Is it possible, to have a correct epistemological perception of god?

Please, intelligent discussion only...

For once, I hope to create a religious thread on par with philosophy forums' religion threads, which, i'm too lazy to read! Or post links!!

The intention is to decide if or not it is possible to have a god, percise, coherent knowledge.

I am unsure myself, greatly, about how this would work, but I think that it is possible to ask... I hope someone can clarify this for me. I don't want any "God is impossible" without proof scientifically or philosophically. We have had this discussion many times before. But it needs to be done right. Indeed, it should probably be an important thread.

...I guess I am asking only if it is possible to have a god and on what grounds. And am unsure about any of the other details, of which, may be filled in?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've asked you this before on another similar thread of yours and you didn't answer. Which god? There are so many out there with so many different attributes, I don't think it's possible to lay a specific blanket statement that can give all of them validity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you're talking about an omnipotent God, then precise coherent knowledge and communication is possible. You just have the ask the questions, because God only has answers. Or rhetorical questions. But as was asked previous to this, which description of God are you talking about?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Okay. Here is a good link. It is philosophyforums.com but the religion sub-forum. Just view the titles of the threads...

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/philosophy-of-religion/

I believe my opening post states if it is possible to have a "god" or "God." Of course the question is confusing because you'd have "the god of the bible"; "the god of epistemology"- I personally don't understand the difference-

If you have a God, or a god, then it is justified as going to heaven. I'm just asking.

 

I'd like to hear a response of this from somebody.
First though, i'm not saying "giving all of them validy" necessarially. But I don't believe personally this is a serioius objection

 

I assume you mean the Judeo-Christian God. If that is the case, then the answer to your question is no. Those who believe in this God often resort to phrases like, "God is outside human reason", sometimes substituting "above" for below to add an extra spice of elitist ballyhoo, but it's all pretty much the same message: "Stop successfully exposing the nonsense I believe...screw you guys, I'm going home." In doing this, they talk their way out of giving any good reason at all for their beliefs, and think somehow that they have made a good point.

What's ironic about this, is that as soon as they stumble upon a good reasonable argument for God's existence, they all jump on, completely betraying their previous boycott of reason. Can you imagine a theist, after coming across a very well-thought out and convincing reason for God's existence via logic, responding, "Well that's all fine and dandy, but God lies above reason, so that won't help any of us out any."? I didn't think so.

If God lies above/beyond/outside/whatever reason, then you may as well abandon all reason in your life, as it doesn't pertain to him, or help you get closer to him. In fact, it seems as though the more you use it, the further you get away from him!

But that's an aside, to answer your question again, no. Ashura makes a good point when asking "which god?"; everyone's interpretation of God is different, even if it is on a very nit-pickey level. It's impossible to satisfy everyone's interpretation of God, all of which are just as valid as the other (which isn't very valid, mind you). So, if you are a theist, the only God you can really know is the one you create. Which doesn't say much for the God.

In my opinion, this answer is an easy one; it's impossible to have a correct (or incorrect for that matter) perception of something that doesn't exist.

 

Your saying that it doesn't exist just boils she shit down.

If any religion is philosophically incorrect, it obviously is not worth believing, is it??

 

What does "philosophically incorrect" mean?

How does that joke go, "there are no wrong answers in Philosophy 101"?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well. I've never taken a philosophy course. I'm in the midst of learning to be myself again- I have gone through hell. Philosophy 101 is definately below me. Anyway, philosophically incorrect means philosophically incorrect. Incorrect philosophically, incorrect period, by philosophical reasoning. It is clear what i'm saying to someone who doesn't' jump the gun.

 

You're absolutely right, it's not.

 

Correct. Therefore, back on topic yes?

 

This is the slippery slope of philosophy, it relies mostly on introspective thought which is then projected extrovertly. Therefore, as the above quote says, there isn't a set "incorrect" or "correct"-ness in philosophy. It can be philosophically incorrect to you, but that doesn't make it so for others (trust me, just try to point out logical inconsistencies to a Christian).

This is the beauty of science, it makes everything level playing ground and gives direction in our thoughts. It's by science that you can say "this is correct/this is incorrect, here is the evidence why", too complex of a problem for philosophy alone.

 

Philosophy, is also science. It is not like it is abandoned by science, is it? I wouldn't believe so myself.

I would point out that "philosophically incorrect" applys universally possibly. Anyhow, as I am saying... You can point out logical inconsistencies to a christians thinking, how many times has it been done before on this board? I would say my thinking is justified. After all, we can't say that they are on the wrong track, simply either confused personally and introvertedly, or, perhaps, have not gained the correct knowledge as you have said yet...

 

:bugeye:

 

Philosophy often intersects with science, but don't confuse one for the other.

How does "philosophically incorrect" apply universally?

Of course you can point them out, but it won't change their minds is my point. This further testifies to my claim that philosophy is predominantly subjective while science is objective. Science is the same for everyone but people have many different philosophies. This is what makes science the great anchor so to say upon the ever-churning and changing ways of thought.

Savvy?

 

saaaaaaaaaaaavvyyy...

I suppose i'm talking universally to ones thinking. Possibly, what I myself am saying, is epistemolgically, the study of knowledge etc! Side tracked yes? Look:
Damn.
I can't think right now.

What was I going to say?
I would say that they intersect with each other, that philosophy builds science, and yes, the difference is sort of confusing yeah? But isn't there like a "philosophy of science"? hah...

It would apply universally to their thinking. The study of knowledge is the study of knowledge afterall. This is only in a religious context. Now, if we could only get back to what I was saying after elaborating forever on why my views of religious belief justify.

 

I'm sorry, maybe I'm just having an off-day, but I'm not sure I understand clearly what you're trying to say...

Philosophy plays a large part in science, yes, otherwise nobody would come up with any new ideas to test, I suppose. But that doesn't give philosophy all the benefits science enjoys. The ideas must be tested and proven to be solid. This could be done in the mind of the philosopher, sure, but inevitably, it will clash with someone's own philosophy somewhere. If both are logically consistent, then who is right?

 

Sure. It's me who is doing it probably anywho.

It is hard to say my friend, if or not what you are saying is valid! You see, I am no dummie philosophically. I've got a long way to know I know. But look. How can you say philosophy is seperate from science? How can you say, that philosophy doesn't enjoy all the benifits science does?

nice chatting with you btw: i've never really had a discussion on sci-forums until this very moment!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What do you think about my view points? Are they interesting possibly?

 

Yes, they are interesting for sure. I'm glad we are having this too, as it not only introduce new thoughts, but reinforces those we may already have.

What differentiates science and philosophy is the scientific method. Disputes can be settled readily by testing and evidence in science, simple as that. Purely philosophical disputes, on the other hand, don't have such a benefit.

Is this clear? Perhaps I'm still missing something.

 

Some... thing, perhaps. Not sure what. Science and scientific meathod are "science" as is science... Philosophy is more "abstract" and different, but both perhaps come from the same ground. Not sure. I think, science is scientific meathod, philosophy, is not away from the scientific meathod? It also breathes science, but escapes from it from where it must. If we are to say something is ... never mind.

This stuff is all over the internet though.
Hah! I amuse myself. Am annoying I bet.

Anyway, to re-state my first question: is it possible to have a correct epistemolgoical perception of "god(God)"? I think this is my main question. Similar to "Why one should believe in god", yes? The other thread.

Not sure it was ever answered or not, or validated, at the correctness of a God stance. Or if a godstance is appropriate or correct or incorrect, or how this should "shake" the "foundations" of certain peoples ... attitudes?