Science will never prove God

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:40 pm

I contend that science or logical deduction alone is incapable of proving the existence of a living, sentient, creator Being; a.k.a. God.

There will never be a scientific conclusion or argument that will end, "Therefore, God exits" that will convince the majority. There would always be an element of doubt, and the question, "What if we are wrong?" No matter how profound sounding the argument, that argument will never be worth more than the paper it's printed on, in regard to God's existence. No Holy book, argument, or scientific deduction will ever=God.

Only God itself has the power to cause one of us experience its existence as self-evident truth. A direct communication from God is the greatest and only "proof" possible for God.

That one and only proof is the miracle of revelation, and it comes from God as a gift. Nobody discovers or proves God; instead God reveals itself to those it desires, and from that--and only that--one attains proof of God.

Agree? Disagree?

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:28 pm

You guys must really be stumped. Usually there's at least one quick draw ready with a textbook response. Let me season this a bit:

Would you be convinced of God's existence based solely on the testimony of another, perhaps a healing? How about the bible? does it prove God for you? How about the universe itself and its countless billions of galaxies? For an objective mind, the universe is the greatest miracle we know of for sure, as there is no explanation for its existence. Does that greatest of all miracles convince you of God's existence?

If you answered no to those questions, then I'd say that you are a rational thinker who needs good evidence for the things in which you believe. What I need to know is, where do you plan on getting your proof of God, if not from God itself? And would your "proof" convince the majority?

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:30 pm

Well, I got to go for now. Probably be back Sunday, or Monday at the latest. Maybe by then you guys will have something say.

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:12 pm

You are proof of God. Everyone one of us are proof of God. I do not believe we came from the apes. But I do believe we can transmigrate from man to ape and ape to aquatic animals and vice versa. It is known as the transmigration of the atomic soul from one body to another. It is caused by God who is Karma-the law of cause and effect. If you do not believe in Karma it means God for you does not exist. Then you are considered by believers of God as an atheist.

goliah · Post by **goliah** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:20 am

While I could not but agree that science will never prove God, the model of scientific scrutiny, with testability of claims, may yet show it's value in the God discussion. For it would appear, from material circulating on the web, that what history, science and religion thought impossible has now happened!

The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ is published on the web. Radically different from anything else we know of from history, this new teaching is predicated upon a precise, predefined and predictable experience and called 'the first Resurrection' in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods' willingness to real Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His will, paving the way for access, by faith, to the power of divine transcendence.

Thus 'faith' is the path, the search and discovery of this direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power to confirm divine will, Law, command and covenant, while "correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries." So like it or no, a new religious teaching, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious revolution is getting under way. To test or not to test, that is the question? More info at The Final Freedoms,

The Final Freedoms*|*Soulgineering

Post by **spot** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:25 am

I'm glad to see you're still around, goliah.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:43 am

rajakrsna;1388391 wrote: You are proof of God. Everyone one of us are proof of God. I do not believe we came from the apes. But I do believe we can transmigrate from man to ape and ape to aquatic animals and vice versa. It is known as the transmigration of the atomic soul from one body to another. It is caused by God who is Karma-the law of cause and effect. If you do not believe in Karma it means God for you does not exist. Then you are considered by believers of God as an atheist.

Thanks for your response. But I have to disagree; I don't believe my existence or the entire universe is proof of God. All I can say with confidence is that existence exists. From that I don't feel confident surmising a supreme being. It's not that such a being couldn't exist; it's that I lack sufficient evidence for such a being. It's certainly tempting for me to conclude that since nothing comes from nothing there must exist a being with sufficient power and "intelligence" to create the universe. However, in doing that, I argue from ignorance; because in the end, that's what it is: An argument from ignorance. It could simply be that the universe has simply been in existence from eternity--evolving, growing, and expanding, and without the aid of any supernatural being. It is no more or less likely that the material universe is its own reason for existing than it is to suppose that a super-being willed it into existence.

And all that talk of yours about karma...well, that's just more unsubstantiated claims laid on top your weak assumption of God's existence. It means nothing to us rational people who strive for a logical thread in all we think possible.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:02 am

goliah;1388594 wrote: While I could not but agree that science will never prove God, the model of scientific scrutiny, with testability of claims, may yet show it's value in the God discussion. For it would appear, from material circulating on the web, that what history, science and religion thought impossible has now happened!

The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ is published on the web. Radically different from anything else we know of from history, this new teaching is predicated upon a precise, predefined and predictable experience and called 'the first Resurrection' in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods' willingness to real Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His will, paving the way for access, by faith, to the power of divine transcendence.

Thus 'faith' is the path, the search and discovery of this direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power to confirm divine will, Law, command and covenant, while "correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries." So like it or no, a new religious teaching, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious revolution is getting under way. To test or not to test, that is the question? More info at The Final Freedoms,

The Final Freedoms*|*Soulgineering

First, I'll mention in passing that I very much doubt the originality of Christ's alleged teachings. I'm not going to quote the scholars here, but I've heard it said that most--if not all--of what Christ truly taught was prevalent in ancient teachings and wisdom. I'm not talking about the later additions by the scribes and teachers that tried to reconcile Christ the rebel Jew with their evolving Christ the demi-God. Obviously that was new, but only as a fiction. I suppose that's why they call it the Greatest Story Ever told.

I'm more interested in your mention of "faith." So are you saying that it is via faith that one may discover proof of God? and don't forget, that's what this thread was about. You say that this "new religious teaching" is "testable by faith." Tell me, if I were to attain knowledge of God via faith, then how might that be testable?

You say that there is an "intellectual and moral and religious revolution" getting under way. That may be. But can you tell us how that revolution may lead to sure knowledge of God's existence? That's really what I'd like to know.

Post by **spot** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:15 am

Infinite Stop;1388608 wrote: You say that there is an "intellectual and moral and religious revolution" getting under way. That may be. But can you tell us how that revolution may lead to sure knowledge of God's existence? That's really what I'd like to know.
It can't. That's the nature of knowledge. All that faith can do is provide a frame of behavior which engages with events. The events are there regardless of the frame of mind of the observer. What faith does is it offers an interpretation of what's been observed. For the sake of completeness, if you'll allow me an extra sentence, what belief does by way of contrast is it imposes a dogmatic interpretation which has nothing to do with either the events or the observer, while faith allows the observer to direct his course through life by way of dialogue.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:50 pm

spot;1388609 wrote: It can't. That's the nature of knowledge. All that faith can do is provide a frame of behavior which engages with events. The events are there regardless of the frame of mind of the observer. What faith does is it offers an interpretation of what's been observed. For the sake of completeness, if you'll allow me an extra sentence, what belief does by way of contrast is it imposes a dogmatic interpretation which has nothing to do with either the events or the observer, while faith allows the observer to direct his course through life by way of dialogue.

You say that the "events are there regardless of the frame of mind of the observer."

Not really. Because if I seek God via faithful prayer (for example), and then experience a revelation of God, then that experience did did not occur regardless of my frame of mind, but in response to my frame of mind. I sought--hypothetically--God in faith and believe that God revealed itself. I have no choice but to interpret that event as a cause and effect relationship, whether I am correct in my new-found knowledge of God or not. I could hardly be expected to deny my own knowledge and understanding of God in the event, simply because you tell me my faith has merely imposed a "dogmatic interpretation" of that great miracle; and that's what a revelation is, a miracle, as it would have been divinely caused and therefore without rational explanation.

Science cannot, will not, ever prove God, I say. A revelation, however, is the ultimate proof of God to a person, because in their mind, to them, they have just received in some fashion a communication from God. It gets no better than that. In the end, that revelation must be accepted in faith. Why? Because no matter how totally convinced the person is that God has "touched" them, they cannot logically prove that experience to their self, let alone anyone else. They will know God in that profound experience, but it will forever remain unverifiable and testable. Yet they will know.

That's the only proof of God possible.

Post by **spot** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:59 pm

By all means. The revelation is one interpretation of the perception and involves an external actor, God. I suggest it's equally valid to interpret the perception as involving just the observer and the event at which point the actor, God, becomes internal: not a part of the world but solely an aspect of the observer himself. We agree on the structure of what happens, we differ on the vocabulary perhaps. God as an internal actor is morally forgivable, God as an external actor most definitely can never be. Which you plump for is a matter of esthetics.

goliah · Post by **goliah** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 1:09 pm

Infinite Stop;1388608 wrote: First, I'll mention in passing that I very much doubt the originality of Christ's alleged teachings.

"Tell me, if I were to attain knowledge of God via faith, then how might that be testable?

" But can you tell us how that revolution may lead to sure knowledge of God's existence? That's really what I'd like to know

And doubt them you should. That is because those teachings, presented by religious tradition have nothing to do with God. They are an all too human theological counterfeit. The 'truth' of Christ's teaching has only recently been revealed.

The 'revelation' is an hypothesis, an insight into the human condition that exists outside the potential of natural reason or human nature to comprehend. But that insight can be both realized and confirmed by an act of faith. An experience "correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries."

What can be more sure knowledge that a teaching that is confirmed by God by a direct intervention for the very purpose of confirming his will?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:34 am

Infinite Stop;1388331 wrote: I contend that science or logical deduction alone is incapable of proving the existence of a living, sentient, creator Being; a.k.a. God.

There will never be a scientific conclusion or argument that will end, "Therefore, God exits" that will convince the majority. There would always be an element of doubt, and the question, "What if we are wrong?" No matter how profound sounding the argument, that argument will never be worth more than the paper it's printed on, in regard to God's existence. No Holy book, argument, or scientific deduction will ever=God.

Only God itself has the power to cause one of us experience its existence as self-evident truth. A direct communication from God is the greatest and only "proof" possible for God.

That one and only proof is the miracle of revelation, and it comes from God as a gift. Nobody discovers or proves God; instead God reveals itself to those it desires, and from that--and only that--one attains proof of God.

Agree? Disagree?

Whilst I agree with your first contention, I would also contend that science or logical deduction alone is incapable of disproving the existence of a living, sentient, creator being: a.k.a. God.

Your second contention I cannot agree with. Revelation might convince you as a person that God exists but that is a matter of changing your opinion - proof requires fact not opinion.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:26 pm

Bryn Mawr;1388773 wrote: Whilst I agree with your first contention, I would also contend that science or logical deduction alone is incapable of disproving the existence of a living, sentient, creator being: a.k.a. God.

Your second contention I cannot agree with. Revelation might convince you as a person that God exists but that is a matter of changing your opinion - proof requires fact not opinion.

Right. It's a "negative" with too many barriers to be able to prove. There's no way science could disprove a being whose essence, attributes and existence is total conjecture. We could look in every nook and cranny, and still be left wondering if God's essence or "being" was beyond our grasp.

And...wrong.

If revelation convinced you as a person that God exists, then you have your proof. The proof would be in the experience. You can't reduce the value of that great experience by simply labelling it an "opinion." See, I'm arguing from the point of view that such an event could actually occur; that is, that the creator would possess sufficient power and "intellgence" to be able to reveal itself to a member of its creation. Corollary to that would be that the person who's had such an experience would know God as self-evident truth. To that person, that's not opinion, that's as factual as it gets.

I argue that all knowledge for us thinking animals comes via experience. An experience of God would be no different. Why would it?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:37 pm

Infinite Stop;1388781 wrote: Right. It's a "negative" with too many barriers to be able to prove. There's no way science could disprove a being whose essence, attributes and existence is total conjecture. We could look in every nook and cranny, and still be left wondering if God's essence or "being" was beyond our grasp.

And...wrong.

If revelation convinced you as a person that God exists, then you have your proof. The proof would be in the experience. You can't reduce the value of that great experience by simply labelling it an "opinion." See, I'm arguing from the point of view that such an event could actually occur; that is, that the creator would possess sufficient power and "intellgence" to be able to reveal itself to a member of its creation. Corollary to that would be that the person who's had such an experience would know God as self-evident truth. To that person, that's not opinion, that's as factual as it gets.

I argue that all knowledge for us thinking animals comes via experience. An experience of God would be no different. Why would it?

But personal proof is not proof. Proof involves incontrovertible fact and revelation does not provide that.

If you have proof then the test of that proof is that you can explain it to another person and they will not be able to deny its truth by rational argument.

Revelation gives you personal faith that it is true, it does not give you proof that it is.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:42 pm

Infinite Stop;1388781 wrote: I argue that all knowledge for us thinking animals comes via experience. An experience of God would be no different. Why would it?
Because it's not a real experience, it's a delusion, an internalizing of feelings through a predetermined belief. And you're using a rather broad brush in your rhetoric.

If I seek knowledge as to certain events at a certain place and time, I can read about it rather than experience it and still have the knowledge. The feeling you're experiencing when you believe you're in communion with your god is not an experience with god at all, s/he was made up, it's an experience with your feelings.

Sounds kinda Zen, doesn't it.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:57 pm

Bryn Mawr;1388783 wrote: But personal proof is not proof. Proof involves incontrovertible fact and revelation does not provide that.

If you have proof then the test of that proof is that you can explain it to another person and they will not be able to deny its truth by rational argument.

Revelation gives you personal faith that it is true, it does not give you proof that it is.

From dictionary dot.com, a Definition of Revelation:

1. The act of revealing or disclosing; disclosure.

2. something revealed or disclosed, especially a striking disclosure, as of something not before realized.

3. Theology .

a. God's disclosure of Himself and His will to His creatures

Revelation then is a disclosure of some knowledge; in this case, a disclosure of the reality of God. Such a disclosure would be "incontrovertible fact" to the person who has had such an experience. You can't argue against the definition, no matter what your gut says. If one were to have such an experience, then it is "God's disclosure of Himself and His will..." You'll notice it does NOT say, "God's disclosure of Himself, but with doubts attached." No, it's God revealed in the experience. It's certain knowledge because God of the universe would have will it so, and that knowledge is incontrovertible and certain to that person.

You want a "test of that proof," but of course that would not be possible. I know that makes you mad, and it makes me mad too, but that's the way it is. It cannot be verified or tested. Why? Because a revelation is a miracle, and miracles defy rational explanation. The person would have attained knowledge of God, but the experience could not be scientifically dissected because it is born not of material reality, but of the divine will.

You say that revelation can give personal faith, and this is true; but you also say that it does not give "proof."

Definition of "proof"--evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

The "evidence" would be contained in the experience as self-evident truth. It would have to be self-evident, or it would not qualify as a true revelation.

Post by **spot** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:03 pm

You don't think the definition is influenced by submissions from the religiously motivated? That's one lousy source to have chosen for an untainted definition of a word.

If I want a definition I tend to go to a work which will quote previous uses, with a date and context, so I can make an informed judgement. The OED, for example. I'd also try to avoid selective quoting, hard though that is.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:18 pm

Because it's not a real experience, it's a delusion, an internalizing of feelings through a predetermined belief. And you're using a rather broad brush in your rhetoric.

If I seek knowledge as to certain events at a certain place and time, I can read about it rather than experience it and still have the knowledge. The feeling you're experiencing when you believe you're in communion with your god is not an experience with god at all, s/he was made up, it's an experience with your feelings.

Sounds kinda Zen, doesn't it.

You don't say why it is a delusion; you simply reject outright the possibility of such a God-event. How do you know that all claimed revelations are delusion? Have you interviewed all claimants in history? It would take only one claim to be true to render God a reality. But you seem to know--somehow--that every claimed revelation is a delusion or an "interalizing of feelings." I'm honored to meet such an intelligent man as yourself. You know a great deal.

Your second paragraph: Well it's certainly true that you can read about certain events at a certain place and time to attain knowledge. But can you read about God and attain knowledge of God? If so, please show me the book.

I'm not talking about simply "communing" with God. I'm talking about an experience in which God reveals its existence. One does not create such an experience with their "feelings," as you suggest. A true revelation cannot be born of "feelings." The miracle of revelation occurs in the mind as a realization of the reality of God. Then, from that realization one may "feel" amazed, or grateful, or loved, or any number of emotional states. You'll notice that the formal definition of revelation is not something like, "A person who feels the presence of God." Or, "A sneaking suspician that God exists." No, it is a revealing of a certain truth; in this case, the truth of God's existence.

No, it doesn't sound "Zen." It sounds like denial.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:25 pm

Infinite Stop;1388792 wrote:

I'm not talking about simply "communing" with God. I'm talking about an experience in which God reveals its existence. One does not create such an experience with their "feelings," as you suggest. A true revelation cannot be born of "feelings." The miracle of revelation occurs in the mind as a realization of the reality of God. Then, from that realization one may "feel" amazed, or grateful, or loved, or any number of emotional states. You'll notice that the formal definition of revelation is not something like, "A person who feels the presence of God." Or, "A sneaking suspician that God exists." No, it is a revealing of a certain truth; in this case, the truth of God's existence.

There's your delusion.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:36 pm

Infinite Stop;1388786 wrote: From dictionary dot.com, a Definition of Revelation:

1. The act of revealing or disclosing; disclosure.

2. something revealed or disclosed, especially a striking disclosure, as of something not before realized.

3. Theology .

a. God's disclosure of Himself and His will to His creatures

Revelation then is a disclosure of some knowledge; in this case, a disclosure of the reality of God. Such a disclosure would be "incontrovertible fact" to the person who has had such an experience. You can't argue against the definition, no matter what your gut says. If one were to have such an experience, then it is "God's disclosure of Himself and His will..." You'll notice it does NOT say, "God's disclosure of Himself, but with doubts attached." No, it's God revealed in the experience. It's certain knowledge because God of the universe would have will it so, and that knowledge is incontrovertible and certain to that person.

You want a "test of that proof," but of course that would not be possible. I know that makes you mad, and it makes me mad too, but that's the way it is. It cannot be verified or tested. Why? Because a revelation is a miracle, and miracles defy rational explanation. The person would have attained knowledge of God, but the experience could not be scientifically dissected because it is born not of material reality, but of the divine will.

You say that revelation can give personal faith, and this is true; but you also say that it does not give "proof."

Definition of "proof"--evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

The "evidence" would be contained in the experience as self-evident truth. It would have to be self-evident, or it would not qualify as a true revelation.

What is the definition of incontrovertible? Shall we start from there?

If you came to me and revealed to me that you were God then I would note the statement but ascribe it a very low probability of being true.

If a voice in my head revealed to me that it was God then I would note the statement, ascribe it a very low probability of being true and go to see a psychiatrist.

I can envisage having an epiphany and being convinced, in my own mind, that the cause was God revealed - I might even consider it to be incontrovertible but that opinion would not make it true, it would only be an opinion. It would only become incontrovertible when it was not able to be denied or disputed by any rational person.

That might make you mad but that is the way it is - a belief that resides within you is opinion until you can take it outside of yourself and prove it to others.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:37 pm

Ahso!;1388798 wrote: There's your delusion.

I'm simply trying to provide an accurate description of the revelation experience. Feelings do not produce thoughts in the mind; it's the other way around. Mentally we may feel embarrassed, and that in turn may cause a red face and sweating, perhaps, to give just one example. I can't help it if you don't know this. If one were to have a true revelation of God, then that is not born of "feelings," but a mental process, divinely inspired. You automatically assume that it can't happen, while I assume that it can; that's the fundamental difference between us.

And if you ever do attain knowledge of God, I say that it will come only by the miracle of revelation, and that revelation will have been a gift from God. You won't have discovered God; instead God will have revealed itself to you.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:49 pm

Bryn Mawr;1388800 wrote: What is the definition of incontrovertible? Shall we start from there?

If you came to me and revealed to me that you were God then I would note the statement but ascribe it a very low probability of being true.

If a voice in my head revealed to me that it was God then I would note the statement, ascribe it a very low probability of being true and go to see a psychiatrist.

I can envisage having an epiphany and being convinced, in my own mind, that the cause was God revealed - I might even consider it to be incontrovertible but that opinion would not make it true, it would only be an opinion. It would only become incontrovertible when it was not able to be denied or disputed by any rational person.

That might make you mad but that is the way it is - a belief that resides within you is opinion until you can take it outside of yourself and prove it to others.

Okay, let me ask you this then: Are you saying that not even God could convince you of Its existence? I mean, that's really what you are saying, isn't it? You argue from the vantage that in no way could any experience that revealed God be true. But if you are correct, then isn't that the same as saying that your ability to doubt the experience is greater than the power and will of God? Really? God lacks the power and intellect to overcome your doubts? If God itself is incapable of conveying its OWN exitence, then could science do any better? I think not.

Apparently, for you then, God may never be known.

And you are mistaken. The experience would be incontrovertible because it could not be denied by the rational person who had the experience. You said yourself, "It would only become incontrovertible when it was not able to be denied or disputed by any rational person." Well, that rational person would be the experiencer; and really, can you think of anyone better to judge the experience than the one who had it?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:52 pm

Infinite Stop;1388801 wrote: I'm simply trying to provide an accurate description of the revelation experience. Feelings do not produce thoughts in the mind; it's the other way around. Mentally we may feel embarrassed, and that in turn may cause a red face and sweating, perhaps, to give just one example. I can't help it if you don't know this. If one were to have a true revelation of God, then that is not born of "feelings," but a mental process, divinely inspired. You automatically assume that it can't happen, while I assume that it can; that's the fundamental difference between us.

And if you ever do attain knowledge of God, I say that it will come only by the miracle of revelation, and that revelation will have been a gift from God. You won't have discovered God; instead God will have revealed itself to you.Been there - done that, my young friend.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:56 pm

Infinite Stop;1388808 wrote: Okay, let me ask you this then: Are you saying that not even God could convince you of Its existence? I mean, that's really what you are saying, isn't it? You argue from the vantage that in no way could any experience that revealed God be true. But if you are correct, then isn't that the same as saying that your ability to doubt the experience is greater than the power and will of God? Really? God lacks the power and intellect to overcome your doubts? If God itself is incapable of conveying its OWN exitence, then could science do any better? I think not.

Apparently, for you then, God may never be discovered.

And you are mistaken. The experience would be incontrovertible because it could not be denied by the rational person who had the experience. You said yourself, "It would only become incontrovertible when it was not able to be denied or disputed by any rational person." Well, that rational person would be the experiencer; and really, can you think of anyone better to judge the experience than the one who had it?

Not in the slightest - read what I said.

God might well convince me that he exists, I could well become a rabid evangelist telling all who'd listen how the revelation hit me but that would not be proof that he does exist - only proof that I believe that he exists.

For proof to be proof it has to be provable and internal belief and the faith that that brings is not proof.

theia · Post by **theia** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:10 pm

Bryn Mawr;1388812 wrote: Not in the slightest - read what I said.

God might well convince me that he exists, I could well become a rabid evangelist telling all who'd listen how the revelation hit me but that would not be proof that he does exist - only proof that I believe that he exists.

For proof to be proof it has to be provable and internal belief and the faith that that brings is not proof.

I think it unlikely that a revelation would lend itself to words and so I would think it even more unlikely that a person who had experienced a revelation would become a rabid evangelist. And whilst I agree that a revelation would prove nothing except to the person who experienced it, I'm wondering why they would need to prove it to anyone else.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:13 pm

theia;1388817 wrote: I think it unlikely that a revelation would lend itself to words and so I would think it even more unlikely that a person who had experienced a revelation would become a rabid evangelist. And whilst I agree that a revelation would prove nothing except to the person who experienced it, I'm wondering why they would need to prove it to anyone else.Because some believers go around forums and claim it? Who started the thread?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:30 pm

theia;1388817 wrote: I think it unlikely that a revelation would lend itself to words and so I would think it even more unlikely that a person who had experienced a revelation would become a rabid evangelist. And whilst I agree that a revelation would prove nothing except to the person who experienced it, I'm wondering why they would need to prove it to anyone else.

The OP was phrased as a point of logic rather than a tenet of faith and that is how I responded to it.

As an aside, you'd be amazed at the number of people who have "had a revelation" and become a rabid evangelist as a result.

theia · Post by **theia** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:44 pm

Bryn Mawr;1388819 wrote: The OP was phrased as a point of logic rather than a tenet of faith and that is how I responded to it.

As an aside, you'd be amazed at the number of people who have "had a revelation" and become a rabid evangelist as a result.

I would be interested in knowing more about these people.

I have met less than a handful of people in my life who have quietly mentioned that they have experienced a revelation but who can explain no more because it's not of thought, or mind or sensation. I have also read about people who say it's inexplainable. But from this very small sample I can say that I find them unassuming, gentle, compassionate and loving people, not rabid evangelists.

Post by **spot** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:58 pm

theia, you're not mapping the word "revelation" onto the phrase "born again" which is Christian code for fundamentalist evangelism. That's where the two views both have a basis.

theia · Post by **theia** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 6:52 am

spot;1388824 wrote: theia, you're not mapping the word "revelation" onto the phrase "born again" which is Christian code for fundamentalist evangelism. That's where the two views both have a basis.

I'm not sure what you mean, spot

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:06 am

In the USA 9 in 10 believe there is a god...

Poll: 9 In 10 Americans Still Believe In God

Not sure why you assume the majority don't believe there is a god???

Post by **spot** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:10 am

theia;1388883 wrote: I'm not sure what you mean, spot

You were wondering why some of us had described many people who believe they've had a personal divine revelation as rabid and evangelistic. You wrote "from this very small sample I can say that I find them unassuming, gentle, compassionate and loving people, not rabid evangelists". I suggested that the rabid evangelists some of us had described call themselves "born again" and that this code-phrase, "born again", has to be a personal divine revelation or it's not considered authentic within their Christian-fundamentalist tradition. Perhaps you've not met examples but I, for my sins, undoubtedly have.

theia · Post by **theia** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:30 am

spot;1388894 wrote: You were wondering why some of us had described many people who believe they've had a personal divine revelation as rabid and evangelistic. You wrote "from this very small sample I can say that I find them unassuming, gentle, compassionate and loving people, not rabid evangelists". I suggested that the rabid evangelists some of us had described call themselves "born again" and that this code-phrase, "born again", has to be a personal divine revelation or it's not considered authentic within their Christian-fundamentalist tradition. Perhaps you've not met examples but I, for my sins, undoubtedly have.

Ah right, I'm with you now...thank you.

In my search for a church that reflected how I felt and what I wanted, I did attend a couple of "born again" services a few years ago. The people were very welcoming but it wasn't for me and I didn't feel comfortable when the "speaking in tongues" took place. I think I'm open minded about speaking in tongues, but I feel that it doesn't lend itself well to ego.

I enjoyed the Catholic services more, which surprised me.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:57 am

Ahso!;1388811 wrote: Been there - done that, my young friend.

I have serious doubts that you have been where I have been in regard to God's existence. If you had, you would not have forsaken the commonsense truth of what I am saying in this thread.

Here's my position simply stated:

~God--if It exists--has the power to communicate its existence to us humans, if it desires. That communication is a revelation. Further, it is my personal belief that God has done such a thing for many already.

~God cannot, will not, ever be proven via science or logical deduction alone. God must be proactive in our "discovery" of It, or God cannot be known.

~Because science cannot prove God, the only means of ever knowing God is via revelation; and in that experience one attains the ultimate proof of God. Of course that knowledge would be subjective truth for the experiencer, but for others it would be--at best--an inspiring testimony.

What in that do you find so obectionable?

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:16 am

Bryn Mawr;1388812 wrote: Not in the slightest - read what I said.

God might well convince me that he exists, I could well become a rabid evangelist telling all who'd listen how the revelation hit me but that would not be proof that he does exist - only proof that I believe that he exists.

For proof to be proof it has to be provable and internal belief and the faith that that brings is not proof.

So you agree at least that God "might well" be able to convince you that It exists. Whew! Finally, we're getting somewhere.

You keep wanting to fit the round peg in the square hole with this thing. You seem to agree that such a being as God could reveal itself if it desired. It should be apparent that such an event would be a miracle, as it would be the product of divine will and power, not material reality. Now, you know miracles cannot be proven, so it seems hasty of you to suppose that somehow an exception needs to be made here. A person who has such an experience for the first time, for example, is for the first time acquiring true knowledge of God. The fact that the event is a unique and singular event should in no way reduce the value of the knowledge gained. True, only the experiencer has gained true knowledge of God. The best their testimony could do for rational thinking people would be to inspire them to faith. Much would depend on how the experiencer conducts their self, I suppose. A person that goes through a major transformation for the better after their claimed revelation may be far more believable than someone who doesn't walk the walk. Again, rational thinking people will be at best only inspired; the testimony could hardly be considered proof. But that's as it should be, since there is no way the experiencer could be expected to prove the unprovable.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:22 am

Infinite Stop;1388904 wrote: I have serious doubts that you have been where I have been in regard to God's existence. If you had, you would not have forsaken the commonsense truth of what I am saying in this thread.

Here's my position simply stated:

~God--if It exists--has the power to communicate its existence to us humans, if it desires. That communication is a revelation. Further, it is my personal belief that God has done such a thing for many already.

~God cannot, will not, ever be proven via science or logical deduction alone. God must be proactive in our "discovery" of It, or God cannot be known.

~Because science cannot prove God, the only means of ever knowing God is via revelation; and in that experience one attains the ultimate proof of God. Of course that knowledge would be subjective truth for the experiencer, but for others it would be--at best--an inspiring testimony.

What in that do you find so obectionable?What, you want proof? My word isn't good enough for you?

Is knowledge of life only as you perceive it? Must you agree with ones perception of living in order for it to be authentic?

Everything I know is through revelation; who are you to doubt them or my word?

Post by **spot** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:30 am

Infinite Stop;1388904 wrote: God cannot, will not, ever be proven via science or logical deduction alone.Except I thought I'd done that earlier this week. Maybe you weren't there. It does, admittedly, depend on what vocabulary one chooses, but:

If God is by definition good,

and God is by definition all-powerful,

then, since under any reasonable definition of "good", His failing to prevent the Boxing Day tsunami which caused a quarter million deaths could not have happened but did,

God cannot exist.

Christians have to fall back on "the ways of God are inscrutable and not for the likes of us to judge" or they're screwed, unless they revise their dogma, or received beliefs, as far as "omnipotent" is concerned. I say inscrutable schmutable, good is good however you wrap it in mystery and more to the point bad is bad. Failing to prevent that one specific tsunami despite possessing the capacity to do so would have been plain outright definitive bad.

If you're using a different vocabulary, and I assume you have to be, we'll be better able to discuss your quaint notions if you lay it out clearly for inspection.

theia · Post by **theia** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:07 am

spot;1388909 wrote: Except I thought I'd done that earlier this week. Maybe you weren't there. It does, admittedly, depend on what vocabulary one chooses, but:

If God is by definition good,

and God is by definition all-powerful,

then, since under any reasonable definition of "good", His failing to prevent the Boxing Day tsunami which caused a quarter million deaths could not have happened but did,

God cannot exist.

Christians have to fall back on "the ways of God are inscrutable and not for the likes of us to judge" or they're screwed, unless they revise their dogma, or received beliefs, as far as "omnipotent" is concerned. I say inscrutable schmutable, good is good however you wrap it in mystery and more to the point bad is bad. Failing to prevent that one specific tsunami despite possessing the capacity to do so would have been plain outright definitive bad.

If you're using a different vocabulary, and I assume you have to be, we'll be better able to discuss your quaint notions if you lay it out clearly for inspection.

Why does God have to be "good" or "bad?"

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:53 am

Infinite Stop;1388907 wrote: So you agree at least that God "might well" be able to convince you that It exists. Whew! Finally, we're getting somewhere.

You keep wanting to fit the round peg in the square hole with this thing. You seem to agree that such a being as God could reveal itself if it desired. It should be apparent that such an event would be a miracle, as it would be the product of divine will and power, not material reality. Now, you know miracles cannot be proven, so it seems hasty of you to suppose that somehow an exception needs to be made here. A person who has such an experience for the first time, for example, is for the first time acquiring true knowledge of God. The fact that the event is a unique and singular event should in no way reduce the value of the knowledge gained. True, only the experiencer has gained true knowledge of God. The best their testimony could do for rational thinking people would be to inspire them to faith. Much would depend on how the experiencer conducts their self, I suppose. A person that goes through a major transformation for the better after their claimed revelation may be far more believable than someone who doesn't walk the walk. Again, rational thinking people will be at best only inspired; the testimony could hardly be considered proof. But that's as it should be, since there is no way the experiencer could be expected to prove the unprovable.

Firstly, the event of having my mind changed does not, of necessity, constitute a miracle and does happen on a fairly regular basis

More seriously, you are at last admitting that, contrary to your opening post, divine revelation to a single individual does not provide proof of God and that only the experiencer has gained knowledge of God, true or otherwise.

Your opening post asked whether we agreed or disagreed with that statement. I disagree with it and have given my line of reasoning for doing so - it is an individual experience and not a proof as it fails the test required for a proof, it cannot be presented as an argument that will be accepted by a rational and reasonable person as sufficient evidence to establish the truth of the proposition.

Why this is trying to fit a round peg into a square hole or why it should be seen as hasty supposition I do not know - I have done my best to answer the question you asked.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:59 am

spot;1388909 wrote: Except I thought I'd done that earlier this week. Maybe you weren't there. It does, admittedly, depend on what vocabulary one chooses, but:

If God is by definition good,

and God is by definition all-powerful,

then, since under any reasonable definition of "good", His failing to prevent the Boxing Day tsunami which caused a quarter million deaths could not have happened but did,

God cannot exist.

My argument has nothing to do with the argument from evil. I'm not talking about God's good or bad performance. I'm talking about how one attains sure knowledge of God. Whether you and I are disappointed in God's performance is not the point. It's about knowing the reality of God, regardless of whether or not that God meets our expectations. I want to know the God that is, not the God that I wish I had. And how do I do that? Via revelation only. Science will never prove God.

Christians have to fall back on "the ways of God are inscrutable and not for the likes of us to judge" or they're screwed, unless they revise their dogma, or received beliefs, as far as "omnipotent" is concerned. I say inscrutable schmutable, good is good however you wrap it in mystery and more to the point bad is bad. Failing to prevent that one specific tsunami despite possessing the capacity to do so would have been plain outright definitive bad.

Let me ask this: If you believe that the world is too screwed up for there still to exist a living, loving God, then there's little point in you discussing the existence of God. However, if you are like many others who believe that, in spite of the poor state of the world, that there may still exist a living supreme being, then the argument from evil should be ancillary to the discussion.

If you're using a different vocabulary, and I assume you have to be, we'll be better able to discuss your quaint notions if you lay it out clearly for inspection.

Honestly, I believe that I have laid out my position succinctly and lucidly. Here it is--again:

~God--if It exists--has the power to communicate its existence to us humans, if it desires. That communication is a revelation. Further, it is my personal belief that God has done such a thing for many already.

~God cannot, will not, ever be proven via science or logical deduction alone. God must be proactive in our "discovery" of It, or God cannot be known.

~Because science alone cannot prove God, the only means of ever attaining sure knowledge of God is via revelation, personally experienced; and in that experience one attains the ultimate proof of God. Of course that knowledge would be subjective truth for the experiencer, but for others it would be--at best--an inspiring testimony.

Really, I believe that what I am proposing is quite rational, even logical.

Post by **spot** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:02 am

theia;1388915 wrote: Why does God have to be "good" or "bad?"

That's why we're negotiating the terminology and whether wse're speaking from a Christian perspective. If we're speaking from a Christian perspective then God has no say in the matter, He has to be good in so far as He's able. There's a huge stack of accumulated prayers and hymns and Collects that would be unusable otherwise.

Post by **spot** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:04 am

Infinite Stop;1388926 wrote: Let me ask this: If you believe that the world is too screwed up for there still to exist a living, loving God, then there's little point in you discussing the existence of God.
Of course there is. All I've rejected by logic is "omnipotent".

And, reading the rest of your post, "supreme being". And, before you ask, Creator.

You appear to worship something devilish, against which I would fight were it real.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:06 am

spot;1388909 wrote: Except I thought I'd done that earlier this week. Maybe you weren't there. It does, admittedly, depend on what vocabulary one chooses, but:

If God is by definition good,

and God is by definition all-powerful,

then, since under any reasonable definition of "good", His failing to prevent the Boxing Day tsunami which caused a quarter million deaths could not have happened but did,

God cannot exist.

Christians have to fall back on "the ways of God are inscrutable and not for the likes of us to judge" or they're screwed, unless they revise their dogma, or received beliefs, as far as "omnipotent" is concerned. I say inscrutable schmutable, good is good however you wrap it in mystery and more to the point bad is bad. Failing to prevent that one specific tsunami despite possessing the capacity to do so would have been plain outright definitive bad.

If you're using a different vocabulary, and I assume you have to be, we'll be better able to discuss your quaint notions if you lay it out clearly for inspection.

I'm not sure I accept your definitions - that might be the way that Christianity presents God but it is certainly not a universal description amongst all religions and even restricting yourself to Christianity, human perception and real life are not always one and the same.

Consider the case of a God who is good and who is omniscient but not omnipotent.

Consider the possibility that such a God can see that, if he prevents the tsunami, billions of people will die over a long period of history. What would the "good" action be - to prevent the tsunami and save the life of a quarter of a million people at a later cost of billions or to allow the tsunami to take place thereby saving the larger number?

Post by **spot** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:11 am

Bryn Mawr;1388929 wrote: Consider the possibility that such a God can see that, if he prevents the tsunami, billions of people will die over a long period of history. What would the "good" action be - to prevent the tsunami and save the life of a quarter of a million people at a later cost of billions or to allow the tsunami to take place thereby saving the larger number?

I do hope you find Christian Apologetics leaves a foul taste in the mouth.

Absolutely any and every external Deity would be by definition the Enemy, were it to exist. Fortunately, my interpretation of my experience tells me it doesn't. Nobody has more than their interpretation of their experience to go on, that's all there can be.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:19 am

Bryn Mawr;1388923 wrote: Firstly, the event of having my mind changed does not, of necessity, constitute a miracle and does happen on a fairly regular basis

All people, like you, change their mind all time. However, a true revelation of God would be a miracle without explanation. You could perhaps describe to others the pretty colors you may have seen during the event, or the "energy" that pierced your body when you were healed, or the vision that you saw that revealed some great truth...but the means and the mechanics of the miracle lay beyond your grasp. It's a divinely caused event, and the exact operation of that event is born of the unfathomable "mind" of God. And unlike the source of your many other changes of mind, this is one change of mind in which the revealed truth would forever be inexplicable beyond that acquired truth.

More seriously, you are at last admitting that, contrary to your opening post, divine revelation to a single individual does not provide proof of God and that only the experiencer has gained knowledge of God, true or otherwise.

Hey look, Bryn, subjective truth proven to one is no less a proof simply because others cannot know of it in the same way. Truth is truth, whether one, two, or a billion people share in that truth; especially so when talking about the truth of God's existence, which could arguably be considered the greatest truth worth knowing.

Your opening post asked whether we agreed or disagreed with that statement. I disagree with it and have given my line of reasoning for doing so - it is an individual experience and not a proof as it fails the test required for a proof, it cannot be presented as an argument that will be accepted by a rational and reasonable person as sufficient evidence to establish the truth of the proposition.

The truth of the proposition is grounded in the experience for any rational person that has such an experience. The "proof" is not and will never be testable or verifiable via any scientific methodology. It can't be. It is a unique, singular event, as it would be the product of divine will, and therefore not subject to scientific whim.

Why this is trying to fit a round peg into a square hole or why it should be seen as hasty supposition I do not know - I have done my best to answer the question you asked.

Thanks for trying your best. Unfortunately sometimes our best isn't good enough.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:29 am

spot;1388930 wrote: I do hope you find Christian Apologetics leaves a foul taste in the mouth.

Absolutely any and every external Deity would be by definition the Enemy, were it to exist. Fortunately, my interpretation of my experience tells me it doesn't. Nobody has more than their interpretation of their experience to go on, that's all there can be.

Yes, I agree with your last line. One has nothing more than their "interpretation" to go on. But what is interpretation? To me it is a function of perception. However, such is the gate through which all knowledge must pass. If I perceive an experience as "God revealed," then that new-found knowledge is no less valid than any other perceived truth.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:51 am

spot;1388928 wrote: Of course there is. All I've rejected by logic is "omnipotent".

And, reading the rest of your post, "supreme being". And, before you ask, Creator.

You appear to worship something devilish, against which I would fight were it real.

I don't know if God is "omnipotent." God may be a baby-ass weakling for all I know, tired after all that work creating the universe.

The thing is, that's why--in part anyway--I say that a personal revelation is the only means of ever knowing God. We don't know what God's attributes are, and how could we? That's why science will never prove God, because we don't know the true essence of God, or what God's attributes are. It's all speculation, nothing more. AAAAAAHHH! but if you were to have an experience of God...now THAT is something entirely different! If you experience God, you need not know God's true essence, or have to speculate God's attributes. Your knowledge of God gained in the experience need not go beyond that truth revealed in the experience. By analogy, you need not know in great detail the inner workings of Einstein's brain to know that he existed and that he was pretty darn smart. And I'll generalize even further by saying that, we know very little about each other. We get a facade and an ego, but how much is that compared to the total sum of the person, both mentally and biologically speaking? In the same way I believe we can know God. We need not know of the inner-most details of God's existence in order for us to know of that existence. The intellect of God need not convey in the experience all that God is and could ever be, only the truth of its existence presented as irreducible truth. Listen, a three year old child has the capacity to convey its existence with certainty with nothing more than a cry. Certainly the God of the universe could do as much, don't you think?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:06 pm

Infinite Stop;1388931 wrote: All people, like you, change their mind all time. However, a true revelation of God would be a miracle without explanation. You could perhaps describe to others the pretty colors you may have seen during the event, or the "energy" that pierced your body when you were healed, or the vision that you saw that revealed some great truth...but the means and the mechanics of the miracle lay beyond your grasp. It's a divinely caused event, and the exact operation of that event is born of the unfathomable "mind" of God. And unlike the source of your many other changes of mind, this is one change of mind in which the revealed truth would forever be inexplicable beyond that acquired truth.

Such a sweeping generalisation - for your information there is only one person like me and that is me.

I do not change my mind of whim but when logic and reason show that my understanding is faulty. Given that you have shown very little reason or logic in this thread you have singularly failed to change my mind.

.

Infinite Stop;1388931 wrote: Hey look, Bryn, subjective truth proven to one is no less a proof simply because others cannot know of it in the same way. Truth is truth, whether one, two, or a billion people share in that truth; especially so when talking about the truth of God's existence, which could arguably be considered the greatest truth worth knowing.

What is you definition of "proof"?

Truth is Truth and can exist outside of mass acceptance where it is a statement of the real world that exists outside of the accepted perception of reality. Subjective truth? Yes it can be true that I consider myself blessed but that is not a Truth, it is an opinion that is particular to my current state of mind - it has no universal applicability.

Proof, on the other hand, is a logical concept that involves a series of logical steps leading from an accepted starting point to the stated position where none of the steps taken admit to an alternative explanation - that you have not provided and divine revelation cannot provide outside of the mind of the one person.

Infinite Stop;1388931 wrote: The truth of the proposition is grounded in the experience for any rational person that has such an experience. The "proof" is not and will never be testable or verifiable via any scientific methodology. It can't be. It is a unique, singular event, as it would be the product of divine will, and therefore not subject to scientific whim.

That is what I have been saying all along.

.

Infinite Stop;1388931 wrote: Thanks for trying your best. Unfortunately sometimes our best isn't good enough.

What are you on about?

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:51 pm

Bryn Mawr;1388937 wrote:

.

What is you definition of "proof"?

Truth is Truth and can exist outside of mass acceptance where it is a statement of the real world that exists outside of the accepted perception of reality. Subjective truth? Yes it can be true that I consider myself blessed but that is not a Truth, it is an opinion that is particular to my current state of mind - it has no universal applicability.

First, I already gave you a proper def of "proof," on page 2. Must I repeat myself?

You say that a "truth can exist outside mass acceptance where it is a statement of the real world that exists outside of the accepted perception of reality." Well, what would you call a revelation of God? To a non-believer, that's exactly what a statement proclaiming a revelation of God is! You are burying yourself here.

You then say that "subjective truth" is merely an opinion. Really? To all people, ALL truth is subjective truth. In the end, it is your personal perception that determines the quality and veracity of all truth. You can label it whatever you like, opinion or otherwise, it's still truth as conceived to the best of your ability. You then say that subjective truth is mere opinion and has no "universal applicability." On the contrary, the subjective truth of God is arguably the only truth that has universal applicability, as it pertains God, our very existence, and ultimately all existence. More than any event or law, the truth of God, whether subjective opinion or not, would be universally applicable to all that was, is, and ever will be.

Proof, on the other hand, is a logical concept that involves a series of logical steps leading from an accepted starting point to the stated position where none of the steps taken admit to an alternative explanation - that you have not provided and divine revelation cannot provide outside of the mind of the one person.

Of course within the scientific paradigm that works. Unfortunately, since science is incapable of proving God, scientific methodology does not apply. A true, living sentient creator being cannot be deduced, or reduced to some equation. Any scientific or logical proof of God must necessarily rely very much on the presumption of that being's existence. Presumption is not proof. The best science can do is attempt to define God, and then attempt to prove that God as defined. With such an approach we merely construe the data to see what we want to see (in this case God), and in the process commit the fallacy of circular reasoning. We could write an incredibly inspiring "proof" of God and then parade it down 5th Avenue. In the end it's nothing more than facts and figures on glossy pages. I describe such a "proof" as this as nothing more than a stillborn hope. In such a proof we declare, "We have found God!" However, all it would take is the innocence of a child to ask, "But where is He, Mommy? I don't see Him," and the proof goes in the garbage.

Science will never prove God. Revelation is the only way.