Limits on the Human Mind

[1137]

I was in a conversation with a friend the other day about space and, naturally, H.P. Lovecraft. They just go together so well. Anyways, we were discussing the fact that while we can know things, such as that Sirus is XX light-years away from us, we cannot really understand that. What I mean is we can never actually imagine or wrap our heads around that vast distance. We can know that the universe is 13.5 billion years old, but we cannot actually fathom how humans have existed for such a small amount of time in the history of the universe.

There are other aspects of life more relative to daily life we cannot comprehend as well. For one, we certainly seem to have trouble simply understanding the limits of our own senses. We cannot truly understand what others are experiencing except in our own ways, and we cannot even know if anyone other than ourselves is conscious and alive. We cannot think in a non-dualistic fashion because we are bound to the laws of logic.

When we come to God or other fantastical beings (such as the Lovecraft entities), we are talking about what is supposed to be infinitely greater and more complex that any concept touched on above, none of which we can even truly wrap our heads around. Now sure, these beings could reveal themselves to us, but otherwise we would have no ability to know they exist or not, or even to begin questioning their nature, motive, etc.

The problem is twofold. On one side, people are going to claim that there is evidence for god. Since the scientific method and logic are the best methods we have currently discovered for understanding the world around us, then claims of evidence for a god or other such being should be supported with such evidence. Further, if there is such a force behind the creation / evolution of humanity, and the ability to use science and reason is what makes humans different from other life, then to not use these would be a slap in the face to the deity one believes in. On the other side, we cannot ever be anything more than firm agnostics when it comes to rejecting gods, etc. For one, we cannot rely on a lack of evidence as evidence, because that is the exact opposite of what scientific evidence is. We need to have something tangible, and considering gods aren't event thought as physical (or they're interdimensional, etc.) science isn't supposed to touch it anyways. What's also important is that these gods are not interactive ones, as there is no evidence of their activities to be gathered. Therefore there is nothing to preach, nothing to fight over, nothing to reject science for, etc.

I think "gnosticism" / a claim to knowing either way is a move of human ego. On one side, people believe they have special knowledge and receive special attention from their deity, which is an ego stroke in and of itself. They are supposed to save people, power that only them and their peers have. On the other, it is a stroke of the ego to believe humans can even make such certain claims about the universe. The one path that is supposed to focus on reality ignores just have severely limited the species is. Get over it

 

[George-ananda]

Well I think we are looking at this from the unhelpful direction. Instead of wondering about God we should start wondering about something more accessible; Ourselves. Are we just physical matter following natural laws or are we something more? I think if one seriously considers the beyond the normal phenomena in human experience one would come to the conclusion there is something 'more'. And are there people who can sense some of this 'more' than the average person? And can people there be advanced souls that come here to teach? And can deep mystical experiences give us more understanding of the nature of reality? This is where we have to start forming our understanding. To start with the question, 'is there God', by looking at what science can tell us is just going to lead to frustration.

 

[Aupmanyav]

When we come to God or other fantastical beings (such as the Lovecraft entities), we are talking about what is supposed to be infinitely greater and more complex that any concept touched on above, none of which we can even truly wrap our heads around.

Are you sure? Is there a need?

 

[Mister Emu]

Anyways, we were discussing the fact that while we can know things, such as that Sirus is XX light-years away from us, we cannot really understand that. What I mean is we can never actually imagine or wrap our heads around that vast distance. We can know that the universe is 13.5 billion years old, but we cannot actually fathom how humans have existed for such a small amount of time in the history of the universe.

I don't believe that is necessarily the case.

I think "gnosticism" / a claim to knowing either way is a move of human ego. On one side, people believe they have special knowledge and receive special attention from their deity, which is an ego stroke in and of itself. They are supposed to save people, power that only them and their peers have.

In my experience, contact with the divine has the opposite effect on ego. Having a connection to something so... we don't have words to describe... was, well to use the space and time analogy since it is conveniently there, like seeing in an instant the path of time and enormity of space together. Then understanding that that was incomprehensibly small and insignificant compared to what you faced.

Come out of that experience with much of an ego at all and well, hats off to you.

 

[Mycroft]

We can evidence against god as a creator in accordance with religious rhetoric by examining the world around us. Religion(s) claim that the works of god(s) are perfect, infallible, etc. But when we examine even just the human body, we can readily see that it is anything but perfect, giving us evidence against intelligent design.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I was in a conversation with a friend the other day about space and, naturally, H.P. Lovecraft. They just go together so well. Anyways, we were discussing the fact that while we can know things, such as that Sirus is XX light-years away from us, we cannot really understand that. What I mean is we can never actually imagine or wrap our heads around that vast distance. We can know that the universe is 13.5 billion years old, but we cannot actually fathom how humans have existed for such a small amount of time in the history of the universe.

There are other aspects of life more relative to daily life we cannot comprehend as well. For one, we certainly seem to have trouble simply understanding the limits of our own senses. We cannot truly understand what others are experiencing except in our own ways, and we cannot even know if anyone other than ourselves is conscious and alive. We cannot think in a non-dualistic fashion because we are bound to the laws of logic.

When we come to God or other fantastical beings (such as the Lovecraft entities), we are talking about what is supposed to be infinitely greater and more complex that any concept touched on above, none of which we can even truly wrap our heads around. Now sure, these beings could reveal themselves to us, but otherwise we would have no ability to know they exist or not, or even to begin questioning their nature, motive, etc.

Many scientists, cosmologists, including atheists, have remarked on how curious it is, that the universe lends itself so well to our understanding, that we are able to understand it at all

It tests human curiosity and ingenuity to it's limits, so we look beyond and within ourselves, to continually explore, discover creation. What better way to appreciate it?
As a purposeful creation this makes perfect sense, for the same to be achieved by complete fluke, would have to be chalked up to yet one more staggering coincidence..

The problem is twofold. On one side, people are going to claim that there is evidence for god. Since the scientific method and logic are the best methods we have currently discovered for understanding the world around us, then claims of evidence for a god or other such being should be supported with such evidence. Further, if there is such a force behind the creation / evolution of humanity, and the ability to use science and reason is what makes humans different from other life, then to not use these would be a slap in the face to the deity one believes in. On the other side, we cannot ever be anything more than firm agnostics when it comes to rejecting gods, etc. For one, we cannot rely on a lack of evidence as evidence, because that is the exact opposite of what scientific evidence is. We need to have something tangible, and considering gods aren't event thought as physical (or they're interdimensional, etc.) science isn't supposed to touch it anyways. What's also important is that these gods are not interactive ones, as there is no evidence of their activities to be gathered. Therefore there is nothing to preach, nothing to fight over, nothing to reject science for, etc.

'Nature is the executor of God's laws' Galileo. Science itself is how we learn about and appreciate creation, it is entirely consistent with the concept of a creator

remember that it was atheist scientists who predicted a static/eternal uncreated universe (no creation = no creator) mocking the idea of a specific creation event as 'big bang' for it's overt theistic implications
and that classical physics was declared 'immutable' by many as a way to make God redundant, no mysterious unpredictable forces behind the universe.
'making God redundant' was also the explicit rationale Hawking attached to his debunked 'Big Crunch' theory..

It's no coincidence that Lemaitre and Planck were skeptics of atheism, many of our greatest scientific questions have been a battle of science v atheism.

We have to look at reality impartially, not with preconceived conclusions about it's nature- defaulting to explanations that support atheism, has had a very poor track record of predictive ability so far.

I think "gnosticism" / a claim to knowing either way is a move of human ego. On one side, people believe they have special knowledge and receive special attention from their deity, which is an ego stroke in and of itself. They are supposed to save people, power that only them and their peers have. On the other, it is a stroke of the ego to believe humans can even make such certain claims about the universe. The one path that is supposed to focus on reality ignores just have severely limited the species is. Get over it

We are the only species in millions in a silent galaxy that can ask these questions. The only means we know of by which the universe can be self aware..

If recognizing this as 'special' is egotistical, what is it to assume we are not special? An inferiority complex?
I don't think reality is affected by our physiological evaluations either way is it?

 

[Nakosis]

We develop concepts like God and live by them assuming they'll get us through life.

I kind of accept there are no guarantees and there is no truth to base my existence on. So I live life as it comes and try to deal with it the best I know how.

Friends, family, helping others, seems enough truth to go by.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Are you sure? Is there a need?

I would say no. There is no need to "wrap our heads" around the concept of God, or some supreme being. Let it be noted that I, however, refuse to "follow" something I cannot understand. That I simply don't have to understand it simply means I am not going to try, and therefore there is really nothing to follow.

 

[viole]

remember that it was atheist scientists who predicted a static/eternal uncreated universe (no creation = no creator) mocking the idea of a specific creation event as 'big bang' for it's overt theistic implications

The Big Bang won but alternatives to evolution did not. And evolution has been with us longer. What does that tell you?

Is atheistic science weak enough to lose against the Big Bang but strong enough to keep evolution alive?

Or isn't maybe more rational to see that scientists, atheists or not, only respond to evidence?

Ciao

- viole

 

[1137]

I don't believe that is necessarily the case.


In my experience, contact with the divine has the opposite effect on ego. Having a connection to something so... we don't have words to describe... was, well to use the space and time analogy since it is conveniently there, like seeing in an instant the path of time and enormity of space together. Then understanding that that was incomprehensibly small and insignificant compared to what you faced.

Come out of that experience with much of an ego at all and well, hats off to you.

This is when someone actually experiences, well, whatever it is. I'm just talking about people using reason/evidence to discuss god. While I have seen that there's something out there, had those unexplainable experiences, that also can't be used in an argument, because it's simply anecdotal and processed through so many subjective lenses it can hardly be useful beyond base traits.

 

[1137]

We can evidence against god as a creator in accordance with religious rhetoric by examining the world around us. Religion(s) claim that the works of god(s) are perfect, infallible, etc. But when we examine even just the human body, we can readily see that it is anything but perfect, giving us evidence against intelligent design.

Actually few claim this, they just have the most followers. "Perfection" is also subjective.

 

[George-ananda]

Well I think we are looking at this from the unhelpful direction. Instead of wondering about God we should start wondering about something more accessible; Ourselves. Are we just physical matter following natural laws or are we something more? I think if one seriously considers the beyond the normal phenomena in human experience one would come to the conclusion there is something 'more'. And are there people who can sense some of this 'more' than the average person? And can people there be advanced souls that come here to teach? And can deep mystical experiences give us more understanding of the nature of reality? This is where we have to start forming our understanding. To start with the question, 'is there God', by looking at what science can tell us is just going to lead to frustration.

Plus the 'does God exist' question has very little meaning to me unless it affects me in some way; that's also why I start by examining Ourselves.

 

[JoStories]

Well I think we are looking at this from the unhelpful direction. Instead of wondering about God we should start wondering about something more accessible; Ourselves. Are we just physical matter following natural laws or are we something more? I think if one seriously considers the beyond the normal phenomena in human experience one would come to the conclusion there is something 'more'. And are there people who can sense some of this 'more' than the average person? And can people there be advanced souls that come here to teach? And can deep mystical experiences give us more understanding of the nature of reality? This is where we have to start forming our understanding. To start with the question, 'is there God', by looking at what science can tell us is just going to lead to frustration.

I completely agree. And I agree that looking within ourselves is a much more useful practice. It's why I practice meditation and follow a Buddhist path. Are there people who are more advanced? IMO, yes. But this is purely from an anecdotal POV and can't be substantiated by science. It can, IMO, lead us to a deeper understanding of ourselves and our purpose. I also beleive there are people who can see more. Without trying to explain or prove this, I have seen some of this. Will science ever prove it was something within the laws of physics? Very possibly but it still leads me to see things outside the box and I like that.

 

[JoStories]

I don't believe that is necessarily the case.


In my experience, contact with the divine has the opposite effect on ego. Having a connection to something so... we don't have words to describe... was, well to use the space and time analogy since it is conveniently there, like seeing in an instant the path of time and enormity of space together. Then understanding that that was incomprehensibly small and insignificant compared to what you faced.

Come out of that experience with much of an ego at all and well, hats off to you.

I suppose that may be true in some cases, but I have also seen the opposite occur. Without pointing fingers at any one faith, the monotheistic faiths seem to think that because they are a part of something, that, in some cases, makes them better than others. The 'you are going to hell and I am saved' kind of thinking. I've had people come to my door and tell me that to my face. That, IMO, is nothing but ego.

 

[outhouse]

Science itself is how we learn about and appreciate creation, it is entirely consistent with the concept of a creator

No, that is all unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Mythology has no real place in science.

 

[outhouse]

. What I mean is we can never actually imagine or wrap our heads around that vast distance

Speak for yourself education clears this up.

but we cannot actually fathom how humans have existed for such a small amount of time in the history of the universe.

Speak for yourself education clears this up.

There are other aspects of life more relative to daily life we cannot comprehend as well.

Speak for yourself education clears this up.

There is little we don't actually comprehend in nature.


Provide specific examples instead of being so vague here.

We cannot think in a non-dualistic fashion because we are bound to the laws of logic.

Speak for yourself education clears this up.


Those who apply mythology to reality to me, end up being the mots confused about reality, because they are making up reality in their imagination.

When we come to God or other fantastical beings

Imagination means the sky is the limit on how people understand the concept.

Infinity covers the imaginative definitions of the concept

The one path that is supposed to focus on reality ignores just have severely limited the species is. Get over it

We are animals, Get over it.

We are easy to see coming and going, similar to raising cattle. There is no mystery here, its just a matter of education.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Sometimes instead of chasing after wisps of thought alone it's always good advice to build upon our scope of experience and understanding and expound from there.

Instead of pursuing an ideological picture of what God or the universe is alone, there already is an objective set of stairs upon which can be used to pursue things and events that elude the limitations of body and mind.

Personally I'm curious as to just how small or conversely, how large by which that can be traversed outside those limitations that we may or never break. While I'm not privy to God's and such, I suspect the exploration of micro and macro realms can be no less amazing in every aspect as well as it's terrifying if and when new limits are established.

River runs deep.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I was in a conversation with a friend the other day about space and, naturally, H.P. Lovecraft. They just go together so well. Anyways, we were discussing the fact that while we can know things, such as that Sirus is XX light-years away from us, we cannot really understand that. What I mean is we can never actually imagine or wrap our heads around that vast distance. We can know that the universe is 13.5 billion years old, but we cannot actually fathom how humans have existed for such a small amount of time in the history of the universe.

It is true that all our understanding is nothing more than mental conception; like a map more than the actual landscape. I generally call them conceptual models. There is no such thing as a model that is 100% accurate (or else it would be called a clone). There are models that are 100% precise, but these are limited to somewhat simplified systems.

Models consists of two types of entities. For convenience sake I call them components, and relationships (between the components). We can never ever under any circumstances understand what 6" means! Imagine that (you obviously have)! Six inches is a meaningless category But we can understand the difference, the change, the relationship, between 6" and 9." We can not fathom the true size of a circle (in isolation), but pi is a universal constant that is entirely intelligible. Understanding does not come from anatomy (facts or absolutes), but from physiology (relationships or relativity).

There are other aspects of life more relative to daily life we cannot comprehend as well. For one, we certainly seem to have trouble simply understanding the limits of our own senses. We cannot truly understand what others are experiencing except in our own ways, and we cannot even know if anyone other than ourselves is conscious and alive. We cannot think in a non-dualistic fashion because we are bound to the laws of logic.

When we come to God or other fantastical beings (such as the Lovecraft entities), we are talking about what is supposed to be infinitely greater and more complex that any concept touched on above, none of which we can even truly wrap our heads around. Now sure, these beings could reveal themselves to us

Are you sure? Haven't they? And yet we are in the same position prior to them revealing themselves....I.E nothing gained or learned from the revelation! We still don't know if we are in a vat of goo?

, but otherwise we would have no ability to know they exist or not, or even to begin questioning their nature, motive, etc.

The problem is twofold. On one side, people are going to claim that there is evidence for god. Since the scientific method and logic are the best methods we have currently discovered for understanding the world around us, then claims of evidence for a god or other such being should be supported with such evidence.

Further, if there is such a force behind the creation / evolution of humanity, and the ability to use science and reason is what makes humans different from other life, then to not use these would be a slap in the face to the deity one believes in.

This! For sure!

On the other side, we cannot ever be anything more than firm agnostics when it comes to rejecting gods, etc. For one, we cannot rely on a lack of evidence as evidence, because that is the exact opposite of what scientific evidence is.

Ok, first..can we be more that firm agnostics when it comes to ANYTHING given the scientific method? If the answer is no, then why is the word "agnostic" in your statement above surrounded by so much extraneous verbiage? I.e. we can't be more than firm agnostics when it comes to huge boobed moon maidens; we can't be more than firm agnostics when it comes to fairy dragons; we can't be more than firm agnostics when ti comes to ANY FREAKING THING!

So why do you surround your conclusion with extraneous dribble when considering god?

You say that 'lack of evidence' can't be relied upon? Ok! But you say that is the 'exact opposite of what scientific evidence is? Really? I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Evidence is not needed to doubt, evidence is needed to overcome dought! DOUGHT is not only the default position, it is the PRIME position! There is no such thing as KNOWN TRUTH, there is only truth that has been discredited, and truth that has not (yet) been discredited.I can't be anything more than a firm agnostic when I ask myself if the sun will rise tomorrow!

Second; I'm amaze at how many demonstrably intelligent individuals for some reason fall to the fallacy that 'lack of evidence is not evidence!"

H: there is no dog in my box!
E: I open the box and there is no dog in the box!

How is that not evidence? I believe the confusion is conflation of evidence with proof! We (you and I) know that 'proof' does not exist. Evidence is not proof, evidence is not always correct. Evidence is quite often misleading. In any discussion of fact there is evidence for both positions. Evidence is not proof. But lack of evidence IS EVIDENCE!

If I site lack of evidence, then that must be compared (again, any 6" piece of evidence is meaningless, but a 6" piece of evidence compared to a 9" piece of evidence IS EVIDENCE) to the opposition. If my 'lack of evidence' is convincing, compared to the 'evidence of not-lacking' provided by the counter point, then lack of evidence can be deafeningly strong.

There are no zebras running free in south Austin Texas!!!!! This is a very strong argument...unless you care to counter with evidence to the contrary!


Third; let's move on from 'logical,' 'precise,' 'facts,' to 'practice' 'meaning!' I do not have to know that god (or any of 1000 conceptions) does not exist. All I have to do is ask what is the practice meaning of any particular god. Note that this is a relative question. What does god mean, in practice terms?

I have personally yet to hear of a concept of god that would want to be associated with it's proponents. I have yet to hear of a concept of god that is congruent with (much less consistent) with observable fact. This is lack of evidence FOR A POSTULATE! A very different situation that a lack of evidence for a random fact! I seem to recall that agnosticism was not only the default, but the highest order, of knowledge!

We need to have something tangible, and considering gods aren't event thought as physical (or they're interdimensional, etc.) science isn't supposed to touch it anyways. What's also important is that these gods are not interactive ones, as there is no evidence of their activities to be gathered. Therefore there is nothing to preach, nothing to fight over, nothing to reject science for, etc.

Another thing. Science not only ADDRESSES that with is physical and acts according to natural laws. Science assumes that there is nothing that is not knowable (in principle) and does not behave natural, observable laws. This is where most people get hung up thinking that science and religion can be reconciled, or are not at each other's throats. Science ABSOLUTELY DENIES any thing that might be beyond its reach. Science does not avail itself to otherworldly possibilities. Science specifically assumes that there is NOTHING we can not in principle observe and understand. And without this assumption science would not work.

Does science work? Yes or No? IF science works, THEN THER IS EVIDENCE THAT ITS ASSUMPTIONS HOLD TRUE! If science does not work, then we can add it to alchemy, astrology, numerology, etc.

I think "gnosticism" / a claim to knowing either way is a move of human ego. On one side, people believe they have special knowledge and receive special attention from their deity, which is an ego stroke in and of itself. They are supposed to save people, power that only them and their peers have. On the other, it is a stroke of the ego to believe humans can even make such certain claims about the universe. The one path that is supposed to focus on reality ignores just have severely limited the species is. Get over it

 

[1137]

It is true that all our understanding is nothing more than mental conception; like a map more than the actual landscape. I generally call them conceptual models. There is no such thing as a model that is 100% accurate (or else it would be called a clone). There are models that are 100% precise, but these are limited to somewhat simplified systems.

Models consists of two types of entities. For convenience sake I call them components, and relationships (between the components). We can never ever under any circumstances understand what 6" means! Imagine that (you obviously have)! Six inches is a meaningless category But we can understand the difference, the change, the relationship, between 6" and 9." We can not fathom the true size of a circle (in isolation), but pi is a universal constant that is entirely intelligible. Understanding does not come from anatomy (facts or absolutes), but from physiology (relationships or relativity).Are you sure? Haven't they? And yet we are in the same position prior to them revealing themselves....I.E nothing gained or learned from the revelation! We still don't know if we are in a vat of goo?This! For sure!Ok, first..can we be more that firm agnostics when it comes to ANYTHING given the scientific method? If the answer is no, then why is the word "agnostic" in your statement above surrounded by so much extraneous verbiage? I.e. we can't be more than firm agnostics when it comes to huge boobed moon maidens; we can't be more than firm agnostics when it comes to fairy dragons; we can't be more than firm agnostics when ti comes to ANY FREAKING THING!

So why do you surround your conclusion with extraneous dribble when considering god?

You say that 'lack of evidence' can't be relied upon? Ok! But you say that is the 'exact opposite of what scientific evidence is? Really? I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Evidence is not needed to doubt, evidence is needed to overcome dought! DOUGHT is not only the default position, it is the PRIME position! There is no such thing as KNOWN TRUTH, there is only truth that has been discredited, and truth that has not (yet) been discredited.I can't be anything more than a firm agnostic when I ask myself if the sun will rise tomorrow!

Second; I'm amaze at how many demonstrably intelligent individuals for some reason fall to the fallacy that 'lack of evidence is not evidence!"

H: there is no dog in my box!
E: I open the box and there is no dog in the box!

How is that not evidence? I believe the confusion is conflation of evidence with proof! We (you and I) know that 'proof' does not exist. Evidence is not proof, evidence is not always correct. Evidence is quite often misleading. In any discussion of fact there is evidence for both positions. Evidence is not proof. But lack of evidence IS EVIDENCE!

If I site lack of evidence, then that must be compared (again, any 6" piece of evidence is meaningless, but a 6" piece of evidence compared to a 9" piece of evidence IS EVIDENCE) to the opposition. If my 'lack of evidence' is convincing, compared to the 'evidence of not-lacking' provided by the counter point, then lack of evidence can be deafeningly strong.

There are no zebras running free in south Austin Texas!!!!! This is a very strong argument...unless you care to counter with evidence to the contrary!


Third; let's move on from 'logical,' 'precise,' 'facts,' to 'practice' 'meaning!' I do not have to know that god (or any of 1000 conceptions) does not exist. All I have to do is ask what is the practice meaning of any particular god. Note that this is a relative question. What does god mean, in practice terms?

I have personally yet to hear of a concept of god that would want to be associated with it's proponents. I have yet to hear of a concept of god that is congruent with (much less consistent) with observable fact. This is lack of evidence FOR A POSTULATE! A very different situation that a lack of evidence for a random fact! I seem to recall that agnosticism was not only the default, but the highest order, of knowledge!Another thing. Science not only ADDRESSES that with is physical and acts according to natural laws. Science assumes that there is nothing that is not knowable (in principle) and does not behave natural, observable laws. This is where most people get hung up thinking that science and religion can be reconciled, or are not at each other's throats. Science ABSOLUTELY DENIES any thing that might be beyond its reach. Science does not avail itself to otherworldly possibilities. Science specifically assumes that there is NOTHING we can not in principle observe and understand. And without this assumption science would not work.

Does science work? Yes or No? IF science works, THEN THER IS EVIDENCE THAT ITS ASSUMPTIONS HOLD TRUE! If science does not work, then we can add it to alchemy, astrology, numerology, etc.

I'll need some time and so post-work rest before I tackle this. Off the bat though, I really appreciate the time and effort you gave.

 

[Etritonakin]

I was in a conversation with a friend the other day about space and, naturally, H.P. Lovecraft. They just go together so well. Anyways, we were discussing the fact that while we can know things, such as that Sirus is XX light-years away from us, we cannot really understand that. What I mean is we can never actually imagine or wrap our heads around that vast distance. We can know that the universe is 13.5 billion years old, but we cannot actually fathom how humans have existed for such a small amount of time in the history of the universe.

There are other aspects of life more relative to daily life we cannot comprehend as well. For one, we certainly seem to have trouble simply understanding the limits of our own senses. We cannot truly understand what others are experiencing except in our own ways, and we cannot even know if anyone other than ourselves is conscious and alive. We cannot think in a non-dualistic fashion because we are bound to the laws of logic.

When we come to God or other fantastical beings (such as the Lovecraft entities), we are talking about what is supposed to be infinitely greater and more complex that any concept touched on above, none of which we can even truly wrap our heads around. Now sure, these beings could reveal themselves to us, but otherwise we would have no ability to know they exist or not, or even to begin questioning their nature, motive, etc.

The problem is twofold. On one side, people are going to claim that there is evidence for god. Since the scientific method and logic are the best methods we have currently discovered for understanding the world around us, then claims of evidence for a god or other such being should be supported with such evidence. Further, if there is such a force behind the creation / evolution of humanity, and the ability to use science and reason is what makes humans different from other life, then to not use these would be a slap in the face to the deity one believes in. On the other side, we cannot ever be anything more than firm agnostics when it comes to rejecting gods, etc. For one, we cannot rely on a lack of evidence as evidence, because that is the exact opposite of what scientific evidence is. We need to have something tangible, and considering gods aren't event thought as physical (or they're interdimensional, etc.) science isn't supposed to touch it anyways. What's also important is that these gods are not interactive ones, as there is no evidence of their activities to be gathered. Therefore there is nothing to preach, nothing to fight over, nothing to reject science for, etc.

I think "gnosticism" / a claim to knowing either way is a move of human ego. On one side, people believe they have special knowledge and receive special attention from their deity, which is an ego stroke in and of itself. They are supposed to save people, power that only them and their peers have. On the other, it is a stroke of the ego to believe humans can even make such certain claims about the universe. The one path that is supposed to focus on reality ignores just have severely limited the species is. Get over it

20hz -20khz .... 20 cycles per second to 20 thousand cycles per second..... there are infinite frequencies lower -infinite frequencies higher -but some dumbasses will be prohibited from being dumbasses with any particular frequency