• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Legitimate reasons not to believe in God

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What is a person supposed to do, if they happen to believe in God? Pretend that they don't?

No. But that's immaterial to whether or not a god belief can be rationally or empirically justified. Remember, I'm not asking you to give up your god belief. I don't even recommend it. I'm just saying that you, like all other Abrahamic theists, come to your belief by a method that doesn't generate sound conclusions - faith (insufficiently justified belief). You don't have to defend doing that to me. I have explained that not only do I not mind what others believe if their beliefs don't bleed into my life, I would consider leading you away from them unkind. I have no fear that that will happen whatever I write.

I write it to show you that your definition of rational is not the same as that of critical thought. You call beliefs rational or justified without them meeting those standards, the standards atheists use to conclude that the evidence for gods is insufficient to justify belief. If you learn and apply those rules, the only possible rational conclusion is agnostic atheism. If you've come to another position, you've made a leap of faith, including if you're an atheist who says that there is no god or gods. That is also not the conclusion of any sound argument.

You may call it "a whim" if you like, but it relies on rational inference of circumstantial evidence.

I disagree. You keep saying that, as do many other believers, who also describe their thinking as critical and their conclusions as rational, but one can identify and name the fallacies in their thinking. Everybody who claims that they have evidence of god sufficient to justify belief is unaware of what that would be. How do I know? They point to evidence consistent with a godless universe. They point to scripture that could have easily been written by men. They point to a cosmos that scientists describe without reference to gods. If that cosmos were evidence for a god, the god would appear in the theory to account for it. That's the ID people were looking for - a finding that required intelligent design, irreducible complexity. If one finds a biological system that could not have arisen stepwise through a series of beneficial mutations, as would be the case if a dog gave birth to a non-dog without human intervention (or any other find that falsifies Darwin's theory), then you have compelling evidence for an intelligent designer.

But they don't have that, yet call what they have evidence for a god anyway.

Some people see reasons for disbelief .. lack of empirical proof, for example .. and others see reasons for belief, such as believing that Jesus and/or Muhammad are who they claim to be. There is no "one size fits all", as you suggest.

Yes, I know. We don't all process information the same way, and thus have different beliefs about what is true about the world. My point, as you likely know by now, is that there is only one method that connects evidence to sound conclusions about its significance. Take that path, and you're an agnostic atheist. Use any other method and hold any other belief because of it, and you arrive at unsound (insufficiently justified) beliefs

If there was no evidence of God, then how could I believe

By faith, like every other theist. I have the same evidence you have, and it takes me to agnostic atheism, like everybody else trained in critical thinking. It's a method or pathway, like a recipe is a path from ingredients to an entree. There's not much wiggle room there if one wants to prepare the dish properly. I watch a show called Bar Rescue that you may have been seen. Outside experts in business, mixology, and food preparation rescue failing bars.

The bartenders are generally all over the place with their drink recipes, and the drinks don't taste the same or good - too strong or weak, too sweet or sour, etc. Then they learn a protocol connecting ingredients to a finished bar drink, and if they can stick to it, they all make the same drink and it's to perfection. This is analogous to the information processing we're discussing. Do it according to the rules of critical thought, and you end up with the same sound conclusion as others. Start improvising and come up with other beliefs, all different from one another, like the drinks made by undisciplined bartenders.

You might enjoy this (7-minute) video of a bar rescue, where the expert mixologist is first testing the crew on their margaritas, and then giving them a recipe to follow so that they all produce the same perfect drink every time, just as critical though produces sound conclusions every time if done according to protocol. The drink lesson occupies the first two minutes, then the consulting chef does something similar for the kitchen staff. Excellence and consistency is the goal there as it is in critical thinking:


I just can't believe that. It is not that I don't want to believe it.

I had written, "Eventually, one becomes comfortable with the idea that the universe may contain no gods at all, and then face and eventually accept the very real possibility that we may be vulnerable and not watched over and that consciousness ends with death." OK, but hopefully you recognize that as limitation. Others can accept that possibility. They realize that that might be the case, meaning that their thinking is more flexible and more consistent with pure reason, which allows for that possibility.

Not everybody believes in God due to tradition only.

It doesn't matter what reasons people give for believing in gods. They are not sound arguments. Maybe you might give that idea a little more of your attention. Is it correct? If so, does that matter? If you know that it is not - that there is a sound argument that concludes, "therefore God" - you can present that sound argument here.

You shouldn't assume that all believers make "unsound conclusions", just because you are aware of many that do.

I've told you why being a theist is an unsound position in every case. If you would resolve that as I just described, and realize that you have no such sound argument for gods, you might stop implying that you or any other theist does. There is no such thing.

Perhaps it is enough not to dismiss the possibility that God exists

Do you think I have done that? Do you think that I believe that there are no gods? Most theists make that claim about atheists no matter how many times one shows them that the opposite is the case, as I have done (options [5] and [6] in the previous post). Hopefully, you know better.

Would you say that you have dismissed the possibility that gods MIGHT NOT exist?
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
The problem with your thinking is that you value this weak evidence that supports your existing beliefs but ignore the evidence that counters your belief. That is a bias that critical thinkers avoid.
I agree. I often ask them about a NT verse that says there will be wars and rumors of wars but that is not yet the end. What can they do with that verse but try to explain it away or ignore, since they believe their prophet is that end-time Messiah....

If your interest was to have the most likely understanding of what is true you would be open to all the evidence. Notice you never cite anything that would be evidence for Hinduism being true even though it has many bits of evidence that you use for your Bahai beliefs.

Using your thinking approach anyone can believe any religion is true. And they do. You don’t give other religions the time of day even though they are as valid as yours.
The Baha'i Faith does try to tie in Hinduism and all the other major religions, but to do so, they have to explain away or ignore the differences and only look at some very general things that all religions have in common.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
That's somewhat interesting, but I have no idea how Baha'i ideas of religion really apply to my point. As I mentioned, Hinduism is the oldest codified religion, but there are surviving mythological beliefs, such as the Aboriginal Dreamtime, that have been orally passed down, lack prophets, and are considerably older than Hinduism.
The growth, survival, or otherwise of these is consistently tied to the fate of the peoples with whom these religions originated, and with secular cycles of conquest, trade and migration. I see little correlation to the presence of prophets.
Not only do Baha'is pretty much ignore most of Hindu beliefs and their various Gods and Goddesses, but they also ignore the other sects of Hinduism that don't follow Krishna. But even with the Hindus that follow Krishna, Baha'is ignore the incarnations that came before Krishna. Then there's a problem with how many incarnations will come after Krishna. Buddha is number nine and Kalki is number 10. So where is there room for Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah? Too much of the Baha'i Faith is dependent on just being close to what the other religions say. And for Baha'is, that's close enough. Which is fine for believers, but does close enough work for critical thinkers?
 
Last edited:

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
You did. You claimed the statement "there is no proof God exists" is subject to knowing truth
No. The OP claimed there was no proof God exists, and I said it depends upon what you count as proof. Then I said you couldn't prove God anyway, because to prove God was true you'd have to prove truth was. I said this knowing that truth could not be proven true in order to make the point that God isn't something you prove or believe in because of proofs.

Its something you believe and then based upon that belief determine what you can about it. God is an axiom not a result, despite what alchemy people might claim about constructing proofs of God. They might claim there are ontologies or other ees to prove God exists, but God's lack of definable characteristics precludes it. There can be no proof and no unproof.
 

muhammad_isa

Well-Known Member
I'm just saying that you, like all other Abrahamic theists, come to your belief by a method that doesn't generate sound conclusions - faith (insufficiently justified belief).
To me, faith is not like "a club" which you might belong to.
It is something that we all have about things we believe to be true .. whether they are actually true or not.
eg. I have faith in my doctor, because he has experience etc.

I write it to show you that your definition of rational is not the same as that of critical thought. You call beliefs rational or justified without them meeting those standards, the standards atheists use to conclude that the evidence for gods is insufficient to justify belief.
..and what "rules" are they?
Does it include "scientific detection of God", or experiencing miracles first-hand?

If you've come to another position, you've made a leap of faith, including if you're an atheist who says that there is no god or gods. That is also not the conclusion of any sound argument.
People believe things for varying reasons.
Some people might "receive" the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues, and the congregation work up a frenzy etc. and a person is convinced they are born again. That is one scenario.

Another, is that a person might study many scriptures and supporting historical texts, and make reasoned arguments about how they support a certain creed. A completely different reason for believing what they believe,

..so "a leap of faith" can be the result of an emotional feeling or the result of extensive research .. they are not equivalent.
There needs to be a balance. "I know because God spoke to me .. or I can feel it" is not acceptable to me. I take a more scholarly approach, although academia has no benefit without a sincere intention in the first place.
We can't all be believers or disbelievers or have the same creed .. the mind/soul is complex, and has limitations.
Sometimes, we might not want to know the complete truth, as it might mean losing status or damage us socially etc.
Nobody is entirely pure in intention. We are human.

..They point to evidence consistent with a godless universe. They point to scripture that could have easily been written by men. They point to a cosmos that scientists describe without reference to gods. If that cosmos were evidence for a god, the god would appear in the theory to account for it..
Why would it?
Does one need to know what is responsible for natural laws in order to observe them? No.
If you believe that the probability that Jesus and Muhammad were deluded or fraudulent .. or the Bible and Qur'an are some clever schemes of men to deceive .. then that's what you believe.

People who believe it are not being irrational .. the only thing that they might be guilty of is misplaced trust.

My point, as you likely know by now, is that there is only one method that connects evidence to sound conclusions about its significance. Take that path, and you're an agnostic atheist.
That's just skepticism .. you'd rather not believe in God, and assume all scripture is untrue, because it can't be empirically proved.
It doesn't make any value judgments upon the likelihood of one belief being more likely than another. You just reject the lot .. no definite proof. We are not all like that.

..By faith, like every other theist. I have the same evidence you have, and it takes me to agnostic atheism..
You don't have the same evidence as me.
We have lived different lives .. know different things .. and travelled [or not] to here or there .. and so on.

Yes .. you and I might have read the Bible or Qur'an .. and we evaluate it according to our perceptions, differently.

It's a method or pathway, like a recipe is a path from ingredients to an entree..
I assume you refer to the "scientific method"..
..perhaps you and I have a different set of data to analyse.

It doesn't matter what reasons people give for believing in gods. They are not sound arguments..
No, of course not .. if I can't prove God exists, then why should I claim that He does?
However, I'm not making a scientific claim .. I firmly believe that God exists because of Bible/Quran has nothing to do with scientific fact.

I don't believe Jesus is God and God shed blood on a cross, because..
1. the Qur'an says so
2. I don't find it coherent

says nothing about whether God exists. It is about creed/detail.

If you know that it is not - that there is a sound argument that concludes, "therefore God" - you can present that sound argument here.
I find that boring myself.
Scientific proof applies to observations in the universe .. not to the concept of God who creates/maintains.
One either believes the claims about God in Bible/Quran, or they don't.

Would you say that you have dismissed the possibility that gods MIGHT NOT exist?

More or less. I believe that the prophets in the Bible and Qur'an are sent by God, and it is not "just stories" written by men to control others.
That is my belief. I find that the probability that the Qur'an is not of Divine origin highly unlikely.
Some say it is copy-cat of Bible stories .. if one studies in detail, it is hard to imagine that somebody has sat down and dreamed it all up .. changing a little here and there for good measure. :)
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
I'm not asking you to give up your god belief. I don't even recommend it.
I agree. Lots of people get a lot out of their religious beliefs.

I have explained that not only do I not mind what others believe if their beliefs don't bleed into my life
Unfortunately, too many religious do "bleed" into the lives of others. One religion says, "The end of the world near. Jesus is coming soon. Accept Jesus now before it's too late." Then another says, "The old-world order is crumbling all around us. A new world order is emerging. The Christ has returned with a new name. That name is Baha'u'llah. Accept him now and help bring peace to the world."

How can a person answer them? Some of us ask a question, "How do you know what you say is true?"
 

samtonga43

Well-Known Member
The ultimate answers simply aren't available. We don't know why there is something rather than nothing. If a god exists, we can't know why it exists. I can stop there. I can be content with the answer that I don't and can't know.

I can list the logical possibilities for the universe's past, but I can't rule any of them in or out. The universe may have always existed or may have come into existence uncaused. Or, it may have a prior source that is either conscious (a deity) or not (a multiverse), either of those also either having always existed or coming into existence from nothing. That's the best that reason can do at this time. Picking one of those and calling it the case is unjustified by evidence or reason. To do so is to believe by faith, or to take a leap of faith.
I don't know that God IS, but I do believe that God IS.
You don't know that God IS, but you do not believe that God IS.

My beliefs are those that it is appropriate for me to hold given the evidence to which I have been exposed.
Your beliefs are those that it is appropriate for you to hold given the evidence to which you have been exposed.

Would you agree?
 
Last edited:

samtonga43

Well-Known Member
I said: What you just outlined is the Christian concept of God and religion.
I did not say: What you just outlined is the only Christian concept of God and religion.

More correctly I could have said:
What you just outlined is one Christian concept of God and religion.
There I fixed it.
And hopefully you have learned from your mistake.
 

samtonga43

Well-Known Member
You asked for the context of a particular verse and that is exactly what I gave you.

Isaiah 45:7
Verse 7 of 25
< Prev 15 6 7 8 925 Next > View in Context
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

You did not ask for the historical setting, to whom it as addressed, or how was it understood at the time when it was written, or the outline and structure of the book, the chapter and then the paragraph..

You get what you ask for.

But I did not get what I asked for, because I asked for the context, which includes the historical setting, to whom it as addressed, or how was it understood at the time when it was written, or the outline and structure of the book, the chapter and then the paragraph..

7 Ways to Understand Bible Context
Why is it important to study the Bible in context? What is wrong with taking verses out of context? | GotQuestions.org

Read and Learn!
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
My beliefs are those that it is appropriate for me to hold given the evidence to which I have been exposed. Your beliefs are those that it is appropriate for you to hold given the evidence to which you have been exposed. Would you agree?

Appropriate isn't the word I would use. Perhaps expected or understandable would be. Your beliefs are understandable given the way you process evidence and your psychological needs, as are mine, but if those are different, then we will naturally come to different beliefs.

To me, faith is not like "a club" which you might belong to.

We all were born into that club. It's a natural way for children to think. As we age, we generally learn a little critical thinking as we begin to question some of the things we are told and devise little plans to test reality such as trying to stay awake Christmas eve to see if Santa really comes. A less skeptical kid might stay up to see Santa when he comes rather that to see if Santa is real.

But without an advanced formal education, where the methods of critical evaluation are learned, most never get to the point where they stop believing many things by faith. When one can do that - when one can evaluate any claim for soundness and is committed to believing only those that have been sufficiently justified by this method, then he has left the club.

It is something that we all have about things we believe to be true .. whether they are actually true or not.

We all start out that way. Some learn to avoid belief by faith. It's a pretty simple thing to do once one can determine which claims are justified and which are not. And by that time, one sees the value of belief only following justification by that method. It's why I can and will never take that leap of faith back into theism unless the way I think changes radically, and if that happens, it will likely be because I can no longer think that way. They say that atheist philosopher Antony Flew became a deist at the end of his life. He may have been demented. It's difficult to say. Something changed the way he processed evidence. From Wiki:
  • "Antony Flew was a British philosopher. Belonging to the analytic and evidentialist schools of thought, Flew worked on the philosophy of religion. For much of his career Flew was known as a strong advocate of atheism, arguing that one should presuppose atheism until evidence suggesting a God surfaces. He also criticized the idea of life after death and the meaningfulness of the concept of God. He was one of the signatories of the Humanist Manifesto III. However, in 2004 he changed his position, and stated that he now believed in the existence of an Intelligent Creator of the universe, shocking colleagues and fellow atheists. In order to further clarify his personal concept of God, Flew openly made an allegiance to Deism. He stated that in keeping his lifelong commitment to go where the evidence leads, he now believed in the existence of a God. In 2007 a book outlining his reasons for changing his position, There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind was written by Flew in collaboration with Roy Abraham Varghese. The book (and Flew's conversion to Deism) has been the subject of controversy, following an article in The New York Times Magazine alleging that Flew's intellect had declined due to senility, and that the book was primarily the work of Varghese; Flew himself specifically denied this, stating that the book represented his views; although he acknowledged that due to his age Varghese had done most of the actual work of writing the book."

I have faith in my doctor, because he has experience etc.

That's a different word spelled and pronounced as the one that means unjustified faith. The two words are homonyms.

Your trust is your doctor is based in evidence properly understood, and is thus justified. You have learned that people who acquire diplomas and certifications in medicine are capable of diagnosing and treating disease, and maybe you have had a successful personal experience with that particular physician in question. That is justified belief as long as one retains an element of skepticism - that this one doctor might be wrong or make a mistake, and that if this seems to be the case, to revise that level of trust and maybe seek help elsewhere. That's empiricism and critical thinking - correctly interpreting evidence - and I never call if faith to avoid equivocation errors due to ambiguity - which word do I mean when I say or write faith.

Now, if you also believe that he's going to heaven, you hold an unjustified belief based in religious-type faith.

what "rules" are they?

The rules of critical thinking are rules of inference. They are rules that transform correct statements into other correct statements. A classic from formal logic says that if all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal. It's what turns 2+2 into 4. It's how a Sudoku or Wordle is solved. It's how crimes are solved. If Bill was in London on the date of a crime committed at the same time in New York, Bill didn't pull the trigger. In each case, prior statements (premises such as those two based in evidence) are converted into their implications in such a way that if the premises are correct, the inferences derived from them are as well.

Does it include "scientific detection of God", or experiencing miracles first-hand?

The rules evaluate whether such claims are justified and therefore fit to believe. By such rules, the critical thinker determines if such claims are justified and therefore believable, or not.

Why would it? Does one need to know what is responsible for natural laws in order to observe them? No.

I had written, "a cosmos that scientists describe without reference to gods. If that cosmos were evidence for a god, the god would appear in the theory to account for it."

No, one does not need to know the source or cause of the laws of nature to study and them and use them effectively to anticipate outcomes. Absent evidence that they are due to a deity, belief in deities is unjustified. The point is that even if deities exist, if they don't manifest as such, reference to them answers and predicts nothing, and therefore, according to Occam's principle of parsimony that eschews unhelpful complications of a scientific narrative, they do not appear in science anywhere.

If you believe that the probability that Jesus and Muhammad were deluded or fraudulent .. or the Bible and Qur'an are some clever schemes of men to deceive .. then that's what you believe.

I don't get into Jesus or Muhammad's motives. Their motives don't matter. Their historicity doesn't matter, either, that is, whether they actually said those things or others did and attributed it to them. Christians and I have gone over this regarding resurrection. I am asked about what motive the people said to be witnesses mentioned in the Gospels would have to give false testimony. Same answer. I don't know what their motive are or whether such people even existed. None of the claims pass mustard according to the methods of critical thought, and the claim of a resurrection is rejected as an extraordinary claim supported only by hearsay whatever the providence of that testimony or the motives of those who included it in canon.

you'd rather not believe in God

I don't have a preference about what to believe apart from not believing untrue things. We all draw a mental map of what we believe is out there for purposes of making choices while navigating reality. Like a literal map missing roads or having extra roads that aren't actually out there, we make have difficulty arriving at our chosen destination if we are using a faulty map. If one's map has a god and a heaven on it, he'll make turns (choices) to get there. I don't want to spend resources wandering the landscape in search of something that's not out there, like people with treasure maps that show buried treasures that aren't really out there, or like seeing a rainbow and chasing after its pot of gold.

You don't have the same evidence as me.

I have the same evidence as that which theists use to decide that there is a god. They cite the universe itself, living cells, the words of assorted prophets and messengers, and arguments like the cosmological and ontological arguments. And they have spiritual intuitions - moments of feeling a sense of connection and mystery with the cosmos - that they equate with god encounters. None of it leads me to a god belief.

One either believes the claims about God in Bible/Quran, or they don't.

Agreed. And it they use the methods of critical analysis exclusively to decide what is true about reality, they become agnostic atheists. If they arrive at any other position, they must take a different path to get to it.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Have you changed your mind again? You have said previously that you do not know and indeed cannot know.
We can know in the sense of having the words of our chosen prophet that impart this knowledge.

knowledge;
1. facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
knowledge means - Google Search
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
But I did not get what I asked for, because I asked for the context, which includes the historical setting, to whom it as addressed, or how was it understood at the time when it was written, or the outline and structure of the book, the chapter and then the paragraph..
Sorry you did not get what you asked for, but I did not understand what you were asking for when you first asked.
Now I understand.
 

muhammad_isa

Well-Known Member
..We all were born into that club. It's a natural way for children to think..
I agree up to a point.
I was raised in a Christian society, and sang songs about God in school which gave me a nice feeling and so on.

However, at the age of 11 I used to meditate for hours by myself, thinking about life and why events happened to me, and if any of it had any significance and what not .. deja vu and so on.
I came to the conclusion that life couldn't be just all one big coincidence .. you, of course, might see things entirely differently .. it's not all about scientific observation of what we can all see .. philosophy, religion and psychology have unseen elements too.
Words can't always convey :)

A less skeptical kid might stay up to see Santa when he comes rather that to see if Santa is real.
I never have believed in santa that I can remember .. it is only a bit of fun for kids anyway.

That's a different word spelled and pronounced as the one that means unjustified faith. The two words are homonyms..
No .. faith in something means that you trust it to be true.

Your trust is your doctor is based in evidence properly understood, and is thus justified.
Exactly .. you believe it to be true .. but it might not be .. they might let you down.

Now, if you also believe that he's going to heaven, you hold an unjustified belief based in religious-type faith..
..and this is where you and I see things differently.
You think it impossible to have a faith in something like "a god", because it can't be demonstrated to exist.
For me, a person either decides it is not likely or is very likely or deems it impossible to know.
There are many, many reasons why I decide that it is very likely,
and so my faith in God is higher than my faith in my doctor. :)

The rules evaluate whether such claims are justified and therefore fit to believe. By such rules, the critical thinker determines if such claims are justified and therefore believable, or not..
You are just being vague and avoiding the issue.
Does it include "scientific detection of God", or experiencing miracles first-hand .. or not?
You merely imply that believers are incapable of applying rules of inference when evaluating whether God exists. I wouldn't agree.

No, one does not need to know the source or cause of the laws of nature to study and them and use them effectively to anticipate outcomes. Absent evidence that they are due to a deity, belief in deities is unjustified..
No it isn't. It is only "unjustified" if you want to take the stance of "I won't take anybody else's word for it. I must see it for myself".

..I don't know what their motive are or whether such people even existed. None of the claims pass mustard according to the methods of critical thought..
"critical thought" is a mere excuse, it seems to me. I consider myself a "critical thinker" too, but I don't reject the existence of God due to lack of empirical proof.

I don't want to spend resources wandering the landscape in search of something that's not out there, like people with treasure maps that show buried treasures that aren't really out there, or like seeing a rainbow and chasing after its pot of gold..
I couldn't agree more. If you deem it unlikely that God exists, why would you seek?

I have the same evidence as that which theists use to decide that there is a god..
You don't .. not necessarily .. how can you know what is going on in other people's heads?
We don't even know what's going on in our own sometimes. :)

They cite the universe itself, living cells, the words of assorted prophets and messengers, and arguments like the cosmological and ontological arguments. And they have spiritual intuitions - moments of feeling a sense of connection and mystery with the cosmos - that they equate with god encounters. None of it leads me to a god belief.
It's a personal thing. Maybe one day you will find out or experience something that will change your mind .. maybe not.
 

samtonga43

Well-Known Member
..and this is where you and I see things differently.
You think it impossible to have a faith in something like "a god", because it can't be demonstrated to exist.
For me, a person either decides it is not likely or is very likely or deems it impossible to know.
There are many, many reasons why I decide that it is very likely,
and so my faith in God is higher than my faith in my doctor. :)

Mine too, muhammad_isa. Mine too.

:hugehug:
 

samtonga43

Well-Known Member
Nobody is perfect except God, and Jesus of course.
We all make mistakes and hopefully we learn from them.
We can know in the sense of having the words of our chosen prophet that impart this knowledge.

knowledge;
1. facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
knowledge means - Google Search
Please note that the word 'fact' appears in both definitions.
 
Top