Intriguing post. I would suggest a definition of percept going beyond what information we gather from our physical senses. In offering this position I note that millions experience a connection to a being greater than themselves through means other than the classical five senses. This feeling of connection cannot be measured but is nonetheless a very real percept to those who experience it. Therefore, God becomes, at least to those individuals, more than a concept but also a percept.

I like your way of reasoning, but I don't see why we should aspire to end the debate. Religion and spirituality are important parts of human existence. Isn't it therefore prudent that we should engage in debate? If not to convince others, to solidify and crystallize our own beliefs?

People dislike the "God debate" primarily because they get frustrated that their conversation partners aren't convinced by the same things as them. The problem lies with the way we engage in the debate, not in the debate itself.

In offering this position I note that millions experience a connection to a being greater than themselves through means other than the classical five senses. — jksmba

How is the experience acquired? If conjured up by the mental faculty then it is a concept. If from an external source (external to the identity of self) then it would be a percept. I think what you mean is intuition, the products of which, are concepts until determined otherwise.
Another way of looking at it is that, the source of a percept is objective in its relation to different percipients while the source of a concept is always subjective no matter how closely a concept resembles that of another concipient. Without an external phenomenon that distinctly amounts to God, His role in our perspectives will always be limited to that of a concept. However, this does not discredit His influence on us since the mental faculty is the crux of all our activities.

Sorry, I got a little dramatic with the title. I should have said, "an end to the 'proof of God' debate."

People dislike the "God debate" primarily because they get frustrated that their conversation partners aren't convinced by the same things as them. — Tzeentch

Imo, people tire of the "debate" (it's never actually a debate) because they realize it is an exercise in ignorance, which ignorance pursued is the definition of stupidity.

Imo, people tire of the "debate" (it's never actually a debate) because they realize it is an exercise in ignorance, which ignorance pursued is the definition of stupidity. — tim wood

Couldn't have said it better. Thanks.

And what is ignorance?

Don't confuse ignorance with an exercise in ignorance.

To exercise ignorance one must know what it is they practice. The question remains, what is ignorance?

Nope, they don't. The idea that ignorance must know is a torque on the meaning that it won't stand. The idea fails.

To the question, "What is ignorance?" What game do you want to play? The word has denotation and connotation. If you want to saw it to fit, go ahead, but what it might fit when you're finished I suspect is nothing here.

If you want to present a definition, be my guest.

Ignorance as an absence of knowledge is merely observing a gradation of knowledge. One cannot negate knowledge without fundamentally resulting in a form of multiplicity.

Ignorance can only be observed as an absence considering it exists dually to knowledge. It is not a thing in itself but rather a statement of relation, hence separation. One who is ignorant is one who is separated from knowledge.

If God is to be negated so must all definitions of God be negated. One definition of God, taking out of account the continual progressive definitions of God, is "Everything and Nothing" where Everything must be negated, along with Nothingness (which I may have to elaborate on further).

The God argument is just beginning under these terms as argument both stems from a moves towards a point of synthesis through extremes/opposition/Hegelian thesis/antithesis.

**sigh** I am ignorant of the nature of square circles.

It would be easier to reply to you if you argued rather than just make pronouncements.

1) Ignorance as an absence of knowledge is merely observing a gradation of knowledge. — eodnhoj7

Please work through the first sentence of this post.

2) One cannot negate knowledge without fundamentally resulting in a form of multiplicity. — eodnhoj7

English, please. You don't get points either for being obscure or from making your reader provide the meaning.

3) Ignorance can only be observed as an absence considering it exists dually to knowledge. — eodnhoj7

Didn't you just write that ignorance is a gradation wrt knowledge?

4) It is not a thing in itself but rather a statement of relation, hence separation. — eodnhoj7

It exists, but is not a thing in itself?

5) One who is ignorant is one who is separated from knowledge. — eodnhoj7

The first sentence, again.

Let's keep it simple. A state of ignorance is a state of not having knowledge. Whether there is knowledge to be had "ignorance" is agnostic on.

Now what is your point, in simple, straightforward, unambiguous terms? I'm eager to engage, but I need something to engage with.

BELOW is a longer version of the argument, but here is a simple point if you do not wish to read: Ignorance as an absence of knowledge necessitates a positive nature of knowledge to exist as one cannot negate without there being a positive. There is only knowing.



Pronouncing is an argument. Asking questions are also arguments consider a question has multiple answers determined by the question itself.

We are not talking about square circles, and if we are we would be observing a relation between a square and circle as "1" relationship.

Ignorance as an absence of knowledge observes absence as a deficiency. A deficiency observes a state of relation; hence multiplicity. For example I may observe a deficiency in red, but this deficiency of red is determined relative to another color. Hence a deficiency in red is a relationship between one color as existing and red as determining that color by its non-existence. Red as deficient is red as a negative boundary.

So using the above example of color we can observe a form of multiplicity in color between red and x color.

Ignorance, as an absence of knowledge, in turn exists as a form of knowing in itself (For if one know they are ignorant they know they are separate from knowledge; hence observing knowledge generally and the self are a part of that knowledge). Ignorance if known, is knowledge, but not complete knowledge; hence a part of it. As a part it necessitates a form of multiplicity for a part exists through other parts. A part is an observation of multiplicity.

In these terms to observe a part of knowledge is to observe a gradation of knowledge as unified, with these parts existing through gradation being grades in themselves. Because ignorance, as gradation and a part of knowledge, exists as a part it cannot exist on its own terms without some knowledge already being there.

To argue a form of agnosticism where one cannot know is in itself to set a premise for knowing. Agnosticism as an absence of knowing is still knowing.

Word salad, and it's too bad because there are in your posts an interesting almost meaning.

BELOW is a longer version of the argument, — eodnhoj7

I asked you for a shorter simpler clearer version.

We are not talking about square circles, — eodnhoj7

Apparently, but I very specifically was.

And you've yet to tie this to the topic of the thread.

To accuse someone of a word salad is to project ones own ignorance.

First, you have no argument of value as evidence in the last post. If you do not like the longer version, that is fine, but address the briefer version. If you want to debate the paradox of the square circle elsewhere, just create the thread and pm me when it is ready.


But considering that is too much, here is a shorter version you can start with:

To know ignorance is to know; hence knowledge.

We can start from there.

To know ignorance is to know; hence knowledge.
We can start from there. — eodnhoj7

Good! I agree that if I know that Bob is ignorant, that constitutes knowledge that I have (Bob's ignorance being given). But the Bobs of the world usually don't know they're ignorant. Do you argue that they do?

That is actually a legitimate and fair question: Does an ignorant person know they are ignorant?

Yes and No.

My argument:

1) We all are aware that we are aware; hence we all know something; hence because of this reflective quality in knowledge the question of ignorance comes down to choosing to reflect or not to reflect.

2) If one is aware that they do not know everything then they are aware of there ignorance. If one claims they are aware of everything then they claim to know a framework of knowledge that encapsulates knowing.

3) To be convinced the framework they are aware of is all encompassing and they know everything in that framework is to be ignorant of the nature of the framework being composed of and composing further frameworks.

4) This ignorance of the nature of the framework as repeating through other frameworks is an absence of reflection in thought with reflection in thought being the formation of thought through repitition.

For example I think of x.

I observe that x is directed towards y.

Now y may be directed towards z but is also directed back towards x.

X and y are connected; however as connected they form a.

Z is directed to z1 but in turn is directed back to y.

Z and y are connected as b

Z is also directed back to x, through y, as b1.

And so on and so forth.

5) What we observe in this thought process is a form of defintion through connection and seperation (with separation being the projection of one variable away from itself towards another). We also observe the maintainance of variables in anothet respect along with tne dissolution of variables into firther variables.

This act of reflection observes the variable as it is directed towards another variable. Reflection in turn, in brief terms, is the direction of one's observations which effectively gives them form and function. Reflection, is a form of structure what one knows and does not know with knowing existing through structures/order.

6) Now considering knowledge is premised in reflection, with Socrates arguing that definition of man as being one who reflects, ignorance is premised in an absence of reflection as knowledge is the repitition of limits as structure with knowledge itself being order.

7) For one to be ignorant of his ignornance would be for him to be ignorant of the fact he reflects, or ceasing to reflect on the fact he reflects. Now this argument may stem further, necessitating that All men:

1) know
2) are absent of knowing
3) are ignorant of their ignorance

All at the same time in different respects considering it is premised in a depth of perception that exists through a penetrative act of will. So knowledge and will are interlinked in these respects because of the nature of reflection.

So men who are ignorant of their ignorance may do so from weakness, choice and the inhernet formless nature of the subjective nature within the self.

Nothing is being negated.
I'm just saying that the argument needs to be represented in the right perspective.

I think in this argument ignorance or an exercise in ignorance would be imprudence, disregard, carelessness, ineptitude, etc or any other description that would give the context of lack of in-depth analysis or lack of due evaluation.

Sorry, I got a little dramatic with the title. I should have said, "an end to the 'proof of God' debate." — BrianW

Well, I think that the effort of thinking about one's beliefs, including the proof which may or may not exist is vitally important to the whole debate as well. Any thinker worth their salt should be testing their beliefs to see if they still hold up to scrutiny.

Again, it's the intention with which a lot of people engage in such debates that causes its often nonconstructive form. If one engages in such discussions not to refine one's own beliefs, but to seek confirmation (in the form of being able to convince someone of one's own beliefs), the reasons for discussion are wrong to begin with and people are bound to get frustrated.

I would settle for just an end of arrogance of ones position, an end to sarcasm as tactic, and a significant increase in respect for each other's reasonable beliefs.

Well said. However, is there any part of the OP that contradicts any logical proceeding on the topic. I should hope I have neither over nor under estimated the value of any analytical undertaking. Again, I'm merely emphasizing adherence to appropriate perspective.

I like your way of reasoning, but I don't see why we should aspire to end the debate. — Tzeentch

The God debate could be useful if we faced the evidence it has produced, which is, the investigation in it's current form is going nowhere. That is actually quite useful information.

As example, imagine that I'm trying to repair my car. I have a solution theory and put it in to action. But my plan doesn't work. So I try again. Still not working. I try twelve more times. Same result as before, nothing. After some amount of consistent failure I'm going to stop working my plan, stand back from the job, and look for a faulty unexamined assumption that my plan is built upon. Right?

If we were willing to do this with the God debate, it could be useful to continue the investigation.

But if we're not willing to face the evidence provided by a consistent pattern of failure, if we're determined to continue endlessly repeating the same old arguments to no effect, then the best that can be said of the God debate is that it provides ego entertainment for extremely nerdy typoholics such as ourselves.

If the God debate is to serve any constructive purpose beyond inflating our egos, the next step would be to identify the assumptions the debate is built upon, and try to find one or assumptions which are false.

Here's one example.

There seems to be almost universal agreement among theists and atheists that a God either exists, or not, one or the other. We might be suspicious of the fact that this widely shared assumption appears to be taken as an obvious given which requires no examination.

If we were to examine reality without the burden of this blind assumption, we might see that the vast majority of reality from the smallest to largest scales, space, does not fit neatly in to a tidy simplistic dualistic "exists or not" paradigm.

Thus, it's at least possible that the simplistic "exists or not" paradigm the God debate is built upon may not accurately represent reality, which if true, tends to turn the entire God debate in to a big pile of pointless rubbish.

Upon seeing this, some people may wash their hands of the God debate and turn their attention to other matters. This seems a reasonable choice. Other people may choose to dump the questionable "exists or not" assumption and then continue a God investigation on that basis. This seems a reasonable choice too.

Most people will ignore all of the above because they've memorized a collection of beliefs and arguments which they use to publicly inflate their ego, and they don't want this fun game spoiled by some party pooper. Ok, I suppose this is reasonable too, but perhaps not all that interesting.

The "exists or not" paradigm is just one example of a foundational assumption of the God debate which is typically taken to be an obvious given, but which may not be true.

There are other such questionable but unexamined assumptions underneath the God debate. Perhaps you can find them?

It still requires a form of negation if perspective is the premise point of the argument. Perspective requires the negation of non-perspective.

The negation of "everything" results in a continuation of nothing, as nothing is merely an inversion of being.

The negation of nothing, while resulting in being, still requires a continual negation of nothing considering the negation of being results in nothing in one respect. Any form of negation results in a infinite regress.

The God argument, results in a continuum, with this continuum being infinite resulting in a definition reflective of God. The dialect of thesis/antithesis/synthesis, qualitative positive existence/negative existence/neutral existence , or even a quantitatve 1/0/Possible observes this nature of the argument (through different degrees of perspective) as having a triadic nature resulting in a continuum.

This continuum as a definition of God, observes God as having a triadic nature where God is perpetually synthetic.

The question of perspective leads to what is the right perspective, or even if there is one. This argument not only results in a continuum of perspectives, but through this multiplicity the nature of perspective is a continuum...This is considering this argument itself is a continuum. Under these terms we are left with the premise, which even in the face of contradiction maintains this form and still justifies itself as rational (I may have to elaborate on this sentence), that all perspective is directed movement.

God, existing through perspective hence as perspective, is pure movement. Under these premises where God is pure movement, we are left with a Platonic/Pythagorean/presocratic atomist argument at minimum, where God can be premised in the Monad(s).

Because of this Monad(s) foundation God, much like the triadic synthetic nature argued above, God exists through the Triad of the Point, Line, Circle (which where observed as divine in themselves in much of presocratic/socratic/post Socratic philosophy) which exist as infinite directed movement as no movement.

Can this be the end of the God debate? — BrianW

Given that God's [non-]existence cannot be proven, it seems unlikely. :wink:

.

Given that God's [non-]existence cannot be proven, it seems unlikely. — Pattern-chaser

But the children's merry-go-round to nowhere nature of the debate can be proven, yes?

Quite an interesting point of view. I will consider your perspective.

Given that God's [non-]existence cannot be proven, it seems unlikely. — Pattern-chaser

Unfortunately. But, a man can hope.

The question I pose is "proof is?" (with it being posed in such a way considering "what" makes the question irrational by leaving out who,when,where,how,why.)