A Question for Theists...

[night912]

My god, brahman, is satyam-jnanam-anantam’ (existence/truth-knowledge-infinity). The self and universe are known because of it. Not the other way around.

...
Bonus point:
To me the question is wrong, as if the ego self is the progenitor and master controller of its cognition process. As if ego self is supposed to know of everything. And as if that which ego self does not cognise does not exist. That we are not aware of our own existence in sleep indicates that the presumption that what ego self does not cognise does not exist is wrong.

Note: I did not come up with the idea of bonus myself.

Things that we are not aware of doesn't necessarily mean that they don't exist. There are in fact many things that do exist that we aren't aware of.

But since (if) your god didn't exist but we do, and still have the knowledge, how did we get that?

 

[night912]

The only condition that would lead me to not knowing or believing in a God would be if no Prophets or Messengers ever appeared on earth for it is through Them alone do we know of God and without Them we would have no knowledge of God.

But what's the difference between you believing in the teachings of the prophets or messengers being false and it being true? Since (if) your god didn't exist but the scriptures or stories do exist, what made you believe it?

 

[night912]

Nothing I would have experienced from God so far would have happened.

But your god doesn't exist and yet, everything that you've experienced did happened. Where did you think all of that came from, since it wasn't from your god? And how did you come to differentiate those experiences from your other non-god ones?

 

[SA Huguenot]

From my point of view.
I will never believe in Blind Faith.
I refuse to believe in anything I can not know to exist.
I will take what evidence I have and see which is true, and which is not.
if anyone accuse me of Blind faith, They are making a big mistake.
Such people are actually believing in something I, on the other hand, call blind faith.
The fact that they keep themself blind to evidence of a Creator, that is blind faith at best.
If I were to say, I dont know that there is a God, and I cant find evidence to that effect, therefore I dont believe in God; is an admittance of actual BLIND FAITH.
I say, I took the Bible (after I studied hundreds of religions and read their books and attended their studies) ; and I took the Bible to critisize it to use against Christians, and found that it was the source for archaeologists in the Middle East for 200 years, it was the source of scientific discoveries for all the Western scientists from Copernici to modernday scientists for 500 years, and it was the only source for Moral standards where the Judeo Christian values developed from.
I wanted the Bible to be this flimsy concoction with contradictions in itself, science and History to prove the non exiatance of God!
Well, I lost that battle...
Today I can say:
I do not believe in God!
I know him!!!!!

 

[SA Huguenot]

But what's the difference between you believing in the teachings of the prophets or messengers being false and it being true? Since (if) your god didn't exist but the scriptures or stories do exist, what made you believe it?

Deuteronomy 18: 18 to 22
The only God on Earth that gives you a formula to establish who was a true representative of God.
Mohammad would have lost this one too!

 

[atanu]

Things that we are not aware of doesn't necessarily mean that they don't exist. There are in fact many things that do exist that we aren't aware of.

But since (if) your god didn't exist but we do, and still have the knowledge, how did we get that?

Some reasoning leads us to an understanding that the ego self is not the seer/knower/doer. But the knowledge of the seer self, taught in scriptures and by sages, needs to be experiential.

 

[syo]

"If your god did not exist, how would you be able to know your god did not exist?"

I wouldn't exist either.

 

[Shakazuluuuuu]

Here's a question to help theists clarify what sort of evidence, if any, they have for their belief in deity.

"If your god did not exist, how would you be able to know your god did not exist?"

I propose that theists answer the question to their own satisfaction privately, rather than publicly -- and thus open their answer to debate. However, I am putting this thread in debates just in case someone does indeed want to debate their answer.

Hope you're having a good day.


If you are curious, I did not come up with the question myself. It's a standard question that epistemologists working in the field of religion ask themselves and others.

Theologist. Basically the question of thinking. How to wrap this up. I am a sort of scientist engineer machinist.

""If your god did not exist, how would you be able to know your god did not exist?""

But, here goes.

That question adds. Who shat. The king or the emporer?

 

[atanu]

When I'm unconcious? When I'm unconscious I know nothing. I know things when I wake up.

I am pointing to this much only. We exist in sleep unaware of the self that we are. So, the notion, if held, that nature can be fully known through application of mind-senses may not be valid.

 

[Left Coast]

I am pointing to this much only. We exist in sleep unaware of the self that we are. So, the notion, if held, that nature can be fully known through application of mind-senses may not be valid.

I understand. And I don't know if we can know everything about nature through our mind-senses.

What I know is that if we want to know anything about nature, we must use our mind-senses. If there are things that pass in and out of conscious awareness, we at least can have confidence that at some point they existed. Depending on the thing, it may have ceased to exist or it may still exist and we just can't perceive it right now.

However, if there is something that we can never perceive with our mind-senses, we can't ever have rational reason to believe it's actually there - even if it really is there.

I hope that makes the point clearer.

 

[ameyAtmA]

"If your god did not exist, how would you be able to know your god did not exist?"

Not Applicable ( N/A ) because He exist in the heart.

 

[Dell]

God is not defined by the biblical mythology. So these atheists are disproving nothing.

So how is God defined except in a perspective of man made scriptures? Dont see God defined anywhere else do you? Funny also about scriptures, man cant agree what is written about "Him". I.e. as if God was male, obviously a perspective of male dominated ancient thinking. Funny also if God was a male there would have to be a female version of God.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

I don't think in terms of reasoning my way to God or not. I plow the field and reap the food.

Very clever! I saw what you did there. Zen anyone?

 

[PureX]

So how is God defined except in a perspective of man made scriptures? Don't see God defined anywhere else do you?

Well, there are many religions, and many non-religious theists in the world. And they all have their own concepts of what they think "God" is. You just prefer attacking biblical mythology as if it were not mythology because it's an easy straw man for you to knock over, even though totally pointless. And the funny thing is that like many of the atheists that come here, you don't even see the absurd irony in it.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

Funny also if God was a male there would have to be a female version of God.

There was, but it was suppressed according to Raphael Patai, The Hebrew Goddess. Just one of many scholars who has discussed this concept. The Old Testament is more involved with it, but there are hints in the New Testament as well.

 

[night912]

Deuteronomy 18: 18 to 22
The only God on Earth that gives you a formula to establish who was a true representative of God.
Mohammad would have lost this one too!

I didn't ask for bible verses. What I'm asking is, how can YOU tell the difference if the scriptures is true or false?

Ex: How did you come to conclusion that the verse above is true. How do you know that the "formula" of Deuteronomy 18: 22, is the correct formula to establish who was a true representative of god?

At least as far as I understand what you said, you must first already believe that it was true before you even use the "formula" to examine the scripture. It's circular.

And supposed the "formula" is how to determine true messengers, then that would make Muhammad, Joseph Smith, and any other who claim to be a prophet true as well, since they speak of future events that have not occurred yet but may still happen in the future. And how about the fulfilment of a prophecy? It must again be circular because if the the scriptures of a proposed prophet was a lie, there wouldn't be any way to examine it. Using the scriptures as evidence determined that it's ture, would again be circular.

 

[night912]

Some reasoning leads us to an understanding that the ego self is not the seer/knower/doer. But the knowledge of the seer self, taught in scriptures and by sages, needs to be experiential.

That would make the ego self be the seer self.

 

[night912]

I wouldn't exist either.

But you do exist. And your god doesn't exist. So you're back to square one, how would you be able to know that your god doesn't exist?

 

[night912]

I am pointing to this much only. We exist in sleep unaware of the self that we are. So, the notion, if held, that nature can be fully known through application of mind-senses may not be valid.

But there's one key elements that you're forgetting. And that would be, memory loss. Since we can observe others sleeping and their body is still functioning, so the senses are still active. Upon awakening, memory is restored. And sometimes when there's "glitches" during sleep, we are aware during sleep and upon awakening and remembering.

 

[night912]

Not Applicable ( N/A ) because He exist in the heart.

He exist in the heart he doesn't exist at all. Why are some theist so afraid to discuss the hypothetical non-ecistence of god? Or are they too dumb to understand the question? If you are too stupid to understand that if doesn't exist at all, then god can't exist in any way shape or form at all no matter what excuse you use. And if you don't even know how to tell the difference in a hypothetical situation, it's reasonable to conclude that you don't know it in real life either.