That is a surprisingly complex issue.

I was raised in a majority Quaker community, but it's fair to say I was agonistic. But I arrived at faith by working Dostoyevsky's Dilemma in reverse. The dilemma states:

“If God does not exist, everything is permitted.”

But I start with the concrete moral knowledge that some things are wrong, hence god must exist.

A central tenet of Quakerism is the belief in personal experience of god. This stands in stark contrast to, say, the Muslim view that man and god are distinctly separate and that nothing of God is in man. I BELIEVE that our sliver of moral knowledge, the conscience, is a direct experience of the divine.

"Knowing" that all possess this sliver of divinity, that all possess a relationship to god, whether they acknowledge it or deny it (or try to drown it in substances), I am able to leap past the dilemma and say that some things are wrong. But I can only do that because I acknowledge that god must exist.

That is a surprisingly complex issue.

I was raised in a majority Quaker community, but it's fair to say I was agonistic. But I arrived at faith by working Dostoyevsky's Dilemma in reverse. The dilemma states:

“If God does not exist, everything is permitted.”

But I start with the concrete moral knowledge that some things are wrong, hence god must exist.

A central tenet of Quakerism is the belief in personal experience of god. This stands in stark contrast to, say, the Muslim view that man and god are distinctly separate and that nothing of God is in man. I BELIEVE that our sliver of moral knowledge, the conscience, is a direct experience of the divine.

"Knowing" that all possess this sliver of divinity, that all possess a relationship to god, whether they acknowledge it or deny it (or try to drown it in substances), I am able to leap past the dilemma and say that some things are wrong. But I can only do that because I acknowledge that god must exist.

Man instantiated god and attributed himself to god. But that doesn't make god any less real.

That is a surprisingly complex issue.

I was raised in a majority Quaker community, but it's fair to say I was agonistic. But I arrived at faith by working Dostoyevsky's Dilemma in reverse. The dilemma states:

“If God does not exist, everything is permitted.”

But I start with the concrete moral knowledge that some things are wrong, hence god must exist.

A central tenet of Quakerism is the belief in personal experience of god. This stands in stark contrast to, say, the Muslim view that man and god are distinctly separate and that nothing of God is in man. I BELIEVE that our sliver of moral knowledge, the conscience, is a direct experience of the divine.

"Knowing" that all possess this sliver of divinity, that all possess a relationship to god, whether they acknowledge it or deny it (or try to drown it in substances), I am able to leap past the dilemma and say that some things are wrong. But I can only do that because I acknowledge that god must exist.

Man instantiated god. But that doesn't make god any less real.

That is a surprisingly complex issue.

I was raised in a majority Quaker community, but it's fair to say I was agonistic. But I arrived at faith by working Dostoyevsky's Dilemma in reverse. The dilemma states:

“If God does not exist, everything is permitted.”

But I start with the concrete moral knowledge that some things are wrong, hence god must exist.

A central tenet of Quakerism is the belief in personal experience of god. This stands in stark contrast to, say, the Muslim view that man and god are distinctly separate and that nothing of God is in man. I BELIEVE that our sliver of moral knowledge, the conscience, is a direct experience of the divine.

"Knowing" that all possess this sliver of divinity, that all possess a relationship to god, whether they acknowledge it or deny it (or try to drown it in substances), I am able to leap past the dilemma and say that some things are wrong. But I can only do that because I acknowledge that god must exist.