Concerning God: What do you mean, when you say, "I know for certain that he does/does not exist."?

[tkdrocks]

One word.
Gnosis.

Generally speaking, being in a discussion forum, I usually prefer more than one word responses. Can you expound?

 

[allfoak]

Gnosis is the common Greek noun for knowledge (in the nominative case γνῶσις f.). In Christian, Islamic, or Jewish mysticism, mystery religions and Gnosticism gnosis generally signifies a spiritual knowledge or "religion of knowledge", in the sense of mystical enlightenment or "insight".
Gnosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GnosisWikipedia

God is Spirit,
God cannot be known, or rather we can't be known by God except we know him in spirit.
This cannot be accomplished through the belief in some made up dogma .

 

[Sapiens]

There is no "knowing" of anything, merely probabilities. The probability of there being a god(s) is, on the evidence of it, passing small. If you don't think that evidence is required and/or that the god(s) is only "known" by some who are select and who believe in advance of knowledge, well ... knock yourself out, you make for a very dull discussion.

 

[`mud]

Just in passing through;
and the word 'dogma' just jumped up and bit me on the face !
I bet..........everyone here is following some sort of 'dogma' of their own.
Who is making up all of these 'dogmas', that people hide behind ?
~
Interesting.......just interesting.
~
'mud

 

[allfoak]

There is no "knowing" of anything, merely probabilities.

What's the "probability' that you are wrong?

 

[Willamena]

There is no "knowing" of anything, merely probabilities.

What is the probability of probabilities?

 

[allfoak]

What is the probability of probabilities?

Certainly they are probable.

 

[Sapiens]

What's the "probability' that you are wrong?

Already answered that one.

 

[Sapiens]

What is the probability of probabilities?

One

 

[SkepticX]

What's the "probability' that you are wrong?

Are you thinking that if all you have is probabilities you should therefore be able to assign numbers to them accurately? or that if you can't the idea must be flawed? Also, don't you think asking the probability that someone is wrong about a probability is redundant? and would it really be wrong if an improbability turned out to be true?

You're trying to frame uncertainty in terms of certainty, which is exactly the thinking Sapiens is pointing out to be the fundamental error--one that provides the foundation for a great many others, particularly presumptions validated by traditional biblical faith.

 

[allfoak]

Are you thinking that if all you have is probabilities you should therefore be able to assign numbers to them accurately? or that if you can't the idea must be flawed? Also, don't you think asking the probability that someone is wrong about a probability is redundant? and would it really be wrong if an improbability turned out to be true?

You're trying to frame uncertainty in terms of certainty, which is exactly the thinking Sapiens is pointing out to be the fundamental error--one that provides the foundation for a great many others, particularly presumptions validated by traditional biblical faith.

Perhaps you do not understand my perspective.
That is fine.

Life is a paradox.
Nothing is certain, while all is certain.
I am blind and i can see.
I am deaf and i can hear.

I am understood and not understood by the same person.
I am loved and hated by the same person.
I am helped and harmed by the same person...

Certainty and uncertainty are certain.

 

[Sapiens]

Perhaps you do not understand my perspective.
That is fine.

Life is a paradox.
Nothing is certain, while all is certain.
I am blind and i can see.
I am deaf and i can hear.

I am understood and not understood by the same person.
I am loved and hated by the same person.
I am helped and harmed by the same person...

Certainty and uncertainty are certain.

I read that as mystic claptrap disguising ignorance, it sounds like most of the street people I knew in Berkeley in the sixties.

 

[Bunyip]

Perhaps you do not understand my perspective.
That is fine.

Life is a paradox.
Nothing is certain, while all is certain.
I am blind and i can see.
I am deaf and i can hear.

I am understood and not understood by the same person.
I am loved and hated by the same person.
I am helped and harmed by the same person...

Certainty and uncertainty are certain.

All you are doing is invalidating langauge, making communication impossible.

 

[SkepticX]

Perhaps you do not understand my perspective.

Whoah.

Yeah, blatant contradictions and antonym pairings and such can sound profound if you want them to badly enough ... or if you're just deeply confused ... or very drunk.

Really vague statements often work well for that same effect--to give confused people the impression of profundity. They also make for good comedy.

 

[allfoak]

Every word i spoke can be substantiated by anyone who is willing to look closely at themselves.
Most would rather judge and criticize rather than look at themselves.

I am sorry that i make you all so upset that you have to speak to me this way.
I will leave you be now.

 

[SkepticX]

Every word i spoke can be substantiated by anyone who is willing to look closely at themselves.
Most would rather judge and criticize rather than look at themselves.

I am sorry that i make you all so upset that you have to speak to me this way.
I will leave you be now.

You could also try and translate what you wrote into something that doesn't require some sort of highly proactive (presumptuous) reinterpretation of the words you've used. For the no means yes, stop means go stuff not to communicate well doesn't require that the reader not examine himself (quite a leap there), but only the unwillingness to presume what the hell you mean by writing a sequence of contradictions. If there's really something of substance there you should be able to at least allude to it. As-is it's not about self-examination, it's purely about imagination and the inclination to impose one's own imagination on what someone else has said. IOW your post doesn't really communicate anything to anyone other than a sequence of contradictions. If your audience chooses to imagine something other than that it then becomes whatever the reader imagines and imposes upon the words, which isn't likely at all what you were thinking.

To some I'm sure that seems profound rather than just confusion, but that would be due to a lack of reflection ... upon how the communication of ideas works, for starters (see Do our Mortal Minds, Corrupt Immortal Concepts?).

 

[allfoak]

As-is it's not about self-examination,

This is the reason i am often misunderstood.
People have no interest and even see no need to examine themselves.
To know the truth one must find it within themselves, otherwise they are left accepting what another tells them is the truth.

Life is one big contradiction when looked at honestly.
It is designed that way to bring us to a place where we have no choice but to examine ourselves if we want to find the truth.
Most will never reach that point.

 

[`mud]

A little much introspection for me,
what's the OP ?
~
'mo

 

[Caligula]

To say that you know something "for certain" or with absolute knowledge, is pretty strong language. So when you say that you know this for certain, what does that mean exactly?

• Does it mean that you are fully convinced?
• Do you know because of some specific evidence? (If so, please share)
• Is it just strong faith?
• Something else?

In my case it is not a matter of knowledge but one of logic and relevance. I do not need to be fully convinced that a square circle does not exist; I am simply not interested in such a concept and I don't like it when people talk too much about it, like that would make a difference.

 

[SkepticX]

This is the reason i am often misunderstood.
People have no interest and even see no need to examine themselves.

Like the way they communicate, perhaps?