We can never encounter god.

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

We will never know whether or not there is a god or not because we are to stupid to realize whether or not there is one.

Let me put it to everyone this way.........

If we assume that god (our creater), is capable of doing anything as in influencing time, space and existence.

And then all of a sudden we encounter this "god". How do we know that this is the real god. It could be an alien race that actually created us.

So if we are actually able to encounter a god, it would be impossible because it is impossible to encounter something that is capable of everything.

So why have everyone wonder whether or not there is such thing as a god when it would be impossible to know.

I'm not saying that there is no such thing as god I'm just saying that we should start thinking more logically about this sort of topic.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,174 • Replies: 38

No top replies

@MITech,

Sort of like saying that if god is beyond time and space, reaching into time and space he would have to leave some sort of evidence of existing.

1 Reply

@Joe,

This is a good point. It proves that if God exists, it is without potential, and transcendent of our being. Therefore it is useless to have a faith held together by a creator purely. (if people take it that way).

God came from our heads. But MIT, that still doesn't prove whether or not it exists or not. If you want to use this logic, then you'd have to be willing to accept the fact of transcendence and that if something is conceivable, it must surely exist. This is just not the way I believe the universe to be even close to however.

2 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

This is a good point. It proves that if God exists, it is without potential, and transcendent of our being. Therefore it is useless to have a faith held together by a creator purely. (if people take it that way).

God came from our heads. But MIT, that still doesn't prove whether or not it exists or not. If you want to use this logic, then you'd have to be willing to accept the fact of transcendence and that if something is conceivable, it must surely exist. This is just not the way I believe the universe to be even close to however.

You know I never said anything about the fact that there could be no god.

1 Reply

@MITech,

How might we know? Could it be impossible to know?

To accept the possibility of the impossibility of knowing is to realize the impossibility of a possibility. <keels over twitching>

At a certain point, postulations can reach a point of semantic tongue-tying that it almost gets to be "too much". For my part, I try to accept all possibilities, no matter how remote.

0 Replies

@MITech,

Unless faith leads to the assumption that God is a being of flesh and blood, it seems difficult to understand how one could encounter him or even know one was in his "presence."

0 Replies

@MITech,

Along that same line, if God were a being beyond time and space, beyond the senses to perceive, then he is unknowable except by a possible a priori knowledge, or intervention in the timeline. That knowledge would have to be placed in you by the creator at your creation. One can even argue that said knowledge would be essential to knowing anything at all, assuming the knowledge exists.

Your definition of God is tied to what attributes you apply to him (yes, yes, masculine. It's easier for me, so sue me. ). Is he all-knowing? All-powerful? All-loving? Is he even personal at all?

1 Reply

@invulnerable23,

Quote:

If we assume that god (our creater), is capable of doing anything as in influencing time, space and existence.

And then all of a sudden we encounter this "god". How do we know that this is the real god. It could be an alien race that actually created us.

First, speaking of God as a creator, if we are going to think about this logically, is figurative.
But you make a fine point, that knowing what we identify as God is actually God is difficult. As for impossible, this seems a stretch. You want a more logical discussion on God, well, then what is the logic that demostrates the impossibility of recognizing God. So far all you have shown is that we might be mistaken, not that we are necessarily mistaken.

Quote:

So if we are actually able to encounter a god, it would be impossible because it is impossible to encounter something that is capable of everything.

Don't we encounter something that is capable of everything every day? We do live in reality, right?

That you do not see is no reason to think that others cannot see.

0 Replies

@MITech,

MITech wrote:

If we assume that god (our creater), is capable of doing anything as in influencing time, space and existence.

That would seem a safe assumption, but how do you know that god has the ability to, or even the will to, influence time, space and existence? For example If time is a property of objects (this is my opinion), in order for god to influence time, god would need to be physical (in order to influence physical things). This migration into the physical would forfeit any state of being a god, since being physical, god would then become bound by the physical laws. Being bound by physical laws may prevent any reverse path back into being god. Perhpas god does not choose to influence time for to do so would render god no longer god. Is this a sound arguement? I do not think so since the basis is the assumption "god exists", which in itself is a poor assumption (my opinion).

MITech wrote:

So if we are actually able to encounter a god, it would be impossible because it is impossible to encounter something that is capable of everything.

That may be true, but is that a limitation of our existence or the existence of god? How could you tell the difference?

MITech wrote:

So why have everyone wonder whether or not there is such thing as a god when it would be impossible to know.

It is an awful position of ours. What could a god possibly do, in the way of evidence for us to consider that the entity is in fact god? It is fairly easy for me to be convinced that one mole of water contains one mole of oxygen atoms and two moles of hydrogen atoms, but how would I be convinced that an entity is god. I guess it is human nature to contemplate the existence of god but when should we stop is a good point. Maybe the problem lies in the phrase "existence of god".

MITech wrote:

I'm not saying that there is no such thing as god I'm just saying that we should start thinking more logically about this sort of topic.

I see the underlying issue as being the irreconcilable differences in the definition of existence and the definition of god.

PS What if god did exist but decided to destroy godself to see what would happen God's Debris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Brilliant piece of work. note free official free online copy of the book at bottom of page.

1 Reply

@validity,

validity wrote:

That may be true, but is that a limitation of our existence or the existence of god? How could you tell the difference?

Well it is a limitation in the concept of existing.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Well it is a limitation in the concept of existing.

Good answer. Is it then paradoxical to ask "Does god exist?"

1 Reply

@validity,

Well is there any other form in which I'd cease my time to care about?

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Well is there any other form in which I'd cease my time to care about?

"Can god have existence?"

1 Reply

@validity,

No. ( and this is a perfectly adequate use of a post. I just answered one of man's toughest questions, and I answered no) Nope, nodda, nil, nothing. God is nothing, and by virtue of that reasoning; actuality is his sanctuary, reality is his hell.

Since actuality is external to the mind it is an asymptote, irrational, unreachable, and the same as transcendent without transition, so lets no worry about God here in our lifetimes.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Sure its possible; well, actually... depends on your definition.

What is a 'thing' that may be this, or may be that; may be something, nothing or everything and means different things to different people. Of what worth that 'thing' that can't be proven, disproved or even discussed without a dozen vastly-different definitions from hordes of people all talking in different directions? What use is this 'thing' that we can't define, can't agree on, can't dispute or even define any nature of?

I'll say it again; Although I must accept that there are possibilities of which I can't conceive, there comes a certain point in the absurdity of a notion that rational discourse can't net anything, doesn't there?

I suppose it can be fun to discuss the possibilities, for sure; and considerate to respect the hopes and beliefs of good, honest hearts. But... wow

0 Replies

@MITech,

Khethil is correct. Definitions are essential in any philosophical discussion. Everyone is just spewing out random thoughts they have without defining what or who they think God is. One person may say, "God is findable in the wild". Does that mean God is flesh and blood? God is everywhere in nature? God is just everywhere period? What you mean is in your definition of God.

However, I would not go so far as to imply it is a useless discussion. The notion of God carries with it a powerful weight, again depending on your definition. It is interesting to see what people hold to as being God, and what people hold to as the attributes of that God.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

This is a good point. It proves that if God exists, it is without potential, and transcendent of our being. Therefore it is useless to have a faith held together by a creator purely. (if people take it that way).

God came from our heads. But MIT, that still doesn't prove whether or not it exists or not. If you want to use this logic, then you'd have to be willing to accept the fact of transcendence and that if something is conceivable, it must surely exist. This is just not the way I believe the universe to be even close to however.

True it doesn't prove that god deos not exist but I never said anything that I would claim to have been believing in god.

0 Replies

@invulnerable23,

invulnerable23 wrote:

Khethil is correct. Definitions are essential in any philosophical discussion. Everyone is just spewing out random thoughts they have without defining what or who they think God is. One person may say, "God is findable in the wild". Does that mean God is flesh and blood? God is everywhere in nature? God is just everywhere period? What you mean is in your definition of God.

Could the problem lie within the multitude of definitions? Surely there is one definition of god, that is reflective of any truth.

2 Replies

@validity,

:a-ok:

In assuming that "encountering" God is the same as "knowing" or "experiencing" God in some way...

The truth of God may or may not exist, once again, depending on the definition. If God is the source of truth in the universe, then surely God is known in all men's hearts. If God merely created the universe to run its course, then this God may only be evident in the creation of God's hands.

The definition is essential. If God's an idea, how can one know an idea in another's mind? The route to defending the notion of an unknowable God becomes easier.

If God's a person, then knowing God becomes possible. But here, again, the definition is essential. Is this person of God beyond all experience? Is this God part of the universe?

The definition of God changes what a person can say about the knowability of such a God, which is the question here. If God is the typical God of theism, then God becomes knowable in various ways, but as you can see, the definition is essential.

I said all that to say: the various definitions of God is what's causing the issue here. If God is beyond all experience, then God is unknowable. If God is empirically reachable, then surely such a God is knowable. :cool:

0 Replies

@validity,

validity wrote:

Could the problem lie within the multitude of definitions? Surely there is one definition of god, that is reflective of any truth.

Correct, for anything to have 'truth', that <thing> must have some sort of definition or meaning we can collectively grasp. Something so filled with ambiguity, a litany of different definitions, can only mean we have no concept of 'truth' in it, if there be any.

Thus, the term 'belief'

0 Replies

We can never encounter god.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know