Is theism impossible as infinite knowledge is required to say that God exists?

Question

My answer to this question is 'No'.

Yet the opposite is said so often about atheism here that if I had a dollar for each time I saw this tautology I'd be rivalling Bill Gates by now...

If it's an agnostic saying it, no problem. They're speaking from their own philosophical perspective, and they're keeping true to their beliefs.

But it tends to be theists themselves who say it. How is it possible for a theist to say this with a straight face? Or must we reduce the entire R&S section to 'There are no theists. There are no atheists. All people are by definition agnostic.'?

Of course, you may want to offer 'proof' of God's existence. Inevitably it will fail tests of reasoned argument. If you say to me 'I don't have infinite knowledge but I don't need it because I believe there is a God', I will respect you. Why is the same courtesy so rarely offered to atheists?

Answer 1

Theism is defined as "a belief in a god or gods". There is nothing there about knowledge. Similarly Atheism is simply a "lack of belief in gods". In neither case is any knowledge required. Now I often ask myself why would someone hold a belief without credible evidence or reason to support it, but beliefs do not need to be rational, and often they are the result of heavy indoctrination at a very young age.

I think most people misunderstand the original meaning of agnosticism. Agnosticism has nothing at all to do with belief. And an agnostic is not a fence sitter. Rather an agnostic is a person who claims that fundamental knowledge about reality is impossible or unobtainable. An agnostic can be, an indeed must be either a theist or an atheist. Everyone must be either a theist or an atheist. Either you have a belief in gods or you do not.

Personally I am an atheist as I lack a god belief. I do not call myself an agnostic, because I have no idea if fundamental knowledge is impossible or not, so I make no such claims.

Answer 2

Well, you're right -- people should be fair in their stipulations, whether atheists or theists. Both groups are guilty of sometimes placing unfair stipulations upon the other.

I think the big problem comes in the western mindset that intellectualizes relationships and faith commitments.

With an intellectual stance, the more knowledge you have, the more coherent your stance, and the better "claim" you have to the validity of your belief. Everything is based on the breadth of your knowledge and the accuracy of your logic.

I don't think that's necessarily the best way to live life. Paradox and ambiguity are built into what it means to be human, and we never know anything for sure. (Heck, I can't even prove that YOU exist... I only know that "I think.")

We basically (1) have to make some assumptions about life in order to live productively. I don't need to be able to "prove" everything thoroughly, I just have to take my best shot at the truth and be willing to change if I see I might have been wrong. (So I am answering your question, on the grounds you actually exist as a separate entity -- it is an assumption I think is safe and worthwhile to make. :) If I didn't make these assumptions despite my lack of perfect knowledge, I could not live easily.)

And (2) faith involves a strong "choice" component. I am not saying that we change reality by our choices, per se, but I am saying that faith is more a matter of what we are willing to commit and live out, and we learn truth not just by intellectual exercise but by our experience of being committed to something.

So agnostics who just content themselves to live in a gray area, without living as if something is true, are actually pretty bad off and are limiting the expression of their humanity. At least theists and atheists are taking a stance, and experiencing what it means to believe something brings additional wisdom that you cannot discover through sheer logic or data collection.

There just has to be the understanding that a person cannot know everything and thus cannot make a "fool-proof" decision that does not entail some level of risk; and that binding oneself to a particular belief and serving it is another way to uncover truth, rather than through a purely philosophical detached POV that does not demand some level of engagement.

Answer 3

The answer to your original question is NO. AND YES.

St. Thomas Aquinas did a pretty fair job using logical argument to prove the existence of a Supreme Being. And he certainly wasn't possessed of "infinite knowledge". So the answer is NO.

On the other hand, WHAT IS GOD LIKE? Is He a nice guy? Would you take Him home to meet your folks? Does He belch in your face? Forget to brush His teeth? Hate violets, but love chrysanthemums? Never miss the Dallas Cowboys' games?
There is absolutely NO WAY to know what God is like by your own knowledge. So the answer to your question is YES.

What YOU have to decide, what each of us has to decide, is do we give a flying fickle finger WHAT God is like? If you don't, then go, be a hedonist (the only rational response to truly deciding to be an atheist). If you do, then you ask. You shall receive. You seek. You shall find. You knock. The door shall be opened.

As a believer, I extend to the non-believer the courtesy of deciding they have carefully thought about the issue in the light of their own life-experiences and have decided as far as they are concerned God does not exist and/or whether He does ot not, they are not interested in getting to know Him. That is their free-will choice. They'll learn the truth soon enough.
But I can turn your last question on its ear. Why is that courtesy NEVER shone to me by atheists? Why am I conceived to be and called a functionally illiterate, crutch-needing, wussie (the actual names are not nearly as nice as these, but I'm sure you get the idea) because I am a believer?

Answer 4

Hey, how much time have you got? Have I got?

I think you have to go to a meta-discoursive level to deal with your questions. If I equate conviction (feeling) with knowledge (certainty) as Theists and Atheists do, and if by a binary logic one side must be wrong, then there's always going to be a fight between the two. Agnostics have neither conviction nor certainty, so they're not a threat--maybe they can be persuaded later on to change their minds, at least they don't say that either the theist or the atheist are wrong, just that they don't know.

If you really want to get a theist angry, however, you need to say: I believe there well may be a god, but he/she/it is nothing like your conception of god, which is logically absurd. If your god exists, he/she/it is unworthy of worship, unworthy of the title, and I'd want nothing to do with such a god-damned god.

Answer 5

That's what I say that atheism denies theism and not deism, maybe there should be a "adeism". When you have to go to every single point of the universe to prove god doesn't exist you are talking more about a deistic god than the everyday interventionist tyrant that judeo-christian and islam religions claim. So, if someone doesn't have to even go out of earth to say god exists, shouldn't we be able to test such knowledge here on earth and state our conclusions? From that point of view you are right, people who claim there is a god doesn't have the whole knowledge of the world and if you needed to the whole knowledge of the universe to prove god doesn't exist, why the same rule doesn't apply to theistic people? How do they know that what "their heart" ain't something else but god? How do they know that "the voice in their head and dreams" ain't something else but god? Anyway, when you question them about this matter, the answer is "I know he is". It sounds to me more a matter of faith than knowledge.

I consider myself an agnostic when it comes to every possibility of a supernatural force, in a deist kind of supernatural force, even though, in the doubt, I think it's pragmatic to live ignoring the possibilities than to live thinking every possibility is true. And as Asimov said "I don't feel like wasting my time about it".

As a side note, Aquinas five ways are used this days as an example of fallacy of the "petitio principii" form, it's obvious his arguments are begging the question, they were good arguments back in the XIII century, now they can't stand as "logical" arguments.

Answer 6

1) Rules and matter are inextricably linked in our understanding of the scientific world. So what came first?

2) Matter cannot exist without rules in reality- for such conditions would be pure chaos causing the collapse of the universe.

3) Rules cannot exist without matter in reality- for awareness is not known to be an independent quality within the universe itself as it cannot be quantified.

4) The only answer is that rules can exist in theory before matter. The only example of something being both theoretical and real at the same time is a dream.

Put simply Awareness Loves Life (A.L.L.). Awareness dreams of existence (life) in the form of an active thought- the dream.

There is no bigger question than the meaning of ALL, and here you have it answered for you. Cheers.

Answer 7

I kind of like the idea of everyone being agnostic...but, I know there are those with strong beliefs either way.

It's a nice response to people who say there is no such thing as an Atheist! =0)

Answer 8

You got it all wrong Pal. Its easy to prove God exhists IF:

1. You live a life that is pleasing to him.

2. You have the witness of the Holy Spirit at work in your life.

3. You love your fellow man.

Answer 9

"I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don't need any more." Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, "Well, before the New Deal...[The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start." Ann Coulton---Politically Incorrect 5/7/97

Answer 10

agnostic here:
I don't see how infinite knowledge is a valid possibillity because the totality of knowledge is constantly changing.