Is knowledge of God natural knowledge?

I would like to discuss natural knowledge and the knowledge of God.
This is my understanding when I say “natural knowledge”. My Tibetan Book of the Dead, I Ching, Bible, and other religious texts have taught me that God’s existence is something that is self proving. We are born with knowledge of His existence; it in intrinsic knowledge. Attachment to suffering, ego, and material life clouds our vision. Knowledge of God is something that can be obscured.
God becomes clear when we detach ourselves from our ego; this is the process of discovering God.
Do theists agree that knowledge of God is natural knowledge? What do atheists think of this concept? Does it seem silly?

Xavier Graham SA said:

I would like to discuss natural knowledge and the knowledge of God.
This is my understanding when I say “natural knowledge”. My Tibetan Book of the Dead, I Ching, Bible, and other religious texts have taught me that God’s existence is something that is self proving. We are born with knowledge of His existence; it in intrinsic knowledge. Attachment to suffering, ego, and material life clouds our vision. Knowledge of God is something that can be obscured.
God becomes clear when we detach ourselves from our ego; this is the process of discovering God.
Do theists agree that knowledge of God is natural knowledge? What do atheists think of this concept? Does it seem silly?

Click to expand...

Nice to see this from a Christian
(I like similarities, rather than differences)

I fully agree with this

Xavier Graham SA said:

I would like to discuss natural knowledge and the knowledge of God.
This is my understanding when I say “natural knowledge”. My Tibetan Book of the Dead, I Ching, Bible, and other religious texts have taught me that God’s existence is something that is self proving. We are born with knowledge of His existence; it in intrinsic knowledge. Attachment to suffering, ego, and material life clouds our vision. Knowledge of God is something that can be obscured.
God becomes clear when we detach ourselves from our ego; this is the process of discovering God.
Do theists agree that knowledge of God is natural knowledge? What do atheists think of this concept? Does it seem silly?

Click to expand...

Some faint knowledge of a deity in my opinion is given in all, just as some knowledge of His Law is given in all, so that He can justly condemn (for it would be unjust to condemn according to a rule but not notify anyone of the rule) or approve. I think this because of St. John of Damascus and others, who say: "God, however, did not leave us in absolute ignorance. For the knowledge of God's existence has been implanted by Him in all by nature. This creation, too, and its maintenance, and its government, proclaim the majesty of the Divine nature." St. Paul in my opinion says the same thing.

I think G-d can be independently discovered as a concept, a reality, but not truly without a divine revelation. We wouldn't automatically know what He wants from us just because we've discovered His existence.

Xavier Graham SA said:

I would like to discuss natural knowledge and the knowledge of God.
This is my understanding when I say “natural knowledge”. My Tibetan Book of the Dead, I Ching, Bible, and other religious texts have taught me that God’s existence is something that is self proving. We are born with knowledge of His existence; it in intrinsic knowledge. Attachment to suffering, ego, and material life clouds our vision. Knowledge of God is something that can be obscured.
God becomes clear when we detach ourselves from our ego; this is the process of discovering God.
Do theists agree that knowledge of God is natural knowledge? What do atheists think of this concept? Does it seem silly?

Click to expand...

What evidence, or argument, do you rely on for supposing that this "natural knowledge" of divinity is really knowledge, rather than mere belief in something that may or not be the case? After all it is something of an old chestnut that the existence of most conceptions of God is neither provable nor disprovable, due to the way the concept of God is usually specified cf. Russell's teapot etc. So how do you conclude it is self-proving?

Or do I smell a get-out in this idea of detachment from ego, viz. is it considered egotistical to even question whether God exists.

Xavier Graham SA said:

What do atheists think of this concept? Does it seem silly?

Click to expand...

I mean, whatever floats your boat I guess?
I find it no more or less silly than other essentialist proclamations of alleged profundity.

exchemist said:

So how do you conclude it is self-proving?

Click to expand...

It perhaps falls under the category of being unfalsifiable, but this is what I understand. Introspection is self-illuminating. Hypothetically, our consciousnesses and souls have God’s essence in it. Since God is within us, it is provable if we look within. Meditation will allow us to see God. And once you’ve seen God, what more proof do you need? You have seen Him, God has been discovered. We are attached to God, and it is our ego that separates us. The belief is that we have all of the tools within us to discover God within. We are not merely smart apes, we are God like creatures.
I guess this can be labeled as a mere belief.

Xavier Graham SA said:

What do atheists think of this concept? Does it seem silly?

Click to expand...

As an atheist I would say yes and no. There is indeed strong evidence that belief in deities and other supernatural agencies (spirits, karma, etc.) might be ingrained in our very genetic makeup; that humanity has an innate capacity and desire for such narrative. Of course what is true in general isn't always specifically true to all individual. I would say it's false to say that all humans have "individual knowledge of a deity or superior force", most probably have this instinctual perception of seeing intelligent agency orchestrating a variety of unexplained and seemingly random phenomenon. We have the general tendency of perceiving the world like a story in which we are the protagonist and with a certain meaning and objective. We extend that perception to larger phenomenon too like nature for example. Now, is this ''knowledge'' or is it more a perception or even a delusion of our mind? I would tend to say that it's a perception, not actual verifiable useful knowledge. It's a common belief, but not a reality external to our minds.

Xavier Graham SA said:

Do theists agree that knowledge of God is natural knowledge?

Click to expand...

I have always believed that from the earliest of civilizations there was a sense of a totally Other.

Xavier Graham SA said:

It perhaps falls under the category of being unfalsifiable, but this is what I understand. Introspection is self-illuminating. Hypothetically, our consciousnesses and souls have God’s essence in it. Since God is within us, it is provable if we look within. Meditation will allow us to see God. And once you’ve seen God, what more proof do you need? You have seen Him, God has been discovered. We are attached to God, and it is our ego that separates us. The belief is that we have all of the tools within us to discover God within. We are not merely smart apes, we are God like creatures.
I guess this can be labeled as a mere belief.

Click to expand...

Well it falls into the category of personal, subjective, experience. So I find it a stretch to call it "proof".

To me and to most people, "proof" is something that can be objectively demonstrated - which means demonstrated to other people - such that there can be no doubt.

It seems to be recognised by the Christian churches, or at least the more thoughtful among them, that religious faith is needed precisely because there is no proof. If there were proof, every intelligent person would be a believer, which is obviously not the case.

It seems to me what you are referring to is strong personal conviction, enough to remove any personal doubt you may have had.

Xavier Graham SA said:

What do atheists think of this concept? Does it seem silly?

Click to expand...

Very much so, at least to me. I can't remember ever "knowing" or believing in any gods. The claim that gods are "self evident" is just a bad excuse for lack of evidence.

Xavier Graham SA said:

I would like to discuss natural knowledge and the knowledge of God.
This is my understanding when I say “natural knowledge”. My Tibetan Book of the Dead, I Ching, Bible, and other religious texts have taught me that God’s existence is something that is self proving. We are born with knowledge of His existence; it in intrinsic knowledge. Attachment to suffering, ego, and material life clouds our vision. Knowledge of God is something that can be obscured.
God becomes clear when we detach ourselves from our ego; this is the process of discovering God.
Do theists agree that knowledge of God is natural knowledge? What do atheists think of this concept? Does it seem silly?

Click to expand...

God books telling you god is inate in humans at birth. I think not. We are born with no knowledge of complex matters, essentially a blank slate that can breath, suckle and poop.

Knowledge of god is introduced by parents and peers when the child is old enough to start accepting abstract ideas.


So no, its not what you call natural, it is taught.

I dont particularly think it's silly but rather it lacks understand of the human brain.

Xavier Graham SA said:

What do atheists think of this concept? Does it seem silly?

Click to expand...

To be honest to be anything, god needs to be detectable by science; otherwise it is all rumour.

I think gods are silly, but your definition doesn't change that.

Xavier Graham SA said:

I would like to discuss natural knowledge and the knowledge of God.
This is my understanding when I say “natural knowledge”. My Tibetan Book of the Dead, I Ching, Bible, and other religious texts have taught me that God’s existence is something that is self proving. We are born with knowledge of His existence; it in intrinsic knowledge. Attachment to suffering, ego, and material life clouds our vision. Knowledge of God is something that can be obscured.
God becomes clear when we detach ourselves from our ego; this is the process of discovering God.
Do theists agree that knowledge of God is natural knowledge? What do atheists think of this concept? Does it seem silly?

Click to expand...

I don't know. Attaching it to "god" makes it more confusing than saying we experience, I guess, awakening or different perspective of ourselves when we are no longer attached from ego and materialism. The term "god" is vague and using him (or her) doesn't help much.

The concept isn't silly. The jargon is throwing me off.

Xavier Graham SA said:

I would like to discuss natural knowledge and the knowledge of God.
This is my understanding when I say “natural knowledge”. My Tibetan Book of the Dead, I Ching, Bible, and other religious texts have taught me that God’s existence is something that is self proving. We are born with knowledge of His existence; it in intrinsic knowledge. Attachment to suffering, ego, and material life clouds our vision. Knowledge of God is something that can be obscured.
God becomes clear when we detach ourselves from our ego; this is the process of discovering God.
Do theists agree that knowledge of God is natural knowledge? What do atheists think of this concept? Does it seem silly?

Click to expand...

I think that a predisposition for believing in Gods, or other agencies, is natural. It appears to have provided survival advantages, and that is why it has probably been naturally selected.

ciao

- viole

Xavier Graham SA said:

I would like to discuss natural knowledge and the knowledge of God.
This is my understanding when I say “natural knowledge”. My Tibetan Book of the Dead, I Ching, Bible, and other religious texts have taught me that God’s existence is something that is self proving. We are born with knowledge of His existence; it in intrinsic knowledge. Attachment to suffering, ego, and material life clouds our vision. Knowledge of God is something that can be obscured.
God becomes clear when we detach ourselves from our ego; this is the process of discovering God.
Do theists agree that knowledge of God is natural knowledge? What do atheists think of this concept? Does it seem silly?

Click to expand...

I agree it's natural knowledge, but there is also other proofs.

For example, we as in our personhood can only be maintained and seen truly fully and objectively valued in God's vision. We have objective value. Therefore God exists.

Also, I do believe the design of earth, stars, galaxies, sun and moon, animals, interconnection of nature, mountains, make a case for God. I am aware of the scientific explanations, I'm not convinced, and believe there is holes in theories trying to account for these things and they are obvious if reflected about but people are so swayed by scientific authority, they can't see design for what it is.

I believe camels, horses, dogs, cats, were not domesticated over years from wild forms and the proof you can show it to be impossible by showing the pathway is too improbable. I don't believe fruits we have all were once super toxic for humans and were over time through farming became natural. There is plenty of proofs this not the case.

I also believe the stars, sun, moon, earth rotating in precise way, shows a designer, if you saw a watch, with precise time, you would not think it's random. And I know the natural physic explanations for them, but believe there is holes in them and intuitively you can see the motion in the universe is designed.

Stars planets, the cosmos, all these are proofs.

We lost the design intuition because of "scientific theories", but these theories have holes mainly due to design. Design is not "it's too complex, so must be designed", that is one form of argument of design but that is a fallacious way. There is many other ways of detecting design ,like seeing a painting type design out of a painting. This has nothing to do with complexicity. There is also binary things like consciousness and systems in biology.

Another way is to see when over all thing everything from mountains keeping stability to horses we ride, etc, all don't have to exist, and we are lucky to have them, the luck adds up. The design becomes too obvious. The earth and 24 hour clock it maintains is not even known how by anyone till this day. Sure you can make up a theory, but in reality, it's obvious the precision is designed.

Planets maintaining their rotations, earth maintain it's rotation, sun maintaining, all this is signs. But people are so far gone in "science" authority, they can't see it.

Xavier Graham SA said:

I would like to discuss natural knowledge and the knowledge of God.
This is my understanding when I say “natural knowledge”. My Tibetan Book of the Dead, I Ching, Bible, and other religious texts have taught me that God’s existence is something that is self proving. We are born with knowledge of His existence; it in intrinsic knowledge. Attachment to suffering, ego, and material life clouds our vision. Knowledge of God is something that can be obscured.
God becomes clear when we detach ourselves from our ego; this is the process of discovering God.
Do theists agree that knowledge of God is natural knowledge? What do atheists think of this concept? Does it seem silly?

Click to expand...

I like the way that our inner capacity can be stated in many ways and each person sees what is offered in a different light.

The Baha'i Writings offer that this natural knowledge is the potential we are all created with, that we are born on the edge of darkness and the beginning of light.

That inbuilt knowledge does require education to release its full potential, otherwise we are a lamp without the light. The world is like the dross upon the glass of the lamp.

Regards Tony

ChristineM said:

God books telling you god is inate in humans at birth. I think not. We are born with no knowledge of complex matters, essentially a blank slate that can breath, suckle and poop.

Knowledge of god is introduced by parents and peers when the child is old enough to start accepting abstract ideas.


So no, its not what you call natural, it is taught.

I dont particularly think it's silly but rather it lacks understand of the human brain.

Click to expand...

I like to consider that if the potential is not there in the first place, it can not be taught.

Like, no matter how much you teach and ape, it will never have the ability of scientific advancement, it has a given capacity it can not divert from.

If the potential is there, then it can be found and this is what I see the Bahai Writings have explained in detail and yes it is education that can help us find that potential, just as we train animals to find a potential, we also need a trainer.

That is also a concept of the Manifestation and why they have come.

Regards Tony