Can We Know?

Kashai
reply to post by EmpathicBandit

 

Lets take a simple example: I have been on planes and have traveled to much of the world but I have never seen the curvature of the earth. The surface of the Earth seems flat and no matter where I have gone there is no difference. From my observation the moon and sun
seem more like a flat circular disk (like a discus).


So my premise is that the Earth is flat.

Now while I do not believe the Earth is flat but in context the only way to prove that is to physically travel into orbit and see it for oneself.

hm, yes i understand what you are getting at. Though you have information that others have proven the earth to be round (circumnavigation) you, yourself, have not seen this proof for yourself and therefor, perceive from your view, even above the earth, that it is flat. This is a fair observation. And truly, i suppose this is where faith comes in, to know that you have an idea, but that you dont truly know, for lack of first hand experience.

much like faith in the divine, we may see examples that may cite divinity as a source, but without firsthand confirmation we have only faith to operate on, or trust, if you prefer that term.

its a fickle situation to be sure. which is why my initial comments on the clarification of knowing and understanding were first presented.

you understand the world to be spherical, but without first handedly experiencing this from beyond the stratosphere, you can never truly know

these, indeed, are the questions that birth new branches of science and philosophy, which lead to a majority understanding while only a minority actually knows

reply to post by Kashai

We think in absolutes which is why we speak in absolutes. Thinking in absolutes is a learned behavior the result of what we observe in our environment in relation to the observable separateness between things. This in the context and development of certain neural connections and our sensory capacity to interact with our environment as we perceive it with the common senses.

Take the example of proving or disproving psi ability in humans. In order to present any response in earnest one would need to test every human being on the planet, hence a "population" from the research perspective.

In order to know the real status of a creator one would also need to relate to the population, meaning of everything.

And not in some abstract hypothesis, with respect to discovery a physical effort at exploration that involves traveling literally everywhere.

Any thoughts?

I think it is a matter of convenience that we speak in absolutes. We can also think and speak in doubt.

By merely thinking about a creator, or any completely abstract notion, we risk confining ourselves to a closed system of understanding, where circular reasoning and begging the question becomes the norm, but in comparing that thought to experience, utilizing an open system of learning, we can enforce or doubt our conclusions.

Like I mentioned, "real", "absolute", "true" are honorific terms, meaning we bestow the terms on ideas that satisfy our tastes, whether they are real or not. The "real" status of a creator presupposes that it has a status at all, which is an article of faith, held by those who see comfort in it.

reply to post by Aphorism


But it is the finding of comfort in not believing in God that relates to Atheism.

There is a difference between Deductive and Inductive reasoning. As in the example I provided inductive reasoning is a conclusion that based upon all the data, that shows the Earth is spherical (in general), in shape is correct Without my having traveled above an altitude of about 100,0000 ft. above earth (at least)

Deductive reasoning would require actually traveling into Earth orbit and seeing it for myself.

reply to post by Kashai

But it is the finding of comfort in not believing in God that relates to Atheism.

There is a difference between Deductive and Inductive reasoning. As in the example I provided inductive reasoning is a conclusion that based upon all the data, that shows the Earth is spherical (in general), in shape is correct Without my having traveled above an altitude of about 100,0000 ft. above earth (at least)

Deductive reasoning would require actually traveling into Earth orbit and seeing it for myself.

I don't accept the atheistic view myself. "Non-belief" or "lack of belief" in God, their go-to phrase, still requires entertaining the idea of a God in order to not believe in it. It is having too much concern for an idea for the sake of not believing it. it is self-defeating. They do nothing in their refutations but keep the idea alive, simply by allowing it a home in their mind and in the minds of others, where perhaps forgetting about it may be the best course of action. What we do have, however, is the knowledge as posited by man, through which we can wade into with various methodology (inductive, deductive, logical etc.) and by our own volition, to arrive at some certainty.

I personally prefer a phenomenological view, from which I can deduce, rather than any thing inductive.

By that you mean that you study the Phenomenon?

How can you study all the phenomenon related to the existence of God without access to all reality?

reply to post by Kashai

By that you mean that you study the Phenomenon?

How can you study all the phenomenon related to the existence of God without access to all reality?

No, the study of phenomena, the way things appear in our experience.

I cannot experience all of reality. No one can. The phenomena in regards to the existence of God is solidified in story form. That's all I know of God. That's all I claim to know. Therefor, that is how I have come to know and express God—as a series of words and paragraphs in a book.

What about you? How have you come to believe or not believe in the existence of God?

reply to post by Aphorism


Our experiences in relation to the sum total of knowledge is not enough to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Ancient indigenous evidence related to the matter has never been properly investigated by modern science.

From my perspective Jesus Christ as well as all the other Prophets could very well be the result of favorable mutations that point us in a direction as to human evolution in respect to the cohesiveness inherent to our environment.

For e this is why Prophets lack information beyond the culture they are born to.

I tend to favor Pantheism in general and rarely subscribe to a common interpretations of ancient text.

I feel that modern interpretations fail in respect to how terms were applied thousands of years ago, after all the first dictionary was prepared in 1604.

A good example is Methuselah....my understanding of ancient history is that humans of that period followed a Lunar Cycle, meaning Methuselah lived to the ripe old age of 83.3 years.

Incredible actually as in general humans in that time did not live past 62 in those days under ideal conditions and most died in there 30's, in relation to a solar cycle.

In that time if a person reached the age of 48 due to the effect of environment they could very well look like a person that today is in there 80's.

Any thoughts?

To be clear Jesus Christ could not provide us with E=mc2 because it was outside the experience of the culture he was born into.

But as a favorable mutation he could work with what he had and do the things the Holy Bible offers he could, despite the lack of information, due to when he was born.

In other words Jesus Christ was an example of Punctuated Equilibrium.


Any thoughts?