. Perhaps the Good Shepherd enjoys lamb chops? All we can do is hope God is good, and act accordingly.

Great post, Cindy. I agree with almost everything you’ve said. :slight_smile:

“God only knows” is profoundly true. We little people must believe. No other option is open to us because, when you boil it down, our reasoning and our experiences may well be wrong. This is as true for me as it is for Gabriel himself. But God is different. He is Separate. God only knows.

Great discussion here guys :slight_smile:

And your most recent post was just lovely Cindy, you have the heart of a poet :slight_smile:

But if this is true, and always true, then eternal truth also exists, along with an Eternal Mind to contain it. It seems you’re not alone, Rene, after all.

(assuming this mysterious and unknowable outer world even exists). They are all the products of my mind.

Well Descartes was well and truly wrong. A genius, but wrong.
There are a couple of huge rivers of thought, actually from before Plato and Aristotle, those rivers are empiricism and rationalism. One bases knowledge on sense data alone - takes the skeptical stance that you are taking, Allan, if I understand you - the mind is a blank tablet, sense impression are written upon it, they are somehow combined into Ideas etc. Jargon word is A posteriori - we only know what we do AFTER experience has written into us. Very simply put. The other river is rationalism - the mind is not blank at birth, but has certain Jargon word - a priori abilities. simply put. It has the ability to categorize, to combine, to generalize, stuff like that.
Kant brought the two rivers together in 3 magnificent, brilliant books. He was turned on his head by Feuerbach, who was turned upside down by Hegel, I think, who in turn…Kerkegaard, who in turn…Marx…and on and on. Kant was the turning point in many ways, even more than Descartes. Generally the Continent was rationalistic, and the British was empirical.
So it is not an easy problem.
And the answer is not a short one - the greatest minds have fought over it, wrestled with it, become almost suicidal over it. No exaggeration.
So the best I can do is refer to longer works that address the impossibility of radical doubt, starting with Descartes (though Ionian philosophers from long long ago felt the same thing - there’s not much new under the sun in philosophy)
But for our purposes - I don’t think any of your objections above carry any water - I don’t think skepticism as a world view is at all viable - but you and I are making choices here, not appealing to a standard that we can point to as arbitrator. And I honor your choice, and you, without agreeing.
The greatest, perhaps, of the skeptics was David Hume - but like he said, after writing about skeptical doubt that reason leads us to, including doubting of cause and effect (!!! a nice little argument he puts up there, actually) - he goes outside to relax and play some badminton, just as if cause and effect really IS something real…and that is I think the beginning of the answer to skepticism.
Fair enough?
Fair enough?

:slight_smile: It’s no better than Boswell kicking his rock.

I’m an amateur idealist, I guess. I know ideas are real because I’m experiencing one right now. I don’t know if matter is real, but I do know my perceptions of matter are real, because I’m experiencing them right now.

I stumbled across something by Plantinga, where he argues that evolution gives us no reason for believing our perceptions map onto the outside world. All that matters, he argues, is that our body reacts automatically and appropriately to external stimuli. It really doesn’t matter what we believe we’re doing, so long as we do it. I could be a clever octopus who believes it is a man. It doesn’t matter, so long as the octopus catches its lunch etc.

Theism gives me grounds for believing I am, in fact, a man, and not an octopus with delusions of grandeur. Materialism does not give me any such grounds. God would ensure that my inner perceptions map reliably onto external reality. This gives me a practical motivation for being a theist.

God would ensure that my inner perceptions map reliably onto external reality - Allan

Interestingly, that is almost exactly the move that Descartes made to get himself out of the skeptical corner he had painted himself into! If I can find the quotation you will see the startling similarity. Neat.

Here is a pretty good summary of your position Allan, I think, and Rene’s response to it. Note: he only allows his friends to call him Rene, but I have put in a good word for you. :laughing: the link will download a short pdf file.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q … 6854,d.cGE

Here is a short section of that pdf, showing the move Descartes made that is similar to yours, Allan. you can read the entire pdf in 15 minutes or less, I think you would really enjoy it;
Quote:
3rd Meditation: This meditation begins with the egocentric predicament: Descartes has proved that his own mind exists, but how can he prove the truth of any beliefs about the external world? To address this problem, Descartes replaces the indubitability criterion of truth with the clearness and distinctness criterion of truth: A belief will be accepted as true if one has a clear and distinct idea of it.
Ø An idea is clear and distinct if there is nothing hidden or unclear in it, it can be entirely present to one’s mind at the same time, and all parts of the idea are vivid.
The new clearness and distinctness criterion cannot be used until Descartes has proven that clear and distinct ideas are guaranteed to be true. After all, it would seem possible to have a clear and distinct idea of something false. To show that the new criterion is reliable, Descartes will (a) prove that god exists, and (b) show that god would not allow us to be deceived about clear and distinct ideas.