Epistemological problem of God

Assuming what you're saying is correct, why does it astound you?

What does studies or understanding of religious scriptures have to do with the existence of the gods they convey?

 

Why do you call me Borg? Is it some kind of nasty epithet in your language?

 

Of course you don't. Why would you?

No it isn't.

 

I know. God has given it to me to know.

God does not require me to prove it.

No it doesn't.

Laugh away.

I already said. Pay attention and don't ask the same question twice.

Quantrill

 

See. You claim to KNOW that God exists. And my counter is that it is impossible to know what attributes God even has, which I laid out when I started this thread. And you either have to accept what I say and say we can't know and just have faith, you have to give me an alternative account of how you know what exactly God's attributes are, or you have to explain why my "problem" isn't actually a problem at all. And by using the word ''know'' that is presupposing that there is justification for your belief and that it is a true one. Any other use of the word know stretches the meaning much too far. So what is your justification for believing God has certain attributes? If you tell me you have no burden of proof, then I believe Allah is the one true God and all unbelievers will be judged when the end comes and those who are not good Muslims will be cast into the lake of fire. I have no burden of proof.

 

How?

Why not?

It does if you contend your position if truthful.

bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

But you didnt explain, you just said "because I'm a Christian". Now you need to explain how being a Christian gives you that knowledge of God's supposed reality. Further you need to explain why only Christians have this knowledge.

 

I was calling you "Borg" because I see in your speech only one of lots of members of a worldwide active population of brainwashed "individuals" (typical slogans: everything is relative, there is no truth except the truth that there is no truth and my own truth, "science" [without any plan about science] is my god, [a nearly not existing] knowledge is my weapon, converstions are like s-word fights without rules and so on and so on ...).

The problem of Christians is simliar to the Borg-idea of Starhship Enterprise. Because every human being (wether it is an extraterrrestrian human being or not) is also a child of god it's difficult to win against the raping machine part of a Borg so s/he is able to find the way back to the own identity as a child of god.

http://youtu.be/zskO9O3hF78

 

God gives one to know by His Spirit.

God does not require me to prove it. Im not interested in 'why not'.

Again, just because you don't know, places no burden on me.

Reread. Pay attention.

Quantrill

 

What do you mean?

But I am interested, hence explain it to me.

But then why should anyone believe you or take you seriously?

You did not answer the following questions. I'll state them again until you do. You have a knack of stopping short of a full explanation, which ultimately reveals the bs base of your belief system:

Now you need to explain how being a Christian gives you that knowledge of God's supposed reality. Further you need to explain why only Christians have this knowledge.

So to rephrase:

How does being a Christian give you the knowledge of God?

Why do only Christians obtain that knowledge?

 

We don't know exactly what the atmosphere of Juptier is made of, does that mean Jupiter does not exist?

 

Ah. No. Because it's possible, even though our technology at the time may not be able to do it, to determine what atmosphere Jupiter has. I'm not sure how we could even possibly determine what God's attributes are. I also did not say God did not exist. I simply said we cannot take meaningfully about God, so whether or not the being existed would be impossible to determine.

To use your Jupiter example, if there was no reliable process whereby we could learn anything about Jupiter, we would best keep our mouths shut with regards to the specific details, but we could still look at it through a telescope right? Or by possibly using a satellite, we could still find out it ACTUALLY existed.

God is said to be immaterial, timeless, spaceless, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, all good, eternal, and perfect. The problem with God is that we cannot even know if God exists or not if we can't even determine the attributes. Looking around the world, or taking human experience into account, the only possible way to have an experience of God is a religious one, and it is HIGHLY doubtful that will give you much in the way of attributes. And due to the plurality of religious experiences, it is hard to use them as a serious line of evidence for the belief. So in essence, there is an epistemological problem of trying to understand what God's nature is, so we can possibly infer indirectly that the being exists using the traditional arguments for theism or any new ones that happen to come up. If there is no way to know what God's nature is, and there is no way to know God exists without some reference to the attributes (hence my argument against religious tradition), then the best position seems to be one of agnosticism in my opinion.

 

In my eyes you are an atheist while I am an agnostics. Seems to me that the most people today have funnny ideas about agnosticism.

In general god is absolutelly not a problem - your own arguments are a problem what you like to produce for others. Human beings are not able to think alone - we need other human beings. Nearly no one for example saw Jupiter with his own eyes. If we are learning then we are learning nearly everything not because we are doubtful - teachers and scientists would drive crazy in such a case - we are learning because we are trusting in informations and experiences of other people - because we believe in their good will and so on. Suddenly we find out that some ideas are in a logical conflict - and then we are starting to search for new ways.

In case of Jupiter we are able to prove something because Jupiter is interacting with us in a physical way - or with other words: he and we are the same: We are universe. But the universe is not god although his kingdom is everywhere - it is his creation "only". You are for example exactly in the middle of his creation and the universe is expanding all around you in all directions. And if you leave your position then you are again in the middle of the universe. Every point is always in the middle of the universe. In spiritual words I could say: That's the real justice of god - everything is in the center of his attention and he never forgets anything, everything is important for him - nothing is to little.

Whatever: As an atheist perhaps you are able to understand in a better way that you know not nothing or everything about Picasso if you take a look at a picture of Picasso. His pictures are part of something what became reality and started to interact in a world of human imaginations. But in general you are not able to prove the existance of Picasso if you believe that a person with the name Picassso never existed. If someone tells you "Picasso had a beard" and someone else says to you "Picasso was without beard" then this is maybe confusing for a little moment - but in the logic of times both is able to be reality. So if someone says "god is spaceless" and another one says "god is [in] all spaces" then this means nothing special about the existance of god. Experiences with god are possible - but not in a way as if we woud be able to repeat this experiences as if god would be only a periodic flashing light in an experiment of phycicists. We are able for example to imagine that the planet "Jupiter" knows nothing about us - nevertheless we are existing. So he has to be an agnostic in case of our own existance - but this does not mean that we are not existing.

http://youtu.be/CK--lPOn-A8

 

Ive told you. If your understanding level is that challenged, then nothing I say will help.

Quantrill