God vs. customized God

[TashaN]

Yes. But it's not limited to Muslims. Though we are confusing things, as the whole point of this thread was for it not to be about the God of Islam. I think people were even admonished for trying to read it that way. So what gives?

I said "for instance" and you can go back and check, because i can't speak for others and their beliefs, but when i speak about my religion "for instance" i can be sure of what i'm talking about and make examples based on that. That's because i notice someone in here saying that Christianity is not based on a scripture so i gave Islam as an example because i'm not the expert in other religions which have a solid laws which they depend in as the main source for their beliefs. Also, i gave "Islam" as an example because of your generalization as this statement of yours show clearly:

doppelgänger: There's not a collection of "standards and laws" that isn't created by people and imagined to be the standards and laws of "God."

Therefore, i don't know whether others imagine or not, but at least, i know that i don't.

Of course, you understand that there'd be no Islam without people feeling unsatisfied that their current religion wasn't working?

If you are unsatisfied, either you find the answers to your unsatisfiction, or you can just change your religion/god instead of blaming God.

What you are saying is that the only valid religious approach is to choose a pre-fabricated religion and stick to it. Why? No good reason other than resist the urge to claim that there are things wrong with the religion.

That's ONLY if you could prove that the religion your are referring to is pre-fabricated, otherwise, your claim doesn't hold water.

First, it's still a "customized God" no matter how you choose it, because it is still a product of your imagination.

We have a plain fallacy in here because you have to prove first that i'm *imagining* things, otherwise, this statement is pointless.

Second, why shouldn't you decide what you do and don't agree with?

Because you decided in the first place to adhere to this religion, and your knowledge is limited, but the knowledge of the one who gave you this law is unlimited, and you can't analyze and verify everything with your feeble limited knowledge. If you think its ridiculous that God would ask for a specific thing which you don't agree about, then probably you are worshipping a *customized* god, but not God.

That's how slavery, wars of religion, degradation of women, racism and all sorts of other injustices get perpetuated.

Just because there are other things which can work in this way, so that doesn't mean by anyway that it all will result on the same thing, as a knife can cut through a human being body, so that doesn't mean its useless to us. We will always still using this knife even thought we are aware that someone can use this knife to hurt other people. You will just quit using it?

Those laws are the "laws" simply because of a state of your mind. They are human creations, interpreted and applied by humans. If they are wrong, they should be changed. Period.

As you can prove that !!!

 

[PureX]

Unless God himself, the one who created us and know all about our ideas, make it so simple for us to comprehend and verify his existence.

But obviously that has not happened yet, as we have no way of verifying God's existence. And as to the part about God making it simple, we would still have no way of knowing if God were "making us comprehend" or if we were simply believing in our own fantasies. From our perspective, these would produce the exact same experience.

So all we really have is our own idea of "God", and the choice to hold onto that idea, or not to.

That's a very bold statement which you can't prove because its based on a plain assumption in your part.

It's based on my observation of others, and on my personal experience with "God". And the very fact that I can't "prove it" supports my conclusion rather than weakens it. That and the fact that you can't prove that God exists, nor that your concept of God in any way reflects the actuality of God if God does exist. And lacking that proof, all you have is an idea of God that you choose to believe is accurate, but that you can't prove the accuracy of to anyone else.

All what you have been saying so far is based on your assumptions and believing only in what you know assuming that others have got nothing but dishonest pretense which is absurd and unrealistic. Just because you can't prove what you believe in, that doesn't mean you can label others as being "pretending" or "dishonest".

I realize that you don't appreciate my referring to your beliefs as dishonest pretense. And I'm sorry about that. But so far I have seen nothing that would indicate to me that it's anything else.

There are a number of religious sects that teach that their pretense of God-knowledge is actual God-knowledge even though they cannot in any way show this to be so. And they claim that this pretense of God-knowledge is an act of "faith". Thus, any skepticism of that pretense is viewed as an assault on religious faith itself. But these religions are being dishonest in that faith is NOT the pretense of knowledge or experience. Faith is choosing to live as if what we hope to be true (about God, etc.), is true, even though we don't know this to be so. True faith is born in the awareness of our own ignorance, NOT in the pretense of possessing knowledge that we can't actually possess, or know that we possess.

Faith is a choice we make, to live according to a concept of God and truth that we can't actually know to be real or true. If we could know this, we wouldn't need faith, for we would have the assurance of knowledge. Religions that teach and preach this pretense of God-knowledge are actually negating the practice of faith, as well as denying our freedom of choice when it come to religious beliefs. They are trying to compel people to accept their beliefs as a factual reality, instead of as a hopeful vision, and in so doing they become dishonest and manipulative.

 

[TashaN]

But obviously that has not happened yet, as we have no way of verifying God's existence. And as to the part about God making it simple, we would still have no way of knowing if God were "making us comprehend" or if we were simply believing in our own fantasies. From our perspective, these would produce the exact same experience.

By verifying, do you mean that you want to prove that through science?

God is not something you can work on in the lab, God is the truth which we can feel throuhg our very existance. Anyway, i don't want for this thread to be about whether God exit or not because i can see that we will get no where with that unless you can prove your position that God doesn't exist. Then we can go through your points. Your points are based on your assumption that God doesn't exist and about the pretence theory of yours, and you have to prove that because the one who claim have to bring the evidence as you all know. Otherise, you have to accept my assumption that God exist, and we can go on about those who wants to create their own personal god who can fulfill all their realstic and unrealstic desires.

By the way, freedom is not something you can define as good or bad on its own unless you act upon it to make it good or bad.

 

[michel]

I used to hear people complaining about God, and each one try to define God on his/her own without any basic understanding for the real meaning of God, and they want to believe in a customized God instead, designed to please them, but not in God whom they should obey and worship, thinking this is how God should behave.

When you tell them that they are refusing to believe in God and they are denying his existance, they say God should do and should not certian things in order to believe in him, and they think they know better than God, have knowledge *maybe* which God doesn't.

If they didn't even create themselves then how come they are trying to teach God how he should act, and they start questioning and judging him?

So the question is, do you want to believe in the real God, or the one whom YOU think to be the real one according to your own standard and values?

To be truthful, I believe in what I believe is the real God - with my limited ability (as a human) to understand him better than I do.

 

[PureX]

By verifying, do you mean that you want to prove that through science?

Proof is not a function of science. The scientific process does not produce proof. It produces observable probabilities. "Proof" is a function of logical reasoning, tested for accuracy against observable probabilities. Establishing the probability of the existence of "God" would be a theological task, and theology is a sub-category of philosophy rather than science.

God is not something you can work on in the lab, God is the truth which we can feel through our very existence.

I disagree with the latter part of that statement. Though I agree that truthfulness can be felt in the sense that it can be intuited, I do not believe that actual truth can be verified or established by our intuitions. The actual truth is what is, regardless and apart from us and our intuitions. The existence of "God" as a truth, means that God exists regardless and apart from what we think or how we feel. Thus, the verification of God's actual existence cannot rely solely on how we feel about God existing.

Anyway, i don't want for this thread to be about whether God exit or not because i can see that we will get no where with that unless you can prove your position that God doesn't exist.

I am not asserting that God does not exist. I am only asserting that a human being can't know if God exists or not, and therefor can't know what is God's nature or character, either. And I am asserting that without this knowledge, all a man has is his IDEA of God, and the choice to hold onto it, and live by it, or not to. What I am asserting is that there is no way or reason for anyone to adopt a belief in God except by faith and choice, as actual knowledge is not available. And I am also asserting that any religion that claims to possess a knowledge of God, is being dishonest, and is especially so if they also claim that to "believe in" their claim is to practice faith. It isn't. To believe in such a claim is to practice pretense, not faith.

You keep asking me to "prove it". Proof in this case is a function of logical reasoning. And I have clearly presented my reasoning, here. So you may now explain where my logic is flawed, and why you think so.

By the way, freedom is not something you can define as good or bad on its own unless you act upon it to make it good or bad.

I would maintain that to any intelligent human being, freedom of choice is an intrinsic good. It's the results of those choices that are relatively good or bad, depending upon perspective.

 

[Random]

I would maintain that to any intelligent human being, freedom of choice is an intrinsic good. It's the results of those choices that are relatively good or bad, depending upon perspective.

Well, I won't vouch for my own intelligence, but I believe that although freedom of choice is provisionally necessary to enable each person's manifest destiny and evolution, the real task @ hand is to learn how choice perpetuates the conflicts that reinforce the illusion of seperation and duality that is the source of all dissatisfaction and suffering. Thus, to learn to transcend this one must surrender choice @ some point and allow the Self that clings to false "realities" of its own making to dissolve like salt into the waters of the matrix, or womb. This is real transcendence, the implicit beginning and end of the mystic path, called by some "Egodeath".

I have a saying that pertains to this paradox called choice:

Too much choice is not choice @ all​

Don't be tricked: so long as you are making choices to affect the outcomes of Events, you are in the grip of Determinism, a victim of causality.​

Break free.​

 

[PureX]

Well, I won't vouch for my own intelligence, but I believe that although freedom of choice is provisionally necessary to enable each person's manifest destiny and evolution, the real task @ hand is to learn how choice perpetuates the conflicts that reinforce the illusion of seperation and duality that is the source of all dissatisfaction and suffering. Thus, to learn to transcend this one must surrender choice @ some point and allow the Self that clings to false "realities" of its own making to dissolve like salt into the waters of the matrix, or womb. This is real transcendence, the implicit beginning and end of the mystic path, called by some "Egodeath".

I have a saying that pertains to this paradox called choice:

Too much choice is not choice @ all​

Don't be tricked: so long as you are making choices to affect the outcomes of Events, you are in the grip of Determinism, a victim of causality.​

Break free.​

You are defining choice by it's subsequent action, while I am defining choice as awareness, before the act is taken. A mind without an awareness of choice is dead, and ineffectual. Likewise, a mind that is capable of conceptualizing many choices for any given circumstance, exhibits great awareness, and is therefor likely to be highly effective.

 

[Random]

You are defining choice by it's subsequent action, while I am defining choice as awareness, before the act is taken. A mind without an awareness of choice is dead, and ineffectual. Likewise, a mind that is capable of conceptualizing many choices for any given circumstance, exhibits great awareness, and is therefor likely to be highly effective.

Interesting. You assign the value of "awareness" to choice, yet not spirit. I think this is an error, no disrespect. Pure awareness is choiceless: if this were not so, how then could the choice end conflict (ie. resolve the issue that necessitated it)?

Having options in a given circumstances might make one more effective in an evolutionary sense, indeed this is partly the reason choice prevades human affairs, but to my understanding the human intellect alone is insufficient to grasp the almost infinite sequence of consequences that may result from choices made in even the simplest situations. Thus, without expansion of ones Awareness, choice begats conflict and duality much like a hole being dug that just gets deeper and deeper...

Nice answer though, PureX.

 

[doppelganger]

Well, as I believe there is a real world out there outside of our delusions and imagination, one can [and do] be certain of things. As I'm certain the cosmos function a certain way, one merely need find the right glasses to see it through.

On what basis do you believe it to be certain?

And is there such a thing as a world inside "of our delusions and imagination?

 

[PureX]

Interesting. You assign the value of "awareness" to choice, yet not spirit. I think this is an error, no disrespect. Pure awareness is choice-less: if this were not so, how then could the choice end conflict (ie. resolve the issue that necessitated it)?

I disagree with this assessment.

Choice comes from the WAY the human mind thinks. We think basically by comparing and contrasting information sets (given to us through sensual experiences, and then collected and held for us as memory). We compare and contrast these information sets to "identify" them, and to evaluate them, so that we will know how to react to them more effectively (according to our own needs and desires). The recognition of choices, then, is the direct product of an active human mind. And the more broadly the mind is able to compare and contrast sets of information, the more possibilities (choices) it will conceive of, and I believe, the more effectively it will enable that person to pursue and obtain his needs/desires.

Having options in a given circumstances might make one more effective in an evolutionary sense, indeed this is partly the reason choice pervades human affairs, but to my understanding the human intellect alone is insufficient to grasp the almost infinite sequence of consequences that may result from choices made in even the simplest situations. Thus, without expansion of ones Awareness, choice begets conflict and duality much like a hole being dug that just gets deeper and deeper...

But there are no choices without awareness. Awareness is in part the awareness of possible courses of action relative to a given circumstance. Awareness is the result of the intellectual act of comparing and contrasting to identify and evaluate: of the process of "understanding" one's place in relation to one's environment.

The awareness of the possible courses of action (choices) does not require that we be able to foresee the outcomes of these various courses of action. That's a function of an even greater level of awareness (a level of awareness based on probabilities, rather then on immediate experience). As human beings we also are capable of some degree of functional efficiency on that level as well, but that's for another discussion.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I used to hear people complaining about God, and each one try to define God on his/her own without any basic understanding for the real meaning of God, and they want to believe in a customized God instead, designed to please them, but not in God whom they should obey and worship, thinking this is how God should behave.

When you tell them that they are refusing to believe in God and they are denying his existence, they say God should do and should not certain things in order to believe in him, and they think they know better than God, have knowledge *maybe* which God doesn't.

If they didn't even create themselves then how come they are trying to teach God how he should act, and they start questioning and judging him?

So the question is, do you want to believe in the real God, or the one whom YOU think to be the real one according to your own standard and values?

Most excellent thread. I agree 100% with what The Truth says here.

The Christian God, Muslim God and the Jewish God are one and the same. We all agree with the writings of Moses. How we have become so different and polarised is not what God would have wanted.

Everything that all of us do in the name of God, can not be pleasing to him. I wish there was a way to go back to the point of where we all agree and treat each other like God would want us to.

None of us can say with out a doubt that we have things 100% right. The arrogance to think that after thousands of years, that mistakes were not made in regards to our understanding of what God would have wanted is astounding.

It is my wish that we all could be closer to agreeing about what God wants at least to a level that would avoid a holy war.

Make no mistake about it, if we do not focus on the common ground we all agree upon, there will be a holy war and none of us will be living a better life because of it on this planet in the near future.

 

[TashaN]

I disagree with the latter part of that statement. Though I agree that truthfulness can be felt in the sense that it can be intuited, I do not believe that actual truth can be verified or established by our intuitions. The actual truth is what is, regardless and apart from us and our intuitions. The existence of "God" as a truth, means that God exists regardless and apart from what we think or how we feel. Thus, the verification of God's actual existence cannot rely solely on how we feel about God existing.

And i didn't claim it was the sole way to know the existance of God but one of the ways to know Him.

I am not asserting that God does not exist. I am only asserting that a human being can't know if God exists or not, and therefor can't know what is God's nature or character, either. And I am asserting that without this knowledge, all a man has is his IDEA of God, and the choice to hold onto it, and live by it, or not to.

Then you are asserting now that human beings are not capable of knowing whether God exit or not, and you couldn't even prove this assertion.

There are things which no body can deny as a fact, such as soul and death but we can still feel it even though we can't see it, and that's how we feel God.

There is no certain knowledge with those who deny or have doubt about the existance of God, and therefore, have no right either to prove or deny Him, because anyone without knowledge will have just doubts.

What I am asserting is that there is no way or reason for anyone to adopt a belief in God except by faith and choice, as actual knowledge is not available.

My teacher, Abdul Rahman Al-Aqil said in his book "You will never be an atheist" the followings:

Lets assume that faith doesn't considered to be a valid proof for the sake of the argument, yet, there is alot of reasons why we have to believe in God, and how we can get this knowledge about him.

1- The need for a dogma, and this need will be known through a practical proof, and that's a plain philosophy for our religion, Islam.

George santayana said that, the dogma of a human being might be a myth, but this myth itself is good as long as this life will be great with it, and the goodness of this life is much greater than the righteous of logic. Kant also said that the faith in God is a faith in the obligation, which means, if a human being didn't believe in God, so he will have nothing to be obligated with. That's why Ibn Hazm--one of the great muslim scholars and thinkers in the past--said, put your trust on a faithful person even if he was from a different religion. Therefore, all the goodness is in believing in God because its an absolute goodness.

2- "Just in case": lets assume that someone have a doubt about God existance, but at the same time, he believe--just in case--to spare himself from any sort of the so called punishment--assuming that what the believrs believe in is true. This theory is well known in the west by Pascal's Wager which states that "it is a better "bet" to believe that God exists than not to believe, because the expected value of believing (which Pascal assessed as infinite) is always greater than the expected value of not believing".

3- The importance of the psychological dogma: Dr. Henry C. Link, famed New York psychologist, urges religion as a practical cure for social maladjustment and other ills. When in faith and understanding we realize that we are all children of God, despite race or nationality, and that without prejudice we all have equal access to the person and power of God, we are better able to take our places among men.

Abdul Rahman Al-Aqil says, all that was about the concept of the belief in God from a modern western point of view, and about a comparison between the belief and disbelief.

And I am also asserting that any religion that claims to possess a knowledge of God, is being dishonest, and is especially so if they also claim that to "believe in" their claim is to practice faith. It isn't. To believe in such a claim is to practice pretense, not faith.

You keep asking me to "prove it". Proof in this case is a function of logical reasoning. And I have clearly presented my reasoning, here. So you may now explain where my logic is flawed, and why you think so.

Your logic is flawed because it based on your experince "only" as it appear to me with one religion or more, and you are not aware of all kind of beliefs in God because what you might encountred might be a belief in a "customized god" but not God, and by default, your assertion, that human beings don't have this knowledge of God and can't be aware of it is invalid because you are not fully aware of what all human beings know or are capable of.

I would maintain that to any intelligent human being, freedom of choice is an intrinsic good. It's the results of those choices that are relatively good or bad, depending upon perspective.

Is anyone free to murder people? its a free choice to do that action, isn't it?

 

[TashaN]

I have a saying that pertains to this paradox called choice:

Too much choice is not choice @ all​

Don't be tricked: so long as you are making choices to affect the outcomes of Events, you are in the grip of Determinism, a victim of causality.​

Break free.​

Well said. :clap

 

[Quiddity]

On what basis do you believe it to be certain?

On nothing more then a relationship.

And is there such a thing as a world inside "of our delusions and imagination?

I believe there is...

 

[doppelganger]

I believe there is...

How would you identify or define it?

 

[Quiddity]

How would you identify or define it?

The way I identify it is if I can't rationalize it and if it has little, if no basis in what is agreed to be real.

 

[doppelganger]

The way I identify it is if I can't rationalize it

What do you mean by "rationalize it"? I'm not sure I follow.

and if it has little, if no basis in what is agreed to be real.

By what means are things "agreed to be real"?

 

[Quiddity]

What do you mean by "rationalize it"? I'm not sure I follow.

That I'm unable to apply the rules of logic and probabilities to it. In addition to those emperical methods that produce repetitive consistant results.

It's a belief that I subscribe to that I do not fully understand.

By what means are things "agreed to be real"?

Probability, experience, and trust.

 

[PureX]

Then you are asserting now that human beings are not capable of knowing whether God exit or not, and you couldn't even prove this assertion.

I was always asserting this, and the fact that I can't prove it actually lends credibility to my assertion. But even more credibility comes to my assertion from that fact that those who claim that we CAN "know God" can't prove their assertions, either.

There are things which no body can deny as a fact, such as soul and death but we can still feel it even though we can't see it, and that's how we feel God.

There are many who can deny the existence of a "soul", and the fact of death doesn't become a fact because of anything we feel, but because of direct objective observation. We can know that our death is almost certainly inevitable because we can observe it in others.

There is no certain knowledge with those who deny or have doubt about the existence of God, and therefore, have no right either to prove or deny Him, because anyone without knowledge will have just doubts.

Doubt is irrelevant to the discussion. We have doubt because we cannot have absolute knowledge of anything. But this discussion isn't about absolute knowledge, it's about relative knowledge. To possess relative knowledge of something, one must have some form of direct objective experience of it. Since we human beings do not have direct OBJECTIVE experience of "God", that we can identify as such, we cannot possess knowledge of God. And the reason that objective experience in necessary, is because the question of God's existence is defined as God existing regardless of and independent of our conceptions of God.

The only way to verify that God exists as an independent phenomenon, is to experience God as such: objectively. And no one has ever verified having done so, because we are too limited to do so.



My teacher, Abdul Rahman Al-Aqil said in his book "You will never be an atheist" the followings:

Lets assume that faith doesn't considered to be a valid proof for the sake of the argument, yet, there is alot of reasons why we have to believe in God, and how we can get this knowledge about him.

1- The need for a dogma, and this need will be known through a practical proof, and that's a plain philosophy for our religion, Islam.[/QUOTE]I see no reason that anyone would "need" to believe in the existence of God, unless they were mentally or emotionally ill. In which case I believe that other solutions could be found and that would be effective. The simple practice of faith, without the object of a deity, would work for such a person just as well as the practice of faith with a deity.

2- "Just in case": lets assume that someone have a doubt about God existence, but at the same time, he believe--just in case--to spare himself from any sort of the so called punishment--assuming that what the believers believe in is true. This theory is well known in the west by Pascal's Wager which states that "it is a better "bet" to believe that God exists than not to believe, because the expected value of believing (which Pascal assessed as infinite) is always greater than the expected value of not believing".

Pascal's Wager has long since been debunked. Basically, it's a "what if" question. And what if questions are limitless. "What if the Heaven's Gate people were right and Jesus really was waiting for us all in that space ship behind the Hale-Bop Comet?" If so, then we've missed the mother-ship and are doomed to hell. You see what I mean? The threat of the possible "what if" scenarios are limitless, and are therefor meaningless. We have to live by what we know, because what we don't know is boundless.

3- The importance of the psychological dogma: Dr. Henry C. Link, famed New York psychologist, urges religion as a practical cure for social maladjustment and other ills. When in faith and understanding we realize that we are all children of God, despite race or nationality, and that without prejudice we all have equal access to the person and power of God, we are better able to take our places among men.

But we don't have any access to "God". All we have are ideas about what God might be like if God exists, and no way to test these ideas because God is an "omni-dimensional phenomena" and we are not. So we really have no way of cognating "God" as we typically define God.

If God stood right in front of me, and said "I am God", how could I possibly test and verify this assertion? There is no way for me to do so. No matter what "God" did or said I could still be suffering from some mental disorder causing me to have hallucinations. Or this phenomenon could be some space alien that has advanced technology beyond my comprehension. Or I could be experiencing a demon. Or this could be some different phenomena all together, that I am completely unable to recognize or label. And there would be no way for me to prove or disprove ANY of these OTHER possibilities, because from my perspective I would experience them all exactly the same way.

I simply am not capable of verifying the existence of God. And neither is anyone else, because they are just as human, and just as limited as I am.

Your logic is flawed because it based on your experience "only" as it appear to me with one religion or more, and you are not aware of all kind of beliefs in God because what you might encountered might be a belief in a "customized god" but not God, and by default, your assertion, that human beings don't have this knowledge of God and can't be aware of it is invalid because you are not fully aware of what all human beings know or are capable of.

My logic is NOT based solely on my experience, but on my observations of the experiences of others, as well. And in fact, I defy you to find ONE SINGLE HUMAN BEING, anywhere, who can prove that they can know that God exists. You can't do it. No one you know can do it. No one throughout all of human history has ever done it. And I can't do it either.

This is the evidence I present to back up my assertion that we humans are not capable of verifying the nature or existence of God. You keep saying this isn't good enough, but I notice that you have not yet proven that God exists, or even proven that you can know that God exists. All you do is remind me that I can't prove that God does not exist, which was never my intent, and which only serves to support my assertion, anyway.

Is anyone free to murder people? its a free choice to do that action, isn't it?

You are confusing the value of the action with the recognition of choice. The recognition of the choice is always good. The actions chosen as a result of that awareness of choice are not always good.

 

[TashaN]

I was always asserting this, and the fact that I can't prove it actually lends credibility to my assertion. But even more credibility comes to my assertion from that fact that those who claim that we CAN "know God" can't prove their assertions, either.

If both can't prove it, so both have to acknowledge each other, and that's what i did in here when i said God exit as a separte being and my statement will stand as long as you didn't bring up any argument which state that God doesn't exist.

There are many who can deny the existence of a "soul", and the fact of death doesn't become a fact because of anything we feel, but because of direct objective observation. We can know that our death is almost certainly inevitable because we can observe it in others.

And you can't observe your very existance?

Don't tell me you came to this world by chance?

You came out of nothing to be a perfect human being.

Since we human beings do not have direct OBJECTIVE experience of "God", that we can identify as such, we cannot possess knowledge of God.

The only way to verify that God exists as an independent phenomenon, is to experience God as such: objectively. And no one has ever verified having done so, because we are too limited to do so.

Unless God himself sent prophets and messengers to us with this knowledge, so simple.

You see what I mean? The threat of the possible "what if" scenarios are limitless, and are therefor meaningless. We have to live by what we know, because what we don't know is boundless.

Of course the "what if" case have to be based on reason and a solid base but not just anything in our mind.

But we don't have any access to "God". All we have are ideas about what God might be like if God exists, and no way to test these ideas because God is an "omni-dimensional phenomena" and we are not. So we really have no way of cognating "God" as we typically define God.

He allow his prophets to recieve knowledge from him, and then they possesed this knowledge to us. Anyway, point number two was an assertion that believing in God is much better than not believing in him, whether you can be sure that God exist or not.

I simply am not capable of verifying the existence of God. And neither is anyone else, because they are just as human, and just as limited as I am.

You don't have to meet God, you can observe his very existance through his creation.

My logic is NOT based solely on my experience, but on my observations of the experiences of others, as well. And in fact, I defy you to find ONE SINGLE HUMAN BEING, anywhere, who can prove that they can know that God exists. You can't do it. No one you know can do it. No one throughout all of human history has ever done it. And I can't do it either.

Most of people on earth blieve that God exist, and at least, i know someone who know that he exit, because he talked to him, he is prophet Mohammed "peace be upon him", and many prophets before him.

You are confusing the value of the action with the recognition of choice. The recognition of the choice is always good. The actions chosen as a result of that awareness of choice are not always good.

Freedom in origin is not good nor bad, but it depends on how you use that freedom.