A person cannot prove that God exists in an objective way that can convince every other person. However, a person can know God subjectively. A person’s own interpretation and knowledge of God would be sufficient to sustain his/her personal faith. However, I cannot necessarily find another person’s knowledge of God valid for me. Different subjects have different understanding of God. Human knowledge of God or any transcendental reality succumbs to subjectivity, which creates different forms of beliefs and disbeliefs. Absolute religious knowledge is not possible, but subjective knowledge of God can help create a personal relationship with a Supreme Being.
According to Bertrand Russell, there are two kinds of knowledge: knowledge of truths and knowledge of things. Knowledge of truths is “the sense in which what we know is true”, while knowledge of things is “the sense we know sense-data” (28, Russell). Moreover, knowledge of things is independent from knowledge of truths. God is both the ultimate objective truth and an existence (thing). One can acquire knowledge of God as a Being through acquaintance, but one cannot know as a matter of fact that God or any transcendental reality exists solely based on reasoning and logic. Acquaintance of God …show more content…
Kant argues that we can never prove God’s existence. Experience itself is not sufficient, and reason is not enough, either. We live in the phenomenal world, and we attempt to fathom the nominal world with our reason and experience. Both reason and experience are limited, and we can never achieve an objective reality. God is the objective reality and an imponderable mystery. God as we know Him is flawed because we are flawed. Our constant thirst for knowledge drives us to explore, question, reason, and conclude. However, our conclusions are limited and flawed. We are not supposed to know why we are not supposed to know what we are not supposed to
According to Bertrand Russell, there are two kinds of knowledge: knowledge of truths and knowledge of things. Knowledge of truths is “the sense in which what we know is true”, while knowledge of things is “the sense we know sense-data” (28, Russell). Moreover, knowledge of things is independent from knowledge of truths. God is both the ultimate objective truth and an existence (thing). One can acquire knowledge of God as a Being through acquaintance, but one cannot know as a matter of fact that God or any transcendental reality exists solely based on reasoning and logic. Acquaintance of God …show more content…
Kant argues that we can never prove God’s existence. Experience itself is not sufficient, and reason is not enough, either. We live in the phenomenal world, and we attempt to fathom the nominal world with our reason and experience. Both reason and experience are limited, and we can never achieve an objective reality. God is the objective reality and an imponderable mystery. God as we know Him is flawed because we are flawed. Our constant thirst for knowledge drives us to explore, question, reason, and conclude. However, our conclusions are limited and flawed. We are not supposed to know why we are not supposed to know what we are not supposed to