What if god does not know of you

[JohannaK]

I don't believe in God. I believe though, that trying to prove its existence is futile. If it was proven, then what would be the merit of believing? Faith would lose meaning. There can be no person less eager to prove God's existence than those who believe already.

Furthermore, all 'proof' for its existence tend to be reducible to "God exists because God exists", making sense only if you already believe. It was extremely fun to discover that in Descartes.

 

[Kyriakos]

How about first thing first? Know thyself. After that knowing God and all the rest should be fairly easy....

To a degree "know thyself" seems impossible too, though. I accept (of course) that you can know yourself "considerably" well (and i do regard that as the most valid goal in a thinking person's life). But given that (pretty much by definition) there will always be large parts which remain unconscious so as to support what is conscious to you, it seems to follow that you can never know the entirety of your mental world regardless of how impressive or expanded your conscious mental world may become.

To make a parallelism, Alexander did conquer "new worlds", but there were still huge domains he never even saw, or (in the end) could have seen. Surely he conquered far more lands than any other in his region of birth, but despite having his name carried out in expanding circular waves to the rest of the domains he did not go to, himself never would even account for them.

Likewise, to a degree, no matter how intelligent and self-examining a thinker is, it seems most probably impossible to know the entirety of the mental realm he is the center of: his own world of thoughts and the abyss below any level of it.

 

[Tahuti]

I don't believe in God. I believe though, that trying to prove its existence is futile. If it was proven, then what would be the merit of believing? Faith would lose meaning. There can be no person less eager to prove God's existence than those who believe already.

Furthermore, all 'proof' for its existence tend to be reducible to "God exists because God exists", making sense only if you already believe. It was extremely fun to discover that in Descartes.

The problem is that lack of evidence of existence is not evidence for non-existence either. We do not have the ability (yet) to prove or disprove god. I'd say the only evidence for the non-existence of god would be the existence of an omnipotent being, thing or collective that is demonstratably not god.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I don't believe in God. I believe though, that trying to prove its existence is futile. If it was proven, then what would be the merit of believing? Faith would lose meaning. There can be no person less eager to prove God's existence than those who believe already.

Furthermore, all 'proof' for its existence tend to be reducible to "God exists because God exists", making sense only if you already believe. It was extremely fun to discover that in Descartes.

What would be the merit of charity if there was no one in need? What would be the merit of acting if there was nothing to achieve? Yet this is perhaps the goal - that you are completely fulfiled and integraly whole. Faith and believe are just temporary phenomena and powerfull tools which the wise one use with discretion till they achieve state of knowledge.

To a degree "know thyself" seems impossible too, though. I accept (of course) that you can know yourself "considerably" well (and i do regard that as the most valid goal in a thinking person's life). But given that (pretty much by definition) there will always be large parts which remain unconscious so as to support what is conscious to you, it seems to follow that you can never know the entirety of your mental world regardless of how impressive or expanded your conscious mental world may become.

Quite right me thinks but who says that the only way (or even best way)to know is through thinking process? I think we can expect that there are are ranges of consciousness which are far superior to intelect in knowing and even capable of supplanting the unconscious with consciousness. I think that may be the next step in natural evolution. Just like appearence of life forms and then appearence of mental beings were steps in that direction of manifestation of more conscious existence.

 

[Kyriakos]

Quite right me thinks but who says that the only way (or even best way)to know is through thinking process? I think we can expect that there are are ranges of consciousness which are far superior to intelect in knowing and even capable of supplanting the unconscious with consciousness. I think that may be the next step in natural evolution. Just like appearence of life forms and then appearence of mental beings were steps in that direction of manifestation of more conscious existence.

It is possible, and it is also possible (i tend to think the latter a bit more possible, but no way to really tell here anyway...) that the opposite progression is taking place since prehistoric times. Ie humans in the depth of prehistory probably had only a very small part of "consciousness" as defined by self-reflection and some sort of gathered principles of self-reflection they themselved had formed prior to the age of inventing an actual language. Then this developed to the other side, with Logic forming clearly. So it could be that the next step in the progression is even more of a barrier forming between the unconscious and the world of logic.

It doesn't mean the unconscious gets "smaller", cause it seems to be hugely larger than any consciousness within it anyway. It only means that "logic" becomes more and more the safety realm of the human in his mental world. And that does appear quite useful for the species as long as the degree of intelligence does not rise or it goes down (cause opening up the unconscious abyss is how a great many people just got mad and it all ended for them anyway, eg many famous authors).
Of course it is not useful for individuals in the species who anyway are more introverted, self-reflected.

But we will just summon the Great Old Ones again, and the rest of you will die in a pyre of screams and pain

 

[JohannaK]

The problem is that lack of evidence of existence is not evidence for non-existence either. We do not have the ability (yet) to prove or disprove god. I'd say the only evidence for the non-existence of god would be the existence of an omnipotent being, thing or collective that is demonstrably not god.

Well, precisely. I'm not saying that failure to prove it exists means it does not, I mean that due to its very nature, the existence of God (or its non-existance) is bound to never be proven.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, precisely. I'm not saying that failure to prove it exists means it does not, I mean that due to its very nature, the existence of God (or its non-existance) is bound to never be proven.

If you mean it's nature of being so poorly defined one cannot even begin to either prove of disprove God or god, then I'd agree. I wouldn't know where to start. Before we even get to failure to prove, how about failure to provide any kind of verifiable evidence with which to build a case for proof of God or god?

If there is not a single scrap of verifiable evidence for it's existence, all we can go on are claims. And due to the variety in claims, due to the un-reproducibility of those claims the search falls flat on it's face on the first hurdle it encounters ...

Defining the search. Setting the parameters.

And that brings me back to the OP. To create any kind of reasoning with regard to the implications of being unknown to God or god, do we not first need to understand what it is that is not knowing us?

 

[Kyriakos]

Thanks for your ending note there, Ziggy. I still feel like i have expressed my sentiment on not wishing the thread to be about trying to argue if god can exist or not (which ultimately even your final phrase would have to lead to as a center of the debate, since we won't solve that here at any rate cause it is unsolvable).

In my reply to TrafficJam i noted that there are no set parameters for what the god could be. The debate is about a possible better or worse meaning for humanity provided that a god exists, and then the variable is only if that god is active in human history, or not (due to whatever reason)

What follows is my earlier reply to TrafficJam:

What are the parameters for this god? Is he an all-powerful god who created everything, and thus everyone and everything is responsible to him, and there is none other like him (i.e. the Christian God)? Or is he just an anomoly of nature that somehow has god-like powers?

(sorry if this was addressed earlier... I only skimmed the rest of the thread.)

^Those parameters are not at all set The question is (given any parameters you want to think of) whether humans would be in a better position if that god is largely or fully unaware of human history, or does not directly take part in it anyway (mostly equal to not knowing of it, and to a less degree due to possible indifference, but you can come up with other reasons for that if you want to).

This does not have to mean that god would not be part of human life. He may not, but god might be as well. It mostly means that humans are expected to be in some form of correlation to that god, regardless of whether that is even manifested in life here.

That god can be unconscious/conscious/hyperconscious or otherconscious. My own allusion was that in my view such a god would be more likely to be deemed as non-conscious by a human observer, while still (obviously) warranting being a god. For example if the entirety of the cosmos (all universe or over-universes and so on) is taken as a "being", then that could be deemed as a god to humans, as long as it reacts with humans in some way that ultimately will alter our relation to that god.

But yeah, like i said those parameters are not set, so they are not the basis of the question in the thread, although they can be used in a reflection on that question.

 

[warpus]

I don't believe in God. I believe though, that trying to prove its existence is futile. If it was proven, then what would be the merit of believing? Faith would lose meaning. There can be no person less eager to prove God's existence than those who believe already.

I don't understand at all why God needs to be all mysterious and crap for you to worship him. I mean, I don't believe that gods exist either, but why is blind faith such an important aspect of religion for some people? If God revealed himself and became "known", would people quit the church in droves? I doubt it.

I think it's just a screen. There is no proof or evidence or anything of teh sort of the existence of any God, so people end up saying that it's an important aspect of their faith. If God revealed himself, they'd quickly change their tune, IMO.

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't understand at all why God needs to be all mysterious and crap for you to worship him. I mean, I don't believe that gods exist either, but why is blind faith such an important aspect of religion for some people? If God revealed himself and became "known", would people quit the church in droves? I doubt it.

I think it's just a screen. There is no proof or evidence or anything of teh sort of the existence of any God, so people end up saying that it's an important aspect of their faith. If God revealed himself, they'd quickly change their tune, IMO.

It is also useful to note that (in virtually all cases) if a god was revealed and a person worshipped that god, then the phenomenon of this person's relation to that god would become quite different than the current faith-based one. Faith is a collection of mental phenomena, of varying kinds in each individual. If you take it out you do not have the same thing left. If one believed that the earth was not flat, but had no actual reason to, then he would have faith in the earth being flat without any relation to the actual fact. His view would be just as unrelated to the phenomenon it was about that the opposite view (ie the earth being flat) would have been, or even worse, and so on.

 

[warpus]

Oh things would change for sure, but these people worship God, even though there is no reason to believe that this God exists. If all of a sudden it was clear that God exists, their faith would surely become stronger - not weaker.

IMO the whole "blind faith is #1" thing is just an excuse for the whole "there is no evidence" .. inconvenience. If there was evidence, things would change though, you are right about that, but I don't think people would be any less spiritual or religious. They're basing their spirituality on dogma, not on the fact that the dogma might not be true and that they have faith that it is. That's just something they say.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It is also useful to note that (in virtually all cases) if a god was revealed and a person worshipped that god, then the phenomenon of this person's relation to that god would become quite different than the current faith-based one. Faith is a collection of mental phenomena, of varying kinds in each individual. If you take it out you do not have the same thing left. If one believed that the earth was not flat, but had no actual reason to, then he would have faith in the earth being flat without any relation to the actual fact. His view would be just as unrelated to the phenomenon it was about that the opposite view (ie the earth being flat) would have been, or even worse, and so on.

So only Ziggy is not allowed to go off-topic.

I feel so special

 

[Perfection]

God doesn't know about my secret porno folder.

 

[timtofly]

Oh things would change for sure, but these people worship God, even though there is no reason to believe that this God exists. If all of a sudden it was clear that God exists, their faith would surely become stronger - not weaker.

IMO the whole "blind faith is #1" thing is just an excuse for the whole "there is no evidence" .. inconvenience. If there was evidence, things would change though, you are right about that, but I don't think people would be any less spiritual or religious. They're basing their spirituality on dogma, not on the fact that the dogma might not be true and that they have faith that it is. That's just something they say.

I would like to know if there is a difference between people saying we have to worship God, and what if humans had no choice in the matter. There are a few people here that seem to indicate worship is not warranted, or "I am not going to do it, because some one else tells me I need to." I realize that there is a truth that if a group of people are doing it they are like sheep and do not even realize what they are doing, ie blind faith. That is just as damning as those who realize they do not know God, neither do they have a desire to because they have replaced knowledge of God with human knowledge.

I am not even sure that if one says they are worshipping God that he automatically just shows up, because he is supposed to. If he does not show up, then we get the feeling that he does not know us, or does not even care about us. So it would seem that God wants us to be willing to approach him, but that is not a prerequisite for him to reveal himself. IMO, there has to be a balance between what is obligation and what we are able to do in our own free will.

If humans designed a robot that could be abused, it would just be another machine. If we pre-determined that a robot would have personhood and be able to have thought on it's own, we would have to figure out a way that it could function within it's own will, yet still not rebel and wipe out the rest of nature around them. Humans could even go away reassured that the robot would not forget their creators. They are free though to accept humans do not exist, and it is reasonable that eventually they may say that humans may not even know them.



@ Perfection

Neither does any body else now.

 

[Kyriakos]

So only Ziggy is not allowed to go off-topic.

I feel so special

You can see it that way, but my intention carried more of the meaning that i felt you could be talked out of being OT with reason

I hate reporting stuff, and it would be excessive to do so just for people (not you now, obviously) going OT. I also have to suppose, though, that the original topic of the thread has probably run its course by now.

 

[Adjuvant]

There's not really an off topic for this. You're asking people to imagine.

 

[Kyriakos]

There's not really an off topic for this. You're asking people to imagine.

But the topic is still...god?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Could have fooled me.

 

[Krogan Doctor]

That God exists is, to anyone but a fool, incontestible. Numerous miracles attest to His existence. There is the option to believe whether he is a benevolent or malevolent deity, but according to human reason and the nature of the aforesaid miracles he is benevolent.

 

[warpus]

That God exists is, to anyone but a fool, incontestible.

You funny man.

Okay, let's see the evidence