KNOWING that God exists

Originally posted by @apathist
Spoken like a prophet. No evidence, no reasons, no facts, just assertions that are supposed to reveal the minds of the gods.

Tell us more about your nature goddess....

Originally posted by @divegeester
A testimony is not about claiming one KNOWS god exists. Is it?

It could be. I'm not going to limit any particular person's testimony. Most testimony is a declaration of how God has wrought changes in a person's life. Surely this is what enables people to KNOW that God exists.

Originally posted by @apathist
Spoken like a prophet. No evidence, no reasons, no facts, just assertions that are supposed to reveal the minds of the gods.[i]

Originally posted by @divegeester
Tell us more about your nature goddess....

She involves evidence, reasons and facts, with no assertions meant to reveal the minds of the gods.

You should keep up with your hate-and-fear quest against me. You need the training. And I'm an idiot! Holy feces, what does that make you.

Originally posted by @fmf
I think it is only 'valid', as you put it [I assume 'valid' means meaningful, effective when it comes to words] when it is used between people who share the same certainty about their beliefs.

But in an environment where people believe different things, it isn't so much 'valid' - with regard to what is "known" and not "known" - as it is a kind of certainty i ...[text shortened]... ing-to-the-choir word than a useful tool for discourse about spiritual and philosophical things.

But in that environment where people believe different things, there is no real semantic arbiter to say what is a valid or invalid usage. From religion or psychology or philosophy or just everyday conversation. (Some people might say the dictionary, but then end up arguing about which dictionary.) So the best we can do is try to understand how someone else is using a word, and see if there is some way to continue common discourse. Sometimes there is, sometimes not. But there is not some final arbiter to appeal to.

Originally posted by @leil
But in that environment where people believe different things, there is no real semantic arbiter to say what is a valid or invalid usage.

Well then, when I ask 'Surely an atheist's use of the word "know" is no different ~ no more or less legitimate ~ than a theist's use of the word "know"?' the honest answer - regarding the meaning and use of the word - from both the atheist and atheist ought to be 'yes'. Otherwise the only function the word has is for a form of ideological willy waving rather than discourse between people who believe different things.

Originally posted by @suzianne
Most testimony is a declaration of how God has wrought changes in a person's life. Surely this is what enables people to KNOW that God exists.

There's no way for any of us - including you - to "know" whether a god or gods wrought changes in your life. You assert that that was what happened. It's something you believe. No one can know. Your assertions are not evidence.

Originally posted by @apathist
She involves evidence, reasons and facts, with no assertions meant to reveal the minds of the gods.

What "evidence, reasons and facts" does your "she" goddesses present to you?

Originally posted by @apathist
You should keep up with your hate-and-fear quest against me. You need the training. And I'm an idiot! Holy feces, what does that make you.

This is a debate forum apathist and you have been here long enough to know how it works, so crying like a baby because someone challenges your assertions and beliefs is not particularly endearing and certainly does nothing to improve the limited credibility you have.

Originally posted by @divegeester
What "evidence, reasons and facts" does your "she" goddesses present to you?

You're asking for evidence that nature exists.

Originally posted by @divegeester
This is a debate forum apathist and you have been here long enough to know how it works, so crying like a baby because someone challenges your assertions and beliefs is not particularly endearing and certainly does nothing to improve the limited credibility you have.

That was some serious projection. You seem mentally unbalanced.

Originally posted by @apathist
You're asking for evidence that nature exists.

No I'm asking for your evidence that your "goddess" whom you call "she" and whom "worship" exists. But of course you already know that and are just being evasive.

Originally posted by @apathist
That was some serious projection. You seem mentally unbalanced.

You're the one taking drugs and worshiping trees.

Originally posted by @fmf
Well then, when I ask 'Surely an atheist's use of the word "know" is no different ~ no more or less legitimate ~ than a theist's use of the word "know"?' the honest answer - regarding the meaning and use of the word - from both the atheist and atheist ought to be 'yes'. Otherwise the only function the word has is for a form of ideological willy waving rather than discourse between people who believe different things.

I don’t understand. If a psychologist or a coach says, “In this context, when I use the word know (or believe), I am using it to convey this…” And the philosopher says, “Well, when I use the word know (or believe), in the context of defining knowledge for philosophical inquiry, I am using to mean something else…” And the scientist says… And then somebody else says…

At that point, we can either select from the menu for further discourse in whatever is the relevant context, or terminate discussion, which is fair. The same for arguing over the most appropriate usage in a given context, which does happen and is also fair – and again, the discussion might necessarily terminate. That may or may not involve ideological flag-waving. Insistence upon one usage for any/all contexts might be flag-waving of some kind. The question, "How do you know that?" I think is always contextual, but my answer may not fit with the intent of your question (which maybe I can't answer) - or we see the context differently and the discussion might terminate there - again, that requires no flag-waving.There are a lot of possibilities for no-fault termination.

I’m not sure quite what you meant in your last post. Maybe we’re not disagreeing, so I tried to spell out better what I meant. Maybe I’m not doing it well.

It just occurred to me that I might have missed your point about knowing being really a statement of strong belief when it come to somehting like belief in God. That's the way that I think the athlete "in the Zone" is using it as well. However, the athlete might not agree with that, or just dismiss it. The word knowing can also refer to some kind of direct perception, and maybe the athlete thinks that. (For the athlete, the ultimate test is going to be performative.) I'm not going to insist on how someone else must use the word, or try to dissuade the athlete for example. I might argue about context for awhile if that seems appropriate, but then I'll just walk away

Originally posted by @fmf
There's no way for any of us - including you - to "know" whether a god or gods wrought changes in your life. You assert that that was what happened. It's something you believe. No one can know. Your assertions are not evidence.

When speaking of faith, evidence is meaningless.

My evidence is not your evidence, and so what I know, you can't logically know, simply based on the concept that I know it. There's much more to it than that.