How do I know the things I know?

[IATIA]

I know reliable sources that know God and have seen Him. They are teaching me how to see Him too. It takes a while, God's not cheap.

That's how I know God exists.

If there were a god, no one would be capable of seeing it. Obviously, we must be speaking of an entirely different entity for which there is still no proof other than hearsay. Hearsay is no less than two distorted levels of paraphrase.

Hearsay:
Testimony given by a witness who is not telling what he or she knows personally, but what others have said.

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

What makes them reliable? They have seen him with their eyes? They have to pay him? Remember, it has to stand up to scrutiny too.

I thought you really wanted to have an intellectual discussion about it.

Yeah, they've seen God with their own eyes. I knew a man for 12 years that had seen God (he has since passed on). I lived with him, spent zillions of hours talking with him. He's reliable to me (I'm sure not to you). He's someone I knew well. Well enough to trust him and his experience. He's taught me a lot about how to live my life so that I can eventually fully see God too.

Is that the type of proof I can walk around with and insist everyone accept. Obviously not, nor do I do that. Still, if someone is wondering why I believe in God, why I know He exists, what evidence I have, etc. that's my answer.

I think all of the logical arguments for God are inconclusive, if that's what you were hoping for.

I don't understand your question about having to "pay him." What does that even mean?

[Minimalist]

that's my answer.

That's not much of an answer. Have you met Godschild? He has no answers, either.

[Darkstar]

I think all of the logical arguments for God are inconclusive, if that's what you were hoping for.

At least you're being intellectually honest.

I don't understand your question about having to "pay him." What does that even mean?

Churches have collection baskets, if not tithes. Does your church not do those things?

One question: If his claim that he had spoken to god is valid to you, how can we discount with certainty people who claim to have talked to other beings, or who claim that god told them to kill some person because they were an incarnation of satan?

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

Churches have collection baskets, if not tithes. Does your church not do those things?

One question: If his claim that he had spoken to god is valid to you, how can we discount with certainty people who claim to have talked to other beings, or who claim that god told them to kill some person because they were an incarnation of satan?

There are collection baskets, no tithes. The person I was mentioning was simple and austere. He never had a job and so was always really poor.

I'm not sure that you can discount with certainty if some people claim to speak to "other beings."

One important point is that knowledge is highly subject. What does it really mean to prove something to anyone besides make them feel like it's true?

Science is awesome, because there's a very set way of achieving knowledge. But the rules of modern science may not be the only absolute rules of achieving knowledge.

I follow a tradition. There are many saints that have taught the path I follow. My Guru (the person I feel convinced has seen God) followed the same path that mant saints have followed for a long long time. People I follow don't kill incarnations of satan or anything like that.

[cratehorus]

Krishniites still doing shit like this?

http://www.harekrsna.org/iskcon-child-abuse.htm

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

that's my answer.

That's not much of an answer. Have you met Godschild? He has no answers, either.

What kind of answer would have really done it for you? I'm sensing that you're tough to impress.

---

Krishniites still doing shit like this?

http://www.harekrsna.org/iskcon-child-abuse.htm

I hope not.

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

If there were a god, no one would be capable of seeing it. Obviously, we must be speaking of an entirely different entity for which there is still no proof other than hearsay. Hearsay is no less than two distorted levels of paraphrase.

Hearsay:
Testimony given by a witness who is not telling what he or she knows personally, but what others have said.

Your point about seeing God is a great one! We can't see God with ordinary vision. The only way we can see Him is if He grants you the vision to see Him.

In other words, God reveals Himself to you on His terms. Not that you demand He reveal Himself to you, and He's forced to do that.

That's why when people demand "where's the proof for God!!" it's like childish whining. Who the hell are you that God would want to know you?

Your point about hearsay doesn't apply here. I told you why I believe in God. I never said that you should believe in God because I do.

[Simon Moon]

Yeah, they've seen God with their own eyes. I knew a man for 12 years that had seen God (he has since passed on). I lived with him, spent zillions of hours talking with him. He's reliable to me (I'm sure not to you). He's someone I knew well. Well enough to trust him and his experience. He's taught me a lot about how to live my life so that I can eventually fully see God too.

If the same man claimed to see Elvis or aliens probing dead cows, would you have trusted him enough to believe that also?

What I'm getting at is, how do you know this man's experiences are any more real than the millions of people that claim all sorts of other supernatural beings that you do not believe exist?

What algorithm do you apply to such claims that allow you to conclude that this man's experiences are real, but allow you to reject other supernatural claims by others?

Is that the type of proof I can walk around with and insist everyone accept. Obviously not, nor do I do that. Still, if someone is wondering why I believe in God, why I know He exists, what evidence I have, etc. that's my answer.

The same evidence others have for the existence other gods and all sorts of supernatural claims, many I'm sure you disbelieve, is the same evidence you accept for the existence of god.

Again,what is the method that you use to accept the claims of this man, believe he is reliable, yet reject other supernatural claims based on the same sort of personal experiences?

I think all of the logical arguments for God are inconclusive, if that's what you were hoping for.

No, they are simply fallacious.

[Cyberman]

Yeah, they've seen God with their own eyes. I knew a man for 12 years that had seen God (he has since passed on). I lived with him, spent zillions of hours talking with him. He's reliable to me (I'm sure not to you). He's someone I knew well. Well enough to trust him and his experience. He's taught me a lot about how to live my life so that I can eventually fully see God too.

I once knew a man who knew he was Tony Blair's brother-in-law.

Hint: He wasn't Tony Blair's brother-in-law.

He also knew he was being stalked by an invisible dog in a top hat, which people would hide from him, and was in communication with some chart singer, whose name escapes me, through the titles of her songs; but that's a long and alcoholic story.

However, before we get to the aswer to the question of how do you know the things you know, you first have to present evidence that you do actually know those things.