bobbythefap1 wrote on Jun 20^th, 2012 at 4:03pm:


Yeah, but it is not proof is it.

No one can prove it either way.

I liked the way the fella explained his belief on QandA the other night.

He believes in the big bang - but he also can not "prove" there was not some entity involved before that.

I'll stay agnostic.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jun 21^st, 2012 at 10:32am:


I didn't make it center stage. It's center stage of this thread.

So you agree an entity is a possibility! Interesting.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jun 21^st, 2012 at 11:45am:


I agree, but i can not prove it one way or the other.

Yadda wrote on Jun 19^th, 2012 at 11:31pm:


I agree with the logic, however, what you can't tell is what  somebody else "knows".

Many theists, including yourself,  can say "I know that (my) God exists"

The basis of this is revelatory, not logic based.  By the same token, another person can say " I know that (a particular) God does not exist.", not on the basis of any logical argument about probability, but on a gnostic (small g) basis. It's a personal knowledge that transcends any logical arguments.   

Nobody (including yourself) can question the knowledge held by another person because nobody can look inside another person's head. PP's logic is flawed, but the OP said nothing about logical arguments.

I can say "I know that my favourite colour is blue" and no amount of logicl arguments can counter that personal knowledge. The same goes for the gnostic theist and the gnostic atheist positions. Neither can be countered by logic. Pascal's wager collapses in a heap when it comes to personal knowledge.

De gustibus non est disputandum.

Yadda wrote on Jun 24^th, 2012 at 11:27am:






Yadda wrote on Jun 20^th, 2012 at 7:40pm:




I think i should rather have expressed myself this way....




Clearly, if something does exist within a [vast and] unsearchable environment/space, we can still have knowledge, of that 'thing',
1/ if we come across the 'thing', or,
2/ if in some other way, that the 'thing' is revealed to our perception.


But we can NEVER know [and therefore we can never prove] that something does NOT exist within a [vast and] unsearchable environment/space,  ....because [within a [vast and] unsearchable environment/space] we ourselves do not have the capacity to search and to know if that 'thing' exists within the bounds of that environment/space.


Dictionary;
know = = be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.   have knowledge or information concerning.   be absolutely sure of something.




As human beings, we can only ever have the capacity to know of those 'things' which are within the 'reach' of our own [limited] perception [...or, knowledge of things which are within the 'perception' of those machines which we are able to conceive of, and then construct].

If we are able to conceive** of the [possible] existence of something, we may be able to construct a machine which can demonstrate that something does in fact exist.

** i.e.
If we are able to imagine.




And with that, i come back to Blake...



William Blake, Auguries of Innocence





Consider;
Being able to imagine, does not necessarily mean, that what we 'imagine' is wrong [incorrect], or even unreal.




Hamlet, William Shakespeare




IMO, people who live exclusively in this world, i.e. people who know the bounds of their 'reality' only from their physical/temporal perceptions, live in a very small world.

Yadda wrote on Jun 24^th, 2012 at 12:42pm:


OK, I'll play devil's advocate (very appropriate you say, ok). I know there is no god because it came to me in a dream. I discovered a way of astral travelling using my mind, where I could see the entire universe. We all have this capability. So the information that there is no god came to me from astral travelling.

Now you can't prove that Astral travel does not exist because you can't look inside my head, and because you are not omniscient. I know that it's true, and using that method, I also know that no gods exist. 

So, a claim of  revelatory knowledge can be used to demonstrate any religious position you want. I could be lying through my teeth, but you could never know.

"Astral travel!!!!!???" I hear you say.


Suffice it to say Horatio,that your philosophy has never dream't of that particular one.


- and Yadda - don't take offense. I mean none.  Rest, rest, perturbed spirit!

Yadda wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 10:26pm:


I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem when you tell me that somebody cannot possibly know something to be true or false based on this premise

Quote:


Yes you can. You can know something, I can know something, and so can Adamant.

The argument that you can't know something, anything, is invalid to the point of being preposterous. The same argument could be used for things that we accept to be true.

1+1 = 2. We can't know this for sure because you don't know all the mathematics in the universe. You have to be God to know that 1+1= 2.

I think, therefore I am. We can't know that because it could all be an illusion. (or translated into Christian - it is all an illusion.

There is however a subset of illusions, sometimes called persistent illusions.  For the purpose of ensuring that we don't drift away into a nebulous cloud of solipsistic ramblings (the favourite position of Fundmental Christians and Muslims). such persistent illusions are commonly referred to as reality.

- and if you were starving, you'd probably eat the real carrot rather that n the illusory one.  Illusory carrots have no nutritional value.