God: Knowable or not Knowable?

In some recent posts (Message 15; Message 14) as well as all the posts on this page, Phat has brought up the issue of the "knowability of God", as it were. He asserts that God is knowable and that a relationship is possible between humans and God. I hereby challenge that assertion, for the following reasons:

1. To have a (meaningful) relationship with an entity, empathy is required.
   1. Empathy is the ability to see the world in the way someone else sees it.
2. To empathise with God would require us to see the world the way God does.
   1. To see the world the way God does would require us to have an equal understanding as God.
      1. To have an equal understanding to God would require that we either have Godly understanding, or
      2. Require God to decrease in Godliness to a point at which humans had an equal understanding.
   2. If humans increase to a Godly understanding, it would entail Godly understanding to supernaturally manipulate the world.
      1. This would remove God's specialness and just make Him another one among many (i.e., de-Godify Him).
   3. If God decreases in Godliness, then the characteristic that makes Him God (that is, His Godliness) would decrease to a human level.
      1. If God's Godliness decreases to a human level, then He simply becomes another one among many (i.e., it de-Godifies Him).
   4. To de-Godify God would be to make Him no longer God.
   5. We accept that there is, however, a God.
   6. Therefore we cannot have an understanding equal to God.
3. Since we cannot have an understanding equal to God, we cannot empathise with God.
   1. Since we cannot empathise with God, we cannot have a relationship with God.
   2. THEREFORE: We cannot have a relationship with God.

What do the folks around here think? Jon

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

​

En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

​

A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Colin Wells Sailing from Byzantium
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

​

[Philosophy] stands behind everything. It is the loom behind the fabric, the place you arrive when you trace the threads back to their source. It is where you question everything you think you know and seek every truth to be had. - Archer Opterix [msg=-11,-316,210]

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Now apply the same reasoning to whether a relationship is possible between a human and a cat.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Has Dr. Adequate been listening to our chat room conversations, Jon?Note to Lurkers: Jon and I already discussed the symbolism of humans relating to cats as a metaphor for God relating to humans!

But not for the reasons you've posted.The reason God is not Knowable is because we cannot tell if we're being deceived or not in some way. This is the same with all relationships.The way we can tell we're not being deceived in some way in our mundane relationships is that our relationship-target also has relationships with others. We can observe how those others are treated and gain insight as to how likely it is that our relationship-target is deceiving everyone they interact with.We cannot do this with God since we have no way of identifying that the same being is communicating with all the others. Therefore there is no basis to identify the personal communication. There isn't even any basis to identify if that personal communication isn't simply our own imagination.Doesn't mean it can't exist. Just that we can't know. Or at least, can't know in any way even close to how well we can know our mundane relationships.So, although I agree with you, I think your reasoning has a minor flaw: To empathise with God doesn't require us to see the world the way God does, it only requires us to be able to imagine seeing the world the way God would. No, humans increasing to a Godly understanding (enough for empathy, anyway) doesn't mean they can now supernaturally manipulate the world. They only need to increase their understanding to a level at which they can imagine what it would be like if they could supernaturally manipulate the world.Empathy doesn't mean "you can do whatever the other being can". It simply means "you can imagine what the other being is going through".As long as we can increase our imaginations enough, we can empathize with any being. Placing a limit on our abilities to empathize is the same as placing a limit on our imaginations.Although I'm not convinced our imaginations are limit-less. I do have confidence that they are not limited to thinking about supernaturally manipulating the world. Or, at least, mine isn't.

It is possible to know God, but it is impossible to know if you know God.

Well, I do agree with some reasons. However, I do not agree with Mod's reasoning that we can know God. In Message 103, Jar makes the following relevant point:

quote:

---

It is simply impossible for a worm to see as you do, to think as you do, to experience what you experience. It is also impossible for you to so limit yourself that you could see as the worm sees, think as a worm, experience as a worm.

​

If though, you could do that, you would no longer be a man. To communion, to have a relationship, there must be something fairly close to parity.

​

A man can have a relationship with a dog, the dog can obey the man, perhaps even love the man, but the relationship will always be limited.

​

As the gulf between two lifeforms increases, the possibility of communion or relationships becomes increasingly unlikely.

---

A message by Phat (Message 100):

quote:

---

Jar writes:

​

How much of a relationship can you have with a worm?

How much relationship would I even want to have with a darn worm? But of course I am a selfish human, rather than an omnipotent altruistic God....who may well desire to commune with worms!

---

So, since that from that thread was pretty relevant, I'd thought I'd bring it in. I hope to see Phat posting some of his ideas here for the general audience to respond to .Jon

If God is omnipotent, he can choose to have any one of us know him, to understand at least some part of his entity and his intentions and thus to enable a real relationship to exist.Unfortunately, we'd never know if we it was God we were interacting with or just ourselves...and there is no way to test the hypothesis in anyway to increase our confidence in our 'knowledge'.; our knowledge is unverifiable. We can quibble over whether this counts as 'knowing' someone - but I did warn that it was short and sweet, not a comprehensive epistemological critique of theology.

I think this statement is misleading. Parity is only needed for the relationship to be equal. As long as it is simply a relationship (not specifically an equal one), no parity is required at all. Yes. But what's wrong with a limited relationship? The relationship (as far as the dog's concerned) is as full as any other relationship that dog has. It's the human-side that's being limited.If we extend this dog-human analogy to where it's talking about a human-God relationship. We see that the human-side of this relationship is as full as any other human relationship. It is only God's side of the relationship that is limited. This is only true if the "greater" being in the relationship has no desire to be in the relationship.However, if the greater-being does have a desire to be in the relationship, then the possibility of communion becomes just the opposite, increasingly likely.The whole point of some religions is that they say God does want the relationship (regardless of how limited it is on his side). I'm not sure how they know that, but certain religions say they do. If God does want the relationship, the human side certainly can be just as fulfilling as any other human relationship. In fact, this relationship could very well be the best-possible relationship any human could ever have.Personally, I think the fact that we can't know we're even talking with God at all destroys this arguement before it gets off the ground. But, given that God exists and that God desires a relationship with humans... this would then become a convincing arguement that the human-God relationship would be the best kind of relationship a human could have.

Well, I wonder if the dog (or cat) would rather hang out with other dogs or with their human master? (If they had a choice)

Ever had a non-castrated male dog? How much 'tang do they try to get?They want their own kind

We don't have to wonder, we know.The dog-human relationship was just an analogy for the human-God relationship. And we are humans. We can answer that question for ourselves.I still don't see the point of worrying about whether or not we can have a meaningful relationship with God, though. Two more important questions seem to have priority. Does God even exist? and Does God even communicate with us? Neither of these questions have definitive answers right now (other than assertions from people). And they both need to have a definitive "yes" answer before we start to contemplate how our relationship with God will be.

I wish Jon had also linked to the next post in that thread because I think it addresses part of what you address. Message 104

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Ah, I see. I was slightly confused. In the first message it was stated "a communion" and then modified as "a relationship". In the next message it's the other way around.I was putting more priority on the word "relationship" when your discussion with Phat seems to be more geared towards the word "communion" (what I referred to as an equal-relationship). Taking the quotes out of context, I think I made an error in what was trying to be conveyed.Yes, using your terminology, I certainly agree that we cannot have much of a communion with God. It may even be impossible. We can, though, have a relationship... a very poor, extremely lop-sided one. Agreed.

quote:

---

To have a (meaningful) relationship with an entity, empathy is required.
1. Empathy is the ability to see the world in the way someone else sees it.

​

To empathise with God would require us to see the world the way God does.
1. To see the world the way God does would require us to have an equal understanding as God.

---

Well thats always been the main idea of the saying: "In order for you to understand God, you must fear God".
Some people like to be feared because it shows them that you have submitted yourself and therefor you are defined as being humble.

quote:

---

To empathise with God would require us to see the world the way God does.

---

Wow.. uh.. Well I see the world as a sinful,sick, and chaotic place, which has diseased/ignorant infested humans who are blinded and focused on the material and pleasures of sex,money,hate,and ability to satisfy ones own selfishness, BUT HEY! THATS JUST ME TALKING! by the way Jon, you misspelled empathize, everyone knows empathize is spelled E-M-P-A-T-H-I-Z-E.

quote:

---

If God's Godliness decreases to a human level, then He simply becomes another one among many (i.e., it de-Godifies Him).

---

Yes Thats why Jesus the son of God was born and then 20+ years later had to suffer the crucifixion for our sinful debts to be paid.

quote:

---

If humans increase to a Godly understanding, it would entail Godly understanding to supernaturally manipulate the world.

---

Well... isn't that what evolution,atheists,and ACLU are doing right now? their trying to decrease Gods Godliness, which is not a good idea.
Hint:"For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted."[Isaiah 60:12]as I said before...
"In order for you to understand God, you must fear God".
Some people like to be feared because it shows them that you have submitted yourself and therefor you are defined as being humble.THANK YOU ALL AND GOOD NIGHT!sincerely yours, Amen.

---

2 "Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you and you shall answer me." JOB 38:23