An Argument for the Existence of God?

Question

The argument that I give for the existence of such an entity is more like a clarification.

A working definition of knowledge is: Information within a consciousness with a corresponding infallible conviction that said information is objectively true.

Given that definition of knowledge, if I see a tree, I do not "know" that the tree exists, but if I have an infallible conviction that the tree exists, I know that the tree exists. Can I have an infallible conviction about something that I cannot empirically detect? Why not? God (who can actualize any logically possible state of affairs) can cause me to have an infallible (not able to be mistaken) conviction that God exists. If one asks "How do you know God exists?" under my definition of knowledge, I may respond "God causes me to know." If one asks "How do you know God causes you to know?"

I may reiterate the infallibility of the conviction, and point out that much like the "circularity of language" problem mentioned earlier, the "How do you know?" tactic could be used over and over again for any proposition that the atheist antagonist claims to "know." It's addressed in epistemology as the "infinite regress problem." In the face of such a problem, any serious solution put forth to defend the existence of knowledge can be used to defend the existence of knowledge that God exists. Knowledge that I dare say, if I may be so bold, that I have

Answer 1

Very intelligently written.

And you are right, the engineer asks how, the philosopher asks why.

As for your definition I would like to say this: Information (that you perceive) within a consciousness (awareness of life) with a corresponding infallible conviction (awareness of self or object) that said information is objectively true.

This definition is not so much one of God, but a definition of Mind. Absolute mind.

As a human, I know that which is infallible true to me, such as your example of a tree.

As for God, he knows all that is.

How do we know what we know? Your assertation about infinite regression is true, and we know because we 'will' to know. That is how we know. How do we know this? A more pertinent question is, how do we do this?

So long as someone is asking how do you "know" this, they are not capable of answering the question how do you "do" this. For instance, you can ask how to ride a bike, but until you do it, you will never learn. And if you ask, how do you will yourself to will, the only viable answer would be the one that language obliviously implies: because you will it to be.

The knower does not need to ask what he is doing, because he does and knows through the power of his will.

It is this will that is infallible, and one that we share and make decisions with inside the divine mind. And that, I would say, is a definition of God.

Answer 2

Existence is logically a paradox. Either we have a reason to exist or not. Do you exist in this moment and the next, if so then there is god.

Where do you come from, chances are it fades away to your earliest memories, but people here say they were here before your birth, creating a linear chronology. This creates social logical experiences that are fallacious, but used within a social mind to effect communication with society.

God itself is the whole of all existence and the guiding force of reality. You cannot deny either of these in a changing existence. Whether you are a sczieontist . or otherwise you likely have some type of belief, if you have ever done anything with purpose. Purpose emerges from belief. If you yourself know and understand that you exist, then you can comprehend your union with god. Your purpose in life as to serve gods will. There is no denying god, if you cannot deny yourself, it is mearly whether you reject the union or accept it. Knowing that you are doing gods will in rightness.

We know the tree exists if we believe it exists. If there is a disagreement socially then it becomes social fact rather than personal experience.

Your empirical detection of god is just your definition of what god is. Was the rustling of leaves to the wind not enough evidence of the acts of the god of wind etc.. people are just in large part appearing to be socially sczieontists (scientific zionists) you have no more truth in science (as it is a theory) there is no end point or beginning point to science, that is religion, you cannot have empirical evidence without a basis. Trace science to it's origin or attempt to apply it to anything but a static future and you are left with unknown variables. Science isn't perfect. Look at the history of science and realize that fundamental beliefs of science have been challenged on an ongoing basis, even within the last hundred years.

God exists because I exist et vice versa from a personal perspective, this should be true for anyone of the faith.

You just aren't recognizing yourself and your connection with god if you deny god. You resort to being inane if you deny existence.

Answer 3

I am not sure that a fallible being is able to have infallible conviction. You may have complete belief but you would need to be Jesus to have infallible knowledge or to have perfect judgment in any way. This is called usurping the authority of God and it is a severe temptation to clergy throughout antiquity to the present day.

The best way to know God is by humility and not pride. Through humility you will discover your own humanity and God.

Answer 4

Yes, and the answer to your question in one word is FAITH.

Faith based in reason allows human beings to know things without having physical evidence of that knowledge.

Furthermore, God, being an immaterial Being, can transcend the normal, evidence-based mode of knowledge that humans usually depend on when making decisions, therefore allowing humans to know of God's existence without being able to prove it empirically.

Actually, the latter idea is the best definition of faith that I can think of: knowledge based not on empirical or physical evidence, but on reason that has discovered that something MUST BE TRUE, regardless of whether or not this truth can be proven empirically.

Answer 5

I cannot agree with your definition of knowlede, but that is beside the point. Knowledge is neither evidence nor truth. Conviction is neither evidence nor truth. Atheist do not doubt the theist knowledge of God, it is their evidence for the existence of God that is in doubt.
By your definition, a person can have "knowledge" of something that is not true.

Answer 6

How do we know God exists? The same way we know that the wind exists, Because God is like the wind, you cannot see Him but you know He is there! Look in the mirror, and you will see a miracle that happened years ago when you were born, you came from a tiny seed planted in your Mothers womb. So you are one of Gods many miracles!

Answer 7

The proof of God is in a real relationship with him all arguments are pointless.

Answer 8

god is the answer to the question to what was before the big bang...in religion class my teacher said something I can't forget : " humans are bonded to rational thinking.they can't go past their rationality"
so...in the impossibility to imagine something beyond the infinite, unending we came up with the concept of god

Answer 9

What's the question?

I think you read too many books.

You need to experience God, not read about God.

Answer 10

If you don't see the wind than does it not exist? Agree or disagree. I disagree, the wind exists because we can see the manifestation of what the wind does. God exists because we are the manifestation of what He did.