God and evidence

[Syne]

Maybe we aren’t meant to know all there is to know about God (this is my view), and I’m okay with that.

This is a classic cop-out IMHO....no disrespect intended. I take it then, especially after all your faith references, that proof of God is not necessary for you to be convinced. In that regard I think you have plenty of company. 

God would probably originate with the universe I suspect. However to suddenly come from nothing and know everything just doesn’t add up. I suppose I could build a machine with no inherent knowledge and then input all that can be known. Makes me wonder if omniscience needs regular updates? I think most would agree that if God is a machine then it has a definite origin. The idea that an omniscient et al being could suddenly spring from nothing is ridiculous IMO.

I figure the sudden appearance of an omniscient being from nothing should be followed less than a nanosecond later by the creation of the universe should God be the creator I don’t think omniscience requires time to dwell or be inspired, you just do because it’s the right thing. Again, doesn’t add up.

I think man is capable of understanding everything that is, including god. By as with many things, even in science, sometimes they can only be understood logically, rather than demonstrated (there is not such thing as "proof" in science).

If god came from/was nothing, it's trivial that it would know everything, as there would be very little to know. Science says that time didn't even exist prior to the big bang. So at that point, it doesn't even matter if you believe in presentism, eternalism, or a growing block view of the reality of the future, compared to the past and present. Omniscience is only "maximal knowledge," everything that is possible to be known. And that might not include things influenced by the fundamental randomness of quantum mechanics, which would be by design. Unless someone can posit a way to predict the truly random, even in principle.

A god of nothingness would create instantaneously, as there would be no time prior to creation. Without time, any amount of contemplation can occur in an instant. And nothing says our universe was the first creation.

[C C]

Maybe we aren’t meant to know all there is to know about God (this is my view), and I’m okay with that.

[...] I figure the sudden appearance of an omniscient being from nothing should be followed less than a nanosecond later by the creation of the universe should God be the creator I don’t think omniscience requires time to dwell or be inspired, you just do because it’s the right thing. Again, doesn’t add up.

Nothing, IF synonymous for non-existence, accordingly does not exist.

One could assert that due to the total absence (which would include the absence of any laws that regulate and demand coherence) that thereby "nothing" could miraculously spawn all possibilities, anything. (I.e., nothing has nothing to forbid such, so to speak.)

Except again, non-existence is not a place or a situation or an object or an entity of any kind. Before and after aren't applicable to it; nothing doesn't concern time or a transpiring of time or temporal relationships being connectable to it by "something" that considers itself "later".

Asserting that before _X_ there was nothing (non-existence) is just metaphor for "X" having always existed.

[Zinjanthropos]

Agree, always thought that nothingness was impossible. I use a big IF when I talk about nothingness. Always wondered if it’s a law of science.....nothing can’t exist. A subatomic supermassive BB particle shouldn’t wink out of existence, should things go the other way. JMO.

[Syne]

Nothing, IF synonymous for non-existence, accordingly does not exist.

One could assert that due to the total absence (which would include the absence of any laws that regulate and demand coherence) that thereby "nothing" could miraculously spawn all possibilities, anything. (I.e.,  nothing has nothing to forbid such, so to speak.)

Except again, non-existence is not a place or a situation or an object or an entity of any kind. Before and after aren't applicable to it; nothing doesn't concern time or a transpiring of time or temporal relationships being connectable to it by "something" that considers itself "later". 

Asserting that before _X_ there was nothing (non-existence) is just metaphor for "X" having always existed.

Depends on what you are defining as "existence." Physical existence? That would be a very limited view.

If we include the existence of mind, thought, abstractions, etc., nothing obviously does exist, or we wouldn't be able to talk about it. We can even identify nothing in the real world. If you look inside an empty box, you can see that it contains nothing. You might think that's a word game, but obviously there's some criteria by which we readily recognize nothing. You have only to determine exactly what assumptions are coincident with identifying it.

Asserting that before something was nothing is literally stating that something is just a form of nothing. Basically monism.

[Leigha]

Maybe we aren’t meant to know all there is to know about God (this is my view), and I’m okay with that.

This is a classic cop-out IMHO....no disrespect intended. I take it then, especially after all your faith references, that proof of God is not necessary for you to be convinced. In that regard I think you have plenty of company. 

I understand where you're coming from, and I have many questions, too. To follow any religion or spiritual belief system at all (rigidly or loosely), and feel like you hold the keys to all the mysterious questions of the universe, would be tragically ignorant/recklessly arrogant, because then your sense of wonder would come to an inevitable end, among other things.

Because an objective explanation (that would satisfy everyone) isn't readily available, it doesn't mean that humans need to ''make one up.'' I've heard that ''argument'' a lot from non-believers/atheists, and it's fair, but personally, I've never met anyone who became spiritual because science didn't provide all the answers, or they're looking for an easy way out to explain what they don't understand.

But, of what I (think?) I know about God, much is unknowable. The entirety of God may be simply unknowable. (Much like the universe, maybe?) That is what I'm okay with.

In the end, who is 'qualified' enough to settle all of this?
Lol

[C C]

Yes, that's right. ^

So, maybe there really is no miracle (or ''revealing'') at all that could convince *everyone* that God exists, therefore it requires faith.

''Faith consists of believing, when it is beyond the power of reason to believe.'' - Voltaire (believed in God, but not a ''personal'' one - he was into Deism, I think?)

One could have personal evidence for an _X_, some justification besides devotion to belief. But it's futile to convince socially responsible, wary sectors of the population using that, who'd require replication or publicly demonstrable evidence.

For instance (as a crude example that's surely not dead-on applicable, but somewhere loose in the neighborhood)... I twice treated, and remedied within a day or a day and a half, poisonous snakebites I got via carelessness. Using a technique authoritatively claimed to actually increase the severity of the situation (the opposite). I wouldn't waste my time trying to persuade anyone beyond the two belated witnesses that it works, or risk that it would work for anyone else. (It may not be a universal "cure", thus the official proscription actually being warranted.)

In addition, the vast majority of people wouldn't be willing to do it or do it as thoroughly as it requires, since the process flirts dangerously with frostbite and potentially other medical threats. Even if I deliberately went through it again under observant lab conditions for the sake of elevating it above anecdotal evidence, the treatment would not be approved for that reason ("It's a crazy gamble, nuts, why do that rather than go to a hospital and be bothered by lingering effects for weeks or as much as another month or more?").

So even though I have personal evidence, it's quite worthless for the rest of the world.

My point is only that there are times when you do go by your own specific personal experiences as to what is or what was or what's best to do, etc -- rather than being wholly dictated to by the generalizations coughed out by vast, knowledge-related and prescriptive human enterprises.

[Leigha]

So even though I have personal evidence, it's quite worthless for the rest of the world.

My point is only that there are times when you do go by your own specific personal experiences as to what is or what was or what's best to do, etc -- rather than being wholly dictated to by the generalizations coughed out by vast, knowledge-related and prescriptive human enterprises.

That's it! Well said.

It all comes down to who defines ''proof'' in this regard? Is it possible for something to exist without absolute proof? The idea of love exists, for example. We experience it. We feel it. But, we can't tangibly measure it. And, your idea of love and mine may differ. Does that mean it doesn't exist because we don't agree on what defines love?

While it seems rhetorical, I'm genuinely asking the question for my own benefit. (and maybe others)

[C C]

So even though I have personal evidence, it's quite worthless for the rest of the world.

My point is only that there are times when you do go by your own specific personal experiences as to what is or what was or what's best to do, etc -- rather than being wholly dictated to by the generalizations coughed out by vast, knowledge-related and prescriptive human enterprises.

That's it! Well said.

It all comes down to who defines ''proof'' in this regard? Is it possible for something to exist without absolute proof? The idea of love exists, for example. We experience it. We feel it. But, we can't tangibly measure it. And, your idea of love and mine may differ. Does that mean it doesn't exist because we don't agree on what defines love?

While it seems rhetorical, I'm genuinely asking the question for my own benefit. (and maybe others)

If there's no personal history of mental illness as well as none diagnosed months afterwards, no hallucinogenic drug exposure involved, and no messages or interpretations advocating dangerous behavior and threats to others... Then it's up to the individual to choose how they want to interpret and evaluate private manifestations, when constructive enlightenment falls out of them. Whether they select the perspective of the public world and its critical institutions ("purely fictions of the mind"), or go according to their own standards.

Regardless, if legit, the manifestations or "insightful feelings" are for that individual.[1] It's arguably a waste of time converting them to language and telling them to others (they are not disclosures meant for them). Granted, there will always be susceptible people who would be interested in such items if the latter appeal to them for whatever reasons (i.e., easy to convince), but that's hardly a win -- like, say, in terms of confidence.

Or alternatively, like preaching to the choir if the listeners already have familiarity with such experiences themselves. (Sharing will undoubtably transpire, but what emerges from those group transactions may evolve, formalize, and drift far from the originals...)

- - - footnote - - -

[1] Thomas Payne: No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty [or a noumenal, generative principle] to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

[Leigha]

So even though I have personal evidence, it's quite worthless for the rest of the world.

My point is only that there are times when you do go by your own specific personal experiences as to what is or what was or what's best to do, etc -- rather than being wholly dictated to by the generalizations coughed out by vast, knowledge-related and prescriptive human enterprises.

That's it! Well said.

It all comes down to who defines ''proof'' in this regard? Is it possible for something to exist without absolute proof? The idea of love exists, for example. We experience it. We feel it. But, we can't tangibly measure it. And, your idea of love and mine may differ. Does that mean it doesn't exist because we don't agree on what defines love?

While it seems rhetorical, I'm genuinely asking the question for my own benefit. (and maybe others)

If there's no personal history of mental illness as well as none diagnosed months afterwards, no hallucinogenic drug exposure involved, and no messages or interpretations advocating dangerous behavior and threats to others... Then it's up to the individual to choose how they want to interpret and evaluate private manifestations, when constructive enlightenment falls out of them. Whether they select the perspective of the public world and its critical institutions ("purely fictions of the mind"), or go according to their own standards.

Regardless, if legit, the manifestations or "insightful feelings" are for that individual.[1] It's arguably a waste of time converting them to language and telling them to others (they are not disclosures meant for them). Granted, there will always be susceptible people who will be interested in such items if the latter appeal to them for whatever reasons, but that's hardly a win (i.e., easy to convince).

Or alternatively, like preaching to the choir if the listeners already have familiarity with such experiences themselves. (Sharing will undoubtably transpire, but what emerges from those group transactions may evolve, formalize, and drift far from the originals...)

- - - footnote - - -

[1] Thomas Payne: No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty [or a noumenal, generative principle] to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

I was once drawn to Deism, as I grew fed up with organized religion. A safe haven from all the indoctrination, rules and restrictions. But, I had trouble envisioning a god who is supreme, and the creator... yet chooses not to intervene with his creation. A “perfect god” who prefers to stay on the sidelines.

[Syne]

...
Regardless, if legit, the manifestations or "insightful feelings" are for that individual.[1] It's arguably a waste of time converting them to language and telling them to others (they are not disclosures meant for them).
...

- - - footnote - - -

[1] Thomas Payne: No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty [or a noumenal, generative principle] to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

That's obviously not true, as many people find some form of revelation or enlightenment from the words of others all the time. It's a revelation if the words strike you as such, regardless of how far removed the source. But neither is the first person to receive revelation obliged to believe it, unless you only define revelation as that which is believed, in which case, that definition also holds no matter how many people removed.