Would you want to know?

If you're going to make an argument from postmodernism, well, that cuts both ways. You can't know anything about, or have a belief in, big-g God, either. Little-g god is all you get, too.If you operate from the premise that the only gods that we can have knowledge of are self-invented concepts, then you don't really believe in god either. Sure, I can't disprove the existence of any Gods who are defined as being beyond the scope of human knowledge. But by definition you don't know anything about that God, either. I was misinformed. Pretty simple, actually. Lol! "You should pray for evidence, but you have to pray really hard. If you pray hard enough he'll definately deliver, unless he doesn't. You probably didn't pray hard enough or something." Nobody arrives at a destination. A life where learning stops at some point along the way would be a very anticlimactic life indeed.I may very well believe in God again. Who can say what I may learn? Someone like you who doesn't believe they have any more to learn, though, strikes me as profoundly incurious at heart and so I wonder what your purpose at an internet discussion board could possibly be, for instance. I'm not infuriated. Puzzled, more like.

Arrrrrrrgh! I thought I asked a rather limited question here! Any new thoughts on the OP from anyone?

G'night Sour

That very notion is a destination. "The magic roundabout" they call it this side of the water My purpose is evangelism. Yours seems to be "he loves me, he loves me not" ad infinitum... were it not for the fact that we die (at least: I am convinced we all die)Night Crash.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Who asked you?

Woodsy: You sometimes hear people say things like 'Don't tell me. I don't want to know.' But this is never very serious.People who really and truly don't want to know something don't say things like this. It is too dangerous to speak of the subject at all. The subject is taboo.They only way they can tell you is to show you. Iano has given you a clear answer to your OP.I put the OP question to him three times. His final non-answer on the subject appears in Message 80.Iano says he not only cannot imagine a conflict between truth and theism, he cannot imagine the possibility of such a conflict.But of course he can. Any adult who has ever revised a belief about anything knows that the possibility of further revision exists. We never know it all. We always have more information to process, as we live and learn. And Iano knows this. He has himself has put forward the idea, elsewhere on this board, that the human thought process is 'skewed' and subject to flaws. He knows the possibility exists.Iano also has direct evidence. He has the experiences of Crashfrog and others here who have experienced this possibility for themselves. Even so, when asked about how he thinks others should resolve a possible conflict between Truth and God, he cannot say. (An unhelpful approach indeed, given his professed desire to evangelize.) He avoids the subject of choice at all costs.For him the subject is taboo. He cannot discuss it.His other comments function much like a squid's ink cloud. They give the appearance of discussion to cover his getaway from a simple question.You have your answer. Iano would not want to know._

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

It can't be. A != ~A. Maybe logic isn't operational on "your side of the water" or something?(I remember The Magic Roundabout on TV when I was a kid. As I recall they cut it up into little vignettes and ran it in the middle of a Sesame Street knock-off on Nickelodeon.)

If God overcame all fallibility(including unjustified doubt) I imagine an open mind would be impossible.But I suspect we are getting off-topic.

Who said anything about belief?

Thank you for not labouring the point

I agree. But whats this punishment thing your talking about The OP didn't ask me what I would do if I was an athiest it asked what I would do if I knew there was no God. There a gulf of a difference. I attempted the difficult task of describing 'know' earlier and to differentiate it from conviction. If you know there is a computer screen on front of you now then that's what I mean by 'know' in terms of quality. If you are only mildly convinced that there is a computer screen on front of you now then that description is of no help to you. Assuming you do know there is a computer screen on front of you then ask yourself are you prepared to be flexible about that knowledge (ie: open minded). I am flexible myself and have given examples: delusion/this is all a aliens playstation game we're existing in etc. Lets see how you get on with the computer screen before looking at this Things outside my control such as the nature of existance means I must place a caveat on knowledge. Knowing something is the highest court in the land. The decision is final and there is no appeal. But if the land doesn't actually exist then the court has no juristiction. It pronouncements count for nought.I have never been delusional - or at least not that I can tell. Certainly no one else has remarked on me being so. If a person can tell they are delusional or at least sense something amiss then perhaps this caveat can be removed. I don't know so can't comment on that I don't want to make this so very complicated. If 1 billion people can sit and watch the Ryder cup and all agree that it is a game of golf we are watching and the significance of a certain shot makes all billion of them go "Wow!" then we are, for the purposes I am talking about above, dealing with something objective. That we each have a slightly different reaction or reason for the reaction ("Wow - our team is going to lose" or "Wow - our team is going to win") doesn't change the global picture. Many people can know God and each look at him from own perspective. Sure. It changes not the main event. They all know it is a game of golf they are watching. And they can discuss the game of golf between themselves meaningfully - ie: in the sense that they gather people are watching the same game as they are. So it is with people who know God exists I don't know that this isn't a playstation game. I operate in the realm of conviction, hunch, gut feeling etc that it is not. This we all must do in fact were we to consider the nature of existance. To know something is to have evidence for it and I have no evidence for this not being a playstation game. Putting it another way: I know God exists but am only convinced he is not the figment of someone elses imagination. Much like I know my computer screen exists and am only convinced it is not the figment of someone elses imagination.Conviction (as we have seen) is always open to other possibilities. It is not the same as knowing. Objective in that we are all watching a golf game. Our subjective views the objective from different angles. But the objective is what it is. I know there is a game of golf going on unless that objective reality doesn't exist. Knowing presumes the objective reality existing. True. A better way of saying it. So it can be ignored. There is no point in pondering on indeterminate things such as this. Life is too short (looking at it in the classical sense) This continuum has destinations at either end. Minus (I know this isn't the case) to positive (I know this is the case). A person is pretty convinced of something because they have a particular kind of evidence, say lots of circumstantial evidence. The person who knows something has the highest class of evidence. I am pretty convinced that you have a computer screen on front of you (say that you tell you have and it seems very reasonable to suppose that you have) but you could having this recited to you by your auntie in Hong Kong over the telephone and are telling her what to type in reponse for all I know. I know I have a computer screen on front of me however. Tell your wife that you are 99.9% certain that you love her and see how far you get. I don't. If I am not then he exists. If I am then he doesn't (at least not the God I know exists - another one could however). Previous talk of certainty here is useless you have let me see - my being delusional or otherwise is in fact not determinable. Its pretty mind blowing meeting God. So maybe it is like a psychosis Resistance? I think that it is because people suspect I am not delusional nor do they suspect that reality is in fact a playstation game. They also suspect, I think, that I am not lying when I say I know God exists. They might also suspect that, given how easy it is to know things (and it is as easy to know God exists as it is to know the computer screen exists - when both he and it are right in front of you (so to speak) that I am unlikely to be making a mistake.The (uncomfortable perhaps) conclusion that might follow in the minds of some (those who agree that the exclusions to knowledge I suggest don't apply in this case)is that God does in fact exist. This does not mean that they know he does themselves (he would have to break down the same barrier and stand in front of them as does their computer screen). But in realising that someone else knows (me in this case) their own conviction level might increase. Which is my intention.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I've got plenty to learn both about the world around me and about God. When one arrives at a destination they don't just wander around the airport. They explore the destination they have arrived at. This one happens to be a sunny one.My purpose here is as I have many times stated. Evangelism

You have proof? I agree.

Impressive honesty, crashfrog! You are opening your heart and mind to the future! I can't honestly say that I have the guts to do the same! I am quite sure that I DO have more to learn, but the possibility that there is NOT a God is currently outside my framework of belief....much as if someone suddenly told me that my Mother never existed!The deepest reasons for my belief may, upon critical examination, be mere leaps of faith without much evidence.While I cling to them with all the strength I have in my soul, I wanted to take this opportunity to tip my hat to you---who have surrendered your future willingly by declaring yourself open to learning! Kudos x 10!

It wasn't my intention to mis-represent you. I just wanted to take those first premisses presented. That this statement would work with "pink unicorn" in place of God, isn't a good thing logically Iano. I like the way you tried to make that point favour your argument.You cannot logically infer God exists because you think you know he does.You can only claim to know he does. Logically, this doesn't mean that one can infer that you either do or do not know God exists.This is why the statement is useless objectively. Remember, if people are going to claim something, to the crowd, then there are reasons for why the crowd cannot simply believe that your conclusions are correct. That's the whole point of assesing someone's claim. It's a good point. That something can be known about onesself from one's own thoughts. Now could I know what you thought? Could I know in an external capacity? You speak of an internal knowledge.To know the creator of the universe in one's own mind is not enough, because the matter deals with an external knowledge aswell as an internal one. I believe any site dealing with epistemology will expand on this.