how can you claim to 'know' anything about god?

Question

the very concept of knowledge demands proof. so if you 'know' anything about god, why can't you prove it?

if you can't prove it, it is only a belief/opinion.

bueller?

bueller?

way to try and obfuscate flan.

but all you've really shown is that you cannot 'know' something that is not true. conviction is irrelevant to knowledge. truth is not. and since there is no way of knowing if the statement "god exists" is true or not, it is incredibly presumptuous to make statements of fact about god. arrogant even, one might say.

thanks sufi. that's not really the epistemological kind of precision i was after, but it does prove my point.

Answer 1

Excellent question. I think that there's a type of knowing (not knowledge) that is more an expression of faith, rather than empirical knowledge. For instance, if you say of your friend, 'But I know she would NEVER cheat on her husband'...technically you can't prove it, but the knowing part is an expression of faith in her based on your experience.

Answer 2

Show me the smell of a flower... I shall prove the existence of god.


If God did not exist ... you would not be asking this question ... for you would not have been here in this world! We all Human Beings are the result of a creation of God, the Almighty Creator.

It is but true that the Cosmos is also beginning less. Both the statements cannot be true ... yet, it is the truth. If we say the glass is half full ... we are right and if we say the glass is half empty ... we are still right! Why do we say that the cosmic system is without a beginning ... it is because when we try to visualize the boundary of the Cosmos it does not seem to exist ... and if we say it does exist then what beyond. If we say that God exists ... then also it is wrong because there must be someone who created God. We need to understand the total concept of Cosmos in its entirety.

First of all we need to understand that the form of God is Nirakaar (without a form) ... it is never Sakaar (having a form). God, the omnipotent Creator is a form of energy ... and energy that is beyond the comprehension of a normal human being. Only when one realizes God can one visualize the power we know as God.


Literally speaking ... the definition of God is thus, "the combined power of all the Atmans souls in the Cosmos in their purified state is what we know as God". At the time of Big Bang and also at the time of pralaya as we call it in Hinduism ... the period when the dissolution of the Cosmos occurs ... in both the stages of the Cosmos ... the beginning and also the end of the Cosmos ... the size of God is but half the size of a thumb ... this means that all the Atmans souls in their purified state combine together to form the size of only half a thumb ... this has been the stated in the Bhagavad Gita by Lord Krishna. This is an irrefutable fact ... none can deny the efficacy of this. It is absolute truth.

So much power contained in so less a size ... the energy cannot contain itself even for a fraction ... the moment the complete dissolution of the Cosmos occurs ... it again explodes with a Big Bang ... and starts another Cosmos ... a new Cosmos. All Atmans which are initially in the purified state get scattered all over the Cosmos ... this journey continues for millions and billions of years ... comes a stage when the Cosmos ... the cosmic gases cool down to form galaxies and stars and subsequently solar systems and the planets. It is only when earth type of planets gets created which is conducive for an Atman the soul within to manifest ... does life form starts developing. In the real meaning a live Cosmos now the starts to live and breathe. Until the first life form manifests ... it was a dead Cosmos without life.

For an Atman soul to manifest ... it needs a body ... the body can be of an insect, a plant, animal and human being. But, the complete cosmic system is governed by the theory of evolution ... it is not that an Atman can manifest the body of a plant in its first manifestation ... it initially starts as an amoeba (single cell formation) subsequently it evolves into a two cell formation ... a Jiva (living being) and then a multi-cell formation. Subsequently as cosmic life progresses it evolutes into a plant. This plant evolves into an animal and the animal finally evolves into a human being.


This whole process of the evolution ... the complete cosmic cycle in the life of an Atman the soul within takes a total of 8.4 million manifestations (the cosmic travel of about 96.4 million years) ... it is only when the 8.4 millionth manifestation is achieved does a body gain Moksha Salvation. Moksha Salvation announces the completion of the cosmic journey undertaken by the Atman the soul within. Moksha Salvation having achieved ... the Atman the soul within gets liberated forever from the cycle of Birth and Death (the cycle of 8.4 million manifestations).

It is quite clear that it is the Atman the soul within which needs a body to purify itself ... and it is not the body which has taken the Atman. The physical manifested life of a Jiva (living being) is but to live ... we cannot do without ... we come unto this world not of our own making ... we leave not of our own will! How much we shall live in the present physical life is purely dependent upon the residual Karma of the past lives. and how long we really live depends upon the resulting residual Karma ... the residual Karma of the past lives and the Karma of the present life.

The left-hand of a person signifies the complex structure of the complete lives we have lived till now ... whereas the right-hand reflects only the Karma of the present life. If we observe the lines in our right-hand changing fast ... yes, it is because we are evolving at a faster pace. The palmists are never able to study our left-hand ... they can only read the right hand ... it is only seeing the right-hand they are able to predict our feature or the present ... only then we come to know what God has in store for us (;-) More on god here- http://www.vijaykumar.com/is_there_a_god.html

Answer 3

Generally, as far as I know, there are three basic ways people claim to "know" things about G_d: Experential Revelation, Traditional Revelation, and Deduction.

The first is where someone claims G_d revealed knowledge of Himself to them in a vision or prophetic revelation.

The second is where someone claims G_d revealed knowledge of Himself to people in the past and this knowledge has been passed down by reliable sources ever since. This is similar to reading a textbook. One has not done original research on the matters in the book, but one believes it because the source is deemed reliable.

The third is where a person looks at nature and attempts to figure out G_d's personality from what he sees.

Answer 4

It's called the Bible, they are called pastors/ministers/preists (etc.) Read it, or ask them. I'm pretty sure those items will have an answer for you. Have you ever seen a million dollars right in front of you? Probably not. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Give me proof that a million dollars exists. It's the same idea, or else it's just an opinion that a million dollars exists.

Answer 5

Your definition of 'knowledge' is very simplistic. Philosophers over the centuries, have grappled with this definition and still do not have a consensus of what knowledge means. As an example, consider the quote below (taken for a well-known internet encyclopedia)

"Knowledge is what is known. Like the related concepts truth, belief, and wisdom, there is no single definition of knowledge on which scholars agree, but rather numerous theories and continued debate about the nature of knowledge.

Knowledge acquisition involves complex cognitive processes: perception, learning, communication, association, and reasoning. The term knowledge is also used to mean the confident understanding of a subject, potentially with the ability to use it for a specific purpose.

Contents [hide]
1 Defining knowledge
2 Knowledge management
3 Situated knowledge
4 Partial knowledge
5 Sociology of knowledge
6 Quotes
7 Notes
8 See also
9 External links



[edit] Defining knowledge
Main article: epistemology
The definition of knowledge is a live debate for philosophers. The classical definition, found in Plato[1], has it that in order for there to be knowledge at least three criteria must be fulfilled; that in order to count as knowledge, a statement must be justified, true, and believed. Some claim that these conditions are not sufficient, as Gettier case examples allegedly demonstrate. There are a number of alternatives proposed, including Robert Nozick's arguments for a requirement that knowledge 'tracks the truth' and Simon Blackburn's additional requirement that we do not want to say that those who meet any of these conditions 'through a defect, flaw, or failure' have knowledge. Richard Kirkham suggests that our definition of knowledge requires that the believer's evidence is such that it logically necessitates the truth of the belief.

In contrast to this approach, Wittgenstein observed, following Moore's paradox, that one can say "He believes it, but it isn't so", but not "He knows it, but it isn't so". [2] He goes on to argue that these do not correspond to distinct mental states, but rather to distinct ways of talking about conviction. What is different here is not the mental state of the speaker, but the activity in which they are engaged. For example, on this account, to know that the kettle is boiling is not to be in a particular state of mind, but to perform a particular task with the statement that the kettle is boiling. Wittgenstein sought to bypass the difficulty of definition by looking to the way "knowledge" is used in natural languages. He saw knowledge as a case of a family resemblance"

Based on the above, I can 'know' something WITHOUT being able to prove it!!!

Answer 6

u just know

Answer 7

www.watchtower.org