By what means, do you KNOW the answer to that age old question?

I have brought this up as a response to many of the theist versus atheist threads, but it has never been addressed as a topic of its own. And it think that time is here.

I have maintained, that there is no way to know whether God exists or not. For me it is just unknowable. In the sense that we commonly claim to know something. For instance, I know this PC exists, that I am using to post this thread. I can see it, I can feel it, and when I leave and return, it is still here where I left it, awaiting me to use it or not use it. I have formed a memory of this PC, and that is stored in the brain's memory banks, in some way that we still do not really understand completely. So when I come upon a PC, because of memory, because of stored experience of PCs, I recognize another PC as a PC. This is what is involved in "knowing"

Yet there are people who then say, I know god exists, or I know that god does not exist. NOW, how can they claim to say such a thing? And isn't any such claim only in the realm of imagination? And so neither side knows anything, and are making claims which rely upon nothing more than what the monkeys in a Kipling novel, when they said, "we all say so, so it must be true?"

So, how can anyone claim to know the answer?

In my over 70 years of life, if life has taught me anything at all, it is that God is simply unknowable. And that all questions do not have to have answers. But then again, if this thing called God does exist, it obviously is outside its creation, which is why it is unknowable in the sense we speak of when we claim to know something. But is there another way of knowing? That too is a question that begs to be answered. For to know in the general sense involves something that can be stored in memory, after experienced. But could something outside of this dimension ever be stored in memory? That seems to be a logical impossibility, for the laws of this dimension will not allow it. That is, can that which is of time, memory, ever store that which is timeless? It looks to be impossible, which may be the reason we can never know God, or whether it exists or not.

 

Great posting One Mind and some really excellent questions.

It appears that you are recognizing that 'individual' status which allows each of us to have differing experiences and differing things that can and have been accepted as true by the 'individual' minds involved. That is a good thing, IMHO.

In that 'sense' I presume that you are speaking of knowing something by virtue of the 5 commonly accepted physical senses. On the other side of that coin, you left one unaccounted for (though not physical in the sense you have mentioned), yet Einstein recognized its presence and its importance even in the scientific community.

Aside from the physical experiences you have mentioned (seeing, touching, hearing, smelling --- hoping you have not tried tasting), a relation with God is much the same. And like the computer which you don't completely understand, someone with a relationship with God will not completely know God, but that someone has learned to trust that God will be there when we return to either use Him again or not. Irrespective of the particular religion, the believer also recognizes 'other gods' from different religions and will hold some form of cognition about those 'other gods'.

You answered that question earlier. " For me it is just unknowable. " Individually, you have concluded that "..it is just unknowable." I presume that is based upon your experience or lack thereof depending on perspective.

Is your sense of knowing that the computer will be there when you return only in the realm of imagination, or is it a condition of faith... faith in the security of your home? Burglars are quite notorious in breaking and entering and walking away with prized merchandize.

I never read that novel, so I cannot ascertain what context the statement was made. However, it seems to be akin to the talking snake in the 'Bible'.

Personal experience. Just like your personal experience with the computer but on a non-physical level. Attribute that "knowing" to intuition... see what Einstein had to say about 'intuition'.

Intuition. "
[h=2]in·tu·i·tion
1. The faculty of knowing or understanding something without reasoning or proof. See Synonyms at reason.[/h]2. An impression or insight gained by the use of this faculty: "

Jesus even spoke of intuition (though not using that terminology).
"Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

 

And so intuition is another way of knowing. The intuition of Einstein though, led to the other kind of knowing I mentioned, whereas the intuition of god's existence does not lead to this knowing that involves perception of the senses, and the mathematics which are then used to work with and predict the known, into the future. So what good is intuition if it does not lead to being able to know in the standard sense of that term? Intuition that remains only intuition has no value at all. Intuition has to lead somewhere, generally into what can be known.

I think that scripture you used to imply intuition, was not speaking of intuition. For flesh and blood, the physical brain, that manifest intuition isn't what JC was talking about, IMO. I always thought, he was referring to that consciousness that is independent of ego consciousness, with ego consciousness being the self, constructed of the material process we call thought. So thought is flesh and blood, for it is material, and intuition is a product of thought. Just my conjecture of course.

 

Heck, I don't even know what the question is.

 

Are you then going to be willing to mete with my challenge? Since you have declared that thought is flesh and blood and it is material.... then capture a single thought, weight it, measure, and provide a detailed scientific report on the nature of that thought. Also show physical evidence that the thought has been captured.... show a photo of that thought as it was being physically extracted from the mind of a person. That thought should be without the input of physical stimulus such as sight or hearing, but rather of a problem solving nature.

 

Is it possible to know if god exists or not? For the theists claim it does exist, the atheists claim it does not exist, and both claim to know.

I have given my own opinion on it, that it is impossible to know the answer to such a question, and want to know how these people know what they claim to be so certain of.

What is it that they are privy to, that I am not?

I am agnostic for a rational reason, and I am interested in their own rationality since we seem not to share a common rationality.

 

I am not up for that challenge. The idea that thought is a material process is an assumption, but it seems to have somewhat of a logical foundation, given that brains are organic computers, processors with memory. Capturing a thought to weigh it would be like trying to weigh energy. One with the right instruments can observe a thought in movement, but we still are so limited in understanding thought.

So I say it is a material process only because the observation we can do of the brain is one of material processes. Of course, I also think that consciousness, that is independent of thought is not of the brain, that is, the brain does not create it but receives it.

But regardless of the nature of thought, you have cited intuition as a means of knowing. Yet intuition seems to be only valid, with what is intuited comes to pass, and enters into what is known. I intuit the answer to a problem, which thought has been incapable of finding. So the intuition proves its value and credibility, by the solution to the problem. So, it was a means of finally knowing, as the problem was verifiably solved. We can look at it, and so on. But to intuit the existence of god stops there, and doesn't lead anywhere, except to a belief. Which is pure imagination.

 

Which is why I am an agnostic atheist.

I am suspect of all gnostics since their claims of definitive knowledge cannot be proven.

OTOH, in the absence of ANY material evidence of a god(s) existence, I choose not to believe in the concept or the supernatural.

 

By the same faculty by which one may know one has done right or wrong, without being so informed through the material senses.

I'd say the intuition of the Founding Fathers led to something good. Wouldn't you?

 

You only believe your PC exists because you have become convinced that your Senses are correct, and feeding you information which is true, and can be used to deduce the PC is there, and will be there, later, too.
This is called The Empirical Method, and it is used by Science today in what we call the Scientific Method.

Hence, you believe Science is a way of verifying Truth.

Science, today, tells us that nothing can become material unless the wave functions (with the knowledge about the object), are collapsed by some Observer.
Hence, common sense tells us the the very first Wave Functions, prior to the material universe Big Bang, needed an Observer, who is, de facto, by definition, The Creator.

 

"
[h=1]imagination[/h]
Also found in: Medical, Legal, Idioms, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia. [h=2]i·mag·i·na·tion[/h] (ĭ-măj′ə-nā′shən)n.1. a. The ability to form mental images of things that are not present to the senses or not considered to be real: The author uses her imagination to create a universe parallel to our own.
b. The formation of such images: a child's imagination of monsters.
c. One of these mental images: "some secret sense ... which ... took to itself and treasured up ... her thoughts, her imaginations, her desires" (Virginia Woolf).
d. The mind viewed as the locus or repository of this ability or these images: "This story had been rattling around in my imagination for years" (Orson Scott Card).

2. The ability to confront and deal with reality by using the creative power of the mind; resourcefulness: handled the problems with great imagination.
3. Attention, interest, or enthusiasm: an explorer's ordeal that caught the imagination of the public."

While definition #1 points out in two of its definitions the notion that the images of the imagination are not considered to be real.

Then in definitions #2 and 3, we also see that when someone confronts 'reality' by using the creative power of his mind; and pays attention to and shows an interest or enthusiasm, then the actions of that person can be considered as 'not real'. Did you by chance check out the synonyms at "reason" as was suggested in the definition of 'intuition'. The synonyms are really quite revealing.
" Reason is the power to think rationally and logically and to draw inferences: "Mere reason is insufficient to convince us of its [the Christian religion's] veracity" (David Hume).
Intuition is perception or comprehension, as of truths or facts, without the use of the rational process: I trust my intuitions when it comes to assessing someone's character. "

You see, the 'rational process' is a series of steps in taking thought prior to taking or making an action.
http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/101017/chapters/Rational-Thinking-as-a-Process.aspx

Even Christians use a "rational process" when confronted with issues of the world. We follow these steps plus others not mentioned on this page due to the fact that those other steps are not involving the physical world but the spiritual, and we (or at least I ) use theologic as opposed to logic (as in man made logic):



That page is really quite informative... I would recommend it as a reading material for most of the people on this forum Theist and non-theist. Why... because anyone who claims that Christians are not 'rational' don't know or didn't know about the 'rational process' as explained on this page.

 

I know there are positive/strong atheists out there -- atheists who believe that they know or can prove that no god exists, but I don't think I've come across one on this forum yet. I've met a handful of theists who say that they know/can prove that god exists, though.

 

No, no, no Atheist claim legitimately until there is sufficient evidence to prove otherwise using scientific principles that there is no supernatural realm and therefore no deities since they would be by definition supernatural.

If you prove the existance of the supernatural under scientific conditions and with sufficient evidence then and only then can you claim deities may be plausible then further need to define and prove one is the only one a high bar. But prove angels, demons, fairies, ghosts or other beings exist and can form a working theory and that these beings are part of an alternate reality of the supernatural it would open up the real debate.

So its not we don't know for sure but no one proved it yet so therefore its a non-issue.

 

Well, I think the question can be resolved accurately for certain definitions of God. Since God is not well defined (different people mean different things by the name/word), we are within our rights to chose one which has a resolution (or not).

 

Not sure if any atheist worth their salt would claim to have proof that God doesn't exist. They do, however, state that they don't believe God exists. That might be sufficient to warrant the term "atheist". Some may suggest there is no proof that God exists, but that's a different claim again.

 

How does one know right and wrong? We teach the new minds as they are born. All human beings are conditioned by the culture they are born into. And so right and wrong can vary from culture to culture and from era to era. Slavery was once seen as perfectly acceptable, not a bad thing. But that changed, in the past few hundred years. Yet for thousands of years, it was acceptable, and not seen as bad. So obviously man did not intuit the badness of owning another human being.

Right and wrong doesn't seemed to be hardwired, but the ability to feel empathy is. So right and wrong perhaps arose from the human brain being able to feel empathy.

Now it is a fact that across cultures and time humanity has developed the idea of a god, or gods, spirits and so on. But that can be explained as well, without thinking we were given some kind of intuition to automatically know that there is a god, or gods and so on. The idea of god may simply be be an effect of a brain that can think, by storing experience in memory, and curiosity. What man could not understand, could be explained by inventing the gods. For man seems to want certainty, for certainty is its own kind of security, and man wants security, physically and psychologically.

I don't see intuition involved in the Founders. I see ideas, and some very old ones dating back to the ancient greeks, and philosophy in general, with pragmatism. Where did intuition come in? Not say it didn't exist, but ideas and principles was the major driver, I think.

 

I am more friendly towards Gnosticism, for it is not based upon knowledge as we generally see knowledge. Neither is it intuition. It is instead of the experiental, a state of consciousness that is the validation, yet since it is a silent state of consciousness, where thought is not moving, there can be no recording in memory of that state. So one only knows of that state after one comes back into ordinary or thought consciousness, which is ego consciousness. Given this, there is nothing accurately that can be said about the experiential state, yet mystics do try to communicate what cannot be communicated. Yet the men who enter into this state see a change in ordinary consciousness, ego consciousness, a positive change, and they then attribute this change to God. If you asked these men what God is, they would generally say God is unknowable, for if this experiental state is god consciousness, there is no memory formed, and so, no thought formed or image, and therefore unknowable.

They would say this state is a state of timelessness, and when thought comes back in, bringing back ordinary consciousness, time exists again, psychological time. So time cannot know the timeless. Since this is an experiential thing, with no recording in memory of happening, the only way one knows of it, is by what it causes and does to ordinary consciousness. This would be called enlightenment, the effect upon ordinary consciousness. For it is said to radically change the very quality of ego consciousness, transforming it, and this is called religion.

But this is nothing like orthodox religion, with its doctrine, dogma, rituals, a religion built of images and ideas, and imagination. And there is no need for images, created by thought, with the person then saying that he knows gods exists. Through the experiential he has discovered that god is unknowable, and sees the absurdity of creating an image of it. But this is a different paradigm than the person who says god does exist, nor does not exist, and that they absolutely know this to be a fact.

 

I noticed that in all three of the paragraphs above, you mentioned the term 'experiential' as in 'experiential state'. I am presuming that you are referencing a 'state of mind' as you did place it in reference to a lack of memory of this experiential state.

A definition from one dictionary states "
[h=2]experiential
adj[/h]1. (Philosophy) philosophy relating to or derived from experience; empirical"



That definition gives as an example "empirical" when viewed from a philosophical point of view.

And

'empirical' is derived from the word "empiric" and is synonymous with "empiric"
"empirical"

"em·pir·ic
n.1. One who is guided by practical experience rather than precepts or theory.
2. An unqualified or dishonest practitioner; a charlatan.

adj. Empirical." All of the above definitions came from www.tfd.com .

In view of those definitions, what exact point are you attempting to make?

 

Your understanding of the human condition is grossly deficient.

I guarantee you there have been people who were conscious of the wrong of slavery from the day of its inception, and all of those who were not knew it was wrong all the same.

I see no reason to believe it's wired at all.

No, it descended from the Creator.

Nonsensical explanations can be contrived for anything, given the determination to do so.

I'm reminded of a poem by Vonnegut:

Tiger got to hunt,
bird got to fly,
man got to sit and wonder why, why, why?

Tiger got to rest,
bird got to land,
man got to tell himself he understand.​

The problem for the committed egotist is that understanding is anathema to him, because he wants to stand over everything; so he has to contrive explanations that cut God out of the picture.

Ideas, old and new, are a dime a dozen, so how do you suppose they knew which could be emblematic of the kind of society they hoped to create?

 

Sorry, but I don't buy into this notion of a timeless experiential state at all.
Since you claim there is no memory of this state, how then can this state even be described, let alone claim it is timeless and experiential? You claim there can be nothing that can accurately be said about this state, except you define both it and its process. Hmmmmmmmmm.

As for as claiming radical alterations of the "quality" of "ego" consciousness (is there truly any other kind?) is called religion makes absolutely no sense either.

 

Its unfair to say "Christians are not rational"...... Most are and with that comes questioning.. That's hardly heresy.. From my perspective if you have not questioned faith, you are a lemming although some doctrines reject that.

 

IMHO, you have a very strange perspective. After all, are geese the same as rodents? OR: are you attempting to infer that I am a rodent?

 

I was using the word only to refer to a state of consciousness that was experienced. Mystics, and agnostics rely upon such a state of consciousness, while orthodox religious people rely upon a system of ideas, the product of thinking. So the mystical state of consciousness is the basis, the foundation of their way of looking at religion, at reality as opposed to looking at reality through the conditioning of the particular religion, that is entirely based upon ideas, concepts, the product of thought. This other state of consciousness is experienced directly, and so I said experiential. And this state is not ordinary consciousness which is always a consciousness incessantly busy with thinking, and given thinking always relies upon the known, that is stored as memory, and memory is always contains only the past, you cannot find the unknown there. Mystics say that you have to leave the known, to be able to discover the unknown. So, only in the mystical state where thought is silent, can the new ever be found, or what is not known. So apparently this new, this unknown, cannot be found in ordinary consciousness. I have read stories of scientists and others who were trying to find the answer to something, and the answer was not in the known, in memory, and only when thought went silent for a nanosecond could the new reveal itself. Mystics of course stay in this state of consciousness for more than a nanosecond. And this state, then affects ego consciousness, or thought consciousness, once that consciousness comes back online, and it changes it in some way, which is enlightenment. So, this is what I was referring to, the experiental, the mystic experience, of a non ordinary consciousness, by it taking place, changes man. So the change, which some would attribute to god, is not dependent upon concepts, ideas, thoughts, images, which religion is generally based on.

 

The human condition, is indeed grounded in conditioning. The question seems to be, are you aware of your own conditioning, and just how much it determines not only your thinking, but your actions.. Understanding my own consciousness, means that I also understand your consciousness, and therefore the consciousness of humanity. If you do not see that we are all conditioned beings, you seem to be deficient here. I just wonder why you have so little self knowledge, but then again, so few people do. They may have extraordinary knowledge of the outer, but know nothing of the power of a conditioned brain, conditioned by the society in which they live. The computer cannot be aware of its own programming, that it is programmed, but the human being does have that ability. But so few use it. If you used yours, you would have no argument with the fact that you and all people are conditioned beings, with most being utterly unaware of that fact. If self knowledge only contains that knowledge given to you by another person, that isn't self knowledge at all. Self knowledge comes only by direct observation of you own consciousness, going into it, understanding it, by seeing your own conditioning, and not allowing it to be a venetian blind, that you observe through. Or, you can happily remain a slave to it and therefore never be actually free. The best slaves are those who do not know they are slaves.

 

If one's god of the Bible is Reality, itself, then we most all KNOW that almighty exists and must be bowed down to.
He has a son, called Truth which can save us from extinction and many costly errors, too.

What I find is that Atheists will never admit to knowing I am correct, because they realize that confirms the Bible,.
The Bible says the ancient truth of seven Empires and ten nations of the Western Culture have fallen, after becoming feminist matriarchies.

The Theists will not admit to this either, because they LOVE the god of lies and falsehoods whom they need to support their nonsense interpretations.