Atheists cannot KNOW there are no gods, but theists possibly can KNOW there is a GOD.

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

If there is a GOD…and IF the GOD wanted someone (or everyone) to KNOW IT exists…there does not seem to be any way to prevent that from happening.

Starting off with some pretty large "ifs"...

Frank Apisa wrote:

Theists at least have the possibility of KNOWING that a GOD exists.

How do you figure?

A theist could experience or observe something that made them feel certain in their belief, but how could they know god(s) exist? That said, this is not even uncommon or unusual.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Atheists can only guess…or “believe.”

Guess or believe? Which one? They mean different things.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Kinda weird, isn’t it?

Not particularly novel of a concept. The whole of religion is built on the idea that people desire absolute knowledge because the nature of the universe is frightening. People prefer simple explicit answers to complex and abstract implicit approximations. That you've found some sort of framing such that an atheist can never know, is not particularly impressive. It's like saying, you can never have you weren't even asking for.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Counter-intuitive, actually.

If you say so.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Theists MAY BE believers (most apparently are)…but hard atheists MUST BE believers.

All theists are believers, not "most."

Frank Apisa wrote:

Fact is, I think (suspect, guess) most atheists “believe” there are no gods.

Some people are hungry, and some are not. Those who aren't hungry to eat nothing.

A
R
T

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I agree completely and without reservation, Blue, that Joe’s assertion that god does not exist is EVERY BIT as valid as a theists assertion that a GOD exists…which is to say, it is completely baseless assertion, essentially a blind guess about the true nature of the REALITY of existence. Neither has any logical validity.

Thank you for admitting that neither part of the following has any logical validity
"Atheists cannot KNOW there are no gods, but theists possibly can KNOW there is a GOD."

I agree. Neither is valid. So where you go from here now that both parts of your OP have been, by your own admission, falsified??

This was fun.

Joe(Good night)Nation

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

Some people are hungry, and some are not. Those who aren't hungry, are not hungry to eat nothing.

A
R
Typing ahead of my thoughts. fixed.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

Starting off with some pretty large "ifs"...

That is the best way to write a hypothetical. Most "if's" are pretty big!

Quote:

Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:

Theists at least have the possibility of KNOWING that a GOD exists.

How do you figure?

A theist could experience or observe something that made them feel certain in their belief, but how could they know god(s) exist? That said, this is not even uncommon or unusual.

That does not effect the fact that a theist at least has the POSSIBILITY of knowing that a GOD exists.

If a GOD wanted to reveal itself…I see no reason to suppose it could. And if it revealed itself in an unambiguous way, everyone could possibly know.

Guess or believe? Which one? They mean different things.

Go by car or bus. Which one? They mean different things. Well…that is why the “or” is there. They can guess or they can believe. Try to keep up, Art.

Quote:

Not particularly novel of a concept.

I didn’t say it was.

Quote:

The whole of religion is built on the idea that people desire absolute knowledge because the nature of the universe is frightening.

Apparently you KNOW what the whole of religion is built on. I do not. Thank you for sharing.

Quote:

People prefer simple explicit answers to complex and abstract implicit approximations.

Some people do. I do not.

Quote:

That you've found some sort of framing such that an atheist can never know, is not particularly impressive. It's like saying, you can never have you weren't even asking for.

Whatever. If you think it is possible to KNOW there are no gods…go with it. I think one cannot KNOW there are no gods.

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5018866)
Quote:
I agree completely and without reservation, Blue, that Joe’s assertion that god does not exist is EVERY BIT as valid as a theists assertion that a GOD exists…which is to say, it is completely baseless assertion, essentially a blind guess about the true nature of the REALITY of existence. Neither has any logical validity.

Thank you for admitting that neither part of the following has any logical validity
"Atheists cannot KNOW there are no gods, but theists possibly can KNOW there is a GOD."

That is so illogical, Joe Nation, I am surprised even you would trot it out.

The POSSIBILITY that one can know is different from the assertions that one does know.

Quote:

I agree. Neither is valid. So where you go from here now that both parts of your OP have been, by your own admission, falsified??

This was fun.

Joe(Good night)Nation

I am glad you are having fun. Enjoy!

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Your truism holds water but I wouldn't walk on it.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

The POSSIBILITY that one can know is different from the assertions that one does know.

But that difference was not pointed out by my expert who said:

Quote:

I agree completely and without reservation, Blue, that Joe’s assertion that god does not exist is EVERY BIT as valid as a theists assertion that a GOD exists…which is to say, it is completely baseless assertion, essentially a blind guess about the true nature of the REALITY of existence. Neither has any logical validity.

My expert said neither has any logical validity. Neither one.
I agree. Do you agree with my expert.???.....let me try to recall his name.
erm.
It's on the tip of my tongue.

Meanwhile, reread what IRFrank has been writing about the lack of gods in his way of thinking about the world. It's not that he knows or doesn't know, it's that the concept of gods isn't part of his world and isn't necessary in order for him to be who he is.
It's akin to the questions I have been asking you and you have been avoiding as if you saw a rat on a subway platform.

I hope you get out and play a round before it gets too hot. I am running home tonight in the cool, cool, cool of the evening.

Joe(or something)Nation

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

Joe Nation

In an earlier thread you were unable to understand what I meant when I said I am not one of the people who "believe" there is a GOD...and I also am not one of the people who "believe" there are no gods.

Now, I am saying that if something (in this case, a god) happens to exist, it is at least possible to KNOW it does...providing (in the case of a god) the god chooses to reveal itself in an unambiguous, unquestionable way. But if no gods exist...considering the size of the universe, it would not be possible to validate the non-existence.

And now you are unable to understand that.

To me it is obvious that you have decided that I am not worth the consideration needed to see those two arguments are logical and reasonable...and that you intend to suggest that I am wrong no matter what...in some way in order to "have fun."

Fine, I am happy you are having fun.

I've given you reasonable, logical explanations for everything I have mentioned on these two issues. If you need to consider me wrong or stupid or deluded or hypocritical or whatever...in order to have your fun, I am all for you doing so.

1 Reply

@Miss L Toad,

Quote:

Your truism holds water but I wouldn't walk on it.

I understand. But thank you for contributing anyway.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

In the other thread, it wasn't a case of not understanding, you were attempting to make the sentence "I don't believe there are no gods." mean something that it doesn't. I didn't agree with your definition stretch. So. Now you've gone from 'believe' to 'know'.

I understand what you are saying now, I am just trying to point out that anything which can be conceived by the mind of man can be put in place of the noun "god", and it still works, so that is the part that I don't understand, what we are supposed to gain by it?

Now, I am saying that if something (in this case, a gnome) happens to exist, it is at least possible to KNOW it does...providing (in the case of a gnome) the gnome chooses to reveal itself in an unambiguous, unquestionable way. But if no gnome exist...considering the size of the universe, it would not be possible to validate the non-existence.

Now, I am saying that if something (in this case, a red-headed jabbberwocky) happens to exist, it is at least possible to KNOW it does...providing (in the case of a red-headed jabbberwocky) the red-headed jabbberwocky chooses to reveal itself in an unambiguous, unquestionable way. But if no red-headed jabbberwockys exist...considering the size of the universe, it would not be possible to validate the non-existence.

I think you think that there is a difference in the truth of your statement if the word 'god' is used, both the one above and the one which you started this thread. Am I wrong about that?

I would argue that there is no difference in using any imaginary being with the supposed ability to choose to reveal itself.: No one could know for certain they (gnomes, gods, jabberwockeys) don't exist because the universe is big and expanding and anyone who thought they (gnomes, gods, jabberwockeys) might exist could live with the hope and possibility that someday one might show up.

Can you tell me why that would be important to know?

Joe(What does it reveal about reality?)Nation

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

Quote:

Can you tell me why that would be important to know?

I doubt I could get through to you with a howitzer, Joe Nation...and I have absolutely no inclination to try.

You seem happy doing what you are doing...so continue to do it. You do not look as though you need any help with it.

0 Replies

I think you think that there is a difference in the truth of your statement if the word 'god' is used, both the one above and the one which you started this thread. Am I wrong about that?

Yes or no?

Joe(simple or simpleton)Nation

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Starting off with some pretty large "ifs"...

That is the best way to write a hypothetical. Most "if's" are pretty big!

No. The best way to write a hypothetical is to keep your ifs within reason. No real rational reason to entertain such an "if," so it's big for the sake of being big, not because it has any real merit.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:

Theists at least have the possibility of KNOWING that a GOD exists.

How do you figure?

A theist could experience or observe something that made them feel certain in their belief, but how could they know god(s) exist? That said, this is not even uncommon or unusual.

That does not effect the fact that a theist at least has the POSSIBILITY of knowing that a GOD exists.

No more than any other thing such as a believer in unicorns or imps. Talking up the "possibility" as if it has value unto itself is vacuous self-indulgence. The "possibility" of a silly thing is very unimpressive compared to what we can observe and discuss.

Frank Apisa wrote:

If a GOD wanted to reveal itself…I see no reason to suppose it could. And if it revealed itself in an unambiguous way, everyone could possibly know.

People believe that this has already happened. You make the call on if such a thing is reliable or acceptable as a means to "know."

Frank Apisa wrote:

Guess or believe? Which one? They mean different things.

Go by car or bus. Which one? They mean different things. Well…that is why the “or” is there. They can guess or they can believe. Try to keep up, Art.

You need to choose your words better. Don't be upset that I'm asking for you to clarify. Guessing and believing are not the same, and your language does not allow for such a distinction.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Not particularly novel of a concept.

I didn’t say it was.

You said it was weird. Weird implies at some level that it's novel. Weird isn't normal. Can something be weird and common? Maybe what you call weird, isn't weird, and you're using the word wrong out of misguided urge to exaggerate your original claim. Seems likely.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
The whole of religion is built on the idea that people desire absolute knowledge because the nature of the universe is frightening.

Apparently you KNOW what the whole of religion is built on. I do not. Thank you for sharing.

You're welcome. Sam Harris put it best: All religions are failed sciences; failed attempts to understand/describe nature.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:

People prefer simple explicit answers to complex and abstract implicit approximations.

Some people do. I do not.

You'd be amazed, Frank. In your case, you demonstrate a haste to create gaps for the god of gaps you don't believe in. As I stated before, you're only creating a special category of belief: Things you believe you could believe in.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
That you've found some sort of framing such that an atheist can never know, is not particularly impressive. It's like saying, you can never have you weren't even asking for.

Whatever. If you think it is possible to KNOW there are no gods…go with it. I think one cannot KNOW there are no gods.

You missed the point. I have no desire to "know" if there are any gods, because the number of gods, zero or otherwise, does not present anything about life to consider since none present themselves. I'm not envious of theists who claim to "know." I'm comfortable in my skepticism, and that the product of that is that gods don't feature among the things I believe in. I don't need to "know" there are no gods.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

No. The best way to write a hypothetical is to keep your ifs within reason. No real rational reason to entertain such an "if," so it's big for the sake of being big, not because it has any real merit.

The "IF's" were either there is a GOD (or gods) or there is not. IF there is a GOD...it is possible...

The "if" is absolutely necessary...and your contention it is not rational is itself not rational. C'mon, now...be cool.

Quote:

No more than any other thing such as a believer in unicorns or imps. Talking up the "possibility" as if it has value unto itself is vacuous self-indulgence. The "possibility" of a silly thing is very unimpressive compared to what we can observe and discuss.

IF there is a GOD...or if there are imps, unicorns, fairies...it is possible we could discover that they exist. What is your problem with that?

Quote:

You're welcome. Sam Harris put it best: All religions are failed sciences; failed attempts to understand/describe nature.

And of course, Sam Harris has never been wrong! What is he...your god?

Quote:

You'd be amazed, Frank. In your case, you demonstrate a haste to create gaps for the god of gaps you don't believe in. As I stated before, you're only creating a special category of belief: Things you believe you could believe in.

I stay away from beliefs...I have mentioned that. Apparently you cannot grasp the concept. You gotta work on that....I cannot help you.

Quote:

You missed the point. I have no desire to "know" if there are any gods, because the number of gods, zero or otherwise, does not present anything about life to consider since none present themselves. I'm not envious of theists who claim to "know." I'm comfortable in my skepticism, and that the product of that is that gods don't feature among the things I believe in. I don't need to "know" there are no gods.

Good...because you wouldn't be able to do so. That was my point: That atheists cannot KNOW there are no gods.

Thanks for your input, Art. I see that we continue to disagree, but I appreciate you continuing to post your thoughts and disagreements.

1 Reply

Quote:

IF there is a GOD...or if there are imps, unicorns, fairies...it is possible we could discover that they exist. What is your problem with that?

The problem I have is I think you think there is a special category for the things called gods, but I'll never know because you won't answer the question.

Special Category: yes/no.
Joe(press one)Nation Smile

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

In response to Beth's question, Joe Nation wrote:

Quote:
My research shows that there are no gods.

Beth, I hope you got as big a kick out of that as I did!

Apparently Joe Nation has done research...and inspected everywhere in the universe and has been able to determine there are no gods.

Hell of a feat, wouldn't ya say?

I actually did get a kick out of it.

There are people who say they know there is a god/are gods. They don't say they believe. They don't call themselves believers (that's a different group of people).

I don't think they can prove it to my personal satisfaction, but they are emphatic in their knowledge.

In the same way, no one has ever proven to me that there are no gods, that there is no possibility of gods. I think it's unlikely that there are gods, but I sure can't say that with any force of knowledge.

Perhaps JoeN can share his research?

0 Replies

@IRFRANK,

IRFRANK wrote:

I think I finally understand your point. The agnostic view is the most straight forward conclusion.

that's my current location on the spectrum of knowledge/belief

( I consider it a form of open-mindedness that isn't available to theists or atheists - or maybe it's a Gemini thing)

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

By this criteria, Joe's empirical assertion that god does not exist is certainly as valid as a theist asserting that god exists because he believes that god exist.

I'd agree they have exactly the same value.

0 Replies

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

. That you've found some sort of framing such that an atheist can never know, is not particularly impressive.

It's agnosticism. A lovely old concept, not much newer than many theisms (and older than a bunch of them).

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
No. The best way to write a hypothetical is to keep your ifs within reason. No real rational reason to entertain such an "if," so it's big for the sake of being big, not because it has any real merit.

The "IF's" were either there is a GOD (or gods) or there is not. IF there is a GOD...it is possible...

Yes, I understand. This still isn't rational. No more rational than the idea that if Godzilla existed, it could destroy Tokyo. You've presented a self-licking ice cream cone.

Frank Apisa wrote:

The "if" is absolutely necessary...and your contention it is not rational is itself not rational. C'mon, now...be cool.

It's not necessary. There's no rational reason to entertain the notion, so how is it necessary?

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
No more than any other thing such as a believer in unicorns or imps. Talking up the "possibility" as if it has value unto itself is vacuous self-indulgence. The "possibility" of a silly thing is very unimpressive compared to what we can observe and discuss.

IF there is a GOD...or if there are imps, unicorns, fairies...it is possible we could discover that they exist. What is your problem with that?

As I stated above, it's what you're willing to grant an if to and why. The statement of "if X exists, there is a possibility of observing X" is remarkably similar to something I said two threads ago. I stated that nothing is unknowable, only our observational and linguistic ability is limited. So if a Higgs-boson is real, there is a possibility of observing it. But let's not put the Higgs-boson on the same pool of consideration as gods, imps, or fairies. The reasons for speculating on such a particle are based on other real observations and experimentation. The "if" for the boson is very rational, even if the Higgs proves to be a bust. The same is not true for things like gods.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
You're welcome. Sam Harris put it best: All religions are failed sciences; failed attempts to understand/describe nature.

And of course, Sam Harris has never been wrong! What is he...your god?

I did not say he is infallible. Only religious observers make that kind of claim. I simply stated that I believe he put it "best."

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
You'd be amazed, Frank. In your case, you demonstrate a haste to create gaps for the god of gaps you don't believe in. As I stated before, you're only creating a special category of belief: Things you believe you could believe in.

I stay away from beliefs...I have mentioned that.

You've mentioned it, yes. It remains untrue. You most certainly have beliefs. Why you're sensitive about this, is beyond me.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Apparently you cannot grasp the concept. You gotta work on that....I cannot help you.

It is an fallacious concept. I don't need to grasp it. You have plenty of beliefs.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
You missed the point. I have no desire to "know" if there are any gods, because the number of gods, zero or otherwise, does not present anything about life to consider since none present themselves. I'm not envious of theists who claim to "know." I'm comfortable in my skepticism, and that the product of that is that gods don't feature among the things I believe in. I don't need to "know" there are no gods.

Good...because you wouldn't be able to do so. That was my point: That atheists cannot KNOW there are no gods.

Since atheism is a statement on belief and not knowledge, this statement is non-sequitur. This is like saying bald people can't part their hair.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Thanks for your input, Art. I see that we continue to disagree, but I appreciate you continuing to post your thoughts and disagreements.

No problem.

A
R
T

1 Reply

Atheists cannot KNOW there are no gods, but theists possibly can KNOW there is a GOD.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know