Immanuel Can wrote:"There is no God" can imply: namely that you "know" it by evidence from the external world, or you "know" it as an internal impression of your own. If you think there is a third possibility, feel free to add it.
In this case, it could be stated either that "there is no god," as you have done or that, "there is a god" where the rest equally applies. And while I totally agree that this:
"that you "know" it by evidence from the external world," is possible, I see this:
"you "know" it as an internal impression of your own," as impossible.
I see it that same as I saw a Gettier type thought experiment that attempted to challenge Justified True Belief, which is called the, "cow in the field." Basically the farmer wants to make sure that his cow in on the farm and OK, so he looks to the field, but there are hills and trees in it, and he sees a shape and color matching the head of his cow just over a small hill, such that he believes it is justified and true that the cow is just over the hill next to a tree, so he goes about his business. Later he cannot find his cow at all, but notices that from the angle he was at earlier it still looks like the cow is there.
The people that created this Gettier problem said that his initial belief was indeed justified true, and hence that there is a problem with JTB as the truth giver. But I totally disagree! I see that the farmers belief was not justified true, in that initial moment he believed it was. I see that he took a short cut, and only walked into the field far enough, to see what he wanted to see not what he needed to see. He was simply too lazy to go further up the path, Garbage into the computation, garbage out of the computation.
And this is how humans use words to lie to themselves, whether they acknowledge it or not. That to say one
'"knows" something as an internal impression of their own," is in fact the same type lie, Because it can never, in the strictest sense of the words, actually be considered justified true. Who knows why they seem to need to believe things in this haphazard way, but I'm sure it's deeply rooted in their subconscious, a trauma of some sort, or maybe fear or simply laziness. Only they might be able to say what it is one day, if they are ever capable of uncovering it.
Hindsight is always 20/20, it shows that we make mistakes. But the real trick is asking ourselves why we do so, and coming up with the actual answer. Of course one always feels safe believing in something that no one can actually
'"know" by evidence from the external world,' Maybe they have a deep seated want to be the smartest kid on the block, and want to have something believed by many, that is improvable, to support that endeavor. I can't be sure. What do you think?
You may say that you think my reasoning is haphazard, that it's all over the place, and you can mean it or you can just say it. But I honestly believe that it's cohesive, and has much to do about the real problem at hand, sincerely!
So if you can't deal with my methodology, my understanding of humanity, that which I truly believe to be the current human condition, the construct of all our human ills that has come to it's current head. You're correct we cannot really talk to one another, minds eye to minds eye, because you see it as one thing and I another. I see it from the position that humans are actually killing themselves off, in spite of themselves, and that illuminates quite a bit about our actual capabilities, not the ones we necessarily want to "believe" about ourselves. I just think that we really have to get away from believing blindly. That science is the answer.
