Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God: Knowable or not Knowable?
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 216 (436488)
11-26-2007 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Dr Adequate
11-22-2007 8:14 AM


Simplistic brilliance
Now apply the same reasoning to whether a relationship is possible between a human and a cat.
Heh...... Simplistic brilliance.

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-22-2007 8:14 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 216 (436489)
11-26-2007 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Modulous
11-22-2007 11:03 AM


Re: Short and sweet
It is possible to know God, but it is impossible to know if you know God.
Intriguing. I'm curious to know how you've deduced this. Can you expand on this a bit?

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Modulous, posted 11-22-2007 11:03 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Modulous, posted 11-26-2007 2:06 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 33 of 216 (436500)
11-26-2007 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Hyroglyphx
11-26-2007 1:16 AM


Re: Short and sweet
Did you see Message 8?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-26-2007 1:16 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-26-2007 8:41 PM Modulous has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 34 of 216 (436546)
11-26-2007 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Jon
11-25-2007 4:30 PM


Jons rehashing of Jars argument about "knowing God"
Yes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Jon, posted 11-25-2007 4:30 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Jon, posted 11-26-2007 2:22 PM Phat has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 216 (436570)
11-26-2007 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Phat
11-26-2007 12:09 PM


Phat and his hash...
Jon writes:
Are the limitations of what your bird can learn about you limited to those things you have in common, i.e., those things that are not different between you?
Phat writes:
Yes
If I am better than you at something, does that indicate a difference between you and me in regards that particular thing? For example, if I am better at soccer than are you, does that indicate a difference between you and me when it comes to soccer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Phat, posted 11-26-2007 12:09 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Phat, posted 11-26-2007 4:45 PM Jon has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 36 of 216 (436578)
11-26-2007 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Jon
11-26-2007 2:22 PM


Re: Phat and his hash...
Jon writes:
If I am better than you at something, does that indicate a difference between you and me in regards that particular thing? For example, if I am better at soccer than are you, does that indicate a difference between you and me when it comes to soccer?
Sure. You can understand soccer and I cannot as well. I can observe it and watch it, but I can't play it and may not understand all the rules.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Jon, posted 11-26-2007 2:22 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Jon, posted 11-27-2007 9:54 AM Phat has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 216 (436625)
11-26-2007 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Modulous
11-26-2007 2:06 AM


Re: Short and sweet
Did you see Message 8?
I have now. Thanks!
I'll have to say, msg 8 was equally as intriguing as well as insightful. Can you expound on that argument a bit. I only ask because I've never thought of it that way. Seeing such a fresh outlook is really quite interesting. I thought it so profound that I may even find myself adopting a rival viewpoint. Very witty. Good job.
I think you might have to change professions.
Hmmmmm.... Modulous.....? Your name even has a philosophical ring to it!

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Modulous, posted 11-26-2007 2:06 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Modulous, posted 11-27-2007 12:05 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 216 (436711)
11-27-2007 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Phat
11-26-2007 4:45 PM


E-7?
Jon writes:
Are the limitations of what your bird can learn about you limited to those things you have in common, i.e., those things that are not different between you?
Phat writes:
Yes
Is the limitation of what can be learned reected in the limitation of the relationship? For example, is it true that a less limited relationship exists with an entity about whom you have learned more, but a more limited relationship exists with an entity about whom you have learned less?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Phat, posted 11-26-2007 4:45 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Phat, posted 11-27-2007 6:19 PM Jon has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 39 of 216 (436740)
11-27-2007 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Hyroglyphx
11-26-2007 8:41 PM


less short, hopefully sweetness density not affected
I'll have to say, msg 8 was equally as intriguing as well as insightful. Can you expound on that argument a bit. I only ask because I've never thought of it that way. Seeing such a fresh outlook is really quite interesting. I thought it so profound that I may even find myself adopting a rival viewpoint. Very witty. Good job.
Excellent, excellent. I cannot refuse such a gentlemanly request. I will explain using the wonderful tool of analogy first.
Imagine Joe, he has an accident and loses his memory. He has absolutely no recollection of any event before the accident. During the examination a psychiatrist asks him, "What is the name of the tallest mountain the world?".
"Mount Everest", Joe Responds.
The psychiatrist would be completely reasonable to assume that Joe knows that name. Philosophers might quibble, but let's ignore them for the moment.
"Are you sure?", asks the Doctor
"Yes...I think so"
"What evidence do you remember that confirms this?"
"I...I can't think of any...I just...somehow, know it is Everest. Am I right?"
So Joe knows the tallest mountain, but we can't really say that he knows he knows what the tallest mountain is. The Devil's philosopher is eager to have his say, so we'll let him.
"But Mod, Joe doesn't know that he knows something. We call this a belief not a piece of knowledge. That in this case he happened to be correct is merely incidental."
Thanks DP, you have a point. However, in this particular instance the Doctor could reasonably assume that Joe didn't get the information out of his ass...and that somewhere in his brain the information "Everest" is stored in relationship with "Tallest mountain on planet". That he is not consciously aware of this is a problem for Joe but it doesn't detract from Joe's knowledge.
Now, let's rewind the clock. This time imagine Abraham. Not the president, but the patriarch. God enters into a relationship with Abraham, makes promises and asks Abraham to make a big gesture to prove his trust in Him. God thinks about Abraham's predicament for a moment. Abraham knows God, there is no doubt about that (hush there DP) but Abraham doesn't know that he knows God. DP would say that Abraham only believes in God, but let's skip over DP again for the time being.
Abraham knows God, from his perspective, and he is more sure than Joe is about his orological quiz. After all, Joe can't even remember why he knows Everest is the tallest mountain...he just does. But he must trust that he isn't going crazy because if he is - he's about to do something quite extreme and terrible. Though he is more sure than Joe right now, Abraham has limited ability to verify his knowledge/belief any further. He could ask God to do something highly improbable and specific in front of spectators...and in the Old Testament god was more or less obliging in this regard. However, nowadays it is accepted he is not so apparent and we are left with relying purely on revelation to guide us through. This is what I was speaking towards so we'll forget putting God to the test.
Joe could get an answer from the psychiatrist, confirm it with multiple books, he could measure all the mountains in the world himself, or any other number of feats to help verify his knowledge. Abe does not have this, just the inner knowledge that God has indeed spoken to him.
Finally and more directly to the original point, in his omnipotence God could instil knowledge of him into someone's brain/soul whatever. He could make sure that that person does not doubt that knowledge. However, just because the person doesn't doubt that they know that they know - that doesn't mean they actually do know that they know.
Finally, God might try and instil the knowledge of knowing in the person - but person in question would not be able to tell the difference between actually knowing that they know and simply believing it to be true with 100% conviction.
In short - knowledge that comes from "within" as it were, cannot be said to be knowledge unless we can verify that it is true. At any given point the conclusion might be reached that we are crazy (if hearing voices, seeing visions) or perhaps just misguided (if we feel it is true rather than see/hear it being declared). To verify something we cannot refer to the source (the internal) but to the external. We can never be sure we aren't mad (because the external gets to us via the internal - so to clumsily speak), but our madness must be very deep if every test in the external seems to confirm it.
To conclude, a third party observer can only conclude that you know you know something if the thing you say you know is true. The third party can only know if it is true by looking for verification away from the source. If that is not a possibility we cannot say that we know that they know it, only that they believe it strongly. So the rhetorical question is: How could possibly know that it was God you were getting to know, and not a hallucination? It is rhetorical because there is no way to externally confirm it.
I think you might have to change professions.
I get this a lot. I can only modestly conclude from this evidence that I am best suited to serial killing. I am a white male in my 20s and I am apparently overqualified and underemployed. I'm a pretty good match up to that career - and I'm an atheist to boot and some people out there would certainly say that just ups my qualifications
Hmmmmm.... Modulous.....? Your name even has a philosophical ring to it!
My full username is Modulous Prime, which works doubly well. Actually my real surname is very rare - so it is just begging for immortality by being associated with a groundbreaking philosophical worldview - though I'd prefer a lab method that goes towards curing cancer or something.
Sorry for the small epic there. You can see why I opted for the short and sweet version. I don't lay claim to the argument being bullet proof either - it is not a line of thought that I've discussed a lot so I haven't found a good coherent way of expressing it. Please feel free to point out where you think I've slipped up

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-26-2007 8:41 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-27-2007 10:43 PM Modulous has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 40 of 216 (436821)
11-27-2007 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Jon
11-27-2007 9:54 AM


Re: E-7?
Jonnicus Logicus writes:
Is the limitation of what can be learned reected in the limitation of the relationship? For example, is it true that a less limited relationship exists with an entity about whom you have learned more, but a more limited relationship exists with an entity about whom you have learned less?
Phat thinks a moment...
It appears that if what you are saying is correct, the limitation in the relationship totally depends on my willingness to learn more about the entity with whom I am having the relationship with.
Thus, my answer is yes. Knowing the other person/cat/bird is directly related to the depth of the relationship.
For example, I couldn't just pick up any old bird and have as deep of a relationship as Icarus and I have. (ewwwww, I know! )
I have gotten to know you online wise through a years worth of conversations, and I couldn't simply talk to another lad from Minnesota and have anywhere near the quality of conversation that we sometimes have...(nor anywhere near the arguments!)
Where are you going with this, Jon? Note the title of the thread, now....
Edited by Phat, : fixed wee error

"All that we call human history--money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery--[is] the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy."--C.S.Lewis
* * * * * * * * * *
“The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.”--General Omar Bradley
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog." -GK Chesterson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Jon, posted 11-27-2007 9:54 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Jon, posted 11-27-2007 6:26 PM Phat has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 216 (436823)
11-27-2007 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Phat
11-27-2007 6:19 PM


E-8?
Jon writes:
Are the limitations of what your bird can learn about you limited to those things you have in common, i.e., those things that are not different between you?
Phat writes:
Yes
Jon writes:
If I am better than you at something, does that indicate a difference between you and me in regards that particular thing?
Phat writes:
Sure.
Jon writes:
Is the limitation of what can be learned reected in the limitation of the relationship?
Phat writes:
my answer is yes.
Is God innately better than you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Phat, posted 11-27-2007 6:19 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Phat, posted 11-27-2007 6:35 PM Jon has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 42 of 216 (436825)
11-27-2007 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Jon
11-27-2007 6:26 PM


Re: E-8?
Jon writes:
Is God innately better than you?
Of course! Thats why He needed Jesus! No way could humans comprehend or even talk to God the Father. (Trinitarian Defense)
[/theobabble]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Jon, posted 11-27-2007 6:26 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Jon, posted 11-27-2007 7:14 PM Phat has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 43 of 216 (436836)
11-27-2007 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Modulous
11-22-2007 3:27 PM


god is IT
"If God is omnipotent, he can choose to have any one of us know him, to understand at least some part of his entity and his intentions and thus to enable a real relationship to exist."
Modulous, this is just a different perspective you may relate to.
You speak of god as a 'him' which could give a wrong impression right from the start. What if god is an 'it'? What if god is an energy force that never changes. An energy that is in pure form and stands alone, meaning no counterpart or opposite?
The only one I can come up with is 'potentiality'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Modulous, posted 11-22-2007 3:27 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Modulous, posted 11-28-2007 2:15 AM pelican has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 216 (436840)
11-27-2007 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Phat
11-27-2007 6:35 PM


Babbleship sunk...
Jon writes:
Are the limitations of what your bird can learn about you limited to those things you have in common, i.e., those things that are not different between you?
Phat writes:
Yes
  • Difference begets limitation of knowing (Different ’ k-Limit)
    Jon writes:
    If I am better than you at something, does that indicate a difference between you and me in regards that particular thing?
    Phat writes:
    Sure.
  • Betterness begets difference (Better ’ Different)
    Jon writes:
    Is the limitation of what can be learned reected in the limitation of the relationship?
    Phat writes:
    my answer is yes.
  • Limitation of knowing begets limitation of relationship (k-Limit ’ r-Limit)
    Jon writes:
    Is God innately better than you?
    Phat writes:
    Of course!
  • God has innite betterness (iBetter)
    So:
    1. Betterness begets difference (Better ’ Different)
    2. Difference begets limitation of knowing (Different ’ k-Limit)
    3. Limitation of knowing begets limitation of relationship (k-Limit ’ r-Limit)
    4. God has innite betterness (iBetter)
    Therefore:
    1. Innite betterness begets innite difference (iBetter ’ iDifferent)
    2. Innite difference begets innite limitation of knowing (iDifferent ’ ik-Limit)
    3. Innite limitation of knowing begets innite limitation of relationship (ik-Limit ’ ir-Limit)
    4. It is not possible to close an innite gap without changing either party.
      1. We cannot change either party.
      2. We cannot possibly close the innite gap.
    5. So we have an innite limit in the possibility of a relationship with God.
      1. Anything innitely limited in its possibility is simply impossible.
      2. It is impossible to have a relationship with God.
    6. It is impossible to have a relationship with God.
    As for this:
    Thats why He needed Jesus!
    A. God needs nothing.
    B. Jesus died nearly 2000 years ago.
    C. Jesus is completely irrelevant.
    Thanks, kind sir, for playing. We hope to see you at the tables sometime soon again. Enjoy the rest of your stay.
    Jon

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 42 by Phat, posted 11-27-2007 6:35 PM Phat has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 47 by Phat, posted 11-28-2007 2:51 AM Jon has not replied
     Message 49 by Stile, posted 11-28-2007 10:08 AM Jon has replied

      
    Hyroglyphx
    Inactive Member


    Message 45 of 216 (436890)
    11-27-2007 10:43 PM
    Reply to: Message 39 by Modulous
    11-27-2007 12:05 PM


    Re: less short, hopefully sweetness density not affected
    Sorry for the small epic there. You can see why I opted for the short and sweet version. I don't lay claim to the argument being bullet proof either - it is not a line of thought that I've discussed a lot so I haven't found a good coherent way of expressing it. Please feel free to point out where you think I've slipped up
    Well, like Joe here, I think its one of those paradoxes where you are never entirely certain, with verifiable, empirical, repeatable, bona fide "knowledge." So I don't see where a slip up could have been, or if there was, neither side of the debate would be able to prove it one way or the other I suppose.
    And I've gotta say that I'm a little perturbed, and slightly covetous, that I didn't think of something this witty.
    I'm not even really sure why I thought it was so great... Maybe it just hits close to home with me. But it was definately for me an "Aha!" moment...
    Great job... POTM all the way... I'm really hoping Phat will read this since he's always discussing aspects of faith juxtaposed by tangible evidence. I think it would unfurl his own belief better.
    I also have to marvel that a non-theist was even able to come to that understanding, because so many of them really are like the pysciatrist in the story.
    I used to be the psychiatrist. But now I'm Joe. And sometimes its frustrating to know something and not be able to explain the most wonderful experience of Joe's life. Its frustrating, but at the same time, its what keeps Joe going on with passionate conviction.
    The memory of Everest has a purpose for Joe. And Joe is more than willing to crawl through the creeks and crags, through the muck and the mire, just to be in the presence of the memory of Everest... And I guess its because once you see the memory of Everest, everything else is just details.
    The grandeur, the bueaty, the ineffable love, the enigma, the inanimate spirit that binds all things together.
    I just... I just love the memory of Everest, and it loves me.

    “This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 39 by Modulous, posted 11-27-2007 12:05 PM Modulous has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 51 by Modulous, posted 11-28-2007 10:59 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024