How do I know for sure that God exists? How do I not know that

File: 1499090357242.jpg (69KB, 470x960px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 470x960px

>>132407601
>How can I know that it's not all something people self-convince themselves of so they don't have to face their own mortality?
>all something people self-convince themselves of

Clearly you're a master of philosophy. Simple answer: you can't. But there is VERY little you can know in this life for certain, the rest you just have to observe as best you can and then eventually make your own decision.

>>132408165

But that is what people do with religion. They self-convince themselves of their given faith so they can believe it's true. Now that's not to say God and an afterlife doesn't exist, but I have no way of knowing it does beyond people insisting to me it's indeed true.
If we move beyond humans being absolutely convinced of this all in their brains, what do we have?

Bump dammit.

>>132408797
That's what people do with atheism. They "self convince themself" that their belief is true. That's what they do with libertarianism, liberalism, conservatism, nihilism, Darwinism, existentialism.....

You can't just criticize a person's thoughts as some how biased or tainted and act like that's a criticism of the philosophy they've come to. It works both ways, nihilistic atheists are thinking about their mortality the same way religious are. You can't just write thst off as some how tainted thought and then expect to have a conversation.

Basically you haven't given an actual argument yet. All you've done is doubt people's ability to think and set the ground work to deny any thought is genuine

>>132409273

>That's what people do with atheism. They "self convince themself" that their belief is true. That's what they do with libertarianism, liberalism, conservatism, nihilism, Darwinism, existentialism

Oh I'm sure they do. The mind is a looping process of self-validation.

>You can't just criticize a person's thoughts as some how biased or tainted and act like that's a criticism of the philosophy they've come to
>Basically you haven't given an actual argument yet. All you've done is doubt people's ability to think and set the ground work to deny any thought is genuine

The purpose of this thread is to ask how I can be sure that the claims other people make are true. When someone, say on the internet, aggressively tells me God is real, why should I believe them? This can stretch to anything else too, but this is the focus of the thread. Religion may be integral to human customs and all that but a lot of decisions are made based on it. Based on something that other people cannot know for sure if it's true or not.

>>132407601
Why do you personally believe there needs to be a god?

>>132409615
I'll give you a place to start if you're actually interested

>read philosophy
Come to understand both sides of the argument. Read the actual arguments for a God, the implications and assumptions that go with it, and what it would mean. Find the real arguments and ask yourself if it's possible or not. If at this point you're unconvinced of the possibility and a hard atheist then stop here. if you're open and an agnostic then proceed to next step.

>reach out to him
If you're agnostic and are legitamitely open to the concept of an omnipotent God, then you'll accept the possibility that he can be communicated with and act upon the world you live in. If this is the case you can simply ask him for a sign and reach out to him.

>find a religion
A religion being "true" isn't as exclusive as you seem to think. You've acknowledge how much tradition and custom make up a large portion of a religion, but that doesn't make it any more or less true. Apart from the metaphysical claims a religion is just a serious of myths and customs along with rules on how to live your life. Find one you genuinely agree with and practise it if you wish. There's no reason to see customs or traditions as inherently false

>>132410658

>looks at flag
>reads post again

A God existing would make sense, even if you take away the fact that most people believe. Of course, just because I think that it doesn't mean God has to exist, and it could just be my brain trying to make sense of what I can't understand. Then there's the social element. People, including me, want a resolution to everything humanity has had to go through and only God would be capable of giving us a social resolution.

>>132410727

I just read your post but I'll save it too so I remember it. The thing is, is that I've gotten into short conversations with Christians online in the past few days and it always ends with "alright, I/we have no proof God exists, it's about faith, it's up to you". And that answer does not satisfy me. We should all be curious with what people are pitching to us.

God exists and so do many other gods.

Worshipping one god gives power to that god and makes their will a reality.

Take the real redpill: humans are the next in line for godhood and no god should be worshipped except man himself.

>>132411318
Everyone who believes in God is quite certain he exists, and likely has experience something that proves it to them personally. The problem is that God personally revealing himself to you would not be "proof" or hardly even evidence to someone else, hence the faith part. There's no way to transfer a proof you've witnessed to someone else who did not experience it

>>132412551

>Everyone who believes in God is quite certain he exists

Yes, of course they are. Hence the self convincing part. I don't think my thread was made at the right time so that's probably why I didn't get many responses. My question was how can I be sure that all these self-convinced people are right. They pitch their ideas to other people constantly. Most of how humanity functions is based off religious systems in one way or another, so yes it does matter.