What is faith? Really?

[pErvinalia]

Are you going to address my reply?

[Seth]

The problem is that you assume we can know everything. We might be able to do that, but we could never be certain we know everything. To know everything would be to be able to explain everything at all times and places in the universe. Given we exist in only one slice of time, then how can we say that we know everything that could happen in the future?

I assume nothing of the kind. I'm making a statement of logical fact upon which I rest my conclusion with respect to the existence of God.

The answer to your question is abysmally simple: When you know everything, you will know if you know everything. Whether or not you, or anyone else is able to attain that knowledge is utterly irrelevant to the logical and rational strength of that statement.

And if you know everything, you will know the future, and the past, and, well, everything, and in the instant of attainment of that complete and absolute knowledge, you will become God.

Well, not YOU specifically, there's not a chance in hell of that, I use "you" in the abstract sense.

[pErvinalia]

Therefore the only rational answer to the question "Does God exist?" must be "I don't know."

That's the position we all hold. Yet you claim we are somehow religious, and claim that god doesn't exist. Is this like crypto-marxists? That is, no matter how clearly and how much we state the views we hold, you will inevitably make up some bullshit in your head and refuse to take any other answer.

[Hermit]

P1 Perfect knowledge eliminates all questions.
P2 "Does God exist" is a question.
C1 Perfect knowledge will answer eliminate the question "Does God exist."

Answer...eliminate...same thing. A distinction without a difference.

Fark! Last week Seth approved of something I said and now I fully agree with his post. The sky is falling!

OK, that may be a massive overreaction. Seth, you have ignored the question of how we can be certain of having reached perfect knowledge several times now. Is there a scientific test for this, or is it just a gut feeling?

[Seth]

Are you going to address my reply?

Dear Internet,

Please use the following address for rEv's posts in the future:

Bitbucket@spam.com

[pErvinalia]

The problem is that you assume we can know everything. We might be able to do that, but we could never be certain we know everything. To know everything would be to be able to explain everything at all times and places in the universe. Given we exist in only one slice of time, then how can we say that we know everything that could happen in the future?

I assume nothing of the kind. I'm making a statement of logical fact upon which I rest my conclusion with respect to the existence of God.

The answer to your question is abysmally simple: When you know everything, you will know if you know everything.

That's an assumption based on semantics (i.e. an opinion). Prove to me how you will be able to know you know everything.

[Seth]

Therefore the only rational answer to the question "Does God exist?" must be "I don't know."

That's the position we all hold. Yet you claim we are somehow religious, and claim that god doesn't exist. Is this like crypto-marxists? That is, no matter how clearly and how much we state the views we hold, you will inevitably make up some bullshit in your head and refuse to take any other answer.

I claim you are a zealous religious Atheist because contrary to your claim, you constantly and persistently make the faith-based claim that God does not exist. You make it in those words and in many other iterations that demonstrate without any uncertainty at all that you hold a religious belief that God does not exist.

When the subject comes up do you say "I don't know" and then fuck off somewhere else like a good little atheist? Nope. You rant and rave and call people names and denigrate anyone who doesn't espouse your religious dogma and you act in every respect like an Atheist religious zealot.

So weasel all you want, but your own words condemn you to Atheism and irrational worship of your doctrines.

[Seth]

The problem is that you assume we can know everything. We might be able to do that, but we could never be certain we know everything. To know everything would be to be able to explain everything at all times and places in the universe. Given we exist in only one slice of time, then how can we say that we know everything that could happen in the future?

I assume nothing of the kind. I'm making a statement of logical fact upon which I rest my conclusion with respect to the existence of God.

The answer to your question is abysmally simple: When you know everything, you will know if you know everything.

That's an assumption based on semantics (i.e. an opinion). Prove to me how you will be able to know you know everything.

No, that's a logical conclusion based on philosophy and reason. I don't have to prove anything at all. Moreover I know I can never know everything. That does not mean however that no one (human or otherwise) can know everything. It is logically true that someone (or something if you will) could know everything (like, oh, let's say "God") because nothing in the universe precludes this from occurring.

[Seth]

P1 Perfect knowledge eliminates all questions.
P2 "Does God exist" is a question.
C1 Perfect knowledge will answer eliminate the question "Does God exist."

Answer...eliminate...same thing. A distinction without a difference.

Fark! Last week Seth approved of something I said and now I fully agree with his post. The sky is falling!

OK, that may be a massive overreaction. Seth, you have ignored the question of how we can be certain of having reached perfect knowledge several times now. Is there a scientific test for this, or is it just a gut feeling?

It's a logical truth. It needs no test because if and when it comes to pass, whomever attains that perfection of knowledge will necessarily know that the knowledge he, she or it has is perfect. If there is any ambiguity, then the knowledge is not perfect.

How much simpler can I possibly make it?

[pErvinalia]

Therefore the only rational answer to the question "Does God exist?" must be "I don't know."

That's the position we all hold. Yet you claim we are somehow religious, and claim that god doesn't exist. Is this like crypto-marxists? That is, no matter how clearly and how much we state the views we hold, you will inevitably make up some bullshit in your head and refuse to take any other answer.

I claim you are a zealous religious Atheist because contrary to your claim, you constantly and persistently make the faith-based claim that God does not exist. You make it in those words and in many other iterations that demonstrate without any uncertainty at all that you hold a religious belief that God does not exist.

Bullshit, you lying troll. Quote them.

When the subject comes up do you say "I don't know" and then fuck off somewhere else like a good little atheist? Nope. You rant and rave and call people names and denigrate anyone who doesn't espouse your religious dogma and you act in every respect like an Atheist religious zealot.

Bullshit you lying troll. Quote them.

So weasel all you want, but your own words condemn you to Atheism and irrational worship of your doctrines.

You're the one who is weaselling because those words you claim I and others have said, don't exist. You're a lying libertarian who would rather lie and shift goal posts than own up to your own selfish religion. Quote any of the stuff you constantly claim we say, or get a fucking dog up ya.

[pErvinalia]

The problem is that you assume we can know everything. We might be able to do that, but we could never be certain we know everything. To know everything would be to be able to explain everything at all times and places in the universe. Given we exist in only one slice of time, then how can we say that we know everything that could happen in the future?

I assume nothing of the kind. I'm making a statement of logical fact upon which I rest my conclusion with respect to the existence of God.

The answer to your question is abysmally simple: When you know everything, you will know if you know everything.

That's an assumption based on semantics (i.e. an opinion). Prove to me how you will be able to know you know everything.

No, that's a logical conclusion based on philosophy and reason. I don't have to prove anything at all. Moreover I know I can never know everything. That does not mean however that no one (human or otherwise) can know everything. It is logically true that someone (or something if you will) could know everything (like, oh, let's say "God") because nothing in the universe precludes this from occurring.

These are all just baseless assumptions. You need to go back to school and work out how logic works. Sure, you made a logically sound argument earlier, but the problem was the assumption it was based on is simply an opinion. Therefore, anything we conclude from your statement of logic is likewise an opinion.

[pErvinalia]

P1 Perfect knowledge eliminates all questions.
P2 "Does God exist" is a question.
C1 Perfect knowledge will answer eliminate the question "Does God exist."

Answer...eliminate...same thing. A distinction without a difference.

Fark! Last week Seth approved of something I said and now I fully agree with his post. The sky is falling!

OK, that may be a massive overreaction. Seth, you have ignored the question of how we can be certain of having reached perfect knowledge several times now. Is there a scientific test for this, or is it just a gut feeling?

It's a logical truth. It needs no test because if and when it comes to pass, whomever attains that perfection of knowledge will necessarily know that the knowledge he, she or it has is perfect. If there is any ambiguity, then the knowledge is not perfect.

How much simpler can I possibly make it?

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

it's purely rational to conclude, based on all the pertinent evidence known to man, that it is impossible to conclude that God exists or does not exist at this stage of human knowledge. Therefore the only rational answer to the question "Does God exist?" must be "I don't know."

And yet you go much further. You assert that, at some time in the future (with the illusory chimera of "perfect knowledge") that humans will be able to make that call for certain.

And even if we accept, for the moment, that in terms of pure logic, "I don't know" is the best call we can make, we are confronted by hordes of angry theists who assert, often violently, that unless you agree with them that their particular god exists, you are evil, and should be punished.

In comparison, stubborn atheists who assert that there is definitely no god may be sarcastic towards theists, but I've yet to see an atheist jihad against the faithful.

As I've said before, even if it is not wise to assert with dogmatic certainty that there is no god, in the absence of evidence for a god, it is perfectly reasonable to live on the operating assumption that no supernatural being exists.

[Hermit]

P1 Perfect knowledge eliminates all questions.
P2 "Does God exist" is a question.
C1 Perfect knowledge will answer eliminate the question "Does God exist."

Answer...eliminate...same thing. A distinction without a difference.

Fark! Last week Seth approved of something I said and now I fully agree with his post. The sky is falling!

OK, that may be a massive overreaction. Seth, you have ignored the question of how we can be certain of having reached perfect knowledge several times now. Is there a scientific test for this, or is it just a gut feeling?

It's a logical truth. It needs no test because if and when it comes to pass, whomever attains that perfection of knowledge will necessarily know that the knowledge he, she or it has is perfect. If there is any ambiguity, then the knowledge is not perfect.

Perfect knowledge is the absence of ambiguity? How does that follow? To me it sounds rather circular: Once we have removed all ambiguity we will have attained perfect knowledge. We know that because perfect knowledge is lack of ambiguity.

[pErvinalia]

... software is borked. Anyone else having strange things go on when you try and edit a post, and also when you submit a post and someone else has made an intervening post in the meantime?...