Can we know for certain anything about God and what he plans for us?

Can we know with certitude a God exists and his intention for the human race?

  • We can know with certitude that a God exists.

    Votes: 7 77.8%

  • We cannot know with certitude that a God exists.

    Votes: 2 22.2%

  • We can know with certitude God's intention for the human race.

    Votes: 5 55.6%

  • We cannot know with certitude God's intention for the human race.

    Votes: 1 11.1%
  • Total voters
    9
BigJoeNobody said:
... Again Miracles aren't something meant to impress or prove to all mankind, only to those who witness it. Whether you can see how it happened or not, they exist only outside our Physical Laws...
Click to expand...

I like this observation. But something like Noah's Ark is definitely not relevant only to those who witnessed it?
 
Thomas said:
LOL, OK. Bored of this.
Can we redefine this literalist fundamentalism and call it :eek: 'American' rather than infer it of any particular religious designation?
Click to expand...
I wish we could... But it is what those who wish to radicalize Islam use.. I surely haven't identified it with just one religion.

And as far as Christianity goes..yup american, but our missionaries have been spreading it for near a century...
 
RJM Corbet said:
I like this observation. But something like Noah's Ark is definitely not relevant only to those who witnessed it?
Click to expand...
Witnessed it? Plenty witnessed floods and monsoons that seemed worldwide.... When you are in a flood that covers many miles of land, it seems you are alone...but this is nuthin, let me tell you about the big one! The story is about listening to G!d and persevering when everyone thought you were crazy...and preparation for bad times, being self reliant beyond all odds. Surely it is not about animals coming in two by two or seven by seven, from all over, lions, tigers and bears oh my...worms, black widows and scorpions yippee! For a story to be told around the fire for.centuries and actually get people to listen it has to have that wtf really part...
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
wil said:
I wish we could... But it is what those who wish to radicalize Islam use...
Click to expand...
True ... but sometimes I feel this sidelines the real debate.

There will always be those who seek to radicalize any doctrine to their own ends — social, spiritual, political, whatever. It's something we have to live with, but it's not really a valid criticism of a religion, a politic, etc. It's a criticism of people. Any development in any field, someone will look to see if they can weaponise it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Thomas said:
So symbolists don't sweat it because the symbol neatly sums up a whole raft of metaphysical/philosophical speculation ... and the 'simple believer' doesn't sweat it because the symbols enable them to envision what moves the heart.

The issue with literalists is they believe in the surface but their hearts are opaque.
Click to expand...
Agree... Except the simple believer part... I know you are correct this is a yank problem...but we've got 136 million people who believe in the short earth 7 day creation...and they are in positions of power.. Writing laws...influencing the future...
 
wil said:
itnessed it? Plenty witnessed floods and monsoons that seemed worldwide.... When you are in a flood that covers many miles of land, it seems you are alone...
Click to expand...

And there's a great flood legend in most cultures. Atlantis, etc?

I have an issue with being told what to believe, on pain of punishment. Truth should attract not compel. Imo.
 
Last edited:
wil said:
It is the debate.... Unless we can agree that 2+2=4... We really can't have a discussion about reality.
Click to expand...

About Natural reality, you mean? Time/space reality?
 
wil said:
It is the debate.... Unless we can agree that 2+2=4... We really can't have a discussion about reality.
Click to expand...
Oh, good Lord, Wil ... are you still resting on the science = religion drum?

And there's plenty of post-modern maths that suggests 2+2=4 only if you apply a certain model to the problem :D (refer here – it's a really interesting debate...)
 
Lol... Yes I am aware we can start math with another postulate... And that is exactly what I am talking about... As until we agree on which we will be using... We can't even talk.

I fully support the symbolism, metaphor, allegory, moral mythology, metaphysical truths contained in the Bible... And am obviously willing to discuss it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
OK. Then we are talking Scripture, not maths, but rather metaphysics, metaphor (to include symbology and analogy), morals.

Or traditionally, the Fourfold Sense of Scripture (the Jewish and the Christian four being pretty much the same).
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Thomas said:
And there's plenty of post-modern maths that suggests 2+2=4 only if you apply a certain model to the problem :D (refer here – it's a really interesting debate...)
Click to expand...

Of Good Gods Above and Below! 2+2=4 only if one applies a certain model to the problem? Yep this is the fairy tale nonsense of philosophy at work here. OF COURSE we start with a model for mathematics to come to our answers. It's not the other way around. Use a base 10 set of numbers and compare them to a base 12 set of numbers and the answers are going to be different. The math is no less accurate in either case. When we ask the 2+2 question, it is taken for granted that we are using a particular set of mathematical rules. Within that framework, 2+2 will always equal 4.

You can take it to the bank! As an aside, I have done exactly that. Being the trickster that I am I have often gone to the bank and asked them to cash 5 twenty dollar bills and give me 15 ten dollar bills. They always laugh because they get the joke. In our base system of math that just doesn't fly. It never will. Ever!
 
wil said:
Exactly....math we can take literally.
Click to expand...
Yes, once we understand the modelling.

Scripture we can take literally.
Yes, once we understand the modelling.

But the processes are different.
 
wil said:
Exactly....math we can take literally.
Click to expand...

Spectacular! Without it we wouldn't be communicating via internet, or have the wonderful Hubble images, the truth far surpassing what mystics could imagine.

But it breaks down at 'singularity'. It breaks down at the speed-of-light, at the event horizon of a black-hole, at the big-bang singularity -- at dark matter and dark-energy which make-up 96℅ of the 'mathematical' universe.

At all the really interesting parts.

Not because it hasn't got there, but because, by its own nature, it never can?
 
Last edited:
Thomas said:
Yes, once we understand the modelling.

Scripture we can take literally.
Yes, once we understand the modelling.
Click to expand...

As you know I have difficulty with that latter concept. It doesn't seem reasonable to me to say if A then B in this particular situation. I have been here a while now, and have spent a lot of time trying to comprehend how some people believe scripture can be taken literally. Whatever the answer is has remained beyond my ability to grasp.

It's not just about understanding the modeling. Math modeling is an exact science. Scriptural modeling, or any language modeling for that matter is an inexact science. In school, math tests were easy to grade; either one got the right answer of one did not. In english, writing an essay response is up to opinion as to how well the student grasped the material. A paper in favor of a proposition and a paper opposed to the proposition can both be excellent papers and awarded A's even though they come to opposite conclusions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
RJM Corbet said:
Not because it hasn't got there, but because, by its own nature, it never can (be understood)?
Click to expand...

We don't know though, right? At this time we cannot go before the big bang. We have conjecture that fits down to micro-seconds before the big bang, but the bang itself, nope we still do not have a clue. Even 10 years ago we didn't have the tools and experiments to get that close to the singularity event and explain what happened. Now we can in theory. We may yet find a way to identify how everything erupted from nothing. Or we may never be able to bridge that last few micro-seconds.

So I guess what I am saying is that we just don't know yet whether we will ever be able to get to just before the big bang or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top