Kimpatsu

You can't know that, Yguy, because you don't have any evidence for it. You can only have faith that it's true. There is a huge difference.
In what way are they pretenders?

yguy

Since by your own admission you are only assuming this with, presumably, a high degree of certainty, it follows that you have some doubt; so I can't imagine why I should find anything you say any more trustworthy than you do yourself.

Kimpatsu

Nice cyclical argument, but it dodges my question.
How do you KNOW that god exists?

Principia

That's an interesting question, especially given that yguy isn't even willing to label himself a Christian. So much for his faith...

Lobstrosity

You shouldn't trust me. I'm not trying to convince you of anything other than your own foolishness--seeing this doesn't require trust, it just requires the ability to read. I don't proclaim to know that God exists/doesn't exist. I simply point out that there are exist others, like yourself, who do proclaim to know that God exists. Many also proclaim to know exactly which god(s) exists (e.g. how many there are, what they're like, what they've done, what they want, etc). Since their knowledge contradicts yours, obviously someone is wrong. It's most likely that you're all simply deluded, but I concede that it's logically feasible for one of you to be right. I guess since none of you can provide any logical backing for your claims, you'll need to fight amongst yourselves to see whose knowledge is truth and whose is fiction. In short, the "I know because I know" argument is laughable at best and isn't even worth typing. I'd like to see you bring something substantitive to the table, but it's looking more and more like your beliefs are mere unjustified delusions.

You know, I had a friend like you, once. He was an incredibly smart guy, but he was also very religious. When I asked him why he believed in God, he said it was because he could feel God. He seemed amazed that I couldn't. You see, his error in judgment arose from the externalization of subjective introspection. It's akin to realizing that your favorite color is red and then proclaiming that all people everywhere should objectively realize that red is the best color. If I used the same criteria for my knowledge as my friend did, I would be justified in saying that I know for a fact there is no God, because if there was, I would feel it. The very fact that I don't feel God proves that there is no God, right? If you have a problem with that statement, then maybe you'll finally understand the problem I have with your claims.

yguy

Among the salient points I've gleaned from reading your posts is that you don't know anything.

Unfortunatlely, every argument comes down to that. No exceptions. I don't know 1+1=2 because it has been mathematically proven, I know it because I can see that it's true.

If I'm making an error, this is not it. I'm perfectly aware that you don't know what I know in this regard - or at least are not aware that you know.

The illogic of that statement is irrelevant to my position, because I do not claim that my knowing God exists is proof that He does - and neither am I particularly anxious to impart to you a belief in Him.

Kimpatsu

Actually, 1+1= 10. Ask your computer. So you see, what you "know" to be true is just plain wrong.
Your attempt to project subjective introspection as absolute external reality is a big mistake, a priori. You really should learn to differentiate between the two.
Lobstrosity's statement is no more than a restatement of your earlier declared position, so if you find it illiogical, it's because your initial statement was illogical. That's no surprise; the trouble is, you fail to identify the statement as your own. Don't you want to take credit (sic) for it?

Lobstrosity

No real argument should ever come down to that, for that is the point when one person sticks their fingers in their ears and screams la la la so they don't actually have to think or have their "knowledge" tested.

Come on yguy, you're smarter than this. My statement is not irrelevant to your position. Allow me to rephrase it slightly such that this can be glaringly obvious:

If I used the same criteria for my knowledge as my friend did, I would be justified in saying that I know for a fact there is no God, because if there was, I would feel it. The very fact that I don't feel God proves to me that there is no God. Furthermore, I'm perfectly aware that people who claim to "feel" that God exists simply think they are aware of things they are not. So, do you believe my "knowledge" is accurate? If I type such a thing on a message board, your response is... I'm guessing it would be "you are incorrect, I know God exists just like I know 1 + 1 = 2." Man this conversation is getting stupid.

yguy

You're not getting my drift. What I mean is that all arguments inevitably lead to unprovable axioms.

Non sequitur.

"I see the sun, therefore the sun exists; you, born blind, don't see the sun, therfore it does not exist." I could be only imagining the existence of a sun, but the fact that you don't see it hardly demonstrates its non-existence.

Besides which, you presume your friend and I share the same criteria for knowledge in this area, which I doubt.

Feeling is not knowing.

More precisely, whatever tells me that 1+1=2 tells me that God exists; i.e., there is a means by which self-evident truths ARE evident, just as light is the means by which we see the physical world.

Kimpatsu

By definition, an axiom is not unprovable. What about Pi= C/r^2? That's an argument, and it's provable.
There is other evidence to indicate the existence of the sun apart from sight (light); heat being one of them. The blind man can't see the sun, but he can feel its rays on his face. God cannot be touched or experienced in any such way. The universe is approx. 15 billion years old, and there isn't a single shred of evidence for the existence of god. Now, don't you find that a wee bit strange?
Lobstrosity's point is that this isn't knowledge, it's emotion, which is not a valid substitute for reason. You can believe with every fibre of your being and be absolutely certain in your own mind that the Easter Bunny exists, but without evidence, it's no more than wishful thinking on your part.
Agreed, and which point therefore demonstrates that you don't--CAN'T--know god exists. You can only "feel" (i.e., have faith) that she does.
But as I said before, 1+1=10. Ask your PC. Existence of god is not axiomatic; if it were, there would be evidence within the assertion "god exists", and there isn't. There are also other ways of viewing the world, beyond the spectrum of visible light. In "Climbing Mount Improbable", Richard Dawkins published an ultraviolet photo of a flower, which is a completely different way of viewing the plant from the way that humans view it. You're assuming your method of apprehending the physical world is the only one. It isn't. Stop being so anthropocentric.