If God existed, how would it be possible for us to know God?

[PsychoticEpisode]

O well... it was inevitable that "Gods" woud be created when us animals finaly evolved to a pont of bein able to contimplate such thangs.!!!

Each successive era or age for humanity has laid claim to knowing what God(s) are overseeing us. Usually people are an impatient lot but when it comes to waiting for their God(s) to show up there is a tendency to keep that faith while tweaking the actual entity(ies) personalities to fit.

Are we evolving towards a day when theism is passe or just too illogical and unreasonable for intelligent creatures to endure any longer? I sure as Hell hope so but evidence for this metamorphosis isn't forthcoming as yet.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Each successive era or age for humanity has laid claim to knowing what God(s) are overseeing us. Usually people are an impatient lot but when it comes to waiting for their God(s) to show up there is a tendency to keep that faith while tweaking the actual entity(ies) personalities to fit.

When i was young (8-11?)... when i herd the terms atheist Russian or democrat i perty much envisoned som non-descript monster... an even tho i went on a simi-regular basis (dew to free cookies/cool-aid an fun activities wit frinds) to Sunday school... i was alredy pickin-up on the idea that somptin wasnt quite rite about "religious" people from the hyprocracy an evasivness i witnessed... but i had no idea they was fulla stoopidstitious bologna.!!!

Are we evolving towards a day when theism is passe or just too illogical and unreasonable for intelligent creatures to endure any longer? I sure as Hell hope so but evidence for this metamorphosis isn't forthcoming as yet.

Im encouraged by the fact that the mor we know the less we beleive.!!!

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

If god is a "high school" student & our "universe" is her science experiment, how would it be possible for us to know her?

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

If god is a "high school" student & our "universe" is her science experiment, how would it be possible for us to know her?

Or vice-versa.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Feel free to indicate any claim of knowledge that doesn't have a set of assumptions at its core.
”
Do you understand the difference between knowledge and a mere claim of knowledge?

For the purposes of requiring some set of core assumptions, there is none. Once again, if you disagree, feel free to offer an example.

“
Its more about going back to the OP and seeing whether it is a question suitably framed for a deistic conception of god.
”
I have. It makes no distinction between one conception or another.
Any distinction you see is due to your assumptions.

The OP does however require "god" to have a "dictate"(in the sense of a "dictate of one's own") .

You have typed paragraphs about the ins and outs of the deistic concept of god, all of which make it clear that it doesn't involve such a sense of dictate.

If you disagree, now would be a good opportunity to explain how the deistic notion of god involves issues of "dictate".

“
(Since the deistic conception of god is forever relegated to the unknowable, being an abstract term of reference as opposed to an object with "being", I would argue not. But if you disagree, now would be a good time for you to establish what parts of the OP seem pertinent to a deistic concept of god)
”
Excuse me?? Deistic God being an abstract term of reference??
You are making further assumptions that everyone has the same understanding of these Gods as you do... which clearly is not the case given your abhorrent dismissal of Deism.

By abstract term I mean a word like say "environment" or "paradigm" - you can indicate something that belongs within it but you can not indicate the "object" of it (hence the word abstraction).

While there is perhaps room for detailing the linguistic perfection behind deistic philosophy, its not really needed here. At the onset, it is clear such an "entity" as a deistic god doesn't have a dictate, so this is obviously not the thread for it.

Furthermore, since you appear to be in full agreement that the Deistic God is unknowable, couldn't you have just accepted the point at the start and moved on? It appears you argue for the sake of it.

the argument is not so much about the knowability of god but the relevance for you bringing Deism up in this thread.

“
hence the question what need does the OP have for your detour?
”
For the last time: because the OP did not state which concept of God - so in answering the question one covers both concepts.
What is bugging you about this?
Why do you continue to argue a point that you accept.

I'm not sure I follow.

The OP had a requirement for a god with a dictate and you saw this as a reasonable opportunity to begin discussing deism.

Perhaps you find the deistic notion of god acceptable.

Perhaps you find some of the deistic writers and thinkers admirable.

Or even, perhaps you overlooked the OP's use of the word "dictate".

If you don't think that the use of the word "dictate" exempts the deistic notion of god, perhaps now would be a good time to address that point.

“
Not really
Actually you are just working in a paradigm that holds the linear progress of time as the ultimate cause.
”
Please can you explain what you mean... "linear progress of time as the ultimate cause"? How can time be a cause? Further, please can you actually counter the argument rather than just say "not really".

Because you relegate the idea of all causes to a chronology

“
Needless to say, there is plenty of stuff out there for understanding how time is a contingent factor of god (paramatma and brahman tattva vs bhagavan tattva for instance). No doubt you will say that you don't accept it.
”
I will say it's irrelevant to this thread - unless you care to explain why not?

well you just requested a counter to the argument and I just offered some topics that offer an alternative for "(4) The Theistic God must therefore continue to interact with us AFTER the initial cause. " being a cause for diminished potency etc.

If you are interested in the topic perhaps you could start a separate thread on it.

“
But that's not the point
”
Admittance of irrelevancy?
“
... since the OP made a clear request to take discussions of "whether god exists" (which would include your contributions on "how" god exists) to a separate thread.
”
Then please do. For the purposes of this thread I have been working with the assumption that God DOES exist. It is all a matter of how one can possibly KNOW God exists.
You do realise that there is a difference between the holding the assumption of X and knowing X to be true?

As already reiterated a dozen times already, the OP makes a requirement for a god with a dictate.

Clearly this is not the case with deism.

Perhaps you have been working with an idea of god that you find more palatable , but we are actually meant to be discussing different ideas at the moment.

“
Actually it is the very premise for this thread.
”
No - it's not - and you clearly do not understand the very simple logic:
Both the deistic God and theistic God are understood as the cause of all.

sure

But what you don't understand (and in fact won't even address) is that the OP is making a very specific request for a god with a dictate

You have already dismissed the deistic God as unknowable.
Therefore the theistic God is only knowable through what it does that is DIFFERENT to the deistic God.
Being the cause of all is NOT a difference - and therefore is IRRELEVANT.

Interesting points I am sure, but not really relevant to this thread, since it makes a special mention at the onset to leave issues of "how/does god exist" to some other forum.

It also makes a special mention of a god with a dictate.

This is the actual point that you should be addressing in your discussions of deism.

“
What is irrelevant is using it as a platform for discussing the deistic concept of god (since abstractions are generally not understood to have a very meaningful expression of personal will)

...

what is not clear though is how you can take this ...
If God did exist (for the sake of argument), how could we know he
exists without his/her dictate?

... as an invitation to transgress this ...
This is not a debate on whether God exists or not.

.... to bring in a deistic concept of god.
”

Raising the concept of the Deistic God was to demonstrate how it is NOT knowable, to point this out to people, and explain the logic behind it not being knowable.


Everything else still being discussed about it is due entirely to YOU not letting it drop.
You have accepted the point.
Move on.

I have no objections to the deistic idea of god being "unknowable".

What I do have objections to is the validity of bringing it up in a discussion that requires a god with a dictate.

“
The point is that empiricism only grasps a very select set of phenomena
”
You have the additional annoying habit of making a claim and providing no examples or support for that claim.
Please detail a phenomena that it doesn't grasp and then detail how you know this phenomena to exist - just so I can more clearly understand your point.

there are many examples.

I assume that you don't have any (empirical) evidence to support that you spent time in your mothers womb.

I assume you also wouldn't hesitate to explain how you know that you spent time there either.

“
Atheists take particular joy in revealing how something that was dressed up as god (simply because it overwhelmed current understandings of the day) falls within the range of knowable laws.

Your recipe for discerning god is not valid. It is an insurance policy for the continued humour of atheists.
”
There you go again... you state that the "recipe for discerning god is not valid" yet you provide no detail of why not etc.
You also fail to provide a recipe that is not entirely material in nature, with entirely material results... results that, because of a current lack of understanding, is deemed to be demonstration of a God.

I thought it was quite simple.

Current understandings of the day change with the day.

IOW what is a mystery today can be revealed as common knowledge the next.

As a predominantly atheist contributor to this site, surely you can see what this lends itself to.

As for a recipe for knowing god (as an example of something "non-material" if you like) , the OP suggests one - namely the question of god's dictate or not.

Either way, bringing in a deistic conception of god serves no purpose (since a deistic god doesn't possess a dictate, much less the ability to be known)

“
Its not at all hard to indicate something outside of empiricism.
One could start with your mother or father.
”
Genetic testing would state otherwise.

The prerequisite for many father's day cards, I am sure .....

“
Then perhaps now would be a good time to introduce the idea of a personality being the embodiment of law (such as in the case of an absolute monarchy - of course even a monarch exists within the jurisdiction of the laws of nature, but that says more about the human condition than god)
”
If you would care to actually explain why it is a good time... perhaps by providing some relevancy to the notion of being able to know God.

I thought it was obvious.

The same general principle that applies for "knowing" a monarch applies to "knowing" god (at least a god with a dictate, which is what the OP is tailored to).

So in answer to the OP : It requires god's dictate.

“
Proof (in the sense of one's personal verification) is only one particular means to knowledge and by no means a monopoly on it.
”
And yet so far you have not provided an alternative.

Don't have to look far.

If you say you know who is your mother and father you have one example right before you.

The rest of your comments regarding proof I have ommitted as being irrelevant, because you do not see the difference between something that has supporting evidence and something that does not, with scientific "proof" merely being a weight of evidence.

which brings us back to the point of exactly who the evidence is knowable to.

Even if you did get genetic tests done on your parents, your claims of knowledge would still be dependent on the dictate of others.

“
Interestingly enough, the OP deals with this issue.

Is it possible to know god (or alternatively display god like capacities if you like) without the dictate of god.

You seem to be suggesting yes (with the suggestion that I establish the methodology of becoming jesus or something).
”
I'm suggesting "no".
If you really think I'm suggesting "yes" then you clearly are incapable of understanding flows of arguments.
I suggest you go back and reread the thread. Maybe, one day, you'll even understand it.

Which statements are you vouching for?

1. God is only knowable by his dictate.
   
2. One can know god without his dictate.
   (and as a further point since there is no god knowable by such a method ... yada yada .. deism .... yada yada ... unknowable ....etc etc)

“
yet for some reason you are not at all shy to measure all things against empiricism
”
Irrelevant. You need to explain how empiricism is a "cause of truth" - which you haven't. All you are bleating on about is how empiricism can lead one to make a claim of truth.
Spot the difference?

Can you spot the difference between "using process X a truth was established" and "using process X all truths are established"?

“
I'm not sure how this makes your empiricism less narrow and shallow
”
Let me explain the English:
You made a statement (e.g. "if you do X then Y") with a conditional clause ("If you do X"). Since X has no bearing on me, the conclusion ("Y") also has no bearing on me. And thus the statement was as relevant as mine. i.e. not.

yet you insist that "Y" = "all truths" .....

“
standard arguments require standard rebuttals
”
Which given the pages of previous threads devoted to it, and your inability to see its flaw, is thus akin to you sticking your fingers in your ear and going "Nah nah nah nah I can't hear you nah nah nah nah!" :/

Its more the case your inability to recount those flaws and instead opt down the avenue of ad homming reveals your desire to concede ....

 

[lightgigantic]

Omnipotence is a knowledge claim about God and since we can't know anything about our skyward benefactor then I'm afraid its meaningless to attach such a distinguishing label to Him.

Much like being the president of america is a knowledge claim about Obama ...... and since we haven't seen him personally launch a nuclear IBM etc etc

IOW certain claims of knowledge only become absurd when you insist on measuring them by standard empirical means.

 

[lightgigantic]

Although a problem remains - What does a person do, whose self-respect, common sense and the right to inquire have been compromised like that, and who has arrived at the stage of blind doubt? It seems it requires a profound philosophical overhaul to fix the consequences of being subjected to fallacious arguments from early on.

Basically we have certain parts of our body that can't be substituted for other parts. For instance if I am really required to use my head, I can't substitute an elbow.
(hence the whole social criticism of misplaced varna in the contemporary world)

IOW if you have persons more situated to professions in tamas and rajas operating out of positions reserved for sattva, expect problems.

 

[Sarkus]

LG, a quick question to get to the chase, as you appear to be both increasingly obfuscated (whether deliberately or not I can not tell) as well as hung up on the matter of mention of deism very early in the thread.


So - do you think it is possible to know a God without its dictate?

For the record (and please refer to my 1st post in this thread for where this was first stated) - I say no, we can't.

I also explain in that post why I think that.

I also further explain my position in that the dictate must take a form that goes against the objective laws of the universe in which we operate.


Is there anything here to which you object / disagree?
Notice: at no point do I discuss whether or not God exists.

 

[wynn]

Although a problem remains - What does a person do, whose self-respect, common sense and the right to inquire have been compromised like that, and who has arrived at the stage of blind doubt? It seems it requires a profound philosophical overhaul to fix the consequences of being subjected to fallacious arguments from early on.

Basically we have certain parts of our body that can't be substituted for other parts. For instance if I am really required to use my head, I can't substitute an elbow.
(hence the whole social criticism of misplaced varna in the contemporary world)

IOW if you have persons more situated to professions in tamas and rajas operating out of positions reserved for sattva, expect problems.

I don't understand how this relate to what I said ...?

When you speak of parts of the body that can't be substituted for other parts - is this an analogy for the 'personal/mental parts' (here mentioned self-respect, common sense and the right to inquire) that also can't be substituted for other parts? For example, that mathematical talent cannot substitute self-respect?

I think I can understand your last sentence. For example, if a person has a great desire to do good, but is ignorant of what would truly be good, then this doesn't end well - like the hunger problem in Africa, that keeps getting worse the more food is provided by world-wide charity.

You didn't seem to answer my question about the person stuck in blind doubt. Blind doubt is a kind of insanity ...

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't understand how this relate to what I said ...?

When you speak of parts of the body that can't be substituted for other parts - is this an analogy for the 'personal/mental parts' (here mentioned self-respect, common sense and the right to inquire) that also can't be substituted for other parts? For example, that mathematical talent cannot substitute self-respect?

I think I can understand your last sentence. For example, if a person has a great desire to do good, but is ignorant of what would truly be good, then this doesn't end well - like the hunger problem in Africa, that keeps getting worse the more food is provided by world-wide charity.

You didn't seem to answer my question about the person stuck in blind doubt. Blind doubt is a kind of insanity ...

I was suggesting that just have different parts of our body that determine our functionality to the degree that they are properly orchestrated, so does the social body.

For instance if you walk on your hands and hold the newspaper with your toes, you will probably develop complications with your wrists and ankles.
Similarly, if you have persons of questionable transparency representing god, complications within the congregation will develop.

The solution for a person stuck in the position of blind doubt is much the same as a person stuck in blind faith - namely restructuring one's value system (4 suggestions in BG 7.16 that can assist catalyzing such a change)

 

[lightgigantic]

So - do you think it is possible to know a God without its dictate?

No

It requires god's dictate

For the record (and please refer to my 1st post in this thread for where this was first stated) - I say no, we can't.

I also explain in that post why I think that.

You explain because there is no direct or indirect interaction.

This tends to breach issues of defining how/if god exists. If you have a god that can't participate directly or indirectly in influencing the cosmic manifestation it kind of begs the question how he could be the cause of it.
At this point, you felt obliged to introduce the deistic concept of god, which is not really valid for the thread since its discussing a god with a dictate.

So in short, you have problems with your premise about god's inability to interact (if you are working with a god attributed as being the underlying principle of all manifestations)

I also further explain my position in that the dictate must take a form that goes against the objective laws of the universe in which we operate.

The ability to go against the objective laws requires the ability to interact with a medium that we also operate it. It seems that even you are unable to continue with this track of a god that doesn't interact directly or indirectly with us.

 

[wise acre]

If, on the other hand, he does interact with us but just doesn't let us know it is him, then we can only know him once we have identified an interaction that does not fit with the rest of the workings of the universe... i.e. an interaction that not only defies the laws of the universe as we know them currently, but defies them at an objective level as well.
If it doesn't then we can not separate "God" from nature.

To play devil's advocate...
Let's say that there is interaction and God identifies himself as God. This God claims to be both immanent and transcendent and is experienced this way, just as we experience each other as both experiencible and as having 'facets' 'essence' 'contents' that are not accessible.

So God seems to be both nature and something beyond that, or at least partially not directly accessible. IOW there is a problem of other minds with God also, you could say.

And if you wish to define God beyond that (e.g. benevolent) then you're back to square one in terms of how you would know that.

This is also a problem of other minds issue. We have that trouble with each other and, for example, animals.

 

[wynn]

The solution for a person stuck in the position of blind doubt is much the same as a person stuck in blind faith - namely restructuring one's value system (4 suggestions in BG 7.16 that can assist catalyzing such a change)

BG 7.16 says
four kinds of pious men begin to render devotional service unto Me
- piousness seems to be the factor here. Anyone can be distressed, desiring wealth, inquisitive or searching for knowledge of the Absolute, but that doesn't suffice to turn to God.

The grossly foolish, who are lowest among mankind, whose knowledge is stolen by illusion, and who partake of the atheistic nature of demons are also distressed, desiring wealth, inquisitive or searching for knowledge of the Absolute, but they don't turn to God.

To me, blind doubt doesn't seem analogical to blind faith. Blind faith is like insisting on one object out of a hundred, ignoring all others. Blind doubt is like insisting to take none of the hundred objects.

A person in blind faith can become or be pious, but a person in blind doubt cannot / is not. Because piousness requires an element of recognizing oneself as pious, no? And a person in blind doubt doesn't reconigze himself as pious.

 

[Sarkus]

No

It requires god's dictate

You explain because there is no direct or indirect interaction.

No - I explain that IF there is direct or indirect interaction then it has to defy the objective laws of the universe in order for us to detect it and separate it as being the dictate.
At no point, with regard the theistic God, do I state that there is no direct or indirect interaction - that is merely you misunderstanding the arguments - I merely give the scenario by which we would be able to know such a God.

This tends to breach issues of defining how/if god exists.

If you have a god that can't participate directly or indirectly in influencing the cosmic manifestation it kind of begs the question how he could be the cause of it.

Again - this is a red-herring / strawman due to you not following the arguments as given but seemingly making up your own to counter.

At this point, you felt obliged to introduce the deistic concept of god, which is not really valid for the thread since its discussing a god with a dictate.

We have covered the deistic God. You accepted it. Move on.

So in short, you have problems with your premise about god's inability to interact (if you are working with a god attributed as being the underlying principle of all manifestations)

For the last time... follow the arguments as given, not some assumed position.
I have not stated anywhere in this thread that the theistic God HAS NOT had direct or indirect interaction with us... I have merely stated that, under the assumption that God exists then in order for us to know him, any interaction would have to defy the laws of the universe.

The ability to go against the objective laws requires the ability to interact with a medium that we also operate it. It seems that even you are unable to continue with this track of a god that doesn't interact directly or indirectly with us.

Since I have never said that God (assuming it exists) does not interact, this is a strawman fallacy - as detailed above.
Please discontinue from such.

Why do you continue to make unwarranted assumptions?
Please highlight to me exactly where I have said that (assuming God exists) God does not interact with us, either directly or indirectly? I have repeatedly said that IF God interacts THEN there are criteria that those interactions must meet in order for us to identify them as God.

 

[Sarkus]

To play devil's advocate...
Let's say that there is interaction and God identifies himself as God. This God claims to be both immanent and transcendent and is experienced this way, just as we experience each other as both experiencible and as having 'facets' 'essence' 'contents' that are not accessible.

You would need to expand on this analogy... can you give some examples of such "facets" etc that are not accessible? I think I know what you mean, but I'd like to be sure.

So God seems to be both nature and something beyond that, or at least partially not directly accessible. IOW there is a problem of other minds with God also, you could say.
...
This is also a problem of other minds issue. We have that trouble with each other and, for example, animals.

Can you expand this "other minds" issue, please? (Apologies but I'm not sure I quite grasp what you are trying to get at. )

 

[wise acre]

You would need to expand on this analogy... can you give some examples of such "facets" etc that are not accessible? I think I know what you mean, but I'd like to be sure.

OK, you are my brother. To up the analogy a notch, I am blind and we relate mostly by telephone, since we live in different cities. We share a lot. We are pretty close. You tell me about problems you have. Sometimes I hear in your voice a tremor and I sense there is something you do not want to say. At times I suspect you are gay, but are afraid to come out. Other times maybe that you want to put a better face on things. From signs like these I think there is a lot of you I am not experiencing. I know from other too, what you are supposed to look like. I can even say this description though I am not sure what the words mean. I do have my own kind of sense of '6 feet tall' but realize that the sighted experience this in a way I do not. So there is your inner life. But also perhaps the surfaces of you, my brother that I do not see. Then I know from myself that I show different parts of my personality and feelings differently to different people, even ones where I feel equally intimate as I do with you. So I know that probably there is much I do not, but perhaps could or one day will experience with you that I do not now. I also have noticed that there are secrets I have, some I have even kept from myself. I assume that you have depths that I do not come into contact with.

Can you expand this "other minds" issue, please? (Apologies but I'm not sure I quite grasp what you are trying to get at.

Perhaps the above will give you a sense.

I am saying basically that with other humans we have both immanent and transcendent qualities -as far as we experience these others. And yet we can come to know these others to some degree and also get the sense there is more - even incredibly much more, which I think is the case with what in philosophy is called other minds. We can get the sense this is all there, perhaps even a hint of the vastness, and yet not know much about it.

The problem of other minds goes further and questions whether we can even now there is an inner life there at all. Perhaps they are just automatons. I think this analogy is fair game for say, a pantheist/animist, who experiences more conscious entities than 'we' do. We basically shove the problem of other minds at them. But it is not as if we are immune to this problem. The rationalist reponse is to say 'well, we are like those other humans out there, so the assumption makes sense'. But a warning shot across the bow of this argument is the way it has been used as a limit in relation to other races than whites and to animals, the latter also being seen as machines, as often the universe is.

This does not prove anything, of course. It is meant more to push back on the proof I felt you were mounting in the other direction.

 

[Sarkus]

OK, you are my brother....

As far as I can tell, all these facets are explainable through material interactions - usually subconcious comparatives - either to that same person or to people in general. Some people are very good at reading body language and verbal nuances - but there is nothing odd about it.
As a blind person, it is likely the other senses - especially hearing - would be more sensitive to very small fluctuations etc.

Perhaps the above will give you a sense.

I am saying basically that with other humans we have both immanent and transcendent qualities -as far as we experience these others....

I would be careful before using terms such as transcendent.
As said, everything you have described can probably be explained through material processes, and if not yet satisfactorily, it is more rational to assume that we will than that there is anything transcendent.

And yet we can come to know these others to some degree and also get the sense there is more - even incredibly much more, which I think is the case with what in philosophy is called other minds....

Sure - but the sense is based on an unprovable assumption (that others have a depth similar to that we perceive in ourselves). We do not, nor can not know the assumption to be true or false.

This does not prove anything, of course. It is meant more to push back on the proof I felt you were mounting in the other direction.

There is no proof to mount in either direction, imo.
Although I'm curious to know what proof you felt I was trying to mount?

 

[wise acre]

As far as I can tell, all these facets are explainable through material interactions - usually subconcious comparatives - either to that same person or to people in general. Some people are very good at reading body language and verbal nuances - but there is nothing odd about it.
As a blind person, it is likely the other senses - especially hearing - would be more sensitive to very small fluctuations etc.

I was not saying it was odd. I meant it as a primarily mundane example. If you mean we do not know the mechanism involved when people hear from God or have visions, this does not mean we may not find this out in the future.

Your stance was we could not know. I am saying you cannot know this.

I would be careful before using terms such as transcendent.
As said, everything you have described can probably be explained through material processes, and if not yet satisfactorily, it is more rational to assume that we will than that there is anything transcendent.

I am not saying that what we cannot experience in the other person is transcendant. I am saying it is beyond our sensing. I am showing that one can have partial contact and knowledge of someone and get a sense, correctly, that there is much more. This could be the experience people have of God.

Sure - but the sense is based on an unprovable assumption (that others have a depth similar to that we perceive in ourselves). We do not, nor can not know the assumption to be true or false.

Fine, then statements that it would not be possible to know God would be impossible to back up. I thought you made such statements. It is precisely that position I am arguing against. If I misunderstood and you were not taking the position that even if there is a God we could not know him, then I have created a wasted tangent.

There is no proof to mount in either direction, imo.
Although I'm curious to know what proof you felt I was trying to mount?

See above. Let me see if I can find a quote.

OK. Your first post in the thread. First statement.

We can't.

in response to the thread title.

Then you move forward through a range of possibilities. I quoted from the latter portion of that post and was trying to point out that you had not exhausted the possibilities. I am saying that your support for the statement that we cannot know God - which is a kind of proof, or...`? - has problems. It does not account for people who claim to have some experience directly with God, who thus is to some degree immanent. I moved over to human relationships to show that we have direct experience of others and also have a sense that there is much we do not come in contact with. IOW the problem of other minds is relevent to both experiences.

I think your assertion that no one can know God cannot be backed up.

This is quite different from my saying there is a God. Which I wouldn't as I guess technically an agnostic - cannot be known.

 

[Sarkus]

I was not saying it was odd. I meant it as a primarily mundane example. If you mean we do not know the mechanism involved when people hear from God or have visions, this does not mean we may not find this out in the future.

Your stance was we could not know. I am saying you cannot know this.

I'm saying we can't know unless the dictate goes against the laws of the universe.
Yes, I stated "We can't" at the start of my first post - but clearly (at least I thought so) caveated that statement by the end of it.
Let me find the quote:
If, on the other hand, he does interact with us but just doesn't let us know it is him, then we can only know him once we have identified an interaction that does not fit with the rest of the workings of the universe...

Bear in mind that the thread asks whether or not we can know God "without his dictate".
Not just whether or not we can know God.

I am not saying that what we cannot experience in the other person is transcendant. I am saying it is beyond our sensing. I am showing that one can have partial contact and knowledge of someone and get a sense, correctly, that there is much more. This could be the experience people have of God.

We can't know it is beyond our sensing. All we have is our own subjective sense that there is more - a subjective sense based on entirely material interactions.
We could be wrong in our sense that there is more.
I certainly wouldn't start with the assumption that we are wrong, but we can not know absolutely that we are right.

Fine, then statements that it would not be possible to know God would be impossible to back up. I thought you made such statements. It is precisely that position I am arguing against. If I misunderstood and you were not taking the position that even if there is a God we could not know him, then I have created a wasted tangent.

See above. Let me see if I can find a quote.

OK. Your first post in the thread. First statement.

in response to the thread title.

As explained above - you need to read the whole post and by the end you will see that the statement is caveated. Also, my post was in response to the OP, not necessarily the thread title - as the OP expands the question with the "...without his dictate".

Then you move forward through a range of possibilities. I quoted from the latter portion of that post and was trying to point out that you had not exhausted the possibilities. I am saying that your support for the statement that we cannot know God - which is a kind of proof, or...`? - has problems. It does not account for people who claim to have some experience directly with God, who thus is to some degree immanent. I moved over to human relationships to show that we have direct experience of others and also have a sense that there is much we do not come in contact with. IOW the problem of other minds is relevent to both experiences.

But the person who claims to have these experiences of God can not know it is God rather than, say, a bad case of heartburn... they can only claim to know and rely on the confidence that the experience gives them of their conviction.
If God uses processes entirely natural to this Universe for those interactions then it is, by definition alone, indistinguishable from nature.
If one feels that God has interacted with them in "super-natural" ways then surely one must first ask how they know it is "super-natural" rather than just wishful thinking. If you can not eliminate the possible and more rational, how can you know it is the less rational?
Likewise, it is impossible for us to know that there is more of a person than we come in contact with. At best we can make a rational assumption that there is and work with it until it fails.
Any similar assumption regarding God fails Occam's Razor.
Further, and I remind again, the OP is discussing whether or not we can know a God "without his dictate".

I think your assertion that no one can know God cannot be backed up.

If I asserted that as an absolute, sure. But my statement was deliberately caveated and only addresses the case of there being no dictate from the God in question.

This is quite different from my saying there is a God. Which I wouldn't as I guess technically an agnostic - cannot be known.

Devil's Advocate indeed, then.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
No

It requires god's dictate

You explain because there is no direct or indirect interaction.
”
No - I explain that IF there is direct or indirect interaction then it has to defy the objective laws of the universe in order for us to detect it and separate it as being the dictate.

I'm not sure that makes sense.

Its not clear why direct/indirect interaction of god must defy objective laws as a means for making god knowable.

As a parallel, one could define the president of the USA possessing potencies quite beyond the average american (the ability to orchestrate national policy etc). Yet he becomes commonly knowable through a host of avenues that do not involve him utilizing them personally to an inquirer (for instance, how many people have not witnessed the president manipulating national policy on their front door step yet can successfully name who he is?). Generally people discern who and what the president is through qualitative models as opposed to quantitative ones.

IOW the "standard laws" are a contingent potency of the authority figure (whether it is god or the president) who can work within or without them according to their desire (and in the president's case, capacity).

At no point, with regard the theistic God, do I state that there is no direct or indirect interaction - that is merely you misunderstanding the arguments - I merely give the scenario by which we would be able to know such a God.

On the contrary, you tend to indicate otherwise in post 16, a reply to Saquist.

You make it quite clear there that you have every intention of working with a god that has no direct/indirect interaction.

“
This tends to breach issues of defining how/if god exists.

If you have a god that can't participate directly or indirectly in influencing the cosmic manifestation it kind of begs the question how he could be the cause of it.
”
Again - this is a red-herring / strawman due to you not following the arguments as given but seemingly making up your own to counter.

On the contrary, working with a god that is not the cause of the physical manifestation indicates a clear corruption of the standard understanding of the term.

“
At this point, you felt obliged to introduce the deistic concept of god, which is not really valid for the thread since its discussing a god with a dictate.
”
We have covered the deistic God. You accepted it. Move on.

What I don't accept however is that it is valid to bring into this thread, which specifically details a god with "dictate".

“
So in short, you have problems with your premise about god's inability to interact (if you are working with a god attributed as being the underlying principle of all manifestations)
”
For the last time... follow the arguments as given, not some assumed position.
I have not stated anywhere in this thread that the theistic God HAS NOT had direct or indirect interaction with us... I have merely stated that, under the assumption that God exists then in order for us to know him, any interaction would have to defy the laws of the universe.

-ahem-

“
Originally Posted by Saquist
Sarkus is kinda wrong.

Creation itsself is a direct contact,
”

Sarkus
I'm kinda not.
You merely start with a logical fallacy - an unsubstantiated assumption - one you have conveniently built into your definition of God, I'm guessing (e.g. if you define God as the cause of all causes, it makes the inherent assumption that there was an initial cause... and thus requires there to be a God - through definition.) We call that a logical fallacy.

If, however, you can prove that the universe, that existence itself, was created / caused, then you might be on to something.

If you wish to go down an unassumed position, then the best you can achieve is through a definition of God that is self-evident - such as "God = the Universe" or "God = existence", neither of which add anything to our understanding by renaming to "God", and thus makes "God" a redundant term given that we have adequate terms already.

Long live deism, eh?

“
The ability to go against the objective laws requires the ability to interact with a medium that we also operate it. It seems that even you are unable to continue with this track of a god that doesn't interact directly or indirectly with us.
”
Since I have never said that God (assuming it exists) does not interact, this is a strawman fallacy - as detailed above.
Please discontinue from such.

ditto above

Why do you continue to make unwarranted assumptions?
Please highlight to me exactly where I have said that (assuming God exists) God does not interact with us, either directly or indirectly? I have repeatedly said that IF God interacts THEN there are criteria that those interactions must meet in order for us to identify them as God.

A indicated at the beginning of this post, your new argument is just as problematic as your old one