A History of the Baptists, Chapter 4 - The Paulician and Bogomil Churches (Ecumenical)

I don't even know what God is. Do you? The world around me is nothing like the world descirbed in the Bible. There are no talking donkeys, and people living in a fish for three days. There is no God talking through the clouds. All I know of God is what others wrote about him, and I see no evidence of that God anywhere in the real world.

I agree. I have no interest in pursuing the line of that God exists. Not to mention all the other stuff that goes along with it.

If we were trying to find out about trees, we'd surely not settle for books and what other people told us about trees. We'd spend a lot of time with trees. Or at least we would go out looking for them. But when it comes to God, we're supposed to or something…

I think it is a good and necessary thing to at least entertain the thought that God is not what anybody told us.

Oh, come on, this is not so nebulous.

Don't mean to be ornery, wanted to make sure I don't mistake a term.

How do you recognize something in nature as "divine?"

Basically I look with as much attention and skill as I can, which often isn't much. Sometimes I recognize it, sometimes not.

How? This is again, getting personal and much of my long description pervious answers the question.

Primarily, I am suggesting a different approach to study of the subject of what is real, a method of observation - a means of attempting to observe as well as possible. It is a means. The whole point is definitely not to take my word for what is observed, or look for what I say. The reason I suggest it is because it is NOT the same as looking for or accepting another's view, beliefs or conclusions.

If you insist, I'll give you, as best I can, my best answer. If it's not necessary in order to pursue what you want to, that would be better in my opinion and I would appreciate it.

All of it, or as much as you possibly can. And anybody means anybody and everybody

How do you know God is "all of it," or even that there is God? Or what is God? How do you know he is goodness?

Direct and complete answers, please. No more philosophical beating around the bush. Okay? I am not interested in your philosophy or theology or your world outlook.

I asked you an unambiguous question based on a matter-of-fact statement, and I have yet to get a reasonable, unambigous answer or at least a humble "I don't know" how one "knows" when one is in the "presence of God."

And if you don't know then why are you using it?

Please realize that anything short of a direct answer to any of these questions will effectively close this conversation, because it leads nowhere. Thank you.

How do you know God is "all of it," or even that there is God? Or what is God? How do you know he is goodness?… Direct and complete answers, please. No more philosophical beating around the bush. Okay? I am not interested in your philosophy or theology or your world outlook.

Ok, now, in addition to no personal experience, there's no philosophy, no theology, no world outlook… Am I ordered to write out the formula for God on the board and smartly step back?

Please.

I answered your questions as succinctly and accurately I could. I'm very willing to take another attempt at them.

First, I want to make clear that all I am claiming to "know" as answers here remains what I've said: Something that can be known by direct experience that for me fit what others call God and that worked in practice and in observation - resulted in more true, objective awareness of reality.

That's basically my answer to what do I *know*. And I have elaborated on the elements of experience, correlation, objectivity, observation in it at some length. You know the essential "essence" of God as to what is being correlated, so there you have it. What, when, how, why.

You ask now for "Direct and complete answers" and I don't see where. I can be say more about each part, but no part seems to satisfy - no, seems to distinctly dissatisfy.

So, how and what do I answer more directly and completely without use of personal experience, philosophy, theology, or outlook. I think science is the only thing left and I was kidding about writing the formula.

We both know that God, if it exists, would not be knowable using science.

Is your whole point this discussion: God cannot be proven scientifically? We both knew this going in. This can't be the point.

No, I thought the argument became: can something of God, existence, presence, something, be known in human awareness, direct personal experience. I am arguing yes, you no.

It makes no sense to subject this premise to scientific proof which we have already agreed God cannot be known by.

To further eliminate discussion and analysis of human experience and observation of reality… you've made all the possible topics out of bounds.

If you will correct me here and tell me what is in bounds and acceptable to you for "direct, complete" answers, I'll respond.

I also have a question also for you: Do you believe there is a creative process of the universe? If so, where is it located?

thank you...

Ok, now, in addition to no personal experience, there's no philosophy, no theology, no world outlook… Am I ordered to write out the formula for God on the board and smartly step back? Please.

D-fendr, please understand that this is not at all personal. In a different context I wouldn't mind at all hearing your philosophy or theology. It's just that in this context it doesn't lead to answering what I asked you.

Here is what I mean: First, you don't seem to understand what I am talking about when I first asked you: how do you know you are 'in the presence of God'? If you look at the question, there are three questions in it: how, know, and God. You pretty much explained the how, but not the know or the God part.

You chose to equate awareness with knowledge, which is wrong. But, even if for the sake of argument we ignore that, it is obvious that in order to even be aware that you are in the presence of something you must know what that something (in this case, God) is. My unanswered question therefore focuses to this: how can you possibly "know" you are in the presence of God if you can't tell me what God is?!

But, wait, you then tell me that God is a supreme Mystery, which is to say, and enigma, an unknown, in fact—an entity which cannot be known. Yet we somehow "know" we are in its presence? How can you possibly know you are in the presence of something if that something is a supreme unknown, invisible, undetectable, immaterial, ontologically alien mystery?

Then you tell me that through your observation and experience you are aware of 'its' existence, and that you call it God because others with similar experience call it God. But you really don't know it is God, do you? You have no way of absolutely ascertaining that it is God (because we relaly don't know what God is), right? How then can you be certain that you are in the presence of one and only God?

Second, stating that something is has a definitive, affirmative, factual connotation. We use as such in everyday life, such as: he is tall, he is dead, he is 24 for years old, etc. What they all have in common is that they are facts, objectively true, or credible and at least technically speaking objectively verifiable.

Stating that someone is in the 'presence of God' has the same factual, matter-of-fact connotation, but it is not. It is actually misleading because, as mentioned above one cannot know or even be aware of something if he or she doesn't know what that something is. Therefore, it is a statement of belief or a statement of faith, which is subjective and unverifiable presented as an objective, verifiable fact. Which is deception, fraud, lie, whatever you like.

I run into this a lot among people who are religious. They seem to equate/confuse their personal subjective religious beliefs with facts, and their statements of faith as statements of fact. Instead of stating that someone may 'believe to be in the presence of God' they will say that someone is in the 'presence of God.' But they can't prove it! nevertheless they will insist that what they believe is "objective" reality, that their beliefs are "objective facts," so much so that they are not even aware of the semantic as well as a theological problem at hand.

We both know that God, if it exists, would not be knowable using science.

I don't know that.

I thought the argument became: can something of God, existence, presence, something, be known in human awareness, direct personal experience. I am arguing yes, you no.

I might say yes, provided you can tell me what God is, provided also that it is verifiable and does not appear to be a figment of one's imagination or psychosis.

It makes no sense to subject this premise to scientific proof which we have already agreed God cannot be known by.

Again, I have not agreed to that. First, God is said to be an incomprehensible mystery, "beyond everything." That means, as I read it, God is beyond any subjective or other kind of experience as well. Second, whoever came up with that made it up as far as I am concerned because I see not proof of such a matter-of-fact claim.

To further eliminate discussion and analysis of human experience and observation of reality… you've made all the possible topics out of bounds.

Because they are making factual statements of something that is unknown, and as such cannot be an object of knowledge, nor can its presence be ascertained.

If you will correct me here and tell me what is in bounds and acceptable to you for "direct, complete" answers, I'll respond.

I hope by now you get it. Making an in-context earthly example, if I say "I know I am in the presence of prestigits" you will ask me what are prestigits. If I say I can't tell you, it's a mystery that cannot be known, defined, or seen, or measured, but must be "experienced" on a "deeper level," you'd probably then ask me how I then know that I am in their presence, and I'd say to you "I look around and observe carefully." By then you'd suspect that I had most likely escaped from a psych ward, and rightfully so. Well, that's what many a religious statement seems like to me—not just psychotic, but outright idiotic!

I also have a question also for you: Do you believe there is a creative process of the universe? If so, where is it located?

Yes, it's called gravity. In the hydrogen star clouds, called star nurseries, such as the one in Orion Nebula (pictured below), where the "birth" of a star has actually been recorded. One star is born on average every year in our galaxy (one of billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars). All due to gravity, the force of unknown origin that keeps it all together, shapes and destroys, and reshapes.

It's not a belief, D-fendr, it's a fact.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.