Where should the "I don't know" go?

[osgart]

The definition comes first because it's important to know what God is before proceeding.

Secondly it's important to see where your starting point as a human being in the world is; what do I know for sure, and what sources of knowledge do I have available, and what are the limits of what can be known for sure.

From there, thirdly we want to explore where God might be possible according to my experience, the available evidence, and the known phenomena that might provide clues for such a difficult task.

The fourth thing is why and where does it appear to be totally impossible.

Establish these four things and you'll have a position on the matter.

Also if God is said to be supernatural , supreme, perfect, and/or ideal you'll definitely require foolproof irrefutable sources of knowledge that demonstrate those qualities. If God is supreme then the human capabilities of reason and observance should be sufficient to know enough. God would leave nothing to chance for us humans on the matter.

 

[ppp]

I am not saying that God is, I am only saying that God is possible.

That is not an answer to either of my questions.
I asked, Should I be convinced that any one knows, or is even capable of knowing if a god is possible? And if so, Why?

If you do not care to answer, then just say so. Or just don't respond.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is not an answer to either of my questions.
I asked, Should I be convinced that any one knows, or is even capable of knowing if a god is possible? And if so, Why?

No, I do not think that you should be convinced that any one knows, or is even capable of knowing, if a god is possible.

I don't think anyone knows or is capable of knowing if a god is possible or impossible, although they might have a personal opinion about that.

 

[ppp]

No, I do not think that you should be convinced that any one knows, or is even capable of knowing, if a god is possible.

I don't think anyone knows or is capable of knowing if a god is possible or impossible, although they might have a personal opinion about that.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Can you give me a reason why God would be impossible?

You keep saying "God", but I will remind you that we are talking about a generic creator god. I do not know if a god is possible. I do not know if a god is impossible. Possibility must be demonstrated for me to be convinced that a god is possible. Impossibility must be demonstrated for me to be convinced that a god is impossible.

I am not convinced that a god is possible. I am not convinced that a god is impossible.

I really hope that you are not just going to latch on to the later, and ignore the former.

 

[Trailblazer]

You keep saying "God", but I will remind you that we are talking about a generic creator god.

Please note that I did not say God. I said god, since I know we are not talking about a specific God.

I do not know if a god is possible. I do not know if a god is impossible. Possibility must be demonstrated for me to be convinced that a god is possible. Impossibility must be demonstrated for me to be convinced that a god is impossible.

What would demonstrate possibility or impossibility to you?

I am not convinced that a god is possible. I am not convinced that a god is impossible.

I really hope that you are not just going to latch on to the later, and ignore the former.

No, I am not going to latch onto the later and ignore the former.

I really want to know why you are not convinced that a god is possible, more than I want to know why you are not convinced that a god is impossible.

Unfortunately I have to go out for a walk now before it gets dark, but I will be waiting for your reply with bated breath.

 

[ppp]

Please note that I did not say God. I said god, since I know we are not talking about a specific God.

When you capitalize and leave out the article, it looks like you are using the name "God". I will continue to treat the word "God" presented in that manner as a name. I am not trying to compel you to change. I am just saying what I will do.

What would demonstrate possibility or impossibility to you?

I don't know.

No, I am not going to latch onto the later and ignore the former.

I really want to know why you are not convinced that a god is possible, more than I want to know why you are not convinced that a god is impossible.

It simply a lack of data. Data about what a god is and data on HOW the existence was caused. Or even IF it was caused. For all I know, existence is a brute fact.

Unfortunately I have to go out for a walk now before it gets dark, but I will be waiting for your reply with bated breath.

I don't know where you are, but here in NC it was a beautiful day. At least for those of us not in Western NC. I took a long walk this evening, too.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Please note that I did not say God. I said god, since I know we are not talking about a specific God.
What would demonstrate possibility or impossibility to you?
No, I am not going to latch onto the later and ignore the former.

I really want to know why you are not convinced that a god is possible, more than I want to know why you are not convinced that a god is impossible.
Unfortunately I have to go out for a walk now before it gets dark, but I will be waiting for your reply with bated breath.

Why are you talking even of a generic God? What evidence exists other than what those who claimed to be or are considered prophets/sons/messengers/manifestations/mahdis said without giving any evidence for their God or themselves?
They should have come up with some evidence. Or if you have any, then come out with it. Otherwise stop talking about any God.
Here is the reply:
I am not convinced of the existence of any God in the same way that you are not convinced of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Do you believe that there is an elephant in your cup-board?

 

[LuisDantas]

Why is it a heavy limitation?

Because most entities that are called deities do not conform.

(Edited to add) Come to think of it, I don't think that Jesus does either. Nor the Holy Ghost. Your parameter would invalidate Trinitarianism.

 

[Trailblazer]

When you capitalize and leave out the article, it looks like you are using the name "God". I will continue to treat the word "God" presented in that manner as a name. I am not trying to compel you to change. I am just saying what I will do.

Yes, I see that I said God in post #18 but I have not said that in any posts to you on this thread since that post.

I don't know.

Fair enough.

It simply a lack of data. Data about what a god is and data on HOW the existence was caused. Or even IF it was caused. For all I know, existence is a brute fact.

Okay, then my next question is how you think we could have data about what a god is and data on HOW the existence was caused or even if it was caused. I know you don't want to hear this, but I believe the only information humans can have about what god is and how existence was caused comes from the messengers of god.

I don't know where you are, but here in NC it was a beautiful day. At least for those of us not in Western NC. I took a long walk this evening, too.

I am in Washington State a little over an hour south of Seattle, and it was a mostly sunny day today in the mid 60s, just as I like it.
I do not like hot weather. I took a shorter walk midday and a long walk mostly in the dark tonight.

You are three hours ahead of me so it just struck midnight in your neck of the woods.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why are you talking even of a generic God?

I am talking about a generic god because that is what @ppp wanted to talk about.

What evidence exists other than what those who claimed to be or are considered prophets/sons/messengers/manifestations/mahdis said without giving any evidence for their God or themselves?

I do not believe that any other evidence exists.

They should have come up with some evidence. Or if you have any, then come out with it. Otherwise stop talking about any God.

I believe that there is evidence that backs up the claims of the Messengers to be Messengers of God.
I have presented the evidence that Baha'u'llah provided many times.

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men.”

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 104-107

Here is the reply:
I am not convinced of the existence of any God in the same way that you are not convinced of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Do you believe that there is an elephant in your cup-board?

I already know your position so there is nothing new here, but thanks for stopping by.
This thread or any thread where I get to post to atheists is a refreshing change from posting to Christians, which is what I have been doing lately. Atheists are a whole lot more interesting and fun.

 

[ppp]

Yes, I see that I said God in post #18 but I have not said that in any posts to you on this thread since that post

True, and I do note it

Fair enough.

Okay, then my next question is how you think we could have data about what a god is and data on HOW the existence was caused or even if it was caused.

I am aware of no method by which a person could acquire such data.

I know you don't want to hear this, but I believe the only information humans can have about what god is and how existence was caused comes from the messengers of god.

I don't mind hearing it. My position is that you are just a guy in a bar who is telling me his pet notion about something that he is passionate about. His cat's thoughts. City wide plumbing. Elvish roof thatching. Modern pastiche on poetry of Marie de France. Whatever. Sure, you have strong opinions on a subject. But so what? Why should I take you seriously?

I am in Washington State a little over an hour south of Seattle, and it was a mostly sunny day today in the mid 60s, just as I like it.
I do not like hot weather. I took a shorter walk midday and a long walk mostly in the dark tonight.

I love dark walks. I cannot wait till winter and the crisp cold days.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

In a situation with no evidence either way, this framing is important because it lends itself to the balance fallacy: when the answer to the question "does God exist?" is "I don't know," there's a (fallacious) implication that both sides have equal merit.

The reason that the "God exists" side has more merit than you give it, is because it so common around the world and down through time for people to intuit some sort of Divine. Not everyone. But most.

Intuition is certainly fallible. But like all our instincts, it has evolved because it is adaptive. And because it is adaptive, I would say that given lack of any conclusive evidence one way or another, going with our intuition makes sense (so long as one remembers in the back of one's mind that we may be wrong).

 

[Trailblazer]

True, and I do note it

Thanks.

I am aware of no method by which a person could acquire such data.

So there you have it.

I don't mind hearing it. My position is that you are just a guy in a bar who is telling me his pet notion about something that he is passionate about. His cat's thoughts. City wide plumbing. Elvish roof thatching. Modern pastiche on poetry of Marie de France. Whatever.

Firstly, I am a gal in the bar, and secondly, I am not passionate about religion, I think it is boring. I am passionate about cats and other animals, anything to do with nature and beautiful scenery.

Sure, you have strong opinions on a subject. But so what? Why should I take you seriously?

Yes, admittedly I have strong opinions on the subject of God and religion, and I think it is important to know about God and religion.
No, I do not expect anyone to take me seriously, not unless they have a reason to do so.

I love dark walks. I cannot wait till winter and the crisp cold days.

I walked in the dark all summer long since I like going out walking late.
Crisp and cold where you are, wet and cold where I am, but that is what umbrellas are for.

 

[Nakosis]

The question of whether something is true or real often gets framed by the believers in the thing... e.g. monotheists set the question as "does God exist?"

In a situation with no evidence either way, this framing is important because it lends itself to the balance fallacy: when the answer to the question "does God exist?" is "I don't know," there's a (fallacious) implication that both sides have equal merit.

... but here's the thing: with no evidence either way, every question can be answered with "I don't know":

- is the existence of God worth investigating? I don't know.
- is God possible? I don't know.
- is there there the slightest reason to think God might not be impossible? I don't know.

... so which question is a reasonable starting point when we have no information?

I always start from an explanation from someone else which sounds reasonable to me before I look into something.

- is the existence of God worth investigating? Is there a reasonable argument for it?
- is God possible? Is there a reasonable argument for it?
- is there there the slightest reason to think God might not be impossible? Is there a reasonable argument for it?

What sounds reasonable to me has changed over many years of developing an ability to quickly understand when an argument becomes unreasonable.

That becomes the game, or part of it. To find the flaw.

The hardest part seems to be being able to see the flaw in your own argument. Well, I got all you folks about for that.

So, when do you start looking for "God"? After you've heard the argument for God which isn't flawed.
If it is flawed, you already know that it is a waste of time.

Until you've heard the reasonable argument that isn't flawed or can present one, "I don't know" is the only correct answer.

 

[Trailblazer]

I always start from an explanation from someone else which sounds reasonable to me before I look into something.

- is the existence of God worth investigating? Is there a reasonable argument for it?
- is God possible? Is there a reasonable argument for it?
- is there there the slightest reason to think God might not be impossible? Is there a reasonable argument for it?

What sounds reasonable to me has changed over many years of developing an ability to quickly understand when an argument becomes unreasonable.

That becomes the game, or part of it. To find the flaw.

The hardest part seems to be being able to see the flaw in your own argument. Well, I got all you folks about for that.

So, when do you start looking for "God"? After you've heard the argument for God which isn't flawed.
If it is flawed, you already know that it is a waste of time.

Until you've heard the reasonable argument that isn't flawed or can present one, "I don't know" is the only correct answer.

What is reasonable or unreasonable, flawed or unflawed, is a subjective judgment call.

Iows, what is reasonable and unflawed to me is unreasonable and flawed to you.

 

[Nakosis]

What is reasonable or unreasonable, flawed or unflawed, is a subjective judgment call.

Iows, what is reasonable and unflawed to me is unreasonable and flawed to you.

Here is a list of flaws which can be part of an argument to help you get started.
The first step would be to avoid all of these flaws.
Khan Academy

 

[Aupmanyav]

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men.”

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 104-107

This thread or any thread where I get to post to atheists is a refreshing change from posting to Christians, which is what I have been doing lately. Atheists are a whole lot more interesting and fun.

Thanks for appreciation of the atheists. We won't be discussing this if types of you were not here.
There are no revelations in what Bahaollah said except the claim that he is a manifestation of Allah. Some 19th Century Iranians, mostly uneducated like him, believed that. Iranians also believe in Imam Gayaba (in their view the disappeared rightful descendant of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, Muhammad al-Mahdi, the one who never appeared before people and even now is supposed to be in occultation since 941 CE). So their belief in Bahaollah being a manifestation of their Allah is not surprising. They believe in weird things.
As for mercies, we do not require any, and are perfectly OK without any.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. going with our intuition makes sense (so long as one remembers in the back of one's mind that we may be wrong).

Since intuition of one person differs from another, we have religious conflicts. This God or that God, one God or many, this messenger or that, etc.
Best to do away with the whole hog. Otherwise also, it is useless, does not help in any way. Does not stop natural disasters, does not stop diseases, does not stop wars, does not affect one's economic condition.

 

[RestlessSoul]

“I don’t know” should go with us everywhere, since without that degree of humility, we declare our unwillingness to learn.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

... so which question is a reasonable starting point when we have no information?

In general and not just for religion, no question is more reasonable than another other. There is even no we as such, because to assume that also requires a reason.
If you want to play strong skepticism then it ends in what works for you as for your subjective reasoning.