Why People Believe What They Believe

• Home
• COURSES!

• About Us
• The Specialists

• Testimonials
• Online English

• Resources
• English Club

• FAQ
• Foreign Stud.

• CONTACT us
• aiepBLOG

American Institute for English Proficiency, Makati, Philippines on Facebook

[Denmark Pilongo]

Denmark Pilongo
Customer Service Specialist

"I am glad I found The American Institute because they helped me in improving my conversation fluency and developing my confidence. At first, I was very intimidated when speaking in English, but I became more and more comfortable. I am currently working as customer service specialist in the BPO/Call Center industry, and I have The American Institute to thank for. I am still a part of the institute through their English Club called Universal Pro-English Club. We've done many activities including trips to Baguio, Lucena, interview strategies, and many more so that we can use English in a natural setting."

Alice Anod
Accountant and Auditor

"The English language Specialists are very different from all the teachers I've had in high school or college. Most teachers I've had in the past were very strict and distanced themselves from the students, but these guys will make you feel like you're one of them. In fact, we call them by their first names, not "sir" or ma'am." They respect us as students with individuality, and at the same time, we respect them for their knowledge and expertise. I used to work for a relatively small local bank, but now I work for a major international firm after developing my speech and communication skills through them."

Elaine Villafuerte
Hotel Operations Specialist

"Before I came to The American Institute, I was already somewhat confident with my English; I simply wanted to polish my speech and communication skills. What I found was that I had so much more to learn. They really taught me how not to just speak English, but how to speak WELL. I was able to improve my critical thinking skills and became a more organized speaker. Now, I work for a five-star hotel, and I am so much more confident when dealing with local executives as well as foreign business professionals. I would highly recommend their services."

To view more testimonials, click on the blue "Testimonials" button above.

[ANC, the News Channel of ABS-CBN, partners with The American Institute.]

ANC, the News Channel of ABS-CBN, partners with The American Institute.  On October 3, 2007, The American Institute became the official consultant for the Philippine Debate Championship which is co-sponsored by ABS-CBN/ANC and Philippine Graphics.  The debate tournament uses the parliamentary debate format, in which two university students compete against two others.  General Manager and English Language Specialist Christopher Delacruz, an Impromptu Speaking Champion in the US and Canada and Finalist in several  parliamentary debate events in the Northwest Public Debate Association has and will be helping the teams to prepare for the nationally televised debates and help lead them to the world championships which will be held in Thailand.  The debates air live on ANC every Wednesday at 8 pm.

[irisweetz]

Why People Believe What They Believe

If you were asked WHY you believe what you say you believe, what would be your answer? If you are a Christian, you might say that you want to follow the truth and that your religion must be true because millions of people around the world are Christian. When asked what else you base your beliefs upon, you may answer, "The Bible tells us to believe this . . . or do that . . . or avoid doing another thing." When pressed to explain a Bible verse, you may turn to the interpretation of scriptures as taught by your pastor or priest because that person has done a great deal of study and is a well-known theologian or expert in the area. And similar answers can be given by those who follow the Koran, the Torah, or Tibetan holy books.

While such answers may seem to support your beliefs, they raise a number of questions. For example, is the number of people who believe in a religion really a good barometer? More people in the world aren't Christian than are. And why have you decided to accept the sacred writings of your religion as a blueprint for your life? Other texts are considered sacred by other people. What is it about your holy scripture that makes the most sense to you?

Further, there are many interpretations of the same biblical passage. Why do you put your faith in one interpretation rather than another? The world is filled with experts, yet you have chosen one or a group of experts rather than someone else.

So why do you believe what you believe? The truth is that each person's heart is opened (or closed) to a set of religious beliefs or to spiritual experience in a slightly different way. Each person chooses the particular beliefs that best meet his or her psychological, social, and mental needs. The more we understand why we believe one thing rather than another, the more we can strengthen the beliefs that are most important to us, question those that no longer work for us, and gain greater tolerance for the beliefs of others.

[wilyam27]

i believe what i believe because it has practical benefits for my well being.... other than that, i believe what i believe out of convenience...

[Angel Assassin]

Your question, irisweetz, is trying to mold a philosopher out of me. It sends me in deep thought (but I remember the Golden Words - "Don't over think it!"). People believe what they believe because when they accidentally hit their head to a hanging sign board they do not tend to repeat it. They look up to the sign board and it reads :"Watch out!".

I mean we believe what we believe because of our experiences that tend to stick into our memories and continuously molding who we are. Our experiences have differences of course. In many ways we are unique. But then reality is like a coin. It always tend to have two sides in our point of view. If we can see the differences clearly, it is obvious we are missing something. It is the great unity around us that we miss. What is this great unity? What do we have in common aside being students at aiepro? We are human beings, and as such our body structure is almost the same. Well we may say that every garden is different. In one garden there are all beautiful flowers planted. In the other, there are mere eggplants. But the truth is they are both plants and the garden is similar, that's why they are called in one general name.

Since as human beings, we have this unifying principle as can be seen in our physical characteristics, there will be a tendency in us to come up with unifying ideals. In physics, that is the dream of physicists: a unified theory of the universe. In theology, that is the dream of the thinkers: a unified position about reality and God. For example, the religion, Bahai Faith, is moving towards the belief in the parallelism of different faiths. They believe in the unification of religions. Even if we belong to a different faith, and if we live long enough to realize the truth, there will be one faith emerging and this faith will survive other faiths for it is based on truth. It will stand the test of time. Science is moving forward to a unification, and so does religion. Will science and religion move forward too a single braid? Why not? The more science move forward, the more it goes to the limits of human sense, the more science relies on metaphors to explain the universe. Well, Jesus used metaphors to explain fundamental truths. The more a scientist learn, the more he learns of his ignorance, the more he realizes the how deep reality is, the more belief in God is strengthened.

Ultimately, the common denominator  in assessing the world will be our capabilities as human beings, and since these capabilities have limits, more and more we will realize the truth: God.

[Angel Assassin]

Your question, irisweetz, is trying to mold a philosopher out of me. It sends me in deep thought (but I remember the Golden Words - "Don't over think it!"). People believe what they believe because when they accidentally hit their head on a hanging sign board they do not tend to repeat it. They look up to the squeaking sign board and it reads :"Watch out! Low. Hanging. Signboard".

I mean we believe what we believe because of our experiences that tend to stick into our memories, continuously molding who we are. Our experiences have differences of course. In many ways we are unique. But then, reality is like a coin. It always tend to have two sides in our point of view. If we can see the differences clearly, it is obvious we are missing something. It is the great unity around us that we miss. What is this great unity? What do we have in common aside being students at aiepro? We are human beings, and as such our body structure is almost the same. Well we may say that every garden is different. In one garden there are all beautiful flowers planted. In the other, there are mere eggplants. But the truth is they are both plants and the garden is similar, that's why they are called in one general name.

Since as human beings, we have this unifying principle as can be seen in our physical characteristics, there will be a tendency in us to come up with unifying ideals. In physics, that is the dream of physicists: a unified theory of the universe. In theology, that is the dream of the thinkers: a unified position about reality and God. For example, the religion, Bahai Faith, is moving towards the belief in the parallelism of different faiths. They believe in the unification of religions. Even if we belong to a different faith, and if we live long enough to realize the truth, there will be one faith emerging that we may witness and this faith will survive other faiths for it is based on truth. It will stand the test of time. Science is moving forward to a unification, and so does religion. Will science and religion move forward to a single braid? Why not? The more science move forward, the more it goes to the limits of human senses, the more science relies on metaphors to explain the universe. Well, Jesus used metaphors to explain fundamental truths. The more a scientist learn, the more he learns of his ignorance, the more he realizes how deep reality is, the more belief in God is strengthened.

Ultimately, the common denominator  in assessing the world will be our capabilities as human beings, and since these capabilities have limits, more and more we will realize the truth: God.

[wilyam27]

Your question, irisweetz, is trying to mold a philosopher out of me. It sends me in deep thought (but I remember the Golden Words - "Don't over think it!"). People believe what they believe because when they accidentally hit their head on a hanging sign board they do not tend to repeat it. They look up to the squeaking sign board and it reads :"Watch out! Low. Hanging. Signboard".

I mean we believe what we believe because of our experiences that tend to stick into our memories, continuously molding who we are. Our experiences have differences of course. In many ways we are unique. But then, reality is like a coin. It always tend to have two sides in our point of view. If we can see the differences clearly, it is obvious we are missing something. It is the great unity around us that we miss. What is this great unity? What do we have in common aside being students at aiepro? We are human beings, and as such our body structure is almost the same. Well we may say that every garden is different. In one garden there are all beautiful flowers planted. In the other, there are mere eggplants. But the truth is they are both plants and the garden is similar, that's why they are called in one general name.

Since as human beings, we have this unifying principle as can be seen in our physical characteristics, there will be a tendency in us to come up with unifying ideals. In physics, that is the dream of physicists: a unified theory of the universe. In theology, that is the dream of the thinkers: a unified position about reality and God. For example, the religion, Bahai Faith, is moving towards the belief in the parallelism of different faiths. They believe in the unification of religions. Even if we belong to a different faith, and if we live long enough to realize the truth, there will be one faith emerging that we may witness and this faith will survive other faiths for it is based on truth. It will stand the test of time. Science is moving forward to a unification, and so does religion. Will science and religion move forward to a single braid? Why not? The more science move forward, the more it goes to the limits of human senses, the more science relies on metaphors to explain the universe. Well, Jesus used metaphors to explain fundamental truths. The more a scientist learn, the more he learns of his ignorance, the more he realizes how deep reality is, the more belief in God is strengthened.

Ultimately, the common denominator  in assessing the world will be our capabilities as human beings, and since these capabilities have limits, more and more we will realize the truth: God.

but the question is how to unify?  more often than not, unification to many means aligning oneself to one common thought or principle. 

that was what i believed first, but listening to other philosophers as well, unification through diversity is much much better.  i don't have to believe in what you believe and still we can be one in our common goal of building a kingdom here on earth.  in the same manner that my concept of god may be different from yours, but i am for unification of all religion and science at that...

[Angel Assassin]

but the question is how to unify?  more often than not, unification to many means aligning oneself to one common thought or principle. 

that was what i believed first, but listening to other philosophers as well, unification through diversity is much much better.  i don't have to believe in what you believe and still we can be one in our common goal of building a kingdom here on earth.  in the same manner that my concept of god may be different from yours, but i am for unification of all religion and science at that...

It seems to me that the unification had already started since man learned to communicate, and now the question is when we will be able to bring it to near perfection. Unification to one common thought is a practicing ground for the ongoing unification for something larger than the divided ones.

We are learning organisms and we tend to improve, but I admit, improvement is slow. At least we have halted massive wars like those in the old times, or at least now we hate war. More and more we aim for clarity and for understanding not only of our fellowmen but also of the universe. Physics is like a loner walking in the dark in the past, but soon, Psychology and Social Sciences will catch up to it. Physics and psychology are awaiting unification, and the early signs were already at hand. One sign is the Uncertainty Theory of Heisenberg (Physics). The Uncertainty Theory says in the realm of the very small, at the point of the limits of our senses, our measurements will fail; but it isn't in the measurement, but in the essence of the observer and the observed - the relationship of the observer to the things around him. Psychology "studies" the observer primarily, and the observer studies physical matter. So there is a unification waiting at hand.

We are similar as well as diverse. We are at one with the universe. We are influenced on a higher level by a unified reality. To me, it isn't commonality or diversity, but uniformity and diversity. The duality is a matter of perspective, but both sides of the coin are true and they are actually part of one whole coin; just like the Yin and the Yang in eternal braid.

In Judeo-Christian and Islamic faiths, I believe, God cannot be conceptualized, for God introduced "Itself" to man, and it isn't man who created God. Zeus can be conceptualized and we understand what Zeus mean exactly as to the essence of the word. But the word God, it cannot be understood in the manner we can understand the  word Zeus.

If a philosopher would say, "God is the supreme being." This philosopher then is making an ill-formed definition. If there is God and if God created all beings, how can God be a being in the first place? God is greater or deeper than being then.

A conceptualization exists, at least in one's mind; but God created existence, so how can one say that God is a conceptualization? If God is a conceptualization, one is asserting that God is in the category of His creations, that is existence, and this is illogical, I believe.

The Bible shows that God is deeper than what we can think of "Him".

[wilyam27]

... or think of her, or it...

[Angel Assassin]

... or think of her, or it...

It seems to me that we use "Him", "Her", or "It" in a very relative sense when we are referring to God. The truth is, I believe, all these words fall short to capturing the "essence" of God. Language is not applicable to God in the same way that language is applicable to God's creations.

[wilyam27]

but you yourself are using language to discuss the essence of your god, ribo.  we can't use anything as yet to convey an image or non-image of a god, right?

otherwise, what is this forum for if we can't use language to our advantage in sharing the god that is so personal to each of us.  we may not totally capture his/her/its essence but we can try, right?

[Angel Assassin]

but you yourself are using language to discuss the essence of your god, ribo.  we can't use anything as yet to convey an image or non-image of a god, right?

otherwise, what is this forum for if we can't use language to our advantage in sharing the god that is so personal to each of us.  we may not totally capture his/her/its essence but we can try, right?

Nice questions wilyam27.

What I mean is that we do not use language when we refer to God in the same way we use language when we refer to God's creations. We use words to God in a very relative way. Our words can only signify legitimately God's signs and one of God's signs is existence. As one may notice, the word and the concept God are not God but they are as they are - word and concept. Words and concept are consequence of man's activity, and man is a consequence of God's creation of existence. We can legitimately use language to whatever that exists and it can signify their essence, but not God. Why is that? When for example, we say essence of God, we do not mean essence as in essence that can be found in existence, but we mean "essence" that is beyond. A consequence of God's creation of existence is essence, so how can God be the same or has the property of His creations. Before all essences, there is God (as a consequence, God is the creator of essences). Even the word creator is used in a very relative way. God's "creating" the universe is not the same as a painter creating a portrait. The word creation legitimately applies to the relationship of the painter to his portrait, but not to God and is creations. We cannot possibly contain in our mind God's "creation" as we can contain the essence of creation happening when a painter paints his portrait.

In Judeo-Christian and Islamic faith, the word God is used to signify the unusual "power" that changed in a very significant way the normal experiences of people especially in the times of Moses and Joshua (and also in the time of Abraham, Joseph, Jesus and the Disciples...and in the time of Paul...and so on). So we can only say we "know" God, that is, we know God in a very indirect way. Only the one that comes from God can know Him directly (Jesus Christ, because he is the "Word" of God). But man cannot "know" God until God introduced "Itself" to man thru distortions in the normal human experience and his environment.

God created man as part of existence, that is, our relationship to everything else is continuous - we are created in one unified reality. Whatever we can experience will be confined within existence, within the realm of God's creation. We cannot perceive, at least consciously, beyond and we can only base our observations on existence. But God introduced "Itself" by making deliberate distortions of this existence in contrast to our normal experience. This events informed us deliberately that there is God. Man cannot own God, but God "owns" man.

In Biblical context, I believe, a personal God, means a personal relationship with God and not personal God exactly. Man cannot create God, for whatever man can conceptualize is a product of his mind, a thought or a physical structure like a golden calf. It is forbidden in the Bible to worship any existing thing - a thought, a golden statue, the birds in the sky, the sun etc. It is God "who" "created" man and not the other way around.

For convenience of communication we use the word "God" to signify this great "power" in the times of Abraham, Isaac and Moses and others. We use also God to signify that which is beyond existence and "before" and "after" our own existence. The spirit comes from God and to God it will return. Our life is like a line segment. What we can know is only this line segment and we cannot know beyond. What is beyond is God for God is the source and the home of our spirits.

[Angel Assassin]

(I have modified the above reply, but modification timed out, so here's the modified form...)

Nice questions wilyam27.

What I mean is that we use language when we refer to God in a very different way we use language when we refer to God's creations. We use words to God in a very relative way. Our words can only signify legitimately God's signs and one of God's signs is existence. As one may notice, the word and the concept God are not God but they are as they are - word and concept. Words and concept are consequence of man's activity, and man is a consequence of God's creation of existence. We can legitimately use language to whatever that exists and it can signify their essences, but not God. Why is that? When for example, we say essence of God, we do not mean essence as in essence that can be found in existence, but we mean "essence" that is beyond. A consequence of God's creation of existence is essence, so how can God be the same or has the property of His creations. Properties are attributed to God very much metaphorically. Before all essences, there is God (as a consequence, God is the creator of essences). Even the word creator is used in a very relative way. God's "creating" the universe is not the same as a painter creating a portrait. The word creation legitimately applies to the relationship of the painter to his portrait, but not to God and His creations. We cannot possibly contain in our mind God's "creation" as we can contain the essence of creation happening when a painter paints his portrait.

In Judeo-Christian and Islamic faith, the word God is used to signify the unusual "power" that changed in a very significant way the normal experiences of people especially in the times of Moses and Joshua (and also in the time of Abraham, Joseph, Jesus and the Disciples...and in the time of Paul...and so on). So we can only say we "know" God, that is, we know God in a very indirect way - thru existence. Only the one that comes from God can know Him directly (Jesus Christ, because he is the "Word" of God). But man cannot "know" God until God introduced "Itself" to man thru distortions in the normal human experience of existence.

God created man as part of existence, that is, our relationship to everything else is continuous - we are created in one unified reality. Whatever we can experience will be confined within existence, within the realm of God's creation. We cannot perceive, at least consciously, beyond and we can only base our observations on existence. But God introduced "Itself" by making deliberate distortions of this existence in contrast to our normal experience. This events informed us deliberately that there is God. Man cannot own God, but God "owns" man.

In Biblical context, I believe, a personal God, means a personal relationship with God and not personal God exactly. Man cannot create God, for whatever man can conceptualize is a product of his mind, a thought or a physical structure like a golden calf. It is forbidden in the Bible to worship any existing thing - a thought, a golden statue, the birds in the sky, the sun etc. It is God "who" "created" man and not the other way around.

For convenience of communication we use the word "God" to signify this great "power" in the times of Abraham, Isaac and Moses and others. We use also God to signify that which is beyond existence and "before" and "after" our own existence. The spirit comes from God and to God it will return. Our life is like a line segment. What we can know is only this line segment and we cannot know beyond. What is beyond is God for God is the source and the home of our spirits.

[Angel Assassin]

So in Judeo-Christian and Islamic faith, God is not simply a belief or a conceptualization. A belief or a conceptualization are not God. God is real in a very relative way - i.e. God is "real". Why? God caused reality. Before reality, there is God. God "exists", that is, before existence, there is God. What "there is" before existence is not the same as existence. God is "that which" man cannot know directly in view of the limitations of his being. Man's very being is a limitation in itself. The metaphors relative to God are deep, I believe.

[Lostsoul]

 

Every day I ask my self. Why I believe what I believe. To my surprise I still ask that same question till now!!

Though I'm just thankful that I believe though! 

[iAMHE]

if god doesnt belong to existence, coz he caused existence to exist, then, which category does he belong? cant his existence be conceptualized? or he doesnt belong to any existing category coz he is beyond existence? (isnt this conceptualization already?)

if i say, god belongs to existence, then, the problem would be a flaw in logic coz god cannot belong to existence which he created, right? and he can not be limited to existence coz he only caused existence to exist.

When god said, I am what I am, doesnt that qualify him as part of existence as well? Isnt that a conceptualization, too?

------
anyways, you said, reality is limited to experience.. what if you are color blind, and whenever you look to one particular color, blue, you see black. does it mean, blue doesnt exist because you have not experienced color blue?

[Angel Assassin]

if god doesnt belong to existence, coz he caused existence to exist, then, which category does he belong? cant his existence be conceptualized? or he doesnt belong to any existing category coz he is beyond existence? (isnt this conceptualization already?)

God is God's own "category", and this category cannot be known. God said to Moses: I AM THAT I AM! One may notice that conceptualizations exist. At least they exist in the mind. Existence isn't only physical, it also mental. Thoughts exist as much as the brain. Thoughts and brain then belongs to existence because they can be observed. At least thoughts can be detected very privately as a pattern by the person who is thinking. But God is not a thought nor a physical entity for all these are created by God.

if i say, god belongs to existence, then, the problem would be a flaw in logic coz god cannot belong to existence which he created, right? and he can not be limited to existence coz he only caused existence to exist.

We were born and made to believe (by considering logical arguments - not religious arguments yet) that existence comes from nothing. But existence doesn't come from nothing because one may notice that nothingness is still something - it exists. Nothingness is a process of comparison. Existence then doesn't come from nothing, but from that which we cannot know yet or will never be able to know because of our limitation as beings. What is God? God is that which is beyond our knowing. Existence then comes from that which is beyond our knowing - Existence is caused by God.

When god said, I am what I am, doesnt that qualify him as part of existence as well? Isnt that a conceptualization, too?

It does not qualify God to existence because one should have a basis for qualifying it. Popeye can say 'I am what I am' but Popeye is a part of the world and we can say that Popeye is a cartoon character. When God say: "I AM THAT I AM" this is absolute. And if we would be insistent to use existence, this words will create a new meaning for existence. Existence as applied to God will not mean existence in the usual sense anymore. Existence with faith is different from existence with evidence.

------

anyways, you said, reality is limited to experience.. what if you are color blind, and whenever you look to one particular color, blue, you see black. does it mean, blue doesnt exist because you have not experienced color blue?

the color blue as visual pattern does not yet exist in his frame of existence. In your frame of existence, the color blue exists. There are things we do not yet know and this will be a part of existence (the one in the sense of existence with evidence), but there will be that part we will never be able to know in view of our limitation as being. Like in calculus, there's the theory of limit where a variable can have an infinite value within a certain limit, so we as beings to will have the same limit although what we can learn and discover can appear infinite. The very essence of what we are as beings will limit us to know God in the way we know what we call existence (with evidence). To exist is not to know God.

So how do we know there is God? God has manifestations. In the time of Moses and of the Prophets, these manifestations were so intense and were put by God in context: like the burning bush. They are intense and in context because they are distortions in ones normal experience of the world. So the Prophets knew the burning bush, the voice, the cloud, the fire and so on - but they understood that these were a form of interface, a way of God's "direct" communication to man that time. Even Moses had wished to see God, but God said no one has seen Him and lives. To exist is not to know God directly, to cease to exist is to cease knowing and so stalemate - God cannot be known. All we can know is this existence that God has made for us. Still this existence is almost infinite.

[iAMHE]

To cut it short, we can not gauge God coz god is beyond existence and existence is our limitation. What exist beyond existence cannot be comprehended by our mind coz we can only comprehend what is within existence.

When God said to Moses, I am "that" I am, he therefore introduced himself in the context of what is existence to human being. What is beyond that introduction can never be understood coz it's outside what is known, which is existence. So Moses understood that within the concept of what existed within existence.

So to the existent what is beyond existence cannot exist, coz it cannot be fathomed. Say, the example of the color blind. No matter how you describe what is color blue to him, he cannot imagine and experience what is blue coz blue is non-existent to what are existent to him; it doesnt matter if he has faith or none, coz faith starts from evidence. For the color blind to know of the existence of blue, blue has to take the form of black for the color blind to know that blue exists and it could be in color black.

This reminds me of the story of the blind men and an elephant. some said that elephant is a wall, etc. and that is how God manifested himself.

For something therefore to exist, it doesnt have to be existing in our frame of existence for it to be existent. There are more things beyond our frame of existence and they exist.

But the perception of God to be more than existence could also be wrong coz we are speaking of it in our frame of existence.

[Angel Assassin]

To cut it short, we can not gauge God coz god is beyond existence and existence is our limitation. What exist beyond existence cannot be comprehended by our mind coz we can only comprehend what is within existence.

When God said to Moses, I am "that" I am, he therefore introduced himself in the context of what is existence to human being. What is beyond that introduction can never be understood coz it's outside what is known, which is existence. So Moses understood that within the concept of what existed within existence.

Remember that when Moses saw the burning bush, he did not conclude that the burning bush was God, but that the burning bush was an interface was implied. It was also implied that God cannot be known beyond the burning bush. Our very nature can recognize only what exists and what can exist. This ranges from what we can verify objectively to what can we check subjectively.

So to the existent what is beyond existence cannot exist, coz it cannot be fathomed. Say, the example of the color blind. No matter how you describe what is color blue to him, he cannot imagine and experience what is blue coz blue is non-existent to what are existent to him; it doesnt matter if he has faith or none, coz faith starts from evidence. For the color blind to know of the existence of blue, blue has to take the form of black for the color blind to know that blue exists and it could be in color black.

The condition of color blue to the blind isn't the same condition as God is to our capability in sensing existence. Remember that the color blue exists and its within the our being-ness whether we are blind or not - this is because technology can compensate for some part of our senses and in the future,those who cannot see may see just like those who can see. Color blue then is still within the capabilities of our being-ness. It becomes a different situation when it comes to God because our very being-ness which gives capability to know existence is also the same limitation that will keep us from knowing God directly. We will be confined to situations out of the ordinary in order to recognize that there is God.

This reminds me of the story of the blind men and an elephant. some said that elephant is a wall, etc. and that is how God manifested himself.

In the blind men, they rely on their other senses to speculate on the attributes of the elephant. The condition of the color blind is to the blue color can be reflected from this metaphor. I agree to this, and I would like to add that it would be a different situation with God. In the case of Moses and other prophets, at least most of them have their all senses fully functioning. This cannot be the same as blindness because the very seeing, the very hearing, the very feeling, the very experiencing cuts any possibility of knowing God directly. As I have said, to exist is to not know God directly.

For something therefore to exist, it doesnt have to be existing in our frame of existence for it to be existent. There are more things beyond our frame of existence and they exist.

This is if we consider the one's seeing the blue color to those who doesn't see it. Existence is relative between them. When we are considering human as beings in relation to God, it can be a different matter. As you may notice there is that which we cannot know yet. Whatever these things may be will be within the structure of our being-ness, within the limits of our capabilities. With God however, our very capability becomes the limit.

But the perception of God to be more than existence could also be wrong coz we are speaking of it in our frame of existence.

If we are then speaking within the frame of our existence, within the capabilities of our being-ness, what we can claim as existing will be only those that will fall within these capabilities. What will be beyond this limit we cannot claim to exist, strictly speaking. We cannot think of God as a thought, because the thought is not God but a mental construct. A mental construct exists and a part of what God created. Even the word and the concept God that we use to signify that which we cannot know ultimately are not God itself but symbols and mental constructs. So we cannot say to God that God is a thought or any physical construct but we can say these things about Popeye. God is neither a mental or a physical construct.

And yes, to say that God is more than existence could be wrong because words then starts to collapse. Words strictly speaking becomes inapplicable to God. We only use these words about God in the context of faith. When we use these words to what exists, they become very legitimate uses that we can at least find evidence for most of them. Logic and words become inapplicable to God, but to existence these are applicable. We cannot claim existence what is beyond our capabilities. What we can claim as existence however is that which is within the capacities of our being-ness. However, God isn't within the capacities of our being-ness - but his manifestations are (or were). His manifestations exists,and these we can at least trust and be the bases of our faith.

Since God cannot be known ultimately, faith will be very important and this is emphasized in the Bible. Faith is considered by God righteousness as related in the Bible.

[iAMHE]

thats a good input ribo

tnx