if everyone else you meet starts insisting that you are wearing khakis, when you think you are wearing jeans, then no, you can’t know that you are wearing jeans - but for the most part, speaking practically, people have an agreed upon definition of what jeans are and you can assume that if the leggings you are wearing meet that definition, then you know you are wearing jeans.
OH SO I DON’T HAVE TO CONVINCE OTHER PEOPLE TO KNOW! That’s amazing, I agree!
So, why would I have to convince other people in order to know that God exists, after having a personal encounter with God? Why are the standards different there?
ok, how are you defining god?
i gotta go to work, man - i’ll be back . . .
Any definition would have produced the same answer from me: yes, there’s a correct answer.
Just a little side note:
There is actually very little difference between knowledge and belief.
What’s important is how the knowledge or the belief was formed. Is it based on evidence or not? That´s what really matters.
He actually didn’t believe in god but whatever
Please stop posting and open up a philosophy book or take an intro class or something.
I have open several philosophy books. Just the other day, I was reading a book that talked about the distinction or lack of between belief and knowledge.
We take those words as completely different but they’re not.
I’m not suggesting that reality is subjective or anything like that btw…
but feel free to educate me on how those two words differ…
Well, the way I look at it, an atheist does appear to let go of reason since he unequivocally states that there is no god, despite all of the evidence in the universe that there is still the possibility of a deity - of something - though we can never be certain, either way. So, how logical can atheism, in actuality, be? The moment the atheist states that he ‘knows’ for sure there is no god, that’s the moment he loses reason.
Usually when someone is so adamant about something; e.g. ‘there is no god!’ - there is emotion there - there is something to ‘prove’, something ‘so’ necessary to fall back on. As I said before, logic and reason dictate the ‘possibility’ of a god - ergo, one cannot be certain. But an atheist needs that certainly which usually has more to do with the human psyche than what is actually there, what is real. For that matter, every spiritual or supernatural perception which we have is based on our own personal human psyche.
As for your last statement, I have no idea how you could have possibly deduced that from what I said in my post above. Even when I did take for granted and believe in god, I never thought in terms of god doing anything, using a god as an excuse for our actions, what we are responsible for. I’ve tried to eradicate belief from my life. If I can’t know a thing, I would prefer to withhold judgment of it. I find that there is evidence, but evidence as for what, I can’t know for sure. Could be just as much against a god as for a god. Just as easy to intuit that perhaps there is some kind of cause and effect, though the way I look at it, a far cry from what we consider a god to be. But since I cannot know, my choice is to simply entertain and ponder the idea of it, and that is sufficient for me. As a matter of fact, I thrive on it - but I withhold judgment.
I would probably say that deism and agnosticism are the least emotion-based perspectives but at the same time, I have to say that it also depends on the individual him/her -self. A theist who has honestly and thoroughly questioned and examined god in the universe and has taken that giant leap into the darkness and believes might also be more rational than the rest of us. It is not irrational having a belief in god - it just depends on where that belief takes them…in other words, the beliefs that circle around that belief.
You can touch, feel and see the jeans you are wearing, silly. What kind of an analogy is that? Have you lost your wisdom teeth yet? 
Whether anyone believes or knows that you are wearing jeans is of no importance - but the god question is paramount to many humans. It’s at the center of their hearts and spirits…jeans are mundane - the god question is both immanent and transcendent at the same time.
maybe we could. maybe we could discover that the Earth is flat after all, how would you or i know? because we’ve seen somebody else’s photos? Volchok’s right when he says it’s all belief - but if we insist on labelling some things knowledge, then we have to set standards for what qualifies as knowledge. somebody’s purely subjective certainty that a creator god exists is not enough for me. thus i set my standards. an individual’s certainty is not enough. truth is, among other things, consensual. agnosticism makes sense. the assertion that we cannot know if there is a creator god also follows.
how do i know? i don’t. but i’m convinced and willing to bet that the debate will never be decided and the existence of god will continue to be debated indefinately. someday, something might get proven, i suppose, but i wouldn’t bank on it.
a simple observation of the facts of the matter indicates that we cannot know one way or another. i am not certain, but i believe.
well, it’s beside the point, but everything i’ve read would lead me to believe otherwise . . .
I already talked to him about that, From what i’ve read Einstein said he believed in “spinozas God”.
But apparently theres some quote from him that says “don’t believe what other people say about my beliefs because the’re miscontrued” (something along those lines), though I think in that case he was talking about people reffering too him as a religous jew.
so god either exists or not. how do you know?
what if we make the (reasonable, to my mind) assertion that the excluded middle does not apply questions concerning god?
how would you know that it does?
why would we make an exception for one thing? i don’t see why an ad-hoc exception is reasonable. that’s the opposite of reasonable. that’s just making an ad-hoc exception to suit your argument.
How logic can it be? Atheism is actually the only logical option if you’re choosing between theism, agnosticism and atheism. First and foremost it could never be the let go of reason because in order to conclude that there is no god you have to use reason and think critically. On the other hand, you can conclude that there is a god without using reason or critical thinking, in fact, that is what most people do.
I mean, saying that atheism is to let go of reason really is a bastardization of logic not to mention an outright lie.
Also, most atheists say that they are sure that god doesn’t exist for practical purposes. If you press them a bit they will concede that it’s not possible to disprove god simply because it’s not possible to prove a negative. That does not mean in any way that you shouldn’t position yourself on the issue. Once again, just think of Russel’s magical teapot.
Me? I am sure yeah. Well, at least as sure as I am sure that fairies don’t exist.
Do you have doubts about fairies or are you sure that they don’t exist?
Also, what is all this evidence of a possibility that you speak about? There is absolutely no evidence. A possibility however exists and will exist forever regarding all subjects because absolutely certainty in science is impossible. Why? Again, you can’t prove a negative.
Not really. what are u going to say next, that atheists are just angry at god? Seems to me you know very few atheists and know very little about atheism itself.
The reason why some atheists are passionate is because they are well aware of all the shit caused by religion and they’re also aware of how dangerous faith is.
If the belief in god didn’t interfere with the fundamental rights of so many trillions of people, there would be no atheists speaking in public.
I can guarantee you that if you look objectively at the evidence there won’t be as much against god as for god. In fact there will be none in favor of god.
What you call evidence for god is simply lack of knowledge. This is, of course, if you look objectively at it, which you probably never did since you think it’s a 50/50 kind of thing. Also “since you can not know” what you should do is not entertain the idea indefinitely but instead, look at the evidence.
Oh my friend, it SO is.
Generally we can imagine that belief can become divorced from knowldge, and this can happen quite easily. The problem then arises: what is knowledge, and most importantly, how do we know? Circular, of course. Knowledge governed by a mixture of utility and undeniability is the most likely culprit for an answer here. Essentially, it is not possible for me to deny that I am alive. I can perhaps DOUBT the various manners in which I might say of myself, “I am alive as such and such”. These doubts arise to varying degrees depending on the extent to which I am forced to stray into extreme fantastical territory in order to justify the doubting in question. By fantastical I would mean varying from the extant conditions with which I am continuously confronted under the form of consistency. The less this form attains, the more we might be able to state that what we have is not knowledge, but something else. Yet this “something else” is not quite ‘belief’, not entirely, although close. The intersection here is that both this something else and belief/s can overlap, and indeed do overlap quite a bit. A word perhaps for this something else, which does not attain to knowledge (perhaps) yet cannot fully be enclosed by the notion of belief: faith, or implicit circumstance—the unquestioned. Note: NOT the unquestionable. Here utility returns to make its presence revealed: the gate on which this distinction hinges is precisely a sort of self-utility which (at least in part) determines the extent to which one examines one’s “knowns” as well as one’s “beliefs” from the perspective of undeniability.
Belief finds its justification within the subject and its subject-ive world/s, which includes utilities to this subject; knowledge finds its “justification” here as well, but also far more so in the relative undeniability presented as a continually confronting under the form of consistency/constancy. This relative nature never becomes non-relative, of course, except perhaps at the most extreme limit, “Something is” (another topic entirely, I am afraid…). Thus the extent of this relatively attaining repersents the inverse extent to which knowledge shrinks toward the sphere of belief, belief being that which requires no such relative presencing of an form of the undeniable. Belief being PURE utility-as-such to the subject. Also of note: within most subjects these two terms are very much confused and inter-mixed, resulting in a lack of sufficient self-awareness able to penetrate and disclose this inner differencing. Some consequences of this failure: confusion, false attribution of a status of known to beliefs, dismissal of the possibility of knowledge in part or even in entirety.