2+2=4 equates a certainty of god

[fullywired]

Religious experience.

A great number of people “feel” that there is a “God”. Once again, using Ockham’s razor, most feelings related to the supernatural are effectively explained by childhood indoctrination. This is irrefutably supported by observation of other cultures. However, there are people who actually experience powerful perceptions of connection to a “higher plane”.

These feelings are expressions of the way we think and can be altered by damage to the neuronic structure, physical exertion, religious fervour, by inadequate nutrition, by heat/cold and by drugs and other toxins. The brain can modify in function if we have a cold or flu, genetic flaw or if we are in pain and possibly for many other reasons.

Brains are in a continual state of change of sequence of firings. If, for example, too much carbon dioxide invades the hypothalamus, the result can be what is known as a mystical or religious experience and other effects. People can really believe they are in contact with a higher plane when this happens, and that higher plane parallels the existing cultural expectations of the location of that person. Bertrand Russell, famous Atheist, philosopher, writer and all round good guy could bring this condition on at will, once when he was riding his pushbike. LSD and other drugs can give similar effects.

It is not that long ago that the association between epilepsy and experiencing visions was unknown. Joan of Arc suffered from Temporal Lobe epilepsy, and she fought and died for her illusions. This is another example of the intricate workings of the brain.

The following extract is of interest along these lines:

From "Beginning the World" by Karen Armstrong - former nun.

"My neurologist once told me that people with temporal lobe epilepsy are very often intensely religious. Certainly just before I have a grand mal fit I have a 'vision' of such peace, joy and significance that I can only call it God. What does this say about the whole nature of religious vision? Certain episodes in the lives of the saints have acquired a new meaning for me. When Theresa of Avila had her three-day vision of hell, was she simply having a temporal lobe attack? The horrors she saw are similar to those I have experienced, but in her case informed by the religious imagery of her time. Like other saints who have 'seen' hell she describes an appalling stench, which is part of an epileptic aura. Is it possible that the feeling I have had all my life that something - God, perhaps? - is just over the horizon, something unimaginable but almost tangibly present, is simply the result of an electrical irregularity in my brain? It is a question that can't yet be answered, unless it be that God, if He exists, could have created us with that capacity for Him, glimpsed at only when the brain is convulsed. What I can say, however, is that if my 'visions' have sometimes let me into 'Hell' they have also given me possible intimations of a Heaven, which I would not have been without."

The question has to be asked, what relationship to a higher plane is one that is culturally dependant and only happens when the brain is interfered with in some manner? A further question; is it fair play by a higher entity or whatever, to only allow this to happen to a minority of people with abnormalities of, or with the induction of, foreign matter into the brain? A further question is, would some entity expect that we should take any notice of them and follow the Joan of Arc’s to our deaths?

It would be prudent at the least to suspect these reported 'otherworldly' adventures. Some people may well think they are real, but we should know better than believing them to be any more than the brain responding to inputs beyond what can be classed as normal.

I would add here, the evidence seems to be overwhelming that hallucination is a common occurrence, and using Ockham’s razor, the most likely cause is not a higher plane. Of course, we can never know for sure, but a higher plane would not expect the rest of us to accept that everyone who has a brain surge to be in direct contact with it. If people believe they have made contact, then so be it. Conversely, if the other mentioned explanations are not considered and evaluated to be a possible cause, then their story should be automatically accepted as incredulous.

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/doesgodexist.htm

[Agent. Mulder]

wait, so what if i say 2+2=4, that means there is No god.

does it work that way too? i cant see why not

[+Sherapy]

wait, so what if i say 2+2=4, that means there is No god.

does it work that way too? i cant see why not

well its seems you may not be far off AM it alludes to this IMO because 2+2=4 infers the law of closure not 'god'(s).....IMO

Edited July 9, 2008 by Supra Sheri

[+Sherapy]

Religious experience.

A great number of people "feel" that there is a "God". Once again, using Ockham's razor, most feelings related to the supernatural are effectively explained by childhood indoctrination. This is irrefutably supported by observation of other cultures. However, there are people who actually experience powerful perceptions of connection to a "higher plane".

These feelings are expressions of the way we think and can be altered by damage to the neuronic structure, physical exertion, religious fervour, by inadequate nutrition, by heat/cold and by drugs and other toxins. The brain can modify in function if we have a cold or flu, genetic flaw or if we are in pain and possibly for many other reasons.

Brains are in a continual state of change of sequence of firings. If, for example, too much carbon dioxide invades the hypothalamus, the result can be what is known as a mystical or religious experience and other effects. People can really believe they are in contact with a higher plane when this happens, and that higher plane parallels the existing cultural expectations of the location of that person. Bertrand Russell, famous Atheist, philosopher, writer and all round good guy could bring this condition on at will, once when he was riding his pushbike. LSD and other drugs can give similar effects.

It is not that long ago that the association between epilepsy and experiencing visions was unknown. Joan of Arc suffered from Temporal Lobe epilepsy, and she fought and died for her illusions. This is another example of the intricate workings of the brain.

The following extract is of interest along these lines:

From "Beginning the World" by Karen Armstrong - former nun.

"My neurologist once told me that people with temporal lobe epilepsy are very often intensely religious. Certainly just before I have a grand mal fit I have a 'vision' of such peace, joy and significance that I can only call it God. What does this say about the whole nature of religious vision? Certain episodes in the lives of the saints have acquired a new meaning for me. When Theresa of Avila had her three-day vision of hell, was she simply having a temporal lobe attack? The horrors she saw are similar to those I have experienced, but in her case informed by the religious imagery of her time. Like other saints who have 'seen' hell she describes an appalling stench, which is part of an epileptic aura. Is it possible that the feeling I have had all my life that something - God, perhaps? - is just over the horizon, something unimaginable but almost tangibly present, is simply the result of an electrical irregularity in my brain? It is a question that can't yet be answered, unless it be that God, if He exists, could have created us with that capacity for Him, glimpsed at only when the brain is convulsed. What I can say, however, is that if my 'visions' have sometimes let me into 'Hell' they have also given me possible intimations of a Heaven, which I would not have been without."

The question has to be asked, what relationship to a higher plane is one that is culturally dependant and only happens when the brain is interfered with in some manner? A further question; is it fair play by a higher entity or whatever, to only allow this to happen to a minority of people with abnormalities of, or with the induction of, foreign matter into the brain? A further question is, would some entity expect that we should take any notice of them and follow the Joan of Arc's to our deaths?

It would be prudent at the least to suspect these reported 'otherworldly' adventures. Some people may well think they are real, but we should know better than believing them to be any more than the brain responding to inputs beyond what can be classed as normal.

I would add here, the evidence seems to be overwhelming that hallucination is a common occurrence, and using Ockham's razor, the most likely cause is not a higher plane. Of course, we can never know for sure, but a higher plane would not expect the rest of us to accept that everyone who has a brain surge to be in direct contact with it. If people believe they have made contact, then so be it. Conversely, if the other mentioned explanations are not considered and evaluated to be a possible cause, then their story should be automatically accepted as incredulous.

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/doesgodexist.htm

thankyou for posting this FW.....

I want to add also that its a common claim that precogs and stuff are used to support a knowing god "posit"

there are tons and tons of studies like these...about 1700 of them just from one scientist alone.

http://mv.lycaeum.org/M2/persinger.html

These are just a handful, and one doesn't necessarily have to have a neurological condition to experience precog dreams and stuff.

..its interesting IMO....

Edited July 9, 2008 by Supra Sheri

[Irish]

How valuable is personal truth and experience? Although many would deny the fact that we all rely on others life’s experiences and are therefore we have FAITH in others experiences in life. It is faith up until we experience it for ourselves and then in our minds it now a fact but in reality it may not be fact as others may have not had the same experience! As an example an astronaut can only relate his experiences to you, who have never traveled in space and you as an individual have three choices in which to form an opinion.

1. Except his/her testimony as reliable personal experience. (Belief that is faith based on a few facts)

2. Reject his/her testimony as unreliable. (Denial of a personal truth and experience)

3. Acquire the experience for yourself and become an astronaut. (Your very own personal truth for others to except or reject)

The common denominator in all our beliefs is accepting and questioning what we believe is the truth. But what actually constitutes evidence of “the truth”. We as humans are very passionate about truth because the mirror of it consists of lies and deceit, something we all wish to avoid because deception equals self delusion and quite possibly self destruction.

Within the physical sciences we have a solid measure of what is considered proof within the ‘scientific method’ of repeated experiments that concur the same results every single time. Yet when we apply the scientific method toward our art, music, dance, literature, philosophy, politics and religion it becomes apparent that we often end up with many different ideals of truth that are of a personal understanding. Some end up concurring with the status quo and some end up within smaller groups of people that arrive at similar conclusions yet are considered to be out of the “norm” of conventional belief. While some individuals arrive at conclusions that are so ‘out there’ as others may consider them to be socially damaged or deranged. You probably know a few of them on these boards. rolleyes.gif

The truths within art, literature, philosophy, politics and religion are often very subjective toward the personal experience and understanding of truth that they become nothing more than individual opinions that are shared by many or just a few, and in some cases by them alone.

If the truth equals proof what constitute that “proof”? Personal truth and experience or evidence explained by those who seem to grasp it, scientists, wise men or clergy.

The most common sentence on UM is “I need proof” or “where is your proof?” In reality it would be extremely difficult for me to prove that I even exist in the physical world, let alone non human entities outside of our own experiences. Most will just accept the small evidence of my written words without question.

Truth is defined as evidence, but any good layer worth his salt will tell you that ‘evidence’ can and is often used by the plaintiff and defendant is subjective to their own needs and desired results.

Evidence has to be weighed by the individuals involved who intern lobbies others for their definition in order to strengthen their own beliefs. The opposite reaction is often not very desirable as it can shatter the individuals world view as well as turn their lives completely around. Yet at the same time the truth can be liberating, enlightening and rewarding.

To some people proof is good enough in the personal experience to others evidence must be agreed on by a majority of those we hold in esteem in order to be any kind of proof.

Some only accept evidence in the form of physical subjectiveness and often become entrapped within a paradigm of their own making. While others are more willing to explore the esoteric evidence of their own experience as well as others?

Irish

[Harte]

All Iamson is saying is he knows that god exist, like he knows that 2+2=4 or like the sky is blue.

I'd like to interject here that it is not a "fact" that 2+2=4.

It is a previously agreed-upon definition of the arithmetic operation we've agreed to refer to as "addition," and nothing more.

Hence, IAmson is twice correct when he claims to know God exists like he knows 2+2=4.

First, he "knows" it through faith.

Second, he "knows" it because he's defined God in the same way we've defined what is meant by 2+2=4.

Harte

Edited July 9, 2008 by Harte

[danielost]

Daniel how does he know that god exists??? I get the analogy , just not how he 'knows' god exists to begin with???? we aren't talking blue skys and counting tools he is using these methods to prove god correct?????finite human explanations to deal with infinite nothingness....because its also a common statemet that god is beyond human understanding. and has to be taken on faith ........so how does this work ..

@ rave thankyou for your input...

Then you need to ask him for his story.

[+Sherapy]

Something's become a personal fact rather than a belief because like the scientific principle it is a repeatable daily encounter ibid it remains a personal experience because it is a relationship and not a physical object. As science could not begin to prove love, love can not aid science in any way.

Many demand proof and receive proof daily yet fail to recognize it. They seek truth in physical substance yet truth is in spirit not matter.

If I claimed to be your brother that you grew up with you probably would not believe me because you would not recognize me. I would recognize Jesus because I have known Him many years and interacted with him.

If he was to return in a physical body I would recognize Him because I already know Him in spirit.

Even though many of you would not recognize me in person many have come to know me by the way I write. And after a brief conversation with me you would conclude that I am the same Irish on UM's forums.

It may well appear as blind faith to the non believer but after the initial step of as you say blind faith evidence is given to the individual. The truth is revealed only after an earnest commitment, much to the chagrin of those that do not believe. Is that you must first come to Christ by faith alone and then the truth is revealed to the individual with no doubts. His persona would be revealed only within our hearts and minds, but again we would have to try to convince others to get to know Him the way we do.

Irish

irish, the first step is to show that such knowldege, if it occurs in these " special encounters" posits would depend on the encounter itself but also the interpretation or spin that is put on it...

the great problem with taking these expeririences as transparent is they require interpretation like all events......

I can see your point perhaps, grounds such as consitency , scope , fitting together , fecundity, "non ad hoc ness" ,parsimony and elegance which are traditional for assessing rival scientific theories or explanations might work for interpretive experiences also...

yet I'd add we can't forget that any interpretation or belief can be maintained if one is willing to alter ( sometimes extremely) the rest of one's beliefs in order to accomodate said interpretation........

Edited July 9, 2008 by Supra Sheri

[+Sherapy]

Then you need to ask him for his story.

I did ....

[TheKnight]

Daniel how does he know that god exists??? I get the analogy , just not how he 'knows' god exists to begin with???? we aren't talking blue skys and counting tools he is using these methods to prove god correct?????finite human explanations to deal with infinite nothingness....because its also a common statemet that god is beyond human understanding. and has to be taken on faith ........so how does this work ..

He is not talking about proving God, but about knowing that there is a God. If one experiences God every single day (as myself and many others do) it simply doesn't make any logical sense for a person to even consider that there isn't a God. You say that it has to be taken on faith. This is incorrect, Knowledge of God does not always depend on faith. Sometimes knowing there is a God is based on actual knowledge that there is a God. There's no question about it. You seem to think you have "grown out of the need for a deity". That's well and fine, but Iams is not saying that 2+2=4 therefore there must be a God. He is saying that he knows there is a God just like he knows that 2+2=4.

but IMO in using this statement it is inferring that god is a fact when in essence its a beleif based on a world view by taking a leap of faith it can't be proven ... if i am following you robbie..please correct where you see fit...

To many people, God is a fact. Something doesn't have to be able to be proved to be a fact, it just has to be able to be known as fact.

[+Sherapy]

I'd like to interject here that it is not a "fact" that 2+2=4.

It is a previously agreed-upon definition of the arithmetic operation we've agreed to refer to as "addition," and nothing more.

Hence, IAmson is twice correct when he claims to know God exists like he knows 2+2=4.

First, he "knows" it through faith.

Second, he "knows" it because he's defined God in the same way we've defined what is meant by 2+2=4.

Harte

..... and i concur because its the common ontological argument. I see so often.......

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)

(1) I define God to be X.

(2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.

(3) Therefore, God exists.

the problem with the logical form of this argument is that it relies on the assumption that God (or something like its supernatural cousin) exists.

Edited July 9, 2008 by Supra Sheri

[+Sherapy]

He is not talking about proving God, but about knowing that there is a God. If one experiences God every single day (as myself and many others do) it simply doesn't make any logical sense for a person to even consider that there isn't a God. You say that it has to be taken on faith. This is incorrect, Knowledge of God does not always depend on faith. Sometimes knowing there is a God is based on actual knowledge that there is a God. There's no question about it. You seem to think you have "grown out of the need for a deity". That's well and fine, but Iams is not saying that 2+2=4 therefore there must be a God. He is saying that he knows there is a God just like he knows that 2+2=4.

To many people, God is a fact. Something doesn't have to be able to be proved to be a fact, it just has to be able to be known as fact.

kiazen for something to be called a fact, it has to be supported by 'evidence' .. it can be called a belief or a claim or an assumption.....

2+2 +4 because have defined it as such , . they are the derivatives of the definitions of the systems that they come from....they arent' static, they are made up also based on the need of the culture So .2 plus 2 is 4 because that is how we have defined it based on cultural need......

Edited July 9, 2008 by Supra Sheri

[Irish]

kiazen for something to be called a fact, it has to be supported by 'evidence' .. it can be called a belief or a claim or an assumption.....

2+2 +4 because have defined it as such , . they are the derivatives of the definitions of the systems that they come from....they arent' static, they are made up also based on the need of the culture So .2 plus 2 is 4 because that is how we have defined it based on cultural need.......

The big question that remains, is personal evidence valid outside of the individual experience?

[TheKnight]

kiazen for something to be called a fact, it has to be supported by 'evidence' .. it can be called a belief or a claim or an assumption.....

No Sheri, for me to tell you a fact, I have to support it by evidence. However, I don't need to have evidence to prove it for it to be proven to me. It's like...the color blue for instance. Forgetting the scientific meaning of the color blue, to a color blind person there is no blue. Yet we see blue. We can't prove to a color blind person that blue exists, yet it does. I can know something, and you can not know something. Just because you don't have evidence of it, doesn't mean that I don't.

[+Sherapy]

The big question that remains, is personal evidence valid outside of the individual experience?

that is a great question irish......

because how can system that claims inerrancy( saying it knows all there is to know therefore eliminating the need for self correction of any kind and disregard all other disciplines or avenues for input be sound in application????

how are we determining value and quality to begin with with no other input well i say imo we aren't we are simply obeying on hearsay....or the operative word here is 'faith' at best....

[+Sherapy]

No Sheri, for me to tell you a fact, I have to support it by evidence. However, I don't need to have evidence to prove it for it to be proven to me. It's like...the color blue for instance. Forgetting the scientific meaning of the color blue, to a color blind person there is no blue. Yet we see blue. We can't prove to a color blind person that blue exists, yet it does. I can know something, and you can not know something. Just because you don't have evidence of it, doesn't mean that I don't.

kaizen,

you are just saying you do not require proof to beleive something....

and this is your reason why..

because a person who is colorblind can't see blue( and for you there is no other explantion possible ) therefore god. is a fact..

its another version of the ontological argument model I posted a few posts up......

you must have something in place to discriminate sound data from garbage.....so i really dont think this is what you mean....

Edited July 9, 2008 by Supra Sheri

[TheKnight]

kaizen,

you are just saying you do not require proof to beleive something....

and this is your reason why..

because a person who is colorblind can't see blue( and for you there is no other explantion possible ) therefore god. is a fact..

its another version of the ontological argument model I posted a few posts up......

you must have something in place to discriminate sound data from garbage.....so i really dont think this is what you mean....

No Sheri, what I am saying is, I don't need to be able to prove something to you to know that it is true. I have enough evidence. I have enough proof. There is no need for me to doubt what I know because you don't know it too. That is what Iams was saying in his post about 2+2=4.

[+Sherapy]

How valuable is personal truth and experience? Although many would deny the fact that we all rely on others life's experiences and are therefore we have FAITH in others experiences in life. It is faith up until we experience it for ourselves and then in our minds it now a fact but in reality it may not be fact as others may have not had the same experience! As an example an astronaut can only relate his experiences to you, who have never traveled in space and you as an individual have three choices in which to form an opinion.

1. Except his/her testimony as reliable personal experience. (Belief that is faith based on a few facts)

2. Reject his/her testimony as unreliable. (Denial of a personal truth and experience)

3. Acquire the experience for yourself and become an astronaut. (Your very own personal truth for others to except or reject)

The common denominator in all our beliefs is accepting and questioning what we believe is the truth. But what actually constitutes evidence of "the truth". We as humans are very passionate about truth because the mirror of it consists of lies and deceit, something we all wish to avoid because deception equals self delusion and quite possibly self destruction.

Within the physical sciences we have a solid measure of what is considered proof within the 'scientific method' of repeated experiments that concur the same results every single time. Yet when we apply the scientific method toward our art, music, dance, literature, philosophy, politics and religion it becomes apparent that we often end up with many different ideals of truth that are of a personal understanding. Some end up concurring with the status quo and some end up within smaller groups of people that arrive at similar conclusions yet are considered to be out of the "norm" of conventional belief. While some individuals arrive at conclusions that are so 'out there' as others may consider them to be socially damaged or deranged. You probably know a few of them on these boards. rolleyes.gif

The truths within art, literature, philosophy, politics and religion are often very subjective toward the personal experience and understanding of truth that they become nothing more than individual opinions that are shared by many or just a few, and in some cases by them alone.

If the truth equals proof what constitute that "proof"? Personal truth and experience or evidence explained by those who seem to grasp it, scientists, wise men or clergy.

The most common sentence on UM is "I need proof" or "where is your proof?" In reality it would be extremely difficult for me to prove that I even exist in the physical world, let alone non human entities outside of our own experiences. Most will just accept the small evidence of my written words without question.

Truth is defined as evidence, but any good layer worth his salt will tell you that 'evidence' can and is often used by the plaintiff and defendant is subjective to their own needs and desired results.

Evidence has to be weighed by the individuals involved who intern lobbies others for their definition in order to strengthen their own beliefs. The opposite reaction is often not very desirable as it can shatter the individuals world view as well as turn their lives completely around. Yet at the same time the truth can be liberating, enlightening and rewarding.

To some people proof is good enough in the personal experience to others evidence must be agreed on by a majority of those we hold in esteem in order to be any kind of proof.

Some only accept evidence in the form of physical subjectiveness and often become entrapped within a paradigm of their own making. While others are more willing to explore the esoteric evidence of their own experience as well as others?

Irish

irish this is a good post , what are ones standards for something to be valid or sound?????

gosh as a parent this is the first place we start.. establishng standards for making good decisons as mature self reliant adults..........

I think the more methods we have in place the better...IMO...great post ...

how well do they hold up when tested out????

[Agent. Mulder]

No Sheri, what I am saying is, I don't need to be able to prove something to you to know that it is true. I have enough evidence. I have enough proof. There is no need for me to doubt what I know because you don't know it too. That is what Iams was saying in his post about 2+2=4.

not quite. IMO, youre meaning to say "i have enough Faith. i have enough Belief". if there was proof, we wouldnt be having this argument here, because we'd know god exists.

[TheKnight]

not quite. IMO, youre meaning to say "i have enough Faith. i have enough Belief". if there was proof, we wouldnt be having this argument here, because we'd know god exists.

I believe you say that because your mind cannot comprehend that I can know that there is a God when you cannot. That is understandable. As I was telling Sheri, "Because I don't know, you don't know either" is not an argument.

[Agent. Mulder]

I believe you say that because your mind cannot comprehend that I can know that there is a God when you cannot. That is understandable. As I was telling Sheri, "Because I don't know, you don't know either" is not an argument.

no, because No One can. what makes you so special? how are you given this gift? my mind can comprehend the idea of god, and that we made one up. and its understandable if you still believe.

*if no response its because im leaving for work*

[TheKnight]

no, because No One can. what makes you so special? how are you given this gift? my mind can comprehend the idea of god, and that we made one up. and its understandable if you still believe.

*if no response its because im leaving for work*

No one can? Who said that? Is that some sort of rule? Or is it something that makes people feel better about not knowing? To say that no one can know is a cop out. It's like saying "I don't know, there are others who don't know, thus no one can know." Unless you meet everyone in the world, you can't say something such as "no one can know". Because there are those who can and do know.

Edited July 9, 2008 by ~Kaizen CJM~

[Fluffybunny]

I can appreciate that people have a belief in a personal god. That is fine. if it gives them peace, if it gives them comfort, I am all for it, regardless of what god that may be. It is not something I have or seek, or feel the need for, so it isnt my cup of tea, but I can appreciate it for what it is. I can see that there are some people that become much better people for their experience with their god(whichever one it may be).

I can also understand that some people have developed a level of certainty in their own minds that they are as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow that there is a god, and it is their own god. Saying 2+2=4, being as sure as that, being the same way. I can undertsand that. Thats great. Again if that gives them a comfort then I am all for it. I think that a one on one relationship with a diety(take your pick) that makes you a better person is a great thing if that is something you feel you want or need; if that enriches your life.

There is a factor about it though, and I dont know what term to use. I am going to use a term and it will probably be wrong, but I will try to define it to make sense.

At a certain point there is a matter of spillover, where that persons personal beliefs and relationship with their god go too far and get tangled up with other people that should not be involved. We see splillover here in the US all of the time where the religious right is so sure of their relationship with their god(That is is the right thing) that they try to enact laws and ordanances based on those religious beliefs; things that effect millions of people that have nothing to do with that personal relationship with their god. They are so sure they are right that they are going to muscle their way into things that effect others that do not have the belief system, or have a different belief system.

I dont mind when folks have that 2+2=4 secure feeling about their own personal god, that is fine. it is the spillover that effects me personally that gets me riled up and makes me want to stand up and draw a line in the sand and say, "Hey, I am glad that you guys have your belief, but when it intersects with my belief or my freedom, it needs to be brought down a notch".

So when a person says that their belief in god is as true to them as 2+2=4, that is fine...for them...it is also important to remember that words like "proof" have a technical meaning that not going to be met by any amount of personal belief, nor does it need to be in my opinion. At that point, it is your own personal belief, for your own reasons. It is like trying to quantify why you love your significant other; you can come up with a list of things in support of why you love them, but you could never "prove" your love.

I had a point when I started...but I lost it along the way...so i will stop here.

[+Sherapy]

No one can? Who said that? Is that some sort of rule? Or is it something that makes people feel better about not knowing? To say that no one can know is a cop out. It's like saying "I don't know, there are others who don't know, thus no one can know." Unless you meet everyone in the world, you can't say something such as "no one can know". Because there are those who can and do know.

kaizen :

there are methodologys that we humans have put into place to know things..they are factual, normal, formal and some are normative there are even some things that we may say we 'beleive' do not know......

at a bare minimum for the sake of this post to know is a "justified true beleif"

let me explain:

beleifs are experiential expectations (this is very crucial to understand) true beleifs are "reliable" experiential expectations and justified true beleifs are reliable experiential expectations that are backed up by enough evidence of one kind or another to generate confidence in using. them.....

Edited July 9, 2008 by Supra Sheri

[mklsgl]

I will say it. No one can provide viable evidence to prove the existence of [G-d]. Likewise, no one can provide viable evidence to disprove the existence of [G-d]. No one can prove or disprove any abstraction.

2+2=4 is an undeniable fact that can be easily proven by most 2 year-olds. Even a blind man knows when the sun is shining.

The validity of personal evidence is slippery at best. It's not considered "hard" evidence. The credibility of the person becomes essential to the validity of the claimed evidence.