is it possible to find God by reason?

[geeser]

Saying something is completely unknowable would exclude it from our ability to reason with the concept. That would not however exclude it from existence, just outside of our mental world.

then explain how we would know it's there(exists).
explain how we could possibly know of such an unknowable thing, instead of wasting you time speculation on something you could not possibly know,(which is a completely inane, and utterly stupid train of thought, come into the real world theres things here you can know, and they can know you.

 

[qwerty mob]

[...] how can anyone have exposure to that which does not exist, or to that which offers no evidence of existence?

Abstractly, memetically.

[...] such as the atheism of inanimate objects.

Or the theisms of inarticulate persons.

...

It bears repeating that "one arrives at a state of profound ignorance only after periods of prolonged thought" because there is no shortcut.

Thanks for your posts. Good stuff.

 

[Raithere]

Let's realize here on this thread though - "knowing" something doesn't depend on having evidence, but on being empirically correct.

There's a contradiction here, empirical means based on observation. A statement may be true despite the lack of empirical evidence but it cannot be known without, at least, an inference from empirical evidence.

To say something is completely unknowable would mean we cannot define anything about it. This is the problem I have with those who say, "God is all", or whatever - with not even a single defining characteristic, how can we relate to it in any way?

The alternative, however, is to limit God through definition. For each attribute we assign we define what God is not as well is what God is.

Saying something is completely unknowable would exclude it from our ability to reason with the concept. That would not however exclude it from existence, just outside of our mental world.

I disagree. Something that is in its essence unknowable does not exist. Note that there is a difference between this and something that is unknowable to us because of some barrier or gap between ourselves and the object.

The question being addressed is whether or not being exists independent of observable properties. Can something be and yet have no discernable substance or effect? Isn't our very definition of existence, of being, that which can be detected?

Without this premise, how would you determine whether or not there was an undetectable elephant in your bedroom?

The story about the elephant and the blind men is appropriate here. The blind men can describe to their best abilities what they perceive, but the elephant is objectively the same, and would be the same even if there were no blind men around to feel it.

There is a difference between something that is unknowable and knowing only a part of something and jumping to a conclusion.

~Raithere

 

[cole grey]

There's a contradiction here, empirical means based on observation. A statement may be true despite the lack of empirical evidence but it cannot be known without, at least, an inference from empirical evidence.

Oops, wrong word. Agreed then, a statement may be objectively true whether evidence agrees or disagrees.
Let's keep in mind that "empirical" evidence can be experiential in nature, i.e. only observable by one person, and not testable for agreement with objective reality.

The alternative, however, is to limit God through definition. For each attribute we assign we define what God is not as well is what God is.

Yes, God must be defined for observation in a very limited way so as to fit into our perspective. And then people point at the light on the lens or film of human consciousness and say, "there, that is God, worship it."

The question being addressed is whether or not being exists independent of observable properties. Can something be and yet have no discernable substance or effect? Isn't our very definition of existence, of being, that which can be detected?

Good question. We would have to ask if the thing can observe itself, "cogito ergo sum" and all that. Would that make it "exist"?
Also, as far as an unconscious thing having no observable quality, no defining quality – what is that thing? Pure being or non-existence?
Perhaps that is what is meant by the “great I am”, as said about God.
"And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you,’" (Exodus 3:14).
“Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am," jesus talking in john8:58
Then again if it all boils down to an undifferentiated existence, where is the meaning in that? Perhaps following the way of, “I eat my rice, I drink my tea, I wear my clothes”, is the best approach to God after all.

Without this premise, how would you determine whether or not there was an undetectable elephant in your bedroom?

You wouldn’t. But why would you ask if there was one there in the first place? Maybe someone saw it. Maybe they were crazy. Maybe moses was crazy, maybe not.


***
Water said, "But I can't help but to feel dismay and envy for those who live with great surety in their belief in God."
Me too. Being totally sure is difficult for someone who sees many possibilities that are in accordance with my observations and thoughts - life is funny.

 

[water]

cole grey,

Water said, "But I can't help but to feel dismay and envy for those who live with great surety in their belief in God."
Me too. Being totally sure is difficult for someone who sees many possibilities that are in accordance with my observations and thoughts - life is funny.

But it is not funny when I a dear friend brutally went against me because of that.
So many assumptions he made about my lack of belief, as if I were some kind of a generic robotic non-believer, and as if he were appointed to fix me.
That hurt.

Perhaps following the way of, “I eat my rice, I drink my tea, I wear my clothes”, is the best approach to God after all.

This is how I do it.
But so far, it has been ruthlessly scorned by many of my Christian friends.


So I feel there is this immense rift between believers and non-believers.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

This is the crux - God is not illogical - it is just valueless - and logically consistent with something that doesn't exist.

The illogical thing is TO BELIEVE ANYTHING FOR WHICH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.

That is illogical.
Utterly unreasonable.
And most religions require it.

wouldent most of mainstream science tell us to "believe" something for a moment to understand a theory, then the theory that grew slowly becomes mainstream modern cultism mind states, simular to religious minds people who believe god isnt real 100% are doing the same thing as the religious people, (believing something 100% that they have no real proof of) who here believes 100% in the big bang theory? or string theory? big crunch/crunches ? relativity? those are not fact, im not saying the big bang didnt happen, but im not saying it did either, i personally dont care if it did or didnt, because the big bang still fails to explain the start of existance, its seriously flawed i could see this even as an eight year old child, why cant other people?.


i dont believe in god, but i dont believe there is no god either, i believe both just as possible as the other,


Religion dosent conflict with Science, even with all of the theorys that scinetists put forward, and proof that we find due to in hand study, with hard evidence, (real fact/proof physics/biology) but none of these things dissprove god, they just dissprove the bible, and the bible is nothing but a storybook, so dont get confused with the logical theory of a "god" and the religious christian god or other man made god, there just books and thats all. but a god dosent have to be a man, it could be a force/energy/dimention/anything.


peace.

 

[cole grey]

But it is not funny when I a dear friend brutally went against me because of that. So many assumptions he made about my lack of belief, as if I were some kind of a generic robotic non-believer, and as if he were appointed to fix me.

Eating your rice will fix you better than some one-dimensional, dogmatic, thinker who is so tied in to their concrete belief that they can't even appreciate a second point of view EVER could. Your lack of belief either is or is not your final destination, but it is your path now, and if someone can't appreciate that they aren't shit.

But so far, it has been ruthlessly scorned by many of my Christian friends.So I feel there is this immense rift between believers and non-believers.

People are stupid, mostly. Not unintelligent, but truly one-dimensional.
It isn't about non-believers and believers. One-dimensional thinkers will always find something to hate someone for, or create an "us and them" with. There are many believers who would appreciate your concerns and not revile them.
There are also a lot of one-dimensional thinkers who don't try to force their opinions into other people's heads.

***
Geeser - I'm not the one saying God is completely unknowable and will always be. Also, I am here in the real world, I have no choice to be anywhere else.

 

[Godless]

People are stupid, mostly. Not unintelligent, but truly one-dimensional.
It isn't about non-believers and believers. One-dimensional thinkers will always find something to hate someone for, or create an "us and them" with. There are many believers who would appreciate your concerns and not revile them.
There are also a lot of one-dimensional thinkers who don't try to force their opinions into other people's heads.

Now if most of the world's theist thought like this, there woudn't have been religious wars, crusades, inquistions, witch burnings, racial biggots, pro-lifers, just to name a few. But the facts are that most religious folkes DO! slam their religious nonsence unto the rest of us. And that is fact.

Godless

 

[duendy]

Now if most of the world's theist thought like this, there woudn't have been religious wars, crusades, inquistions, witch burnings, racial biggots, pro-lifers, just to name a few. But the facts are that most religious folkes DO! slam their religious nonsence unto the rest of us. And that is fact.

Godless

so are you saying sun shines out of A-theists arses.....could you breifly catelogue some of the negatives THESE have contributed to?

 

[Godless]

Religion dosent conflict with Science

That's a canard!. Religion does conflict with science in many ways.

Evolution, Cosmology, anthropology, geology to name but a few.

**The antagonism we thus witness between Religion and Science is the continuation of a struggle that commenced when Christianity began to attain political power. A divine revelation must necessarily be intolerant of contradiction; it must repudiate all improvement in itself, and view with disdain that arising from the progressive intellectual development of man. But our opinions on every subject are continually liable to modification, from the irresistible advance of human knowledge.

Can we exaggerate the importance of a contention in which every thoughtful person must take part whether he will or not? In a matter so solemn as that of religion, all men, whose temporal interests are not involved in existing institutions, earnestly desire to find the truth. They seek information as to the subjects in dispute, and as to the conduct of the disputants.

The history of Science is not a mere record of isolated discoveries; it is a narrative of the conflict of two contending powers, the expansive force of the human intellect on one side, and the compression arising from traditionary faith and human interests on the other.**Find the rest of article here

Godless

 

[Lerxst]

Depends on the religion....

Plenty of intelligent religious people. In fact there have been and ARE plenty of scientists who also have religious faith.

 

[Godless]

so are you saying sun shines out of A-theists arses.....could you breifly catelogue some of the negatives THESE have contributed to?

There has never ever existed a complete objectivistic atheistic society!. So speak shit out of your ass and not your damn non-spelling bs keyboard!

Godless

 

[Godless]

Yes, many religious people are scientists, but they contradict themselves, or try pseudo science like "christian science" or creationuts, some of these nutjobs get a degree in science to convince other ingnorant theists that they are in fact correct and truthfull of creationist views. A lot of them start out being theist scientist and become atheists or agnostic, so do many religiously devoted people, who defend their faith with all heart and belief, later become either agnostic or atheists. Fact is we have a few of those around here! on this forum.

Found some more links on views of science and religious conflict; and this was the real reason I started this here post.

**Let us be blunt. While it may appear open-minded, modest, and comforting to many, this conciliatory view is nonsense. Science and religion are diametrically opposed at their deepest philosophical levels. And, because the two worldviews make claims to the same intellectual territory -- that of the origin of the universe and humankind's relationship to it -- conflict is inevitable.

It is possible, of course, to define a nonsupernatural "religious" worldview that is not in conflict with science. But in all of its traditional Western forms, the supernatural religious worldview makes the assumption that the universe and its inhabitants have been designed and created -- and in many cases, are guided -- by "forces" or beings which transcend the material world. The material world is postulated to reflect a mysterious plan originating in these forces or beings, a plan which is knowable by humans only to the extent that it has been revealed to an exclusive few. Criticising or questioning any part of this plan is strongly discouraged, especially where it touches on questions of morals or ethics.

Science, on the other hand, assumes that there are no transcendent, immaterial forces and that all forces which do exist within the unverse behave in an ultimately objective or random fashion. The nature of these forces, and all other scientific knowledge, is revealed only through human effort in a dynamic process of inquiry. The universe as a whole is assumed to be neutral to human concerns and to be open to any and all questions, even those concerning human ethical relationships. Such a universe does not come to us with easy answers; we must come to it and be prepared to work hard.**
Find the rest of article here

Godless

 

[Lerxst]

There is no reason why one cannot embrace the spirit and methods of science and also entertain religious beliefs that are not in conflict. There are scientists that do just that, they are no less intelligent or capable than their atheist colleagues.

Sure, you can easily point to traditional religious dogma throughout history - sure, it is very easy to punch holes in it, and yes, we all *should* punch holes in it. The degree to which any specific religious belief tries to encroach on science's turf is the degree to which it should be blasted. Religion used to have an excuse to try to provide an explanation for the natural world. It no longer has that task, for which we are all thankful, because it failed miserably at it. But it can have other functions.

One can entertain religious ideas that simply do not conflict with science because the two are restricted to non-overlapping majesteria, to use Stephen Jay Gould's term.

 

[Lerxst]

Yes, many religious people are scientists, but they contradict themselves

How, specifically? And I'm not referring to the Duane Gish's or Hugh Ross's of the world or anyone else that tries to "marry" science and religion. They are not to be married. They are to be kept seperated.

If the private and personal convictions of scientist x do not impact his or her skill at collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data and engaging in the peer review process and contributing to the body of knowledge in science, then those convictions are irrelevant to his or her professional work.

 

[duendy]

There has never ever existed a complete objectivistic atheistic society!. So speak shit out of your ass and not your damn non-spelling bs keyboard!

Godless

ohhh, bite me, have done with it

i see materialistic philoophy which u cal 'science' and patriarcal belief you speak of, Judaic Christianity, two sdes of a same coin. both diameterical to each other.

they believe, as u say, tat ther is a 'God' BEHIND reality, and you be;ieve that reality is objective and random

we are different. we believe that reality is ALIVE. that matter-energy is conscious/sentient

 

[Godless]

Well this "materialistic" science that you call, has provided the means to spout your shit on this type of forum, it took many years of evolution on our part, so that you can redicule latter our achievements, this is called hypocrisy. If Judaic Christianity would still had their way, we still be riding horse buggies!.

Godless

 

[cole grey]

DUENDY - If it wasn't for dualism, you wouldn't know which way was up.
Haha, get it?

***

If Judaic Christianity would still had their way, we still be riding horse buggies!.

Bah.

 

[water]

Well this "materialistic" science that you call, has provided the means to spout your shit on this type of forum, it took many years of evolution on our part, so that you can redicule latter our achievements, this is called hypocrisy. If Judaic Christianity would still had their way, we still be riding horse buggies!.

Who is "we"?

 

[cole grey]

Who is "we"?

Actually, I was wondering who THIS "we" is -

we are different. we believe that reality is ALIVE.

I was hoping D wasn't using the royal "we".