Thiests Believe But What is the Level of Certainity?

[darkendless]

Man, in all honesty I don't know how clearly I can put this.

If you saw smoke you would run away believing there is fire. If you saw fire you would run away. And if you felt the fire you would definitely run away. But you are more certain in the last case than in the first. 70%, 80% and 90% certainties all make one run away.
But when there is some gain to be had from not running away. It is then that the greatest certainity overcomes the temptation of the gain while the lower certainty does not. When we sin the temptation overcomes us because of our lacking certainty in belief.

For someone who has a 50% certainty in God, it would take a 60% temptation to coerce him to sin. For someone who has 70% certainty it would take greater temptation. And so on until the person with greatest certainty would require a lot more temptation. But one with 100% certainty who is as certain of God's existence as he is certain of fire after feeling it, no amount of temptation can affect him.

There is no certainty in God, especially if you're the only one who see's him. Your mind can play tricks on you to see what you want to see. That would suprise me little. Then again, human are terrible liars (faithful or not) FTR im not accusing you of being a liar.
100% certianty is knowing for sure, yet when we ask you to show us this special God, you come up with quotes, so the only real certianty there is that you cannot show us God.

 

[ChristineES]

It's true. What we call sin is giving into our fleshly desires (not just sex either, but over indulging in food, wine, drugs, etc., giving into revenge). What Tomspug said about it being good or easy is a very good example. It is easy to overeat desserts, snacks, or a good dinner and it would be harder to eat only until you're satisfied (that is, if you are a gourmand- but some people just eat nourishment and they don't really enjoy food). The same with wine- Some people can drink a glass or 2 of wine with dinner while others keep drinking until they are falling down drunk. The truth is overeating and being an alcoholic are not healthy things.

I suppose human nature is to want to keep doing things that feel good and over indulging in them. That can be dangerous and my belief is that God, who makes the rules, is just looking out for our best interests. Just as a parent may jerk a toddlers hand from a hot stove and say "NO!"-- they aren't doing that because they are mean, but because they don't want their children to be hurt.

Thanks for reading this extended, preachy post.

As for the OP, I don't think anyone is 100% sure of anything at all.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

100% certianty is knowing for sure, yet when we ask you to show us this special God, you come up with quotes, so the only real certianty there is that you cannot show us God.

Well said! I hope by quotes you refer to when people just quote the Quran assuming the Quran is true (which it is but that is not the way to make a rational argument). I hope you don't mean when I show you verses of the Quran that make very clear prophecies about our time (yes, I am referring to the nuclear issue).

As for the OP, I don't think anyone is 100% sure of anything at all.

"Extended preachy post" aside you DEVOTE ONE LINE FOR THE OP!!! What injustice.
But you are right we can never be 100% sure of anything. But please try to understand the point. That the closer we are to 100% the lower the chances of our sinning.

 

[darkendless]

Well said! I hope by quotes you refer to when people just quote the Quran assuming the Quran is true (which it is but that is not the way to make a rational argument). I hope you don't mean when I show you verses of the Quran that make very clear prophecies about our time (yes, I am referring to the nuclear issue).

"Extended preachy post" aside you DEVOTE ONE LINE FOR THE OP!!! What injustice.
But you are right we can never be 100% sure of anything. But please try to understand the point. That the closer we are to 100% the lower the chances of our sinning.

I do mean when i'm shown verses, i'm sorry Tariq but from a non-bias/non-islamic viewpoint those verses could mean a number of things, they are very open ended. What is clear in your mind may not be clear in other peoples mind. We were not brought up with the Quran and therefore cannot expose key information the way you can.

 

[Paroxys]

Well first off, to paraphrase Hume (among others), we can never truly ever have 100% certainty of anything, (that is, something is completely and absolutely true). But aside from that...

Your principle argument is that, since we sin, our level of certainty in the existence of God/Ragnarok must not be 100%.

The major premise supporting this argument is that, Humans are, in fact, completely rational. If this premise is wrong, then your argument is effectively nulled. However, that premise is just so very very wrong.

Proof: "And I don't know why any sane human would drink the tastiest poison in the world if he was 100% certain he was going to die (and he didn't intend to commit suicide)."

"Sane Humans" do it ALL the time, its called ALCOHOL, and to extend it even beyond just drinking, smoking, overeating, procrastinating, etc.

 

[Magic Man]

But please try to understand the point. That the closer we are to 100% the lower the chances of our sinning.

Again, we understand the point perfectly. That doesn't change the fact that it's wrong. How certain we are about God's existence doesn't determine our chances of sinning.

 

[Heneni]

Again, we understand the point perfectly. That doesn't change the fact that it's wrong. How certain we are about God's existence doesn't determine our chances of sinning.

The problem is that you want everyone to believe what you do. :bow:
(oh..sorry...thats my problem)

And again...'we' (thats me) understand the point perfectly does not include mball.

If someone had NO inclination of god whatsoever, the concept of sin would be mute as well. You cant sin against something you have NO idea exists. So that puts you in the clear in your own mind, and on the witness stand. Will you be able to argue against god when he gives you proof that he gave you ample evidence of his existance and you need to explain why you couldnt believe it? Since you and I are both human, and i was able to comprehend , and there are many like me...what would that make you? Out of witnesses. I guess mball really thinks he can outsmart god. Thats nice. (or rather risky).

Reasoning with mball is like reasoning within an eclipse. You always end up where you started...god does not exist. LOL...Yet...he does think it necessary to comment on this thread. And even give a verdict about how accurate it is. Well...im speachless....[lets go round the eclipse again shall we?]

There are many scriptures in that book they call the bible, that link KNOWING to how much you sin. Do you want to give us those scriptures? Or should I? ummm....no....you'd just say I AM WRONG...and if all else fails...'but god does not exist'.

[Lets go round the eclipse again shall we?]

:help:

PS: lets not forget that usually non-christians (mball) are so clued up with the bible, that they can actualy quote scripture and still claim to know nothing about god. Then you shouldnt have read it. The very fact that you say, that you dont believe that 'god of the bible' means you knew there was a 'god of the bible', and you made a choice to not give him a second thought.

 

[Heneni]

Well first off, to paraphrase Hume (among others), we can never truly ever have 100% certainty of anything, (that is, something is completely and absolutely true). But aside from that...

Your principle argument is that, since we sin, our level of certainty in the existence of God/Ragnarok must not be 100%.

The major premise supporting this argument is that, Humans are, in fact, completely rational. If this premise is wrong, then your argument is effectively nulled. However, that premise is just so very very wrong.

Proof: "And I don't know why any sane human would drink the tastiest poison in the world if he was 100% certain he was going to die (and he didn't intend to commit suicide)."

"Sane Humans" do it ALL the time, its called ALCOHOL, and to extend it even beyond just drinking, smoking, overeating, procrastinating, etc.

Nobody that continues to sin has either seen or known god. This is what the bible says. So if you continue to sin, there is a level of uncertainty in the 'knowing' bit.

 

[Magic Man]

The problem is that you want everyone to believe what you do. :bow:
(oh..sorry...thats my problem)

I'm glad to see you're finally getting it.

And again...'we' (thats me) understand the point perfectly does not include mball.

Don't flatter yourself. The point is not very difficult. People sin because they are less certain about God's existence. I'd say that pretty much covers it.

If someone had NO inclination of god whatsoever, the concept of sin would be mute as well. You cant sin against something you have NO idea exists. So that puts you in the clear in your own mind, and on the witness stand. Will you be able to argue against god when he gives you proof that he gave you ample evidence of his existance and you need to explain why you couldnt believe it? Since you and I are both human, and i was able to comprehend , and there are many like me...what would that make you? Out of witnesses. I guess mball really thinks he can outsmart god. Thats nice. (or rather risky).

I do find it quite hard many times to follow your train of thought. I'm not sure how you go from the first sentence here to the last. First, call it what you want. I use the word sin because that's the easiest way to put it under the circumstances. When I say "sin", I'm just referring to the acts that some call by that name. Committing murder is still committing murder whether or not you call it "sinning". The rest of this has nothing to do with the OP, or the debate we have been having. What I believe personally, and whether or not I think I can "outsmart God" are completely irrelevant here.

Reasoning with mball is like reasoning within an eclipse. You always end up where you started...god does not exist. LOL...Yet...he does think it necessary to comment on this thread. And even give a verdict about how accurate it is. Well...im speachless....[lets go round the eclipse again shall we?]

We keep ending up where we started because you refuse to address the correct points. You keep avoiding the real issues here. Of course, you're the one trying to debate whether or not God exists. I have not in this thread claimed that He doesn't. I have not even hinted at it. It's really not even an issue here. Think of this entire discussion starting with the phrase "Whether or not God exists...". The idea of the thread is people's certainty about God's existence, and how it relates to why they do things. I don't need to believe in God to comment on why people do things.

There are many scriptures in that book they call the bible, that link KNOWING to how much you sin. Do you want to give us those scriptures? Or should I? ummm....no....you'd just say I AM WRONG...and if all else fails...'but god does not exist'.

You're right, I don't want you to give me those quotes. They are meaningless to me and this discussion. I don't really care what an old book has to say on something that should be common sense. It's very simple: Some people are 100% certain that God exists, and yet they continue to sin. So, obviously the level of certainty about God's existence does not determine how they act.

Again, I have not commented on whether or not God exists. You are the one bringing that up. You don't seem to be able to respond to the relevant points I bring up, so you resort to diverting attention to other things. It doesn't work, and it's a little annoying.

[Lets go round the eclipse again shall we?]

:help:

PS: lets not forget that usually non-christians (mball) are so clued up with the bible, that they can actualy quote scripture and still claim to know nothing about god. Then you shouldnt have read it. The very fact that you say, that you dont believe that 'god of the bible' means you knew there was a 'god of the bible', and you made a choice to not give him a second thought.

What does this have to do with this thread?

It doesn't matter a bit what I believe. I don't "sin" (to be read as "perform those actions considered by others as "sinning") because I'm not sure God exists. I "sin" because I'm a human being. The "sins" I commit are things I would do regardless of whether or not I believed in God.

 

[Magic Man]

Nobody that continues to sin has either seen or known god. This is what the bible says. So if you continue to sin, there is a level of uncertainty in the 'knowing' bit.

In other words, no one has ever seen or known God, then.

 

[Heneni]

THEIST believe...but what is the level of certainty?

So far i havent really established you to be a theist. So you'd have to excuse me if I cant really take you seriously here, since you have no experience in the latter.

 

[Magic Man]

THEIST believe...but what is the level of certainty?

So far i havent really established you to be a theist. So you'd have to excuse me if I cant really take you seriously here, since you have no experience in the latter.

And what does this matter? Why do you not just respond to my arguments? Is it that difficult? Here, I'll give it to you again, and you can tell me what's wrong with it:

People have varying degrees of certainty in their belief in God. People also perform actions that some call "sins". The two are unrelated. People who are 20% sure "sin", and people who are 100% sure also "sin". The reasons people "sin" are that they value certain things more than others at certain times. I steal something from someone because I value that object or hurting that person more at that time than I value any possible bad consequences. So, even if I'm 100% certain that God exists, I will still steal that something from that someone if I value it at that time more than I do anything else, including my relationship with God. Humans are short-sighted in that way.

Now, would you like to respond to my argument, or will you continue to avoid it and divert attention to unrelated matters like my non-belief in God?

 

[Heneni]

:cold: Its getting cold in here...I'm off to bed. Sleep well mball. (whenever you go to sleep) When you have had a theist experience let me know! Id love to talk 'shop' with you then. But for now..we are back to the eclipse.

Night night!

 

[Magic Man]

:cold: Its getting cold in here...I'm off to bed. Sleep well mball. (whenever you go to sleep) When you have had a theist experience let me know! Id love to talk 'shop' with you then. But for now..we are back to the eclipse.

Night night!

So, you really just don't want to address the OP, huh? You really would rather just make this about me? It is a little surprising to me to see someone avoid a topic this blatantly, and I'm not even sure why you don't want to address my argument. It's not like it questions your commitment to your religion.

I would really appreciate it, though, if you could at least tell me what's wrong with my thinking outlined in my previous post. If I'm so wrong, then it should be easy to show where and why. (And, obviously, that would exclude saying "You're not a theist, you wouldn't understand" because this is not a question you need to be a theist to understand. I would be willing to bet that most theists would agree that they are 100% sure of God's existence)

 

[Heneni]

So, you really just don't want to address the OP, huh? You really would rather just make this about me? It is a little surprising to me to see someone avoid a topic this blatantly, and I'm not even sure why you don't want to address my argument. It's not like it questions your commitment to your religion.

I would really appreciate it, though, if you could at least tell me what's wrong with my thinking outlined in my previous post. If I'm so wrong, then it should be easy to show where and why. (And, obviously, that would exclude saying "You're not a theist, you wouldn't understand" because this is not a question you need to be a theist to understand. I would be willing to bet that most theists would agree that they are 100% sure of God's existence)

Being 100% sure of gods existance is not what this thread is about mball. And you arent sure of that are you? Did I not mention that somewhere already...Yes I think i did. (eclipse).

Knowing someone doesnt mean you know they exist. It means GETTING TO KNOW them. Do you see the difference or is that just...hard for you?

Let me know when you have had a theist experience. :beach: It will be interesting to see how you respond to gods discipline which is what he does for people that he loves. And it will also be interesting to see how you handle your cross. :faint:And how you deal with suffering....you know all that stuff people would rather run away from, but which actually helps us learn to know him better. So when you have moved past the basics..(101 class in 'does god exist') you'll have an understanding about how KNOWING god can help you overcome.

 

[Magic Man]

Being 100% sure of gods existance is not what this thread is about mball. And you arent sure of that are you? Did I not mention that somewhere already...Yes I think i did. (eclipse).

Um...the title of the thread is "Theists believe, but what is the level of certainty?". I would say that being 100% sure of God's existence is exactly what this thread is about, and how it pertains to people sinning. It doesn't matter whether or not I believe in God. Actually, I'd be willing to bet that I "sin" a lot less than many people who are 100% sure in their belief in God.

Knowing someone doesnt mean you know they exist. It means GETTING TO KNOW them. Do you see the difference or is that just...hard for you?

So, you're going with the different "know", then? Are you saying that the more intimately people know God, the less they sin? That would at least bake more sense, but it's not what was put forth in the OP.

Let me know when you have had a theist experience. :beach: It will be interesting to see how you respond to gods discipline which is what he does for people that he loves. And it will also be interesting to see how you handle your cross. :faint:And how you deal with suffering....you know all that stuff people would rather run away from, but which actually helps us learn to know him better. So when you have moved past the basics..(101 class in 'does god exist') you'll have an understanding about how KNOWING god can help you overcome.

I don't need to have a "theist experience" to discuss this. Actually, to make sure, I started another thread here to get the theist perspective. It seems that the vast, vast majority of them are 100% sure of God's existence. You don't have to take my word for it (since I'm not a theist). You can check out the thread and see actual theists agreeing with me. So, going from the assumption that most theists are 100% sure of God's existence, and they still sin, the OP here is misguided and wrong.

Now, if you want to say that it's not about certainty in God's existence, but how intimately you know God that affects "sinning", then you can start a thread about that. That is not what this thread is about, though. I would be happy to debate you on that issue, too, if you'd like.

 

[Heneni]

Hellooo...anybody out there....any thiest?? maybe???Mball needs :help: to understand what a theist is.

 

[blackout]

I am a theist, and I am %100 certain that there is no such thing as the christian/islamic hell.

%100. and my actions reflect that belief %100.

 

[Magic Man]

Hellooo...anybody out there....any thiest?? maybe???Mball needs :help: to understand what a theist is.

Here's an idea: Why don't you go check out the thread I linked to in my previous post? Then, you'll see that I went and got input directly from theists, just to show you when you said something like this.

You're a theist. Why don't you help me understand what a theist is, and where I'm going wrong? Instead of just avoiding addressing the issue at hand. I'm not even sure why you want to avoid it so much, but apparently you do. All you have to do is tell me what's wrong with my thinking. I've presented it several times now, and all you have to say is that I don't believe in God and that I need to have a theist experience.

Now, a couple of things:
One, I have had a "theist experience". I was Catholic for 18 years. I have quite a bit of experience, actually.

Two, one point you have avoided is my statement that I don't believe in God at all. My percentage certainty in his existence is 0, and I don't know him intimately at all now, and yet I rarely, rarely perform any action that most would consider "sin". That is in contrast to many, many Christians and other theists who believe with all of their hearts and know God intimately, having "met Him", and yet still "sin" more then I do. How do you explain that, in regards to the theory put forth here?

I'm sure I'm just wasting my time again, as I most likely will just get the "You're not a theist" cop-out to make yourself feel better and completely avoid any kind of meaningful discussion, but I feel the need to keep on trying.

 

[Storm]

Now, a couple of things:
One, I have had a "theist experience". I was Catholic for 18 years. I have quite a bit of experience, actually.

I was wondering if you'd bring that up.

I'm sure I'm just wasting my time again, as I most likely will just get the "You're not a theist" cop-out to make yourself feel better and completely avoid any kind of meaningful discussion, but I feel the need to keep on trying.

I stand in awe of your patience, love.