The Laws of Logic Imply God's Existence

[seer]

Does follow very logically, yes they all could be wrong, but one in ten thousand or more being correct in terms of being absolutely 'True' in one way or another is unlikely. I never said that one could not be 'True.' Considering the variability of human reasoning and logic, it is unlikely that it relates to a 'transcendent logic' in the manner humans use it.

I'm not talking about some vague definition of 'transcendent logic' - whatever that means. I'm speaking of the clear teachings of Christ. And it really makes little difference what you consider "unlikely" - except for your own immortal soul that is.

[ST Mannew]

Actually, I agree there is ultimately only one 'Truth,' but that 'Truth' is not apparent from the fallible human perspective. That view is reality, because there are tens of thousands of different claims of 'Truth.' and your belief only represents one. Just take an honest look at the world of the many religions and sects of religions, there are easily tens of thousands of different 'claims' to know the 'Truth.'

The breakdown is the result of so many divergent 'claims' of 'Truth,' appealing to a non-existent transcendent logic that they apparently know, and all others who believe differently are absolutely wrong. This is one of the primary causes of violence in the world.
It is most definitely 'subjectively egocentric,' because it is a 'claim' based on subjective interpretations of ancient scripture, where you are competing with 10's of thousands of other different 'claims' of 'Truth.'

Yes, but fallible humans most definitely discriminate with egocentric claims of 'Truth.'

Well you believe that there is “ultimately only one 'Truth”, but then you deny that it is knowable? If someone believes the truth, then that person knows the truth about what this truth concerns. This is my claim; Jesus Christ is Truth itself, and if you believe this to be true then God will make Himself known to you, this is my claim. Why would I now after the truth finding me want to look at other things that I now know for certain are not correct; so the people who believe other things can feel good about themselves? So you think then, it is doing good to leave your brother in his error rather than correct him? That’s the reason I know the truth, I was corrected and I accepted the correction and learned from it. But the changing is the real hard part isn’t it.

There is only one person in history who ever claimed He is truth itself and that person is Jesus Christ, `I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no one does come to the realization of God, but through Me; (John 14:6). And you cannot justifiably criticize this claim until you have believed it to see if it is true. Jesus claims to be the beginning of the realization of God.

[shunyadragon]

Well you believe that there is “ultimately only one 'Truth”, but then you deny that it is knowable?

Most definitely. If God exists than the ultimate truth resides with God, not fallible humans. If God does not exist than the ultimate truth lies with the nature of our physical existence, and not fallible humans.

I believe in the apophatic God from the human perspective, that is the view of both the Jewish and Baha'i view of God. Consistency of belief among humans I believe is an issue as to how knowable God actually is.

If someone believes the truth, then that person knows the truth about what this truth concerns.

No problem with this, in fact, given that there are 10s of thousands of different claims of truth it remains unlikely that one is true as you claim.

This is my claim; Jesus Christ is Truth itself, and if you believe this to be true then God will make Himself known to you, this is my claim.

Yes, that is your claim. One of tens of thousands of different versions of 'Truth' claimed by different beliefs.

Why would I now after the truth finding me want to look at other things that I now know for certain are not correct; so the people who believe other things can feel good about themselves? So you think then, it is doing good to leave your brother in his error rather than correct him? That’s the reason I know the truth, I was corrected and I accepted the correction and learned from it. But the changing is the real hard part isn’t it.

This presents your view concerning why you believe the way you do, but it provides nothing convincing that would convince me that what you believe is 'True.' You have to realize many, many people make such claims and believe very differently from you, and for the most part I have no reason to believe them either. There is nothing here. but a subjective ambiguous claim that you know the 'Truth.'

There is only one person in history who ever claimed He is truth itself and that person is Jesus Christ, `I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no one does come to the realization of God, but through Me; (John 14:6). And you cannot justifiably criticize this claim until you have believed it to see if it is true. Jesus claims to be the beginning of the realization of God.

Regardless of how strongly you believe this, it remains only a claim of 'Truth' and the interpretation you present of what you believe.

[shunyadragon]

I'm not talking about some vague definition of 'transcendent logic' - whatever that means.

It is the belief that the laws of logic are themselves Divine in origin, and reflect the logic of God, and imply the existence of God.

I'm speaking of the clear teachings of Christ. And it really makes little difference what you consider "unlikely" - except for your own immortal soul that is.

Not really directed at the subject of the thread, and more like speaking from the pulpit, This does not represent any contribution to the discussion at hand.

[pancreasman]

Christianity might be true, but I doubt it, for a lot of reasons. Buddhism might be true, but I doubt it, for a lot of reasons, Islam might be true but I doubt it, for a lot of reasons. Everybody claims they have the Truth (always with a capital T). At least some of them are wrong. I might be wrong but it doesn't do me any harm to admit it. A little humility goes a long way.

[shunyadragon]

Christianity might be true, but I doubt it, for a lot of reasons. Buddhism might be true, but I doubt it, for a lot of reasons, Islam might be true but I doubt it, for a lot of reasons. Everybody claims they have the Truth (always with a capital T). At least some of them are wrong. I might be wrong but it doesn't do me any harm to admit it. A little humility goes a long way.

Actually, the Baha'i Faith does not make the claim of 'Truth' with a capital 'T' as do Christianity and Islam. The view is more the constantly evolving and advancing 'knowledge of the spiritual and physical nature of our existence. In fact the interpretation of scripture in terms of the nature of our physical existence must be done in the light of the ever advancing knowledge of science. Scripture describing our physical existence is not in the same language as science.

[pancreasman]

Well you believe that there is “ultimately only one 'Truth”, but then you deny that it is knowable? If someone believes the truth, then that person knows the truth about what this truth concerns. This is my claim; Jesus Christ is Truth itself, and if you believe this to be true then God will make Himself known to you, this is my claim. Why would I now after the truth finding me want to look at other things that I now know for certain are not correct; so the people who believe other things can feel good about themselves? So you think then, it is doing good to leave your brother in his error rather than correct him? That’s the reason I know the truth, I was corrected and I accepted the correction and learned from it. But the changing is the real hard part isn’t it.

There is only one person in history who ever claimed He is truth itself and that person is Jesus Christ, `I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no one does come to the realization of God, but through Me; (John 14:6). And you cannot justifiably criticize this claim until you have believed it to see if it is true. Jesus claims to be the beginning of the realization of God.

Here's a question: Lots of people of varying faiths have just as much commitment to their faiths as being true as you do to yours. Many will use the same kind of language you do like "god making the truth known to you' but they arrive at completely different conclusions. I understand you really believe that you have the Truth and that God has revealed it to you. A Muslim will say the same thing. Can you distinguish between the 'Truth' and your understanding of it? Is it remotely possible that you could be wrong? I know you don't think you are. I don't think I am either, but I might be. Do you allow for the slightest possibility that you may have it wrong?

[shunyadragon]

Here's a question: Lots of people of varying faiths have just as much commitment to their faiths as being true as you do to yours. Many will use the same kind of language you do like "god making the truth known to you' but they arrive at completely different conclusions. I understand you really believe that you have the Truth and that God has revealed it to you. A Muslim will say the same thing. Can you distinguish between the 'Truth' and your understanding of it? Is it remotely possible that you could be wrong? I know you don't think you are. I don't think I am either, but I might be. Do you allow for the slightest possibility that you may have it wrong?

I thought I would comment here concerning how I view the certainty of my world view and beliefs. I do not have a big emotional investment in the belief that what i believe is true. It is more important to me to grow, change and evolve in my 'knowledge' and all the possible alternatives concerning what is possible concerning the nature of our physical and spiritual existence. There are of course beliefs that I consider very unlikely that they are true, and I do not believe anything is possible.

I consider it very unlikely that God would tell the 'Truth' to a select limited number of devoted believers out of billions.

In my journey, my reasoning and logic are indeed useful tools, but a strong measure of skepticism is warranted, and of course everything is in pencil.

[JimL]

Of course what never occurs to you, what you will not tolerant, for even a second, is the possibility that Paul was right. Who is closed minded now?

Whether Paul was right or not is not the issue, being closed minded is not the issue, what is at issue is the manner in which he/Paul characterizes those who are in honest disagreement with him. Paul's frame of mind, as portrayed in the text that you refered to was one that says "if you don't agree with me then you are not only dishonest, but evil doers and self decievers, because you know that I am right, it is plain to see, and there is no room for disagreement." Now, I see the natural world just as did Paul, and just as do you, and we have an honest disagreement as to whether that world is evidence of the existence of God, evidence of a creator, but to Paul that honest disagreement on my part makes me an evil, self decieving, fool. According to him, I have no excuse for disagreeing with him because I know that he is right! Now, whether he knows or not, whether he is correct in his assessment of the evidence or not, does he also know that I know, or that those of whom he was speaking knew? I don't think so, people can honestly disagree, and be wrong as well, but that doesn't make them evil, or self decieving, or fools.

[JimL]

Not with my beliefs, but those who are in conflict (contradiction) with the Truth are self-deceived.

No they are not self decieved, not knowing the truth is not self deception, self deception means to lie to oneself as opposed to being lied to by another.

If what I believe is not true then I would be in the same position as even the most deceived.

And is it possible that you could be wrong about your beliefs, and if so does that mean that you were purposely lying to yourself?

I see it this way, the Truth and my beliefs are two different things.

Only if you have it wrong.

If I believe the truth then I benefit from it, but if I don’t, then I am in conflict with reality, and that is not a very good position to be in, this is why it is called evil and deceived.

Yes, truth is good and false is bad, but whether or not you are in conflict with reality or not, you have no idea. Thats why you call it a belief.

[ST Mannew]

There is only one person in history who ever claimed He is truth itself and that person is Jesus Christ, `I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no one does come to the realization of God, but through Me; (John 14:6). And you cannot justifiably criticize this claim until you have believed it to see if it is true. Jesus claims to be the beginning of the realization of God.

"I might be wrong but it doesn't do me any harm to admit it. A little humility goes a long way." this statement is not a admission of humility, and this is a contradiction "I might be wrong but it doesn't do me any harm to admit it. This is the problem, you are not admitting you are wrong, you just think you are.

[ST Mannew]

No they are not self decieved, not knowing the truth is not self deception, self deception means to lie to oneself as opposed to being lied to by another.

You are equivocating here, “not knowing the truth” and “self deception means to lie to oneself”, it does not matter, if you do not know the truth, if someone is lying to you or you to yourself, you are still the one being deceived, if you believe it. Believing the deception is what makes one deceived, no one is responsible for what we believe only ourselves, and so all deception is self-deception if it is believed. No one makes you believe it; you believe it for yourself, for wrong reasons.

And is it possible that you could be wrong about your beliefs, and if so does that mean that you were purposely lying to yourself?

I cannot be wrong if I believe the truth, the only way for you to know if what I believe to be true is for you to believe it and try it. Are you up for it?

Only if you have it wrong.

Sorry that was a typo, if the truth and what I believe are the same thing, then I am right. The truth is not an ambiguous system of thought; all that exists had to be first true before anyone could see that it existed, so truth is a requisite to existing.

Yes, truth is good and false is bad, but whether or not you are in conflict with reality or not, you have no idea. Thats why you call it a belief.

If what you believe and truth are matching then what you believe is truth, you are in reality. It is not just a belief if what you believe and truth are the same is it? Then we are in a very enviable position, aren’t we? I am not just speaking of myself here, I mean anyone who as the truth, is in a very good position.

[pancreasman]

There is only one person in history who ever claimed He is truth itself and that person is Jesus Christ, `I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no one does come to the realization of God, but through Me; (John 14:6). And you cannot justifiably criticize this claim until you have believed it to see if it is true. Jesus claims to be the beginning of the realization of God.

"I might be wrong but it doesn't do me any harm to admit it. A little humility goes a long way." this statement is not a admission of humility, and this is a contradiction "I might be wrong but it doesn't do me any harm to admit it. This is the problem, you are not admitting you are wrong, you just think you are.

I note you didn't actually answer my question about your own beliefs.

I am admitting the possibility that I might be wrong. Can you do the same? Simple really.

Lastly, the only way we have any idea what Jesus may or may not have said is through an ancient text written by an unknown author who may or may not have been an eyewitness who may or may not be reporting accurately remembered statements by a historical Jesus. That's an awful lot of assumptions you're making. It may turn out Jesus DID say that. It may turn out He meant what you think He meant. But it may not. There's that nasty little possibility of human error and fallibility again.

[ST Mannew]

I note you didn't actually answer my question about your own beliefs.

I am admitting the possibility that I might be wrong. Can you do the same? Simple really.

Lastly, the only way we have any idea what Jesus may or may not have said is through an ancient text written by an unknown author who may or may not have been an eyewitness who may or may not be reporting accurately remembered statements by a historical Jesus. That's an awful lot of assumptions you're making. It may turn out Jesus DID say that. It may turn out He meant what you think He meant. But it may not. There's that nasty little possibility of human error and fallibility again.

If what other people believe is contrary to my most basic belief, then they are wrong. Are you going to pretend now that you don’t do the same thing?

And you will never know unless you believe it and see if it is true. I believe that Jesus Christ is truth itself, which is the basis of all what I believe to be true. Why should I believe what you are saying, do you think you are telling me something that I have not already seen before, none of these things you write of are new. One thing I do know, and you are proving it in every post you make, you are very self-deceived, so why should I believe anything you say, you don't seem to be much of a reliable source of anything on the subject at hand.

[ST Mannew]

Actually, the Baha'i Faith does not make the claim of 'Truth' with a capital 'T' as do Christianity and Islam. The view is more the constantly evolving and advancing 'knowledge of the spiritual and physical nature of our existence. In fact the interpretation of scripture in terms of the nature of our physical existence must be done in the light of the ever advancing knowledge of science. Scripture describing our physical existence is not in the same language as science.

There was only one who made the claim that he is truth itself, and that was Jesus Christ. There is no such claim in Islam. And a view that is constantly changing is not a truth at all, if it can be changed then it is not truth you are talking about, but just a fact, something temporal, that depends on time for its existence, truth transcends time. Under the foundational belief that Jesus Christ is truth, the Bible makes all the sense in the world, and the law of ID falls nicely into its embrace also.
Science has not given us an adequate mode to which to draw any firm position from, they are all just theories, and many poor at that.