Is God Unknowable?

[Cynic]

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

Perception is not always reliable.

 

[Willamena]

Perception is not always reliable.

Neither is truth.

 

[doppelganger]

Perception is not always reliable.

Neither is truth.

And for the same reasons . . .

 

[Willamena]

And for the same reasons . . .

Man, your row of green bubbles is getting as long as Sunstone's.

 

[Cynic]

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.

Equivocation.
I have knowledge of string theory, the knowledge of string theory is a sufficient condition for me to believe in string theory, but I still don't know if strings really exist.

The knowledge of not having knowledge... How confusing

 

[doppelganger]

I have knowledge of string theory, the knowledge of string theory is a sufficient condition for me to believe in string theory, but I still don't know if strings exist.

You changed terms right in the middle of that. "String theory" and "strings" are not the same thing.

 

[Cynic]

You changed terms right in the middle of that. "String theory" and "strings" are not the same thing.

Of course, the knowledge of strings, and the knowledge of string theory itself are two different things. It was an example of equivocation.

 

[Willamena]

He did the same thing earlier when he said, " It is paradoxical to know something when it turns out to be false."

Physis, if a thing is false, does that mean the knowledge of the thing is also "false knowledge"?

 

[Cynic]

He did the same thing earlier when he said, " It is paradoxical to know something when it turns out to be false."

Of course you can have knowledge about something that is false, but that is not what is meant in the question which I asked earier:
Can a person know something that is false?

Sure, I can know a statement with false premises, that is not what is being asked however.

 

[Cynic]

Also, I am trying to use the word knowledge in one sense, and it seems you are using it in another sense, IMO...

 

[Willamena]

Of course you can have knowledge about something that is false, but that is not what is meant in the question which I asked earier:
Can a person know something that is false?

Sure, I can know a statement with false premises, that is not what is being asked however.

What else can it mean, to know something that is false? The value "false" is assigned to the thing, not to the knowledge of the thing.

 

[Cynic]

What else can it mean, to know something that is false? The value "false" is assigned to the thing, not to the knowledge of the thing.

I feel that I should apologize for the statement, "The knowledge of not having knowledge... How confusing." I hope it didn't sound offensive. I was just expressing my cognitive dissonance.

To clarify what I meant about knowing something that is false:
“If someone believes something, he or she thinks that it is true, but he or she may be mistaken. This is not the case with knowledge. For example, suppose that Jeff thinks that a particular bridge is safe, and attempts to cross it; unfortunately, the bridge collapses under his weight. We might say that Jeff believed that the bridge was safe, but that his belief was mistaken. It would not be accurate to say that he knew that the bridge was safe, because plainly it was not. For something to count as knowledge, it must actually be true.” -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

This is what I meant about how knowing something that is false is paradoxical. I apologize for not being clear.

 

[Willamena]

To clarify what I meant about knowing something that is false:
“If someone believes something, he or she thinks that it is true, but he or she may be mistaken.

Okay: what does it mean for a thing to "be true"? Let's use an example mentioned earlier: the earth orbits the sun, but from down here the sun appears to go around the earth.

If we were in outer space, looking at the solar system from afar, we could see that the earth appears to orbits the sun. From that perspective, that is true. If we stand on the earth and look up, we can see that the sun appears to go around the earth. From that perspective, that is true.

One statement is true from one perspective, the other from another perspective. All that changes between them is perspective.

If we hold the sun moving around the earth to the outer space perspective, it no longer works because it has been taken out of context. Without its context, it is no longer true. If we hold the earth orbiting the sun to the earth-bound perspective, it is no longer true. Anything taken out of context cannot hold its truth, but if we restore its context it continues to be true.

I think you will find the perspective solves a lot of "truth" issues.

This is not the case with knowledge. For example, suppose that Jeff thinks that a particular bridge is safe, and attempts to cross it; unfortunately, the bridge collapses under his weight. We might say that Jeff believed that the bridge was safe, but that his belief was mistaken. It would not be accurate to say that he knew that the bridge was safe, because plainly it was not. For something to count as knowledge, it must actually be true.” -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

This is what I meant about how knowing something that is false is paradoxical. I apologize for not being clear.

Okay, then Jeff did not have any "knowledge" of the safety of the bridge --that wasn't the knowledge on which is belief was based. If he believed it was safe to cross, that was probably founded in knowledge, such as that other people had crossed safely in the past.

Assuming Jeff is a reasonably sensible fellow. Pity that the bridge let him down this one time (pun intended).

You're right --in the scenario as given, it would not be accurate to say that Jeff knew that the bridge was safe. It would be accurate to say that Jeff believed that that bridge was safe. If Jeff's belief was founded on knowledge of the safety of the structure, that would mean that he actually went out and examined it with some level of expertise. If he still missed something, well it isn't the knowledge that he lacked that caused his belief. It was the knowledge that he had.

 

[Cynic]

Okay: what does it mean for a thing to "be true"? Let's use an example mentioned earlier: the earth orbits the sun, but from down here the sun appears to go around the earth.

Something is true if it conforms to reality.
I would say that truth is cultivated through a combination of both empiricism and reason, not one or the other. We can't always know, and we can't always determine truth. But I believe that knowledge and truth are possible.

If we were in outer space, looking at the solar system from afar, we could see that the earth appears to orbits the sun. From that perspective, that is true. If we stand on the earth and look up, we can see that the sun appears to go around the earth. From that perspective, that is true.

If we hold the sun moving around the earth to the outer space perspective, it no longer works because it has been taken out of context. Without its context, it is no longer true. If we hold the earth orbiting the sun to the earth-bound perspective, it is no longer true. Anything taken out of context cannot hold its truth, but if we restore its context it continues to be true.

Obviously the geocentric model is not true because it is incoherent with the context of reality. The mistake made is calling something "knowledge" or "truth" when it should be considered a "theory" or a possibility.

One statement is "true" from one perspective, the other "true" from another perspective. I'm sure you would agree that all that change between them is perspective. Reality and truth does not change as a consequence.

I think you will find the perspective solves a lot of "truth" issues.

Well I would agree that our perspective on what is true can be relativistic. We can believe that false premises are true.

Okay, then Jeff did not have any "knowledge" of the safety of the bridge --that wasn't the knowledge on which is belief was based. If he believed it was safe to cross, that was probably founded in knowledge, such as that other people had crossed safely in the past.

Assuming Jeff is a reasonably sensible fellow. Pity that the bridge let him down this one time (pun intended).

You're right --in the scenario as given, it would not be accurate to say that Jeff knew that the bridge was safe. It would be accurate to say that Jeff believed that that bridge was safe. If Jeff's belief was founded on knowledge of the safety of the structure, that would mean that he actually went out and examined it with some level of expertise. If he still missed something, well it isn't the knowledge that he lacked that caused his belief. It was the knowledge that he had.

The premise is that an item of knowledge must be true.

If Jeff said he knew the bridge was safe, but overlooked the struts, which later failed and caused the bridge collapse, did Jeff really know that the bridge was safe?
Furthermore, was his belief that the bridge was safe not contributed by a lack of knowledge?

Lets say that Jeff believed that the bridge was safe because he knew that other people crossed the bridge to safety. However, when he crossed the bridge it collapsed. Did Jeff really know that the bridge was safe?

 

[JayHawes]

1jo 5:20And we are certain that the Son of God has come, and has given us a clear vision, so that we may see him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

God is knowable.

 

[Willamena]

Something is true if it conforms to reality.
I would say that truth is cultivated through a combination of both empiricism and reason, not one or the other. We can't always know, and we can't always determine truth. But I believe that knowledge and truth are possible.

But the reality we know shifts as perspective changes. That is reality as it is significant to truth --reality for us. Knowledge and truth are absolutely possible ...for us. Truth *is* cultivated through a combination of empiricism and reason, there we are in perfect agreement. It's we who do the cultivating. It's we who experience sensation, and we who employ reason. It's we who get to say, "that's true." So knowledge, belief, and truth and reality as we can know them are all "for us" things.

Obviously the geocentric model is not true because it is incoherent with the context of reality.

Then you doubt the evidence of your senses (empiricism)?

The mistake made is calling something "knowledge" or "truth" when it should be considered a "theory" or a possibility.

One statement is "true" from one perspective, the other "true" from another perspective. I'm sure you would agree that all that change between them is perspective. Reality and truth does not change as a consequence.

How do we know reality and truth do or do not change? How do we know anything apart from what we can know of it?

Truth means truth for us, and reality means reality for us. If you take the "for us" out of the equation, you are resorting to something entirely imagined for us.

Does that make sense to you? It's essential agnosticism.

Well I would agree that our perspective on what is true can be relativistic.

The perspective on what is true that is not relativitistic is entirely imaginary in nature. A perspective is a way we assemble knowledge in order to "view" a thing. We assemble the non-relativistic view in our minds.

We can believe that false premises are true.

The premise is that an item of knowledge must be true.

...For us, in order for the logic that follows it to also be labelled "true."

If Jeff said he knew the bridge was safe, but overlooked the struts, which later failed and caused the bridge collapse, did Jeff really know that the bridge was safe?

Hmm. Jeff knew what Jeff knew. "Safe" was his conclusion. From our perspective, we can only claim that Jeff appears to know.

I would say that the answer to your question is that Jeff believed the bridge was safe based on the knowledge that he had. We can make no reasonable claims as to Jeff's knowledge.

Furthermore, was his belief that the bridge was safe not contributed by a lack of knowledge?

Lets say that Jeff believed that the bridge was safe because he knew that other people crossed the bridge to safety. However, when he crossed the bridge it collapsed. Did Jeff really know that the bridge was safe?

I would say that his belief was based on a conclusion drawn from what he did know. What he didn't know didn't factor into his belief that the bridge was safe.