In a scriptural context I don’t believe you are taking ‘belief’ in the correct way.
If you are supporting a athlete, and you believe in him, meaning you believe in his ability to win the race. You believe in His ability. I believe this is the scriptural meaning of to believe in God, to believe in His ability, the one you place your faith in.
As in the athlete example, to believe in his ability, you would have to know the athlete already.
So is it possible to know that God exists but not believe in his ability (such as to save us out of this world).
I’d say it’s the opposite, you have to know God to believe He can make all things right, to place your faith and trust in Him. If you don’t know God how can you believe in Him?
Coming from being a Christian to the agnostic , leaning toward belief , I am now, the difference between know and believe seems important. Everyone has a personal belief system based on thier emotions and thier intellect, whether they are very religious , or athiest.
While I appreciate the teachings of Jesus I came to reject the standard Christian view {if there is one} of JC dieing for our sins so we can be forgiven. The concept of a God who demands our obedience and worship is rejected as well. IMO, what is , is, and our journey is to discover reality and to lessen our own ignorance and fear. I acknowledge that I don’t know if anything exists for me, or us, after this physical life, but it seems to me that doesn’t matter, other than to assuage our fear of death. I think the principles taught by Jesus and Buddha and others, of our human relationship with the world and each other still resonante , even if our goal is to leave a better world for the next generation and to grow as an individual and as a society. If we focus on some basic universal principles , which IMHO boil down to love and truth, the question of an after life will resolve itself , or not, when the time comes.
Each person’s individual journey is thiers to choose whether it be belief in a specific religion or atheism, but those universal principles are something we can find a common ground on in communication.
By respecting the individual journey we can relax a bit, recognizing our own human imperfections , and allowing others theirs. It’s okay if we believe different things. Inevitably different belief systems will result in some conflict and confrontation. That also is part of the growth process. How we handle the conflict matters and can be part of our own growth. IMHO, a key step is admitting that we don’t know , and making personal growth , truth, emotional and intellectual maturity a priority. some eastern religions might explain it as the spokes of a wheel, coming from different places, toward the same hub.
Plato differentiated knowledge by defining it as “justified true belief”–you not only believe, but you have reasons for believing (justification) and that belief corresponds in some way beyond those reasons to a reality (truth). This definition has been refined by later philosophers–e.g. is there a further requirement that the justifying reasons actually cause the transformation from belief to knowledge–but it’s a good definition to start with.
“Knowing” that God exists carries additional intellectual burdens over simply “believing”. That knowledge needs to be justified–perhaps by accepting scripture that declares it, or by interpreting the structure of the world as implying it. And it needs to be confirmed for truth against some form of reality–a “knower” who ignores the typical counterexamples against God (like natural disasters, the existence of evil, etc.) is not really meeting the “truth” requirement, so he/she needs at least some answer for these. The latter roughly meets the need for “potential falsification” so common in science, but that kind of scientific falsification almost always depends on direct correspondence with physical reality, and since we’re dealing with metaphysical concepts here it’s not exactly the same thing.
You’re posting on a message board that claims it is about fighting ignorance. Why do you think you should get a free pass for posting something that is not only untrue, but is impossible?
You say it is impossible to know God. Can you know love?
“Beloved, let us love one another. For he who loves is born of God and knows God, for God is love.” 1 John 4:7-8
That is the essential teaching of Yeshua Ben Yoseph. My earlier point is that our intellectual grasp of rational does not extend to explain the workings of this love. Perhaps one day it will.
The only problem I have with this is that one can have certain knowledge of only a vanishingly small number of things. Pretty much everything else you believe (or not believe) on the basis of the evidence that supports them.
Nobody expects you to “prove” anything you believe - you merely need to show the basis or the evidence in support of your belief. Saying that you merely “believe” in God and the afterlife is not a hall pass that excuses you from this particularly when these beliefs inform how you act and how you act impinges on others.
Yes, it is impossible to know that which does not exist.
[/quote]
That is the essential teaching of Yeshua Ben Yoseph. My earlier point is that our intellectual grasp of rational does not extend to explain the workings of this love. Perhaps one day it will.
[/QUOTE]
And?
I could list the “essential teaching” of the Cat in the Hat, but that does not mean he actually exists.
I think Hampshire nailed it in post #11. It’s refreshing to see a religious view accepted for what it is, that doesn’t claim to be The Truth and imply that everyone else should follow it.
That is the essential teaching of Yeshua Ben Yoseph. My earlier point is that our intellectual grasp of rational does not extend to explain the workings of this love. Perhaps one day it will.
[/QUOTE]
And?
I could list the “essential teaching” of the Cat in the Hat, but that does not mean he actually exists.
[/QUOTE]
Yet I can go show you many Cat in the Hat books and at least one movie. Your understanding of existence is limited. Our interrelationship is only on a message board. Does that mean that we are fictional? That is no different than the Cat in the Hat exists in bookstores. According to your way of thinking, infinity is only a mathematical concept. Nothing is infinite. Yet we use the concept to build, travel and engineer when no other way we know would do it. If we destroy every Calculus text ever printed, do those buildings and bridges collapse?
For purposes of history, most historians will agree that Jesus was a person and existed. Many people and some historians find insufficient evidence. Does that affect whether or not such a man existed? No. And if his message survives, does it exist? If I act on that message, does it matter to someone?
Your attacks insist that everyone’s concept of the divine is that there is actually some being administratively responsible for everything at all times, that it doesn’t make sense and therefore it cannot be. Well, I certainly do know know of a main office of a deity that I can go and apply to. I do know that I can organize my life around the idea and feeling that treating everyone with love is divine and understand the divine that way.
What you are doing is saying that Christmas doesn’t exist because the guy in the Santa suit is an actor.
There are many models of gods and afterlives. Which do you believe in, and which do you want to believe in? The rational way of looking at god would be to construct a model of god, and see if your model is consistent with what we see. You might want to believe in an omnibenevolent god, but this kind of god is contradicted by the problem of natural evil. You might want to believe in a god who inspired the Bible, but this god is contradicted by the many contradictions and inaccuracies of the Bible. If you want a god who inspired a subset of the Bible, you need to define how you tell what that subset is.
If you want your process to be rational you need to abandon tricks like claiming with no evidence that we live in the best of all possible worlds.
It seems to me that many who wish to believe in a god but who also wish to do it rationally become deists, where god exists but does not interact with us.
The most rational way to view it is that there may be some level of reality that lies on a level above our own that we cannot observe directly. The most common analogy is The Matrix or some sort of SimCity style simulation, but much more complex. That is not to say we live in some sort of computer simulation. Just that all the information available to us in our universe is a subset of some larger set of information.
“God” would be some entity or intelligence that lives in that level of reality that can interact with ours. But while to us God would be some omnipotent, omniscient being, he or she might be totally mundane in his level of reality. Like a kid playing a videogame. And since our observable universe obeys a consistant set of laws of physics, it stands to reason that “God” would also be subject to whatever consistant laws of physics are applicable at his plane of existence.
A rational way to believe in God is to (as above posts have) define God as love, and believe in love. A rational way to believe in an afterlife is to consider time as a dimension and afterness as a construct of our perception and senses, which do not apply to a deceased person.
The above are the first rational formulations to come to mind, not necessarily the most rational possible (probably not).
edit: I’ve already thought of a few more, as suggested by the Matrix post and Cat in the Hat post above (matrix version being, we’re a simulation; cat in hat version being, rationally believe in the existence of books about God and the afterlife as you can get evidence in bookstores, they exist as common cultural constructs)
