Is God Unknowable?

[Willamena]

For the discussion, lets say that...
-Knowledge entails certainty
-Knowledge is distinct from belief. There is a difference between knowing that a bridge is safe to cross, and believing that a bridge is safe to cross.

-Belief entails confidence
I think you will agree that knowing the bridge is safe to cross and believing it is safe to cross are not exclusive conditions. One can have both knowledge and belief, and in fact, belief is founded in knowledge.

So how do you know that you have a flat tire?

"Flat tire" is a conclusion of inference, whether one has direct visual evidence of the flat tire or other evidence.

 

[Cynic]

-Belief entails confidence
I think you will agree that knowing the bridge is safe to cross and believing it is safe to cross are not exclusive conditions. One can have both knowledge and belief, and in fact, belief is founded in knowledge.

I disagree, in a way. One can have belief without knowledge. Knowledge is not necessary for belief. Although we like to think all our beliefs are true, they are not necessarily founded in knowledge.

"Flat tire" is a conclusion of inference, whether one has direct visual evidence of the flat tire or other evidence.

I think you are oversimplifying.
Is there no difference between believing you have a flat tire, and knowing that you have a flat tire?

 

[Willamena]

I disagree. One can have belief without knowledge. Knowledge is not necessary for belief.

What is an example of something believed in, in which the belief is not founded on knowledge?

Is there no difference between believing you have a flat tire, and knowing that you have a flat tire?

Sure. That is the difference between confidence and certainty.

 

[Cynic]

What is an example of something believed in, in which the belief is not founded on knowledge?

The belief that there is a positive correlation between being uncircumcised and genital infection.

 

[Willamena]

The belief that there is a positive correlation between being uncircumcised and genital infection.

And on what is this belief founded?

 

[PureX]

Let's look at the first premise, "God is wetness." This is your definition of God. However, can the truth of this statement be confirmed? How do you know that God is wetness?

"God" is just a word. It means whatever we decide it means. There is no confirmation to be had, except that to communicate, we will need to agree on the general meaning of the words we use.

My point was that if we conceive of some natural force or event as a "god", as many hmans beings do and have done, then we can directly experience these gods each time we experience these events or forces. I'm thinking of instances where volcanoes, or the sun, were considered gods.

If, however, we conceive of "god" as some abstract ideal, as many people tend to do in these more modern times, then we will not be able to claim such direct personal experiences with our "gods". And if, as is true in many cases, the term "knowledge" refers to direct personal experience, then we can't have such knowledge of God.

Words are just labels for concepts. The concepts themselves define their own possibilities.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

God also appears to be a powerful social force.

Nonsense. Myth appears to be a powerful social force.

As such, It can be studied--and probably has been.

This statement is, predictably, every bit as worthless as is the inane premise upon which it was based.

So as a social force we could know God.

Good grief!

 

[doppelganger]

Good grief!

I don't think you understand what GC wrote. Perhaps if you read his earlier post in this thread where he explained "God is a symbol" that might help you.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't think you understand what GC wrote. Perhaps if you read his earlier post in this thread where he explained "God is a symbol" that might help you.

I fully understand what he wrote. I simply find it to be, either, inaccurate or worthless. If the term 'God' is meant to convey supernatural agency, his argument is vacuous. If, on the other hand, the term 'God' is being diluted to convey myth, he is simply polluting the thread with word-play, since the clear intent of the thread is to ask whether supernatural agency is knowable.

 

[doppelganger]

If, on the other hand, the term 'God' is being diluted to convey myth, he is simply polluting the thread with word-play, since the clear intent of the thread is to ask whether supernatural agency is knowable.

You wrote this thread? That's weird. I was pretty sure you didn't. Hmmm . . .
And how is "supernatural agency" not wordplay as well? While I suppose you could post images and link to videos, this being a discussion forum pretty much makes everything that goes on here "wordplay.":rainbow1:

 

[Sunstone]

I myself strongly feel we should band together and impose some petty, anal restrictions on what Guitar's Cry can and cannot say about God being knowable! To do anything else wouldn't be nearly as fun.

 

[doppelganger]

I myself strongly feel we should band together and impose some petty, anal restrictions on what Guitar's Cry can and cannot say about God being knowable! To do anything else wouldn't be nearly as fun.

That's a good idea Phil. If only we, metaphorically speaking, had some sort of a circular muscle that normally maintains constriction of a natural body passage and which relaxes as required by normal physiological functioning. Do you know of anyone around here who could serve that function?

 

[Willamena]

Nonsense. Myth appears to be a powerful social force.

This statement is, predictably, every bit as worthless as is the inane premise upon which it was based.

Good grief!

I think a stronger case against GC's "we can know god because god is what we assign the symbol to be" argument is that, while it's true that I assign the symbol imaginative meaning, it's not because of that that I believe in god.

I believe in god because of the undeniable unknowable that agnosticism presents.

 

[Cynic]

And on what is this belief founded?

On a lack of knowledge. Can a person know something that is false? If we believe something that we don't know, it is a possibility that our belief could be false. On the other hand, if we truly know something it cannot be false, as knowledge must coincide with truth and reality.

Here are some more examples of beliefs not necessarily founded on knowledge:

From the following book, Sociology: A Down to Earth Approach,
“Most people on welfare are lazy and looking for a handout. They could work if they wanted to.”
“Students in Japan are under such intense pressure to do well in school that their suicide rate is about double that of us students.”
“Most rapists are mentally ill.”
“More US students are killed in school shootings now that ten or fifteen years ago.”
“Punishment is the most effective way to permanently change behavior.”
From the book Psychology in Action,
“People who threaten suicide seldom follow through with it.”
“Police departments often use psychics to help solve crimes.”

Racism
Hitler’s belief that “Aryans” are a superior race.
Phrenology – The belief that the shape of the skull coincides with character and intelligence

M-theory. I believe in string theory because it makes sense. However, I don’t really know if the theory is true or not, I don’t know if "strings" or "membranes" really exist.

My English instructor doesn't know if a God exists, but he believes that one does exist.

James, M., Henslin. Sociology: A Down to Earth Approach.
Prentice Hall College Div, 2007

Karen, Huffman. Psychology in Action, Karen Huffman.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2007

and in fact, belief is founded in knowledge.

Knowledge is not a necessary condition for belief, it is a sufficient condition. There are other reasons why people believe in something, without any relationship to knowing. A person may believe in God because they feel more comfortable with the thought that someone/something is there, watching and caring for them. Also, I'm not sure if you were implying that knowledge is necessary, but that is what it sounded like.

Oh, and I apologize for the former statement, "I think you are oversimplifying." It's a little hubristic of me.

 

[Cynic]

"God" is just a word. It means whatever we decide it means. There is no confirmation to be had, except that to communicate, we will need to agree on the general meaning of the words we use.

My point was that if we conceive of some natural force or event as a "god", as many hmans beings do and have done, then we can directly experience these gods each time we experience these events or forces. I'm thinking of instances where volcanoes, or the sun, were considered gods.

If, however, we conceive of "god" as some abstract ideal, as many people tend to do in these more modern times, then we will not be able to claim such direct personal experiences with our "gods". And if, as is true in many cases, the term "knowledge" refers to direct personal experience, then we can't have such knowledge of God.

Words are just labels for concepts. The concepts themselves define their own possibilities.

Okay, lets say we both agree that God is wetness. This is our definition of who/what God is. We can experience this wetness personally. Now how do we know that God is wetness?

 

[PureX]

Okay, lets say we both agree that God is wetness. This is our definition of who/what God is. We can experience this wetness personally. Now how do we know that God is wetness?

How do we "know" anything? We experience it for ourselves.

This is how a great many people come to believe in their gods. They conceptualize god in such a way that they can personally experience their concept. Thus, they have personal "knowledge" of their god.

Let's say we conceptualize God as the mysterious creator and motivator of ourselves and of our life's circumstances. Our very concept of God thus implies that the circumstances of our lives have motive, and so as we encounter these circumstances, we perceive them as evidence of the existence of God, and of the idea that God is manipulating our lives with some intent. I understand that this is circular reasoning. But ultimately, a lot of our reasoning is circular. A lot more than we tend to realize. We'd be shocked to discover just how much of what we perceive to be "true" is true only because we pre-selected that expectation.

 

[Willamena]

On a lack of knowledge. Can a person know something that is false? If we believe something that we don't know, it is a possibility that our belief could be false. On the other hand, if we truly know something it cannot be false, as knowledge must coincide with truth and reality.

It seems that you make no attempt to represent whatever knowledge might be had by the people who believe "there is a positive correlation between being uncircumcised and genital infection." Perhaps a more appropriate example is in order, one that you yourself can represent. Is there something YOU believe in that is not founded on knowledge?

We can know things that are incorrect, we call that making a mistake; whether or not we hold onto belief in it depends on what knowledge we have about it.

Truth and reality are values we assign to information.

Here are some more examples of beliefs not necessarily founded on knowledge:

From the following book, Sociology: A Down to Earth Approach,
“Most people on welfare are lazy and looking for a handout. They could work if they wanted to.”
“Students in Japan are under such intense pressure to do well in school that their suicide rate is about double that of us students.”
“Most rapists are mentally ill.”
“More US students are killed in school shootings now that ten or fifteen years ago.”
“Punishment is the most effective way to permanently change behavior.”
From the book Psychology in Action,
“People who threaten suicide seldom follow through with it.”
“Police departments often use psychics to help solve crimes.”

Racism
Hitler’s belief that “Aryans” are a superior race.
Phrenology – The belief that the shape of the skull coincides with character and intelligence

I would hazard a guess that each of these beliefs is founded in knowledge --I know that last one is. It may not be correct information, but it is knowledge; knowledge has no requirement to be correct by comparison to objective reality. It simply reflects an understanding.

M-theory. I believe in string theory because it makes sense. However, I don’t really know if the theory is true or not, I don’t know if "strings" or "membranes" really exist.

I feel the same way about god. It makes sense.

My English instructor doesn't know if a God exists, but he believes that one does exist.

James, M., Henslin. Sociology: A Down to Earth Approach.
Prentice Hall College Div, 2007

Karen, Huffman. Psychology in Action, Karen Huffman.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2007


Knowledge is not a necessary condition for belief, it is a sufficient condition. There are other reasons why people believe in something, without any relationship to knowing. A person may believe in God because they feel more comfortable with the thought that someone/something is there, watching and caring for them. Also, I'm not sure if you were implying that knowledge is necessary, but that is what it sounded like.

Oh, and I apologize for the former statement, "I think you are oversimplifying." It's a little hubristic of me.

I do think it's necessary, yes.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. It's my understanding that if we have no knowledge of something, it effectively doesn't exist for us.

 

[Cynic]

It seems that you make no attempt to represent whatever knowledge might be had by the people who believe "there is a positive correlation between being uncircumcised and genital infection." Perhaps a more appropriate example is in order, one that you yourself can represent. Is there something YOU believe in that is not founded on knowledge?

We can know things that are incorrect, we call that making a mistake; whether or not we hold onto belief in it depends on what knowledge we have about it.

Of course I could say that I have knowledge about a theory that is false, but that would be equivocation.
Something that isn't true doesn't deserve to be called knowledge. It is paradoxical to know something when it turns out to be false. When we say that someone knows something, and their "knowledge" turns out to be false, would we not retract our claim that we were dealing with knowledge?

Truth and reality are values we assign to information.

Ok. What makes something true, or likely to be true?

I would hazard a guess that each of these beliefs is founded in knowledge --I know that last one is. It may not be correct information, but it is knowledge; knowledge has no requirement to be correct by comparison to objective reality. It simply reflects an understanding.

No, they are not founded on knowledge, especially phrenology.
Phrenology reflects a misunderstanding of the human brain. Information that is not correct does not deserve to be called knowledge. Pseudo-knowledge, is more fitting, information that has no basis and is falsely portrayed as knowledge.

I feel the same way about god. It makes sense.

Ok

I do think it's necessary, yes.

I think it's the other way around. Belief is a necessary condition for knowledge. Knowledge is a sufficient condition for belief.
Is your belief in the existence of a god founded on knowledge? Or to clarify, do you have knowledge of God's existence?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. It's my understanding that if we have no knowledge of something, it effectively doesn't exist for us.

If we don't have knowledge of P, it does not mean that P does or does not exist.
I don't know of any gods, but that does not mean a god does or does not exist. I simply don't know.

 

[Willamena]

I think it's the other way around. Belief is a necessary condition for knowledge. Knowledge is a sufficient condition for belief.
Is your belief in the existence of a god founded on knowledge? Or to clarify, do you have knowledge of God's existence?

As an agnostic, I have knowledge that such a "knowledge of God's existence" is impossible, and hence irrelevant to belief in god. In other words, my belief in god is not based on god's existence but on a particular understanding of the reality of "me". The agnostic knowledge was a necessary condition before I could believe in god.

If we don't have knowledge of P, it does not mean that P does or does not exist.

For us. If we have no knowledge of P, then it doesn't exist for us.

 

[Willamena]

Ok. What makes something true, or likely to be true?

We assign "true" to something when perception matches our knowledge of it.

I am using "knowledge" as the database of information that is stored in the brain.