If God exists, how can we reliably know anything about him?

[psychoslice]

How does knowing yourself convey anything about God?

One day the gods were discussing the secret of life and where they should hide it so that men and women could not find it.

Bury it under a mountain, one god suggests. No, the others counter, they will find a way to dig up the mountain and uncover it.

Put the secret of life in the depths of the deepest ocean, another god suggests. No, the others say, one day they will find a way to travel to the depths of the ocean and will find it there.

Put the secret inside them, suggests another, they will never think to look for it there.All the gods agreed, and so the secret of life was hidden within us. Paulo Cohelo

 

[serp777]

I suppose you can only answer that yourself, as a judge of character, who do you believe. Do you believe the Jews who were in positions of power, or the fishermen, the working class.

I don't believe either and I don't even know the full, accurate story enough to make any claims about who I should believe. Also, even if I believed that wouldn't make their claims about divine revelation correct--they may have misinterpreted or they may have been tricked by the devil, or it may have been an alien experiment.

 

[serp777]

One day the gods were discussing the secret of life and where they should hide it so that men and women could not find it.

Bury it under a mountain, one god suggests. No, the others counter, they will find a way to dig up the mountain and uncover it.

Put the secret of life in the depths of the deepest ocean, another god suggests. No, the others say, one day they will find a way to travel to the depths of the ocean and will find it there.

Put the secret inside them, suggests another, they will never think to look for it there.All the gods agreed, and so the secret of life was hidden within us. Paulo Cohelo

That's a nice quote but it doesn't show how knowing stuff about yourself means you know anything about God, especially if its a deistic God that doesn't care about our existence.

 

[serp777]

Why do you care? I bring this up with people who want to engage religion, and i ask why? I have yet to receive a single decent answer. There is absolutely no reason to even care enough to and yet people do. If i wasnt so numinous i wouldnt at all. What is numinous? Superficiality debating superficiality which is all you seem to understand about the topic is just evangdlicalism at its very worst.

Why do you care about what I care about? I enjoy debates and spending time going over arguments with theists. Its for learning, honing debate skills, and entertaining myself.

However, you haven't demonstrated that I only have superficial knowledge so I will disregard your post as red herring / ad hominem and move on to address people who actually want to have a discussion.

 

[serp777]

If God exists, how can we reliably know anything about him?

Well I'll take a stab at this question from my pantheistic and non-dual (God and creation are not-two) perspective.

The OP is coming from the angle that God is something separate from us. I feel God/Brahman is the spark of consciousness in all of us. To know about God we then need to look internally not externally. To quiet the mind from all the external noise of our lives is really the way to learn more about our God nature. Those most proficient at that tell us God is being-bliss-awareness and that Oneness with our God center is furthered through love and peace. It may sound both new agey and old-fashioned but through practicing more peace and love we learn more about God.

The OP is coming from the angle that God is something separate from us. I feel God/Brahman is the spark of consciousness in all of us. To know about God we then need to look internally not externally.

How can you demonstrate that God can be found internally and that you are not being deceived or misled? What makes you think that things you learn when doing an internal investigation can be applied to God? And how do you know it isn't an alternative explanation such as aliens injected thoughts into your head with advanced technology and playing with your neurons to see what you believe?

 

[David T]

Why do you care about what I care about? I enjoy debates and spending time going over arguments with theists. Its for learning, honing debate skills, and entertaining myself.

However, you haven't demonstrated that I only have superficial knowledge so I will disregard your post as red herring / ad hominem and move on to address people who actually want to have a discussion.

It's such a weird thing is all!!! I am numinous so it makes sense for someone like myself but shouldn't you be going to transhumanism conventions or comic con or something? Or getting laid oh wait probably ain't happening ok then your killing time that makes total sense. Now I understand .

 

[George-ananda]

How can you demonstrate that God can be found internally and that you are not being deceived or misled? What makes you think that things you learn when doing an internal investigation can be applied to God? And how do you know it isn't an alternative explanation such as aliens injected thoughts into your head with advanced technology and playing with your neurons to see what you believe?

I can't demonstrate anything. I can't even prove to myself that I am not the only conscious being in existence. Now, my beliefs are not from my own internal investigation but from the many seers/masters of the eastern/Indian Vedic tradition. All I can say is that it is the most reasonable understanding I have heard and I have come to believe it beyond reasonable doubt (which is different from demonstrating proof). The masters I speak of claim to know it is true from their own experience. They actually say not to just take their word for it but to experience it ourselves and then we will know. Now as this experience is not likely to be had on our first meditation attempts, we can really only consider their teachings a hypothesis.

 

[psychoslice]

That's a nice quote but it doesn't show how knowing stuff about yourself means you know anything about God, especially if its a deistic God that doesn't care about our existence.

God or whatever you call it isn't just what you believe, you don't own the monopoly on God, to know your Self, that is to know your true Self is to know what we call God. We are not separate from God, even though your bible may tell you we are, but those who have spiritual discernment see through the words in the bible, they know that the story of Jesus is their story of themselves, we when Self realized then experience God from within, we experience heaven from within, those who are still on the milk are still immature, those who are spiritually matured are now on the meant, or the truth, they see beyond the mere words.

 

[serp777]

Ima play Devil's Advocate. Assuming that you're talking about the Christian god, before you say that we can't know anything about god, first, let me ask, what is a god? Many believers say god is love or another abstract emotion. They title him as a creator but I can title myself a mother but that doesn't make me a mother. So what is a god?

Assuming that you're talking about the Christian god, before you say that we can't know anything about god, first, let me ask, what is a god?

No clue, i don't claim to know things about God. I also said that it seems like we can't know anything about God reliably, which is different from me asserting that we absolutely can't know anything about God.

. For example, if you believe your mother loves you, you have no concrete evidence that she does. You are not her. Yet, how she behaves and what she says (for sake of point) makes you believe she cares about you regardless if it is true or not.

'

This is sort of a category error. I see no reason to assume that the belief that my mother loves me is equivalent to the claim that you've had an accurate mystical, magical revelation that isn't the result of a deception. Those claims require significantly different levels of evidence. Some claims require more evidence and proof than others. Also I would say that there is evidence in the form of things she freely does for me and how she was willing to provide for me for a long time. If a personal revelation from God allowed me to come up with some new law of physics or find a hidden treasure trove that couldn't have been found otherwise, that might be some evidence that you had an accurate revelation. Even still it might also just be aliens messing with you.

God is the same way. Some people experience god and they turn away because of what he represents. Others draw closer to the experience and find good things that god represents. It depends on how one sees themselves, their lives, and their need for something greater. All of these desires, experiences, and emotions exist. They can be proven.

There's no reason to assume that because people felt good that therefore they had a genuine, real connection with God. People also feel good about lottery numbers and lose all the time.

All of these desires, experiences, and emotions exist. They can be proven.

None of those suggest that we can accurately know anything about God's mind.

But if you take your mind from the Bible and see god as an experience-because that is how people talk about him is via their experiences-you have to think by whose criteria are these experiences incorrect?

You don't assume the experiences are incorrect, you just don't have any evidence or justification to assume that those experiences are connected to the divine.

I feel Catholicism is the correct "version" of christianity; and, one needs the sacraments of christ in order to be christian. I know this by experience, biblical study, and christian history. If you were to say my experiences aren't true, by whose or what criteria are you going by and is that criteria based your experiences and study?

I'm not saying it isn't true. I'm just saying there isn't sufficient evidence to assume it is true. just because you say not guilty in a court case doesn't mean you think the defendent is innocent--you just don't have sufficient evidence to believe beyond a reasonable doubt. It may be true but there's no good reason to believe its actually true.

Wouldn't it be better to judge whether our experiences are real on the criteria we use since religion isn't math to where we can verify facts in a universal matter?

The experiences can easily be real, but then you make a complete non sequitor by connecting those experiences to a particular God instead of an alien or another alternative explanation, or just saying "I don't know."

Since I am not christian, whose criteria and interpretation of truth should I go by, what I read or what a christian reads? What basis do I find as an outsider what is true and what is false?

You don't have to go by anyone's interpretation or criteria.

You're assuming that a supernatural divine experience being real is more probable than an alien experience, and I see no reason why you would do that.

On that note, the devil or satan is a personification of our temptations. Try replacing temptation or sin for every where it says satan or devil in scripture.

How do you know this?

Here's another place where your argument falls short. God exist because of the fallibility of humans. If we were all perfect, would there be a god?

It does seem odd, though, to trust people back then before we trust people today as if people back when are more "spiritual" than people today. I think it's because today we are neck and neck with life as it really is. However, we can't go back in time to experience life then; so, it's hard to prove it either way.

I don't really understand what you're saying, perhaps you can rephrase? But I never said God existed because of the fallibility of humans, and I never said we were all perfec.

The science of psychology, theology, history, cultural anthropology, geology, and physiology explains what we know about the "god experience."

Psychology tells us how god is shaped by our needs for an other or to be fulfilled in whatever way.

Theology explores how religion plays a part in how we defined what fulfills us.

History is very important to many humans as we look back to our origins to define who we are in the present and predict where we may go in the future.

Cultural anthropology shows god because our religions or worldviews are shaped by our culture, language, and environment. This helps us make sense of the world, life, death, and our place in it.

Geology (and all the environmental -ologies) shows that we are taken care of by the earth, planets, and universe as a whole. It gives us a sense of "we are taken care of" however we define or phrase it. By this physical confirmation, everything else falls into place.

Physiology is another cornerstone of how we feel physically (the actual energy/god) when we are fulfilled and psychology is responsible for interpreting whether those experiences come from god, our culture (and the study of it) defines our experiences so our interpretations reflect how we live with ourselves, others, and our environment.

Perhaps you can provide examples because these are all assertions that these fields are accurate descriptions about God's parameters. How are you concluding, for example, that God's parameters are a function of psychology.

How do you know god, learn about yourself-the questions you ask (what is my purpose? How do I want to live? Whatever comes to mind) Delve into the psychology of your brain.

What makes you think answering these questions would tell you anything about God? How do personal questions produce answers about God? its a complete non sequitor to conclude that God is parallel with what we think about.

 

[serp777]

God or whatever you call it isn't just what you believe, you don't own the monopoly on God, to know your Self, that is to know your true Self is to know what we call God. We are not separate from God, even though your bible may tell you we are, but those who have spiritual discernment see through the words in the bible, they know that the story of Jesus is their story of themselves, we when Self realized then experience God from within, we experience heaven from within, those who are still on the milk are still immature, those who are spiritually matured are now on the meant, or the truth, they see beyond the mere words.

ou don't own the monopoly on God, to know your Self, that is to know your true Self is to know what we call God

And how have you demonstrated this? It seems like you have a monopoly on God since you're saying that you know that the true self is proportional to God, which I have no idea how you can say without any justification or evidence. How are you concluding that we aren't separate from God?

 

[serp777]

I can't demonstrate anything. I can't even prove to myself that I am not the only conscious being in existence. Now, my beliefs are not from my own internal investigation but from the many seers/masters of the eastern/Indian Vedic tradition. All I can say is that it is the most reasonable understanding I have heard and I have come to believe it beyond reasonable doubt (which is different from demonstrating proof). The masters I speak of claim to know it is true from their own experience. They actually say not to just take their word for it but to experience it ourselves and then we will know. Now as this experience is not likely to be had on our first meditation attempts, we can really only consider their teachings a hypothesis.

I can't demonstrate anything. I can't even prove to myself that I am not the only conscious being in existence.

Ok so you're basically an agnostic then. You don't know what's true and like everyone else you can't disprove hard solipsism. That's one of the hallmarks of being agnostic. So if you can't even disprove hard solipsism then there's no way you can demonstrate to yourself or anyone else that seers, masters, and vedics have correctly understood and interpretted personal revelations and experiences. And even if you did demonstrate that, it still could mean that seers, masters, and vedics are being tricked in an alien experiment, which is probably equally likely next to any other supernatural claim.

They actually say not to just take their word for it but to experience it ourselves and then we will know.

But since you admitted you can't demonstrate that hard solipsism is false, then how are you going to demonstrate to yourself and anyone else that your experiences were valid and reliable and not the result of some kind of trickery or mistake? It doesn't seem to be consistent. it seems like you're assuming the experiences are real and accurate because you like those experiences.

 

[serp777]

It's such a weird thing is all!!! I am numinous so it makes sense for someone like myself but shouldn't you be going to transhumanism conventions or comic con or something? Or getting laid oh wait probably ain't happening ok then your killing time that makes total sense. Now I understand .

You must be so busy and must be getting laid so much that you couldn't possibly be trolling on rf! Oh but actually for some reason you're spending your VERY important and valuable time making amusingly ironic, childish, and foolish remarks. But seriously kid, nobody cares about how numinous you are so why don't you skip over unimportant details about your life for future reference, ok?

 

[Etritonakin]

It seems that its probably impossible to know anything about the mind of God. Personal revelations, right off the bat, are no good because you don't have a basis to assume that:

1. Your experience was real and was from God/wasn't a hallucination.

2. You interpreted your experience correctly.

3. It wasn't the result of an alternative explanation such as aliens running an experiment on you.

4. God wasn't lying to you or trying to deceive you.

5. Its not a trick from the devil.

Obviously there are probably other problems that have to do with the fallibility of humans. So we really can't use revelation to find anything about God. The same list could also apply to revelations in a holy books except that new problems arise because we have to make assumptions about the mental health and truthfulness of those writers or the fact that it isn't just an exaggerated legend.

SO what other methods could we use? It couldnt be science since science has no way of investigating God's mind as far as we can tell. It couldn't be from the nature of the universe since we have no way of knowing how or what God would convey through the nature of the universe. It couldn't be through our moral conscience because human moral conscience is probably just a by product of human evolution and can often be extremely erratic or questionable.

Ultimately, we're left with no way we can reliably know anything about God, which makes me wonder how anyone can think that they reasonably know anything in God's mind. Therefore, I see no reason why everyone isn't just an agnostic, or at the very least an agnostic deist who thinks God exists but doesn't know his mind or his role in the world.

Whether one believes God exists or not, the nature of that which is greater than ourselves, the sum of greatness -and so the basis for all law -is made generally clear by that which exists.
It just so happens that God does exist -which is somewhat like saying that all that exists has a mind.

As the bible puts it.... Romans 1: 18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

That which is correct to do is the most important aspect of "God" -and the particulars become apparent over time.

Most are able to see that killing, stealing, lying, etc., are wrong -which is why we will be judged according to works -not according to specific belief or level of understanding.

Those things which God reveals and does will work what they will work -and making everyone understand beforehand is not always the purpose for declaring things. Sometimes they are declared beforehand for reference in the future.
Even when God reveals things, those revelations are among all sorts of falsehoods -and the purpose for allowing that is also mostly for the future ability to discern truth from falsehood.

Faith is not actually blind. Believing without seeing does not mean believing without knowing -because we can know things by enough indirect evidence and experience -even if they can not be produced or shown by us -or directly experienced by us -just as the general shape and content of a puzzle piece can be known without having it available.

So -you can reliably know the particulars.... Eventually.

 

[George-ananda]

Ok so you're basically an agnostic then.

No, I believe in non-dual (God and creation are not-two) pantheism and Advaita philosophy. I believe strongly that my beliefs make the most sense without claiming proof.

You don't know what's true and like everyone else you can't disprove hard solipsism. That's one of the hallmarks of being agnostic. So if you can't even disprove hard solipsism then there's no way you can demonstrate to yourself or anyone else that seers, masters, and vedics have correctly understood and interpretted personal revelations and experiences. And even if you did demonstrate that, it still could mean that seers, masters, and vedics are being tricked in an alien experiment, which is probably equally likely next to any other supernatural claim.



But since you admitted you can't demonstrate that hard solipsism is false, then how are you going to demonstrate to yourself and anyone else that your experiences were valid and reliable and not the result of some kind of trickery or mistake? It doesn't seem to be consistent. it seems like you're assuming the experiences are real and accurate because you like those experiences.

There is a position in-between proof and just believing whatever you want to believe in, and it involves rational analysis of the evidence and argumentation from all sides. I am comfortable with my analysis and beliefs as being the most reasonable theory I know of without claiming proof.

 

[psychoslice]

And how have you demonstrated this? It seems like you have a monopoly on God since you're saying that you know that the true self is proportional to God, which I have no idea how you can say without any justification or evidence. How are you concluding that we aren't separate from God?

I know my true Self, and that is all I said, its up to you to experience your own inner Self, I cannot and no one else can do it for you, if you are happy knowing what you believe about god, then stay there, that is your level.

 

[David T]

You must be so busy and must be getting laid so much that you couldn't possibly be trolling on rf! Oh but actually for some reason you're spending your VERY important and valuable time making amusingly ironic, childish, and foolish remarks. But seriously kid, nobody cares about how numinous you are so why don't you skip over unimportant details about your life for future reference, ok?

Ok now a bit thin skinned we are. All I said was wow wierd people outside religion want to engage in some debate on a topic that even the vast majority in religion don't even understAnd. I mean really look at the question in this thread does the question even understand the topic? " if experience exists, how can we reliably know anything about experience". Seems like its extremely confused about the topic!!

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No clue, i don't claim to know things about God. I also said that it seems like we can't know anything about God reliably, which is different from me asserting that we absolutely can't know anything about God.

What is a god, though?

How I'm reading this is: No Clue. I don't claim to know things about Ehanfoli. I also said that it seems like we can't know anything about Ehanfoli reliably, which is different than me asserting that we absolutely can't know anything about Ehanfoli.

There's got to be some basis of what a god is (whose version of it, at least) so you would know what is reliable knowledge of this god and what is not. Otherwise, the statement doesn't make sense.

This is sort of a category error. I see no reason to assume that the belief that my mother loves me is equivalent to the claim that you've had an accurate mystical, magical revelation that isn't the result of a deception. Those claims require significantly different levels of evidence. Some claims require more evidence and proof than others. Also I would say that there is evidence in the form of things she freely does for me and how she was willing to provide for me for a long time. If a personal revelation from God allowed me to come up with some new law of physics or find a hidden treasure trove that couldn't have been found otherwise, that might be some evidence that you had an accurate revelation. Even still it might also just be aliens messing
with you.

God is not an entity. He is an experience. When people talk about god, they are talking about their experiences: their testimonies, their revelations, their stories, their legends, their myths. They are not talking about facts no matter how much they feel it is. They are talking about their own perspective of reality. As a whole, if you study the nature of religion (and all I mentioned), to sum up these experiences that are in the pattern of humanity since the ages, some of us call it "god."

Since god is an experience, you would have to use a different set of criteria for judging whether god is exists compared to if you're talking about the planet Pluto where evidence can show when it existed and when it did not. The experience of a mother's love is the same experience of love a believer gets from god. That experience (holy spirit) to christians IS god. It's not a form of god. Not an entity floating in space somewhere in the heavens. The emphasis and their interpretation of both experiences, of course, are different. That doesn't mean it is different. Just their claims are different. If you actually see the nature of how people believe and the pattern, christians aren't aliens. Whatever lingo they use to describe their experience/their god can be broken down to everyday experiences we can't describe or put a name to. Some people feel their mother's love so strongly they can't figure a name for the connection. Others find that connection in nature. Everyone seems to have an X factor involved.

If you can get beyond god being an external entity, then you understand where I'm coming from.

There's no reason to assume that because people felt good that therefore they had a genuine, real connection with God. People also feel good about lottery numbers and lose all the time.

God is an experience. The genuine connection to god or life (or the source, whatever) is a physiological, psychological, and cultural experience that, when all put together, makes a person feel they are connected to something greater than themselves. When they feel that holistic connection, they call it god. Christians personify it through jesus christ; and, that doesn't take away that god is an experience and the people's psychological need to personify the experience in order to understand it.

God is very mundane. When I found that out, I was like "Oh. That's it!" Yet, even non-believers question and talk about god as if it is an entity just the same as believers do. Boggles me nerves.

None of those suggest that we can accurately know anything about God's mind.

God's mind? What is a god? How do you know this god has a mind?

I am literally an infant. I do not know what a god is.

You don't assume the experiences are incorrect, you just don't have any evidence or justification to assume that those experiences are connected to the divine.

The "divine" is a cultural interpretation of a very scientific experience all humans have. The culture and language of a given people interpret how they connect with the world, with others, and themselves as people. The divine outside of culture is just magic/an illusion. Religion and god is not like that. It is heavily wrapped in culture; and, if you can't find how that culture interprets life, then of course it would be hard to interpret how they believe god is a fact when in actuality, he is an experience interpreted in different ways by many god-believing communities by many prophets who died to tell others their experiences but at the end, there is nothing left but "experiences."

If you understand the divine/source/god whatever is an experience then you can see how each religion and community has similar experiences because we are not aliens to each other.

I'm not saying it isn't true. I'm just saying there isn't sufficient evidence to assume it is true. just because you say not guilty in a court case doesn't mean you think the defendant is innocent--you just don't have sufficient evidence to believe beyond a reasonable doubt. It may be true but there's no good reason to believe its actually true.

What evidence can others give to a god you cannot define?

If believer X says god is Z and presented you as experiences that is his evidence. Then you say, no, you have to find proof for Z.

I come and ask the believer what Z is. They can explain it therefore, I understand why they use their experiences as evidence.

However, if you don't have the common definition as the believer, how is there evidence they keep giving you going to help you find evidence that god exists when you are looking for other types of evidence? Since you are looking for other types of evidence, that's why I ask, what is a god so I understand the criteria of what evidence you want given the definition a believer has doesn't line up with what you have in mind.

The experiences can easily be real, but then you make a complete non sequitor by connecting those experiences to a particular God instead of an alien or another alternative explanation, or just saying "I don't know."

God is an experience. You're treating god as if he is an entity. The context of everyone's explanation of god is always based on their experience.

I experience love. That love comes from god. Why? Because god IS love.
See the connection? Believers can't differentiate what love is apart from god; and, love is an experience.

We know love is real (how we define it), but all because they associate love as god, all of the sudden it needs to be redefined and need "external" evidence to prove when you can open your psychology book, reflect on your experiences, and relate how you feel with how they feel regardless of the lingo and culture that make it up, and conclude in different words, you feel love to. They call it god. You call it something different. But both of you experience the same thing since you are not aliens to each other.

You don't have to go by anyone's interpretation or criteria.

I'm asking you, as a non-christian reading the bible, by whose interpretation I should use to discern whether what I am reading is true or false? My interpretation is bias since I'm not a christian. I can't base my interpretation off of science because religion isn't a science book. What authority can I judge what I'm reading in the bible is true or false?

On that note, if the bible is false, how do non-believers figure that out if they didn't have criteria to determine what is true to them and what is not?

How do you know this?

It's in the bible and its in Church history.

I don't really understand what you're saying, perhaps you can rephrase? But I never said God existed because of the fallibility of humans, and I never said we were all perfect.

If humans were perfect, there'd be no god. Since we are not, there is a god.

Perhaps you can provide examples because these are all assertions that these fields are accurate descriptions about God's parameters. How are you concluding, for example, that God's parameters are a function of psychology.

I will have to get back with you on all the examples. Are you saying that god is outside of psychology, culture, and all the other things that makes up religion?

If god isn't all of the things I've mentioned and you can't describe what god is, I'm at a lost of what you're trying to find evidence for and for whom.

What makes you think answering these questions would tell you anything about God? How do personal questions produce answers about God? its a complete non sequitor to conclude that God is parallel with what we think about.

Since god is an experience not an entity, I learn about god everyday. I don't understand why some of you make it into a "supernatural" thing. Many believers especially those grown up in thick cultures do not see life as supernatural vs. natural. Everything is a part of nature.

Maybe you're looking at god from a very limited definition that most likely most of the world do not share.

 

[Bird123]

It seems that its probably impossible to know anything about the mind of God. Personal revelations, right off the bat, are no good because you don't have a basis to assume that:

1. Your experience was real and was from God/wasn't a hallucination.

2. You interpreted your experience correctly.

3. It wasn't the result of an alternative explanation such as aliens running an experiment on you.

4. God wasn't lying to you or trying to deceive you.

5. Its not a trick from the devil.

Obviously there are probably other problems that have to do with the fallibility of humans. So we really can't use revelation to find anything about God. The same list could also apply to revelations in a holy books except that new problems arise because we have to make assumptions about the mental health and truthfulness of those writers or the fact that it isn't just an exaggerated legend.

SO what other methods could we use? It couldnt be science since science has no way of investigating God's mind as far as we can tell. It couldn't be from the nature of the universe since we have no way of knowing how or what God would convey through the nature of the universe. It couldn't be through our moral conscience because human moral conscience is probably just a by product of human evolution and can often be extremely erratic or questionable.

Ultimately, we're left with no way we can reliably know anything about God, which makes me wonder how anyone can think that they reasonably know anything in God's mind. Therefore, I see no reason why everyone isn't just an agnostic, or at the very least an agnostic deist who thinks God exists but doesn't know his mind or his role in the world.

So you buy a car. Look closely at that car. Won't that car tell you things about it's creator? Can you learn nothing from it?? Can you learn nothing from God's actions or creations?

Science may not be formally investigating God. On the other hand, they are walking straight toward God.

As I see it, everyone already knows God, whether you know you know or not.. If you encounter God, there isn't even a need for names. You both already know who you both are.

 

[serp777]

So you buy a car. Look closely at that car. Won't that car tell you things about it's creator? Can you learn nothing from it?? Can you learn nothing from God's actions or creations?

Science may not be formally investigating God. On the other hand, they are walking straight toward God.

As I see it, everyone already knows God, whether you know you know or not.. If you encounter God, there isn't even a need for names. You both already know who you both are.

We have thousands of examples of people designing cars and producing them. We don't determine if things are created because they are complex, we determine if things are created based on previous examples and evidence with respect to nature. You wouldn't say a snowflake is designed, nor would you say a solar system is designed, so what reason do you have to assume the universe is designed? we have no other universes to compare it to and we don't know what an undesigned universe would look like compared to a designed universe. The car analogy is a category error.

 

[serp777]

What is a god, though?
......
Maybe you're looking at god from a very limited definition that most likely most of the world do not share.

There's got to be some basis of what a god is (whose version of it, at least) so you would know what is reliable knowledge of this god and what is not. Otherwise, the statement doesn't make sense.

There are many different Gods that people have invented and imaged. I don't know which one is correct, but a common one is that God is an infinite being that exists outside the physical universe. Most theists would agree with that but who knows if they're right. I couldn't give you a proper, accurate definition of God because I don't know what God is. The basis is what the general populace says he is, but that basis is just a general definition.

God is not an entity. He is an experience. When people talk about god, they are talking about their experiences: their testimonies, their revelations, their stories, their legends, their myths. They are not talking about facts no matter how much they feel it is. They are talking about their own perspective of reality. As a whole, if you study the nature of religion (and all I mentioned), to sum up these experiences that are in the pattern of humanity since the ages, some of us call it "god."

So here's the theme: how do you know this about God? Essentially take all of your claims that you make about God and then make answers based on how you're supposed to know that those claims are true. Furthermore what does "God is an experience" even mean for that matter? That's very vague and would need a lot more description to be meaningful.

The experience of a mother's love is the same experience of love a believer gets from god.

Again this is a category error. Putting these two on the same level as if they're equivalent is fairly absurd because one is visible and can be seen as the result of actions and statements by the other, and the other is ONLY in the mind of the person that has the experience. Furthermore, the mother's experience is only relevant to her personal emotional stance, whereas the experience of God, if true and accurate, would be vastly more impactful and important. I mean its like saying that the claim that I tied my shoe this morning requires the same level of credulity and evidence as the claim that a ufo abducted me this morning. One is mundane and obvious and the other is remarkable and thus requires remarkable evidence and confirmation.

makes a person feel they are connected to something greater than themselves.

Feelings cannot reliably justify a belief about God. Since when do feelings correlate with reality?

On that note, if the bible is false, how do non-believers figure that out if they didn't have criteria to determine what is true to them and what is not?

I feel like there's a general misunderstanding here. No where have I said that X is false. This is because I am trying to make a point about reliable epistemology and the burden of proof. I haven't said X is false anywhere because that would mean that I have to adopt the burden of proof. But saying I don't know and you haven't provided any justification to show X is true means I'm on much safer philosophical ground due to the fact that I don't have to justify large claims in order to be reliable. I'm also trying to show that I don't know is, based on our current understanding, the best answer we can have, despite unreliable experiences and other things.

God's mind? What is a god? How do you know this god has a mind?

I don't know that God has a mind. God may just be some kind of 10th dimensional force or pattern. Many theists believe that God does in fact have a mind, which is why I addressed it.

What evidence can others give to a god you cannot define?

No, the point is that many people think they can define a God, like you in this post, and I'm saying that's neither reasonable or safe. The safest ground would be to say that you cannot define God. The entire point is that people probably can't give evidence to show that their particular definition for God is correct. The lack of evidence and lack of falsifiability as well as the lack of robustness for mutually exclusive anecdotal evidence means that no objective person could possibly accept these claims as being true. That of course doesn't mean they accept them as false, but an experience most likely cannot be used to prove such a large claim. I'm wondering how much you actually believe the claims and experiences of other people--do you believe the Mormons who have experiences of seances with Abraham Lincoln, or do you believe that people have in fact had an experience with UFOs? Just because people have an experience doesn't mean its consistent with reality. you need something beyond the anecdotal "evidence" to actually make it an reasonable belief.

I come and ask the believer what Z is. They can explain it therefore, I understand why they use their experiences as evidence.

So any believer's experience is now legitimate and grounded in reality? Surely you don't think that all people's experiences are real and aren't delusions or misinterpretations or whatever. if you don't think they're all grounded in reality then on what criteria do you say that X experience is grounded in reality but Y experience isn't.

Are you saying that god is outside of psychology, culture, and all the other things that makes up religion?

No i'm asking how you know God is inside of those things? he might be inside those things, whatever that means, but how would we ever figure that out conclusively?

Maybe you're looking at god from a very limited definition that most likely most of the world do not share.

I purposefully never gave God an explicit definition. Obviously if i'm saying that we can't reliably know anything about God, then therefore I can't give a definition because that would imply I do know something reliable about God. This post is based on others' definitions of God and I am attacking whatever definition they have and saying those definitions do not have a reliable foundation.