Questions for God

[1213]

I don't know what that's based on. For example, you can ask God very politely and earnestly to tell you the proof or disproof of Riemann's hypothesis, but [he] won't. You can ask [him] to warn you when your kids are in danger, you can ask [him] for next week's powerball numbers, you can ask him where you can get water when you're stuck in the desert, but [he] won't tell you.

How do you know?

[He] hasn't abandoned his covenant with Jewish people, as I understand it, but Christians abandoned [his] covenant when they dropped the circumcision clause because it was bad for sales.

Christians, if they are not originally Jews, could not have abandoned a covenant, because thy didn't have such. Jesus made a new covenant. People who were not originally Jews can accept it and live by it and it includes circumcision, as said in these:

If therefore the uncircumcised keep the ordinances of the law, won’t his uncircumcision be accounted as circumcision? Won’t the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfills the law, judge you, who with the letter and circumcision are a transgressor of the law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not from men, but from God.
Romans 2:26-29
"For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Isra-el. After those days," says the Lord; "I will put my laws into their mind, I will also write them on their heart. I will be to them a God, And they will be to me a people. They will not teach every man his fellow citizen,{TR reads "neighbor" instead of "fellow citizen"} Every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' For all will know me, From the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness. I will remember their sins and lawless deeds no more."
Heb. 8:10-12 (Jer. 31:31-34)
"Yahweh your God will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your seed, to love Yahweh your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, that you may live. Yahweh your God will put all these curses on your enemies, and on those who hate you, who persecuted you. You shall return and obey the voice of Yahweh, and do all his commandments which I command you this day. Yahweh your God will make you plenteous in all the work of your hand, in the fruit of your body, and in the fruit of your cattle, and in the fruit of your ground, for good: for Yahweh will again rejoice over you for good, as he rejoiced over your fa-thers;"
Deut. 30:6-9
He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, "All of you drink it, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins.
Matt.26:27-28

New covenant was established through Jesus. Non Jews can take part of it and it will mean that their heart can be then circumcised. It does not mean they have then abandoned old covenant. And it is then not, in my opinion necessary to take part of old covenant. The new covenant is sufficient on it's own. But, obviously, if one has taken part of that new covenant, he could also abandon it. I don't see any good reason to say all Christians have done that and abandoned that covenant.

Whatever the Christian God is, [he's] thus not the God of Judaism, and didn't exist before the first century CE. Come to think of it, [he] didn't become triune till the end of the third century, so the triune Christian God is the Mark II. Then there's the Western and the Eastern version, the Catholic and the Protestant version, the Pisco and the Southern Baptist version, the Rasta and the Mormon version ─ something for everyone as it were.

I think the God is the same in Old and New testament. But, I can agree that many "Christians" may have developed own god that has not much to do with the Bible.

Who broke the covenant before the Christians did?

Jews, and proof for that is that they were scattered, as God told will happen, if they brake it.

Behold, the days come, says Jehovah, that I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt (which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Jehovah). But this shall be the covenant that I will cut with the house of Israel: After those days, declares Jehovah, I will put My law in their inward parts, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And they shall no longer each man teach his neighbor, and each man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah. For they shall all know Me, from the least of them even to the greatest of them, declares Jehovah. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more.
Jer. 31:31-34
But if you will not listen to me, and will not do all these com-mandments; and if you shall reject my statutes, and if your soul abhors my ordinances, so that you will not do all my command-ments, but break my covenant; I also will do this to you: I will appoint terror over you, even consumption and fever, that shall consume the eyes, and make the soul to pine away; and you will sow your seed in vain, for your enemies will eat it.
Lev. 26:14-16
I will scatter you among the nations, and I will draw out the sword after you: and your land will be a desolation, and your cit-ies shall be a waste.
Lev. 26:33

But of course that assumes Jesus was, in Jewish terms, a messiah, and plainly whatever else Jesus was, he was not a Jewish messiah, being neither a civil, military or religious leader of the Jewish people nor anointed by the Jewish priesthood (which as you know is the meaning of 'messiah').

It is God who anointed Jesus. And that is what really matters.

 

[1213]

And we humans can't even know there is a God. If a God were to exist, and the Genesis stories are true, then surely God would know the humans it created and allow itself to be known adequately.

I think we have adequately information to know.

Really? Old Testament God is the same as New Testament God,

Yes.

So Christians don't think Jews are obsolete as God's Chosen, and abandoned?

Christians can have many ideas, also wrong ideas. That is not the same as what is said in the Bible. And to me, Bible message is what matters. By what is said in the Bible, Jews broke the covenant with God. But, God has not abandoned them entirely and they still are the chosen nation.

So science, and evolution as an answer, comes through God?

I don't think God provides false answers.

Do you think Hindu gods offer answers?

Is there any good reason to think so?

 

[blü 2]

Because He is All Knowing He knows all, everything.

No, that's merely assertion. If [he]'s all-knowing then there must be a satisfactory demonstration as to HOW [he] knows there is nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know.

 

[blü 2]

How do you know?

Partly from experience. Partly from the hospital research showing that if people pray for you, your odds of surviving are indistinguishable from not being prayed for. Partly from the overwhelming lack of records to the contrary.

Christians, if they are not originally Jews, could not have abandoned a covenant, because thy didn't have such.

Correct. Christians do not partake of the Covenant mentioned in the Tanakh. Instead they've felt free to persecute Jewish people, confine them in ghettos, "confiscate" their lands and property, drive them away, murder them with inquisitions and pogroms, and of course gas chambers, and so on. Whoever Jesus represented, it clearly wasn't the God of the Tanakh and [his] followers.

Jesus made a new covenant.

But of course the old covenant was made directly with God, not with God's representative. And as I said, no faithful Jewish person would have recognized Jesus as a messiah, because in Jewish terms he never was.

People who were not originally Jews can accept it and live by it and it includes circumcision, as said in these:

Sure, but it's all a Christian invention.

It is God who anointed Jesus. And that is what really matters.

Where in the NT does God anoint Jesus?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The evidence for God is within you. And all around you. But for reasons best known to yourself, you refuse to look. So do us all a favour - instead of constantly demanding evidence only you can provide, go and search within your soul. If you can do that with an open heart and mind, who knows what you might find?

Totally meaningless. What is within me is bone, muscle, sinew, guts, blood, lymphatic fluid and so forth. The heart pumps blood -- if it were "open" it couldn't do that anymore and I would be dead. The soul is not a thing (the following is adapted from Wikipedia "Soul"):

Science

According to Julien Musolino, the scientific consensus holds that the mind is a complex machine that operates on the same physical laws as all other objects in the universe. According to Musolino, there is currently no scientific evidence whatsoever to support the existence of soul.

The search for the soul is seen to have been instrumental in driving the understanding of the anatomy and physiology of the human body, particularly in the fields of cardiovascular and neurology. In the two dominant conflicting concepts of the soul – one seeing it to be spiritual and immortal, and the other seeing it to be material and mortal, both have described the soul as being located in a particular organ or as pervading the whole body.

Neuroscience

Neuroscience as an interdisciplinary field, and its branch of cognitive neuroscience particularly, operates under the ontological assumption of physicalism. In other words, it assumes that only the fundamental phenomena studied by physics exist. Thus, neuroscience seeks to understand mental phenomena within the framework according to which human thought and behavior are caused solely by physical processes taking place inside the brain, and it operates by the way of reductionism by seeking an explanation for the mind in terms of brain activity.

To study the mind in terms of the brain several methods of functional neuroimaging are used to study the neuroanatomical correlates of various cognitive processes that constitute the mind. The evidence from brain imaging indicates that all processes of the mind have physical correlates in brain function. However, such correlational studies cannot determine whether neural activity plays a causal role in the occurrence of these cognitive processes (correlation does not imply causation) and they cannot determine if the neural activity is either necessary or sufficient for such processes to occur. Identification of causation, and of necessary and sufficient conditions requires explicit experimental manipulation of that activity. If manipulation of brain activity changes consciousness, then a causal role for that brain activity can be inferred. Two of the most common types of manipulation experiments are loss-of-function and gain-of-function experiments. In a loss-of-function (also called "necessity") experiment, a part of the nervous system is diminished or removed in an attempt to determine if it is necessary for a certain process to occur, and in a gain-of-function (also called "sufficiency") experiment, an aspect of the nervous system is increased relative to normal. Manipulations of brain activity can be performed with direct electrical brain stimulation, magnetic brain stimulation using transcranial magnetic stimulation, psychopharmacological manipulation, optogenetic manipulation, and by studying the symptoms of brain damage (case studies) and lesions. In addition, neuroscientists are also investigating how the mind develops with the development of the brain.

Physics

Physicist Sean M. Carroll has written that the idea of a soul is incompatible with quantum field theory (QFT). He writes that for a soul to exist: "Not only is new physics required, but dramatically new physics. Within QFT, there can't be a new collection of 'spirit particles' and 'spirit forces' that interact with our regular atoms, because we would have detected them in existing experiments."

Quantum indeterminism has been invoked as an explanatory mechanism for possible soul/brain interaction, but neuroscientist Peter Clarke found errors with this viewpoint, noting there is no evidence that such processes play a role in brain function; Clarke concluded that a Cartesian soul has no basis from quantum physics.

 

[F1fan]

God says in Isaiah…

Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the Lord, “Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool. Isaiah 1:18

Isn't it interesting that it is skeptics who reason, and the religious rely on faith?

So, while faith is involved, I think God expects people to use their minds and reason to exercise faith in Him. I can guarantee you that I am not indoctrinated, whether you accept that or not is not in my control.

I'm not convinced. You recite typical Christian dogma, and that doesn't come from learning facts, but from being exposed to that kind of dogma without adequate skepticism and questioning. Do you think Hindus and Muslims are following a true path, or indoctrinated into a common religious framework in their countries?

Nevertheless, I have only come to my beliefs through seeking God and truth and waiting for answers and proofs which I found adequate. I understand the methods of indoctrination after having a background of experience in religious cults.

Who told ou a God exists, and can be found in our religious framework? There are no facts. Theyre is no reasoned conclusion thyat leds tyo what you and other Christians believe.

I believe God knew what He was doing and still knows what He is doing.

So the fragmentation of Christianity is planned? The crimes committed by Christian institutions is planned? The Holocaust was planned?

Human understanding is finite, but God’s infinite knowledge and wisdom perfect, therefore I have no doubt His ultimate plan for humanity will work out perfectly and gloriously.

This isn't a factual statement. This is a product of religious indocrination. Notice you offer no facts. Gods aren't known to exist. Any claims about any god isn't based on fact. Unless you admit thaty religious texts are products of ancient peoples, and their beliefs have carried on as traditions of belief, you can't assume these texts represent truth as a premise.

 

[F1fan]

The evidence for God is within you. And all around you. But for reasons best known to yourself, you refuse to look.

Then why can't you believers explain what we seekers aren't seeing? Could it be you believers only believe you see some evidence, and it isn't really there as believed?

So do us all a favour - instead of constantly demanding evidence only you can provide, go and search within your soul. If you can do that with an open heart and mind, who knows what you might find?

Why can't you show us tyhayt you actually found anthing that skeptics aren't seeing?

Because He is All Knowing He knows all, everything.

How do you know? Who told you this, it wasn't a God. Why did ou believe someone when they told you anything about a God when it doesn't speak for itself to humans?

 

[Bthoth]

1. How does God know there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know?

2. How does God know [he] didn't spontaneously spring into existence. fully formed with memories and all, with the rest of the universe last Thursday?

3. How does God know [he]'s not just a dream in the brain of a human?

My question was "Where is our owners manual?"

 

[F1fan]

I think we have adequately information to know.

You thyink we do, but aren't sure.

Critical thinkers can be trusted in their approach to tyese questions since the don't have some motive to justify belief or faith. Look how different versions of gods are believed by diverse cultures and people today, these ideas are not due to clear evidence. And notice the ideas of gods are not consistent with what we DO know about how things are in reality.

Yes.

So the God of the OT and NT is the same? So the God of Jesus could drown the whole planet again if it wants to?

Christians can have many ideas, also wrong ideas.

I would sa all of thyem are not reasoned conclusions. Chryistyians, including ourself, certainlhhy can't shyow us whyat ity tyrue about them.

That is not the same as what is said in the Bible. And to me, Bible message is what matters. By what is said in the Bible, Jews broke the covenant with God. But, God has not abandoned them entirely and they still are the chosen nation.

How did Jews break the covenant? Jews don't think so, but Christians do? Could Christians be wrong?

Do you justify the Holocaust, which was performed by Christians?

I don't think God provides false answers.

Jews disagree with they Christian interpretation. So could Christians be all wrong and deceived?

Is there any good reason to think so?

Hindus think their gods guide them correctly, some billion of them. How would you know the don't? Are all these Hindus wrong? If so, why couldn't Christians be wrong, too?

 

[dybmh]

I'm unwatching this thread. It's obvious that the OP is not able to stay on topic.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Then why can't you believers explain what we seekers aren't seeing? Could it be you believers only believe you see some evidence, and it isn't really there as believed?

Why can't you show us tyhayt you actually found anthing that skeptics aren't seeing?


How do you know? Who told you this, it wasn't a God. Why did ou believe someone when they told you anything about a God when it doesn't speak for itself to humans?

Wiser and more eloquent people than me, from a variety of faith traditions, have described their spiritual experiences and pointed the way to enlightenment. Examples are not hard to find, but no one else can walk the path for you.

“It is in your power, my friend,
to gaze constantly at the Beloved’s face.
Make a way to the core of yourself
and banish all other impressions.”

- Jalalludin Rumi

 

[RestlessSoul]

Totally meaningless. What is within me is bone, muscle, sinew, guts, blood, lymphatic fluid and so forth. The heart pumps blood -- if it were "open" it couldn't do that anymore and I would be dead. The soul is not a thing (the following is adapted from Wikipedia "Soul"):

Science

According to Julien Musolino, the scientific consensus holds that the mind is a complex machine that operates on the same physical laws as all other objects in the universe. According to Musolino, there is currently no scientific evidence whatsoever to support the existence of soul.

The search for the soul is seen to have been instrumental in driving the understanding of the anatomy and physiology of the human body, particularly in the fields of cardiovascular and neurology. In the two dominant conflicting concepts of the soul – one seeing it to be spiritual and immortal, and the other seeing it to be material and mortal, both have described the soul as being located in a particular organ or as pervading the whole body.

Neuroscience

Neuroscience as an interdisciplinary field, and its branch of cognitive neuroscience particularly, operates under the ontological assumption of physicalism. In other words, it assumes that only the fundamental phenomena studied by physics exist. Thus, neuroscience seeks to understand mental phenomena within the framework according to which human thought and behavior are caused solely by physical processes taking place inside the brain, and it operates by the way of reductionism by seeking an explanation for the mind in terms of brain activity.

To study the mind in terms of the brain several methods of functional neuroimaging are used to study the neuroanatomical correlates of various cognitive processes that constitute the mind. The evidence from brain imaging indicates that all processes of the mind have physical correlates in brain function. However, such correlational studies cannot determine whether neural activity plays a causal role in the occurrence of these cognitive processes (correlation does not imply causation) and they cannot determine if the neural activity is either necessary or sufficient for such processes to occur. Identification of causation, and of necessary and sufficient conditions requires explicit experimental manipulation of that activity. If manipulation of brain activity changes consciousness, then a causal role for that brain activity can be inferred. Two of the most common types of manipulation experiments are loss-of-function and gain-of-function experiments. In a loss-of-function (also called "necessity") experiment, a part of the nervous system is diminished or removed in an attempt to determine if it is necessary for a certain process to occur, and in a gain-of-function (also called "sufficiency") experiment, an aspect of the nervous system is increased relative to normal. Manipulations of brain activity can be performed with direct electrical brain stimulation, magnetic brain stimulation using transcranial magnetic stimulation, psychopharmacological manipulation, optogenetic manipulation, and by studying the symptoms of brain damage (case studies) and lesions. In addition, neuroscientists are also investigating how the mind develops with the development of the brain.

Physics

Physicist Sean M. Carroll has written that the idea of a soul is incompatible with quantum field theory (QFT). He writes that for a soul to exist: "Not only is new physics required, but dramatically new physics. Within QFT, there can't be a new collection of 'spirit particles' and 'spirit forces' that interact with our regular atoms, because we would have detected them in existing experiments."

Quantum indeterminism has been invoked as an explanatory mechanism for possible soul/brain interaction, but neuroscientist Peter Clarke found errors with this viewpoint, noting there is no evidence that such processes play a role in brain function; Clarke concluded that a Cartesian soul has no basis from quantum physics.

The soul is the most real part of you. All the noise and clamour, all the drama of your life, emerges from and returns to that divine sanctuary. You have mistaken the illusion for the one true and abiding reality.

“Form springs from Spirit
as speech rises from thought…
Forms are born from the Word and die again
like waves returning to the sea.”

- Jalalludin Rumi

“We break things down into smaller and smaller pieces, but then the pieces, when examined, are not there. Just the arrangements of them are. If things are forms of forms of forms of forms, and if forms are order, and order is defined by us, they exist, it would appear, only as created by and in relation to, us and the universe.”

- Anthony Aguirre, theoretical cosmologist.

 

[blü 2]

My question was "Where is our owners manual?"

On the shelf next to "How to Train your goD"?

 

[osgart]

The evidence for God is within you. And all around you. But for reasons best known to yourself, you refuse to look. So do us all a favour - instead of constantly demanding evidence only you can provide, go and search within your soul. If you can do that with an open heart and mind, who knows what you might find?

I'll stop short of God and say I do see the evidence for the soul is within the individual.

I really have no idea about evidence for God within me because I see no benevolence in nature, nor is their any sense of a God that plays fair, nor impartial.

 

[siti]

I really have no idea about evidence for God within me because I see no benevolence...

You are far too modest and self-critical I think

 

[siti]

I see no benevolence in nature

Really? I mean I understand what you mean - "Nature", on the whole, doesn't seem to give a hoot about what becomes of her "creatures" - unless there's an owl around in which case the hoot doesn't signify benevolent intent - especially if you're a mouse, but I digress...

...however...

...aren't humans (at least) to some degree (at least) "benevolent"? And aren't humans products of, and part and parcel of the "nature" of the universe (or at least the little bit of it we inhabit)? So there is benevolence in nature and our benevolence (however imperfect and however misplaced it might be) is the proof.

I think that's the same problem with the reductive materialistic approach to understanding the universe...it denies that "nature" has "purpose" and then "purpose-fully" sets out to discover "why" things happen.

My point is that I do think the attributes that constitute "human-ness" are perfectly natural and therefore part of nature...so if God has anything at all to do with it, examining our own human-ness should be able to offer some (albeit limited in both scope and scale) insights into God-ness. And the most accessible (though probably not most reliable) subject for study is our self.

That's really why I completely reject the notion of divine omniscience, because by far the most (if not all) information I can "know" about the universe is based on my own perceptions and apprehensions...which probably means I actually know almost nothing at all - I am, no matter how smart I might be, profoundly ignorant about the universe I appear to be living in and unless God (if there is one) shares that profound ignorance, then he knows almost nothing about what it is like to be me (or any other creature)...If God (if there is one) does not partake in my ignorance about the universe because he knows everything about the universe, then he knows almost nothing about me and if he does, then he is as ignorant as I am...either way he's not omniscient.

The only way to resolve that is to put God completely outside of our space-time reality, in which case, even if he is all-knowing (which we could never know), it wouldn't make any difference at all to anything at all because he could not then intervene in reality and might just as well not exist at all.

 

[blü 2]

I'm unwatching this thread. It's obvious that the OP is not able to stay on topic.

Before you go, please spell out in a plain sequence of statements that amount to a demonstration (as distinct from assertion) ─ in your own words ─ HOW God knows there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know.

And please don't say you've already done so.

 

[dybmh]

Before you go, please spell out in a plain sequence of statements ─ in your own words ─ HOW God knows there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know.

And please don't say you've already done so.

It's proof via contradiction per the law of the excluded middle.

If "God doesn't know there's nothing God doesn't know which God doesn't know" is FALSE then "God knows there's nothing God doesn't know which God doesn't know" must be true.

"God doesn't know there's nothing God doesn't know which God doesn't know" is the contradiction of the assertion. And it can be shown this contradiction "God doesn't know there's nothing God doesn't know which God doesn't know" is FALSE.

This is why it must be false.

God is creating ( present-progressive ) all of reality. This creating is ongoing. God is omnipresent and is in possession of all of reality.

It is like an author writing ( present-progressive ) a book. The author knows what's in the book, all of it. They know that there is nothing they don't know that that they don't know because they are the only one writing the book and they are in constant possession of the book. Nothing can be added to it without their knowledge of it. There is no word in the book which didn't enter the book through their intentions.

God is the "author" of reality. There are no other authors and there cannot be any other authors. That's because God has never stopped writing the story of reality. There are no other creator-gods.

Because God is the solitary creator, because God has never stopped creating, because God is omnipresent and eternal, these 4 qualities prohibit lacking knowledge of what God doesn't know that God doesn't know.

That is HOW God knows there's nothing God doesn't know which God doesn't know. It's because the alternative must be false. That renders the assertion true.

There's four unique divine qualities which when combined prohibit lacking any knowledge of what God doesn't know.

Because of those unique qualities, "God doesn't know there's nothing God doesn't know which God doesn't know" is FALSE.

Therefore God knows there's nothing God doesn't know which God doesn't know" must be true and knows it is true.

If you're asking yourself why? It's because the contradiction must be false. That forces the assertion to be true.

There is no other alternative. It's the law of the excluded middle. There is no "middle" option between true and false in this case.

Got it?

 

[osgart]

Really? I mean I understand what you mean - "Nature", on the whole, doesn't seem to give a hoot about what becomes of her "creatures" - unless there's an owl around in which case the hoot doesn't signify benevolent intent - especially if you're a mouse, but I digress...

...however...

...aren't humans (at least) to some degree (at least) "benevolent"? And aren't humans products of, and part and parcel of the "nature" of the universe (or at least the little bit of it we inhabit)? So there is benevolence in nature and our benevolence (however imperfect and however misplaced it might be) is the proof.

I think that's the same problem with the reductive materialistic approach to understanding the universe...it denies that "nature" has "purpose" and then "purpose-fully" sets out to discover "why" things happen.

My point is that I do think the attributes that constitute "human-ness" are perfectly natural and therefore part of nature...so if God has anything at all to do with it, examining our own human-ness should be able to offer some (albeit limited in both scope and scale) insights into God-ness. And the most accessible (though probably not most reliable) subject for study is our self.

That's really why I completely reject the notion of divine omniscience, because by far the most (if not all) information I can "know" about the universe is based on my own perceptions and apprehensions...which probably means I actually know almost nothing at all - I am, no matter how smart I might be, profoundly ignorant about the universe I appear to be living in and unless God (if there is one) shares that profound ignorance, then he knows almost nothing about what it is like to be me (or any other creature)...If God (if there is one) does not partake in my ignorance about the universe because he knows everything about the universe, then he knows almost nothing about me and if he does, then he is as ignorant as I am...either way he's not omniscient.

The only way to resolve that is to put God completely outside of our space-time reality, in which case, even if he is all-knowing (which we could never know), it wouldn't make any difference at all to anything at all because he could not then intervene in reality and might just as well not exist at all.

I mostly agree. I'm not sure what the potential benevolence in humanity is proof of, but I do think that it is proof of purpose. There are genuine Christians in the world, but I think that there genuineness is severely misplaced and despite all their inspiring art and well meaning they are blind to the rest of humanity and thus totally missing the genuine sincerity of non believers.

I could rationalize God and say God is capable of living different lives, one of ignorance, and others of knowledge, and then God would know us from experience, and draw upon his experiences to relate to life on Earth. I could rationalize a lot of things, but I can't in my mind see where God would exist. If God exists then that would mean we would have an eternal future worth living. If God doesn't exist then purpose and meaning is in the hands of life on earth and it's up to us all as to how well we can make of life.

I don't want to rationalize what isn't there though. My soul is but a mere drop in the ocean as far as I'm concerned, and purpose is a free gift from existence. If a God gave me that, in my current situation, Id be grateful, but angry at the shortcomings of life on Earth. Then again God gave it the best shot God could. My atheism is purely in my mind; I'm just not convinced.

 

[siti]

It's proof via contradiction per the law of the excluded middle.

If "God doesn't know there's nothing God doesn't know which God doesn't know" is FALSE then "God knows there's nothing God doesn't know which God doesn't know" must be true.

"God doesn't know there's nothing God doesn't know which God doesn't know" is the contradiction of the assertion. And it can be shown this contradiction "God doesn't know there's nothing God doesn't know which God doesn't know" is FALSE.

Yikes! It doesn't work like that (whatever that was meant to be)...

Excluded middle means that either the statement or its negation must be true:

If the statement

God knows there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know

is false,

then the statement

God doesn't know there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know

is true

And, I'm sure you can see, vice versa.

There is no logical inconsistency in stating it one way or t'other...both statements are equally logically coherent and one must be false and one true. The trick is to show which one is true and which false.

As far as I can see the only potentially plausible way (for a sufficiently knowledgeable sentient being) to do that would be to show that there IS something that God doesn't know he doesn't know. That way you only need one thing that you can show that God doesn't know and doesn't know he doesn't know...although how exactly you could show he doesn't know he doesn't know I don't know.

...whereas if you try to prove that there is nothing he doesn't know he doesn't know, you would have to access everything that could possibly be known and then show that God was not only not ignorant of anything but also was not ignorant of the fact that he was not ignorant of anything. The only way a sentient being could start to do that (access all that could be known) would be to actually be omniscient...

...positing an all-knowing deity as a solution to this is what they call begging the question. It is a circular argument that moves us no further forward and has no genuine value philosophically. Most philosophical arguments (that I have seen) for God's existence are more or less like that. They either beg the question or negate one of the premises on which they are based. The other trick is to attempt to define God into existence by proving an argument that is not about God and then saying "there, that's what God is".