Oooo wweee, you just introduced the aesthetic mode of existence. — Merkwurdichliebe

One of the best kinds methinks...

In the atheist sense, knowing God exists is as ridiculous as knowing your ethical principles exist. Even if you attempted to prove you held to certain ethical principles, you would need to be eternally tested by every possible moral choice, and you would never prove anything.

Do you honestly believe the Creator of the universe, the ongoing source for all reality has a problem with informing everyone He exists? Of course not. I sin, and when I do I don't think about God but I know God still exists because I'm a rational featherless biped. — Daniel Cox

I like the Plato reference. I think God informs every rational creature by directly relating to each one individually. For Non-atheists to look for direct proof outside of that direct relation is not only futile, it is the pagan sin of idolatry.

The stories are not 'invented'. They are, by the implicit argument of theism, given by revelation. Instead of insisting they are invented you should be debating whether religion is inspired by revelation. — EnPassant

And here's yet another example. So what was this all about then? Funny how you've changed your tune after being subjected to rational scrutiny. You suddenly want to back out.

Yes, I know God exists. But I am 'deluded' right? — EnPassant

Your belief is on the same footing as a delusion if there's no way to distinguish between your belief and a delusion. That's an epistemological problem. Are you interested in epistemology at all?

there's no way to distinguish between your belief and a delusion — S

However, there is a way for @EnPassant to distinguish between his faith and his belief, and that makes all the difference.

However, there is a way for EnPassant to distinguish between his faith and his belief, and that makes all the difference. — Merkwurdichliebe

His claim was about knowledge. Knowledge has nothing to do with faith. It has to do with belief. And there's no reasonable basis to think that what he has claimed to have knowledge of is anything other than just a belief, at best. It's no different, except superficially, than saying that I know that ghosts exist or that the moon is really made of cheese. It has no leg to stand on, philosophically.

In the atheist sense, knowing God exists, is as ridiculous as knowing your ethical ethical principles exist. — Merkwurdichliebe

That might be true if by 'knowing' you mean abstractly knowing. But God is not an abstraction. You don't seem to be talking about God here, you seem to be talking about abstract knowledge of God.

In the words of the Greek rationalists, your senses can be great liars. — Ricardoc

Senses don't lie and are never wrong. They simply do what they are designed to do. Your interpretation of the information can be wrong. In other words we can rationally lie to ourselves about, or misinterpret, what our sensory experience means.

Yes, true. And he probably has reasonable ground for his belief, just no positive proof. Have you two settled the question of whether or not you can know something and not be able to prove it?

Yes, true. And he probably has reasonable ground for his belief, just no positive proof. Have you two settled the question of whether or not you can know something and not be able to prove it? — Merkwurdichliebe

If I had a thought this morning I know I had the thought but can I prove it?

Indeed. And I am saying the atheist cannot do anything but understand God as an abstraction, and the more they approach it conceptually, the furth they get from the actual reality, which is an immediate relation.

Yes, true. And he probably has reasonable ground for his belief, just no positive proof. Have you two settled the question of whether or not you can know something and not be able to prove it? — Merkwurdichliebe

This just circles back to the fact that he has no leg to stand on, philosophically. The question just becomes whether there is any reasonable grounds to believe that he has reasonable grounds for his belief. And guess what? There isn't.

Once again, I haven't even mentioned proof, so you people should just stop with this red herring. If there is reasonable grounds, then show it. You or him. If you can't, or if he can't, then neither of you have a leg to stand on, and the claim can be rightly dismissed. That's how philosophy works. Get used to it.

"Your clan"? Who's that?

And if you want reasonable ground as evidence, of course you are asking for proof.

Merkwurdichliebe
477
↪Frank Apisa


In the atheist sense, knowing God exists is as ridiculous as knowing your ethical principles exist. Even if you attempted to prove you held to certain ethical principles, you would need to be eternally tested by every possible moral choice, and you would never prove anything. — Merkwurdichliebe

Correct.

I VERY SELDOM as for proof from a theist of the existence of a GOD. (There is none.)

In almost any other forum, the moment I realize the individual with whom I am discussing is a committed theist...I bow out. Particularly if the person avers, "I know there is a God." There is nothing to gain...and possibly a bit of self-respect to lose.

I am deviating (for the nonce) from that here. I expect more of someone who would post on a board dedicated to philosophy.

We'll see. Don't want to rush to judgement.

Going to prod and poke...and see what jumps out.

I don't think it's possible. How do we not know it's just a delusion.

I know I was hungry this morning. Am I just delusional?

"Your clan"? Who's that? — Merkwurdichliebe

I come from a clan of ninjas who fix typos with lightning speed. You must be from a rival clan. We are mortal enemies.

And you want reasonable ground as evidence, of course you are asking for proof. — Merkwurdichliebe

Say what? A request for evidence is a request for evidence, not a request for proof.

Your belief is on the same footing as a delusion if there's no way to distinguish between your belief and a delusion. — S

Only from some people's point of view. Another theist would not put it on that footing.

Are you interested in epistemology at all? — S

I put an idea to the thread earlier. What do you think of the difference between reality and images of reality (or knowledge)? Suppose you have x^2 over a given range. That produces a range of values, even an infinite range. Now, you can draw a graph x^2 on a piece of paper. What is the difference between the graph and the idea of x^2? The difference is that the idea is abstract knowledge, the graph is a physical image of the idea. But they look like entirely different things; one is ink and paper, the other is in the mind.

Why is it that 2D space can receive and display an idea? If it is possible for 2D space to manifest, accurately, a mathematical concept there must be some natural 'common reality' between space and math. If there were no natural similarity space could not display the graph.

What then is this common reality between mind and space?

That might be true if by 'knowing' you mean abstractly knowing. But God is not an abstraction. You don't seem to be talking about God here, you seem to be talking about abstract knowledge of God. — EnPassant

Ummm...you seem to be talking about a particular God here.

I'd like to know more about it.

Could you put a bit of "flesh", so to speak, on it.

I am deviating (for the nonce) from that here. I expect more of someone who would post on a board dedicated to philosophy.

We'll see. Don't want to rush to judgement.

Going to prod and poke...and see what jumps out. — Frank Apisa

Indeed, Socratic ignorance is the key to approaching this topic.

"Your clan"? Who's that?
— Merkwurdichliebe

I come from a clan of ninjas who fix typos with lightning speed. You must be from a rival clan. We are mortal enemies. — S

Love thine enemy.

Ummm...you seem to be talking about a particular God here.

I'd like to know more about it.

Could you put a bit of "flesh", so to speak, on it. — Frank Apisa

Ok, you asked, but as I say I don't want to get into a God debate. Consider this as food for thought.

I someone says 'I am', superficially, that is the personality or ego speaking: I am a great fellow, I am a celebrity, I am such a cool guy etc.

But if we can truly say 'I am' in the most meaningful sense of the word, that 'I am' is God because if we say this truly it is being itself that is speaking. And God is being. That is why God is the 'I am' of the bible.

I think we're in agreement, just not about "non-atheist." The word "atheism" is incoherent by the tens of thousands of different claims the claimed adherents make.

We're all "non" things that don't exist.

EnPassant
119

Ummm...you seem to be talking about a particular God here.

I'd like to know more about it.

Could you put a bit of "flesh", so to speak, on it. — Frank Apisa


Ok, you asked, but as I say I don't want to get into a God debate. Consider this as food for thought.

I someone says 'I am', superficially, that is the personality or ego speaking: I am a great fellow, I am a celebrity, I am such a cool guy etc.

But if we can truly say 'I am' in the most meaningful sense of the word, that 'I am' is God because if we say this truly it is being itself speaking. And God is being. — EnPassant

There is no way I will get into a "god debate"...so we can take that off the table.

BUT...I am interested in the God to which you refer in your statement:

"That might be true if by 'knowing' you mean abstractly knowing. But God is not an abstraction. You don't seem to be talking about God here, you seem to be talking about abstract knowledge of God."

You did not use the definite or indefinite article...you just used "God."

Tell me something about that God...several things if you would.

Only from some people's point of view. Another theist would not put it on that footing. — EnPassant

No, this is not a "point of view" thing. You're only talking in those terms because you know that you have no leg to stand on. It is a matter of reason. Can you reasonably distinguish your belief from a delusion? If not, then you fail at epistemology.

I put an idea to the thread earlier. What do you think of the difference between reality and images of reality (or knowledge). Suppose you have x^2 over a given range. That produces a range of values, even an infinite range. Now, you can draw a graph x^2 on a piece of paper. What is the difference between the graph and the idea of x^2? The difference is that the idea is abstract knowledge, the graph is a physical image of the idea. But they look like entirely different things; one is ink and paper, the other is in the mind.

Why is it that 2D space can receive and display an idea? If it is possible for 2D space to manifest, accurately, a mathematical concept there must be some natural 'common reality' between space and math. If there were not natural similarity space could not display the graph.

What then is this common reality between mind and space? — EnPassant

I only asked whether you were interested in epistemology in the strict context of the problem I raised. If you can somehow get from the above to resolving the issue I raised, then please do so, and cut to the chase. The wording of your conclusion should be, "Therefore, my belief that God exists is distinguishable from a delusion". Or alternatively you could concede that there's no reasonable means of distinguishing your belief from a delusion.

I like the Plato reference. I think God informs every rational creature by directly relating to each one individually. For Non-atheists to look for direct proof outside of that direct relation is not only futile, it is the pagan sin of idolatry. - Merk.

First thing this year I agree with 100%, that's great work/great insight.

Love thine enemy. — Merkwurdichliebe

:kiss:

I think we're in agreement, just not about "non-atheist." — Daniel Cox

:grin: Forgive my immaturity, I was using non-atheist because I thought it was antagonistic sounding and might instigate a little digression between some of the members here. So, I'm not married to it.

It is a matter of reason. Can you reasonably distinguish your belief from a delusion? If not, then you fail at philosophy. — S

Simply saying it is a matter of reason is not saying much. What is reason? Is reason only something that can be shared through language? Who has a monopoly on what is reasonable? The very question about God can be answered simply if we can say for sure what is reasonable. Are you saying that something that cannot be shared is not reasonable? Like I said, if I had a thought about X this morning it is, for me reasonable to believe I was thinking about X. But I cannot share that reasonable conclusion because I cannot prove I had a thought about X. Does that mean my conclusion is no different from delusion?

Whatever the essence, the "people" claiming "atheism" don't like the term I use, "God hater."

They're telling me, "atheist" and I tell them "God hater." I think that's fair, don't you?