Are gods known to exist?

[F1fan]

On another thread we are discussing disbelief in any gods. Theists make the usual claims via the ideas they have adopted and believe true for themselves. I have made the point of fact that no gods are known to exist. What I mean by knowledge is that we humans can sense and/or detect certain phenomenon as existing objectively, as part of the universe around us, and subject to our personal minds forming images. For example we know Gala apples exist. We know Gala apples differ from Granny Smith or Empire apples because all three tyes are defined with real characteristics that can be observed and sorted.

Numerous people have responded to my assertion that no gods are known to exist with a direct contrary claim that gods ARE known to exist. I have heard this before, and some of the reason are that non-believers are limited in their ability to detect these gods. I ask for evidence for this claim and have not gotten answers. So, if you think that non-believers are some how defective or limited, and can't detect the supernatural, explain this. Do believers have some sort of extrasensory abilities? Do they tap into some sort of supernatural force?

Offer us your facts, and a coherent explanation of those facts. Faith is not acceptable. If you claim knowledge, then show your work. If you are correct, then you will be able to demonstrate this amazing ability to sense and detect a God despite being an ordinary mortal.

 

[Rival]

Your understanding of what it means to 'exist' is very limited so you allow no answer to your question.

 

[F1fan]

Your understanding of what it means to 'exist' is very limited so you allow no answer to your question.

OK, explain this difference in understanding to follow through on your calim. I'm not convinced you are correct.

 

[Rival]

OK, explain this difference in understanding to follow through on your calim. I'm not convinced you are correct.

God creates existence; he's not existent the same way created things are. He is the basis on which everything exists. You're not going to find him in limited physicalist science; he's not an aspect of the universe the same way your apples are.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

God creates existence; he's not existent the same way created things are. He is the basis on which everything exists. You're not going to find him in limited physicalist science; he's not an aspect of the universe the same way your apples are.

I suspect you'd agree that God's are not detectable by scientific means, right?
To some, that would be evidence of their non-existence (although not me, for all my lack of belief).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

On another thread we are discussing disbelief in any gods. Theists make the usual claims via the ideas they have adopted and believe true for themselves. I have made the point of fact that no gods are known to exist. What I mean by knowledge is that we humans can sense and/or detect certain phenomenon as existing objectively, as part of the universe around us, and subject to our personal minds forming images. For example we know Gala apples exist. We know Gala apples differ from Granny Smith or Empire apples because all three tyes are defined with real characteristics that can be observed and sorted.

Numerous people have responded to my assertion that no gods are known to exist with a direct contrary claim that gods ARE known to exist. I have heard this before, and some of the reason are that non-believers are limited in their ability to detect these gods. I ask for evidence for this claim and have not gotten answers. So, if you think that non-believers are some how defective or limited, and can't detect the supernatural, explain this. Do believers have some sort of extrasensory abilities? Do they tap into some sort of supernatural force?

Offer us your facts, and a coherent explanation of those facts. Faith is not acceptable. If you claim knowledge, then show your work. If you are correct, then you will be able to demonstrate this amazing ability to sense and detect a God despite being an ordinary mortal.

Nothing in a strict rotational sense is known about objective reality other than it is not your mind. God is just a subset about beliefs about objective reality.
There is a good rational reason that science is build on axiomatic assumptions.
So please turn these into knowledge. The joke is that you can't. And neither can I.

There is no knowledge as justified true beliefs. It is an idea just like God.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

God creates existence; he's not existent the same way created things are. He is the basis on which everything exists. You're not going to find him in limited physicalist science; he's not an aspect of the universe the same way your apples are.

No, he is not. She is the Mother of All.

 

[Rival]

I suspect you'd agree that God's are not detectable by scientific means, right?
To some, that would be evidence of their non-existence (although not me, for all my lack of belief).

It depends; if you wanted to argue from an argument from design pov, or the Kalam etc. I'm fine with that and those arguments are useful to have, but God himself is the mystery, the whatever-was-before-the-big-bang, the thing that is definitively beyond materialist understandings of modern science. So I would broadly agree, and whichever conclusion that leads one to is almost irrelevant imo because God can and has been said to not exist in this sense; in that he's not a part of existence as we know it, he is existence. I think apophatic theology has the edge here.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Gods exist. Although you possibly don't recognise them as Gods. Nor do I.

Prince Philip movement - Wikipedia.

https://www.theschooloflife.com/article/sun-worship/

Earth religion - Wikipedia

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It depends; if you wanted to argue from an argument from design pov, or the Kalam etc. I'm fine with that and those arguments are useful to have, but God himself is the mystery, the whatever-was-before-the-big-bang, the thing that is definitively beyond materialist understandings of modern science. So I would broadly agree, and whichever conclusion that leads one to is almost irrelevant imo because God can and has been said to not exist in this sense; in that he's not a part of existence as we know it, he is existence. I think apophatic theology has the edge here.

I raise you with skepticism. If you want to play true and false, you have to be open for false.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It depends; if you wanted to argue from an argument from design pov, or the Kalam etc. I'm fine with that and those arguments are useful to have, but God himself is the mystery, the whatever-was-before-the-big-bang, the thing that is definitively beyond materialist understandings of modern science. So I would broadly agree, and whichever conclusion that leads one to is almost irrelevant imo because God can and has been said to not exist in this sense; in that he's not a part of existence as we know it, he is existence. I think apophatic theology has the edge here.

Neither philosophical arguments nor apophatic theology (indeed, ESPECIALLY not apophatic theology) will be convincing to a materialist atheist.

My point isn't 'who is right', but instead 'you can see how he arrives at his position, flawed as you might see it'

 

[F1fan]

Nothing in a strict rotational sense is known about objective reality other than it is not your mind. God is just a subset about beliefs about objective reality.
There is a good rational reason that science is build on axiomatic assumptions.
So please turn these into knowledge. The joke is that you can't. And neither can I.

So are you asserting that we can't know if Gala apples exist any more than we can know if any gods exist? It's all guessing?

There is no knowledge as justified true beliefs. It is an idea just like God.

Yet any one of us can assert and demonstrate the existence of Gala apples and provide real examples and a description. Can any theist do that with any of their gods? THAT is the question, whether the claims of gods existing are consistent with our knowledge of real things (like Gala apples) existing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Neither philosophical arguments nor apophatic theology (indeed, ESPECIALLY not apophatic theology) will be convincing to a materialist atheist.

My point isn't 'who is right', but instead 'you can see how he arrives at his position, flawed as you might see it'

But there are also no objective reason, logic or evidence for materialism. That is not limited to the idea of God.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So are you asserting that we can't know if Gala apples exist any more than we can know if any gods exist? It's all guessing?


Yet any one of us can assert and demonstrate the existence of Gala apples and provide real examples and a description. Can any theist do that with any of their gods? THAT is the question, whether the claims of gods existing are consistent with our knowledge of real things (like Gala apples) existing.

Just read this:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
Current approaches. There are even more in philosophy than these and your version is just one among many.

 

[F1fan]

God creates existence;

That's a claim that has no evidence.

he's not existent the same way created things are.

Then how do you know it exists versus just an idea you picked up from others and mimic?

He is the basis on which everything exists.

This is another unverifiable claim that explains nothing, just adds to the list of claims.

You're not going to find him in limited physicalist science; he's not an aspect of the universe the same way your apples are.

Then prove your belief here is true, and not just another claim.

I am challenging you to offer factual explanations, not make one claim after another.

 

[Quintessence]

If you are correct, then you will be able to demonstrate this amazing ability to sense and detect a God despite being an ordinary mortal.

It's not really that amazing. Go outside. Witness. All that you see are gods. Did you forget that our ancestors understood various aspects and forces of nature are gods? That some of us still do? Science literally studies the gods I worship... haha (it's actually part of why I went and got a post-grad degree in science... to study the gods through science).

 

[Rival]

Neither philosophical arguments nor apophatic theology (indeed, ESPECIALLY not apophatic theology) will be convincing to a materialist atheist.

My point isn't 'who is right', but instead 'you can see how he arrives at his position, flawed as you might see it'

I meant it has the edge in terms of it being better to not-describe God than to describe him.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's a claim that has no evidence.


Then how do you know it exists versus just an idea you picked up from others and mimic?


This is another unverifiable claim that explains nothing, just adds to the list of claims.


Then prove your belief here is true, and not just another claim.

I am challenging you to offer factual explanations, not make one claim after another.

I changelenge you to show me a fact as you can show me say e.g. a piece of rock. You conflate the abstract and the raw experience.
Facts are philosophy and your science is only one version.

 

[Rival]

That's a claim that has no evidence.

So what's your basis for existence?

Then how do you know it exists versus just an idea you picked up from others and mimic?

Because I exist. I can see and experience things and I experience existence that must be grounded in something.

This is another unverifiable claim that explains nothing, just adds to the list of claims.

Again, what's your basis? Why is there something rather than nothing, so to speak?

Then prove your belief here is true, and not just another claim.

I am challenging you to offer factual explanations, not make one claim after another.

I guess you're not going to be happy unless you have physicalist, materialist evidence. Well this will be short discussion.

 

[F1fan]

Just read this:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
Current approaches. There are even more in philosophy than these and your version is just one among many.

You're off down a rabbit hole. As I noted we humans can know that things exist, and that this existence of things outside of our minds are real and consistent in the environment that we are existing within. We can reliably pant tomato seeds and know that tomato plants will grow, not carrots. Our whole lives rely on this consistency of knowledge. This is what I am referring to, because theists exist and function in this same environment, except some claim there is a knowable God. What is the basis of their claims, and is there any factual basis on par with knowing Gala apples and tomato seeds from other things?

I don't want to go down a "to hell with knowong anything" rabbit hole. Theists would love it. It will offer them an excuse to avoid answering.