Do you believe or do you epoché?

[Gary Childress]

As long as you also 'know', that I neither believe, nor disbelieve?

You neither believe nor disbelieve in things that have "already been resolved" and "thus are already known?"

I neither believe nor disbelieve in ANY thing.

Sounds rather counter intuitive. Can you explain?

Yes easy.

It is very easy to KNOW some thing but NOT having to believe it.

For example I KNOW the thoughts within this body have a VIEW that human beings NEED relatively clean air, that is; if they want to keep on existing. But I do NOT believe this because some one might come along and SHOW otherwise. Someone might SHOW with evidence that human beings can keep polluting the air on earth and still can keep living. From what I have observed and seen/understood, up to now, is that human beings need clean air if they do want to keep on living. This is the VIEW that I have now, but if I BELIEVED that this is true, right, and/or correct, then I would NOT be open to any other VIEWS that come along.

By definition one only believes 'that' what IS IS true, right, and/or correct, to them. If one believed some thing was true, then obviously they could NOT be open to any thing showing otherwise. While one is BELIEVING, then they can NOT, literally, be OPEN.

So, what may seem rather counter intuitive, at first glance, is not always the case.

I'm not sure I follow. So are you saying that you don't "believe", rather you "know" concerning the existence or otherwise of God, for example? If that is the case, what do you "know" with respect to whether or not God exists? Are you saying you "know" God does exist or are you saying you "know" God does not exist?

[Age]

When it comes to things that seem to be beyond all reasonable ability to know or verify--for example such as whether or not there is a God or whether or not there are "dimensions" to the world and our existences which transcend our average, every day experiences--do you have a belief one way or the other on such matters or do you find yourself like me, unable to decide one way or the other and therefore generally in a perpetual state of suspended judgement or "epoché" with respect to those things?

Well, to back up one step, Gary, how would we decide it was "beyond all reasonable ability" to know a thing (such as whether or not there is a God or dimensions)? Is that, in itself, a knowledge claim or a belief of some kind? What is the precise justification of the "seeming" to which you refer?

If it's not decided on a knowledge basis, are you, in all consistency, therefore irremediably epoché about your own question? Or have you instead decided that it is so, but without recourse to evidence?

I can't imagine a scenario in this world that would demonstrate beyond doubt that there is a God or not a God. Note the words "seem to be beyond all reasonable ability to know" as opposed to saying "are beyond all reasonable ability to know". I can only speak for myself and I don't rule out the possibility that such a scenario could transpire as such that it would, by some as yet inconceivable way, be made manifest that there either is or is not a God. However, I have no idea what such a scenario would be.

That scenario could be 'agreement'.

Whether absolutely ANY thing exists is depended upon agreement.

For example THE scenario that demonstrates beyond doubt that there is absolutely ANY thing, to you, is agreement.

Therefore I exercise caution and use of the word "seem".

[Age]

I can't imagine a scenario in this world that would demonstrate beyond doubt that there is a God or not a God.

Well, Gary, who set the standard as "beyond doubt"? Everything we say we "know," we actually know with far less certainty than that, except perhaps (as per Descartes) one's own existence, but even then as no more than disembodied consciousness. If we can't "know" without having established that a thing is actually "beyond doubt," we actually know nothing. Is that not so?

But if so, then on what basis are you something other than epoché about the question itself?

Note the words "seem to be beyond all reasonable ability to know" as opposed to saying "are beyond all reasonable ability to know".

Well, yes, of course. I trust you'll note I did give you credit for saying "seeming," but then I also asked you about the justification of the "seeming." For surely we're not saying that if something merely "seems" so then we have a strong premise from which to launch the question...are we? So you must be saying, "seems with significant strength" of some kind. But what would that significant strength, that justification be? So I would ask again, on what basis, then, do you affirm that it "seems" so? How strong is that basis?

I can only speak for myself and I don't rule out the possibility that such a scenario could transpire as such that it would, by some as yet inconceivable way, be made manifest that there either is or is not a God. However, I have no idea what such a scenario would be. Therefore I exercise caution and use of the word "seem".

Fair enough; caution is always a good idea, and we can't take issue with intellectual humility, of course. However, if, as you assert, you're "only speaking for yourself," and yet "don't rule out the contrary possibility," then how do you evaluate the relative strength of the first in comparison to the second? Again, you must have some warrant, surely, for asserting the premise of your question, no? And surely your supposition cannot be one of the following:

1. That what Gary doesn't happen to know at this moment, he can't come to know.

2. That what Gary doesn't happen to know, nobody else can possibly know either.

or

3. That a thing that admittedly only "seems", and only to Gary (since, as you note, you aren't proposing to speak for others), forms a sound basis for further premises strong enough to form the basis of an argument -- and that such an argument is sufficiently strong that rational others should be inclined to respond (since you're putting this argument on a forum, obviously).

Something's not adding up there, Gary. Or is this "seeming" to which you refer stronger in some way than you have yet said?

We're humans living among other humans. We have language with which to share ideas and experiences. In putting the statement on a forum I invite others to share any scenario in which they know there is a God or not a God. And if they explain it to me and it indeed seems indubitable that there is a God or not a God, then I will agree. So far that hasn't happened.

So, is this post solely about whether 'God' exists or not?

If yes, then how do YOU define the word 'God'? If, and when, you explain that, then we discuss whether there is indubitable evidence either way.

If no, then what is this post about?

[Age]

You neither believe nor disbelieve in things that have "already been resolved" and "thus are already known?"

I neither believe nor disbelieve in ANY thing.

Sounds rather counter intuitive. Can you explain?

Yes easy.

It is very easy to KNOW some thing but NOT having to believe it.

For example I KNOW the thoughts within this body have a VIEW that human beings NEED relatively clean air, that is; if they want to keep on existing. But I do NOT believe this because some one might come along and SHOW otherwise. Someone might SHOW with evidence that human beings can keep polluting the air on earth and still can keep living. From what I have observed and seen/understood, up to now, is that human beings need clean air if they do want to keep on living. This is the VIEW that I have now, but if I BELIEVED that this is true, right, and/or correct, then I would NOT be open to any other VIEWS that come along.

By definition one only believes 'that' what IS IS true, right, and/or correct, to them. If one believed some thing was true, then obviously they could NOT be open to any thing showing otherwise. While one is BELIEVING, then they can NOT, literally, be OPEN.

So, what may seem rather counter intuitive, at first glance, is not always the case.

I'm not sure I follow. So are you saying that you don't "believe", rather you "know" concerning the existence or otherwise of God, for example?

If you want to LOOK AT this example only, then yes I can KNOW things without having to BELIEVE. As explained above.

If that is the case, what do you "know" with respect to whether or not God exists?

What I KNOW with respect to whether or not God exists is; thee ANSWER to that question is depended on WHAT definition one gives to the word 'God'.

Are you saying you "know" God does exist or are you saying you "know" God does not exist?

I am saying, from a certain perspective, and from a specific definition for the word 'God', then 'God' can and does very easily and simply exist. However, from another perspective, and from another specific definition for the word 'God', then 'God' could not and does not exist at all.

Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer. So, If you are Truly LOOKING FOR an answer, then how do YOU define the word 'God'?

[Immanuel Can]

What suppositions need careful second thought? I'm not following your line of thought here.

Well, when you wrote:

When it comes to things that seem to be beyond all reasonable ability to know or verify--for example such as whether or not there is a God or whether or not there are "dimensions" to the world and our existences which transcend our average, every day experiences...

• This looks like it assumes that using some "reasonable ability" it's possible to "know or verify" things. In other words, it appears to adopt an easy dichotomy between things we can "know and verify" and things we cannot. But we don't "know" anything in this way.

• It looks like it takes for granted that people in general don't and can't "know" God or dimensions in the required way...or at least that it "seems" that way to all of us.

• It's not obvious why it "seems" that way to you, or how strongly you trust and why you anticipate that we ought to trust, something that you admit only "seems" to you.

--do you have a belief one way or the other on such matters or do you find yourself like me, unable to decide one way or the other and therefore generally in a perpetual state of suspended judgement or "epoché" with respect to those things?

• Why is such a "state" expected to be "perpetual"? What are your grounds for thinking it has to be?

and

• Why would you suppose people might find it rational to "believe" what you have already said they must know to be "beyond all reasonable ability to know or verify"? In what sense can we say they "believe" it when they know it to be "beyond all reasonable ability to know or verify"?

You have to admit, Gary, these are odd suppositions. Personally, I'm not sure of the warrant for any of them. But I haven't noted you to be a person given to unthinking claims, so I'm wanting to understand. If you're convinced they do make sense, I'm going to need some help in seeing how. Can you help me out?

In brief: what led you to the idea that a) one "knows" things by putting them somehow "beyond all reasonable doubt and verification," and b) that we "all" must necessarily "know" that "dimensions" or "God" are examples of things beyond such possibility?

[Justintruth]

So if someone asked you whether or not there is a God, how would you respond? Is there a God, is there not a God or do you consider the question unknowable--at least from your place in the world? I'm very familiar with Husserl's use of the word "epoche" BTW. It's not the only way the word can be used.

Lately I would say: "Yes for sure there is a God, but not in fact, and you can't use the article "a" as you did in the question or else you are thinking of something else."

It's not a very satisfactory statement. No sound bites are. There is a God, given plausible yet narrow qualification on the meaning of terms. Certainly any God who is some all powerful creature that could have existed or not, but actually does exist in our actual world fails by Occam's razor, or, should I be wrong and it not fail that way, something I think unlikely, it is incidental to the religious question. God would then be just another part of nature. I do not claim any evidence but only understand that evidence could not possibly have relevance to any necessary existence.

It is not unknowable and there is lot's of evidence that the experiences that confirm the existence of God are fairly widespread albeit only in a fraction of the population. I have experienced God myself on several occasions directly. No one I know that has experienced God doubts the existence of God but it is again not because of what most will think. It is because of something inherent in God and inherent in existence are identical, not because the evidence obtained from the experience is sufficient to eliminate the doubt about a factual matter as to whether God exists. Indeed, I don't think God can exist factually. It's a contradiction in terms of a sort.

I agree that the word "epoche" can be used in ways other than what Husserl did. I meant only "if you are using it as Husserl did..." You might consider that Husserl's specialized use is relevant, even necessary, to an honest laying out of the issues involved in the idea of God, because his epoche can be used on ontology itself and when it does can lead to the foundational experiencng. So equivocation can occur unintentionally. "Agnosticism" is the usual word in context vice epoche.

The issues you raise are not limited to the examples you made.

[roydop]

Gary, if tou truly wish for an answer about God, you MUST investigate the space between thought. Delve as deeply as you can into it.

How could one learn about that which can not be thought of via thought. Obviously one can not.

This is the answer to your question. However, understanding God is an experience, not an intellectual belief.

I can speak to you about God because I experience It most of the time. Sometimes however i lose awareness of It.

Your mind/ego will try to reject this information because it knows it exists relative to it's thoughts and it sees the ceasing of thinking as a death. It will fight to keep producing thought.

I have gone through this and realize how difficult it is to remain thought free, but there is no other way to reach conclusion to your query.

[Gary Childress]

So from the sounds of it you all believe (or perhaps I should use the word "know") that God exists. You all must be truly blessed. I have no idea how one confirms something like that. I would love to know if God exists or not, however, when I look around I don't see any conclusive evidence of it. Do I therefore conclude that God does not exist. No. I don't conclude that either. I have no idea what to think about such things. Fortunately, few here seem to possess the same confusion as I do. I had thought that most people who studied philosophy would see such matters as being ones of faith and not knowledge. Apparently I am misinformed.

[Gary Childress]

Gary, if tou truly wish for an answer about God, you MUST investigate the space between thought. Delve as deeply as you can into it.

Thought is not spacial. You can't investigate "space" "between" thoughts. This is dishonest gibberish made to sound deep and thought provoking when it makes absolutely no coherent sense at all.

[Gary Childress]

So if someone asked you whether or not there is a God, how would you respond? Is there a God, is there not a God or do you consider the question unknowable--at least from your place in the world? I'm very familiar with Husserl's use of the word "epoche" BTW. It's not the only way the word can be used.

Lately I would say: "Yes for sure there is a God, but not in fact, and you can't use the article "a" as you did in the question or else you are thinking of something else."

"There is a God but not in fact?" No idea how to interpret that but it doesn't sound coherent.

[Walker]

Gary, if tou truly wish for an answer about God, you MUST investigate the space between thought. Delve as deeply as you can into it.

Thought is not spacial. You can't investigate "space" "between" thoughts. This is dishonest gibberish made to sound deep and thought provoking when it makes absolutely no coherent sense at all.

Hello Gary.

It’s just a way of saying what happens. It does make sense.

- This 20 minute link may convey the nature of non-conceptual meditation, for your consideration.

- Formal meditation sessions are often 20 minutes long, which the body learns without clocks, so 20 minutes is likely a natural cycle of attention.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmBrepbZji0

- Sit still and don’t move for 20 minutes.
- Effortlessly await each note, for the duration of the link. The effect accumulates.
- Each note is like a single, clear thought.
- As you wait for the note, expectation diminishes thoughts that are not expectation.
- This happens because some of the silences are longer than anticipated.
- Some silences are shorter so anticipation gets crowded out, disrupted, then suddenly suspended into the next silence.

- The space between each note is like the space between each thought, metaphorically.
- However in the link, as you wait for each note in a brief silence, you may find if only for a moment or two that all thought is gone and only anticipation of the next note remains.

- When that anticipation also departs (the last thought) then attention is like a clear pool of water awaiting the stimulus of a single small pebble (thought or sensory impression) dropped into the pool.
- By the time the pebble reaches the bottom of the pool the water has slowed the pebble so it barely disturbs fine, still, subtle thoughts lying still as silt at the bottom of the pool.
- When the silt is very still the pebble doesn’t stir any cloud at all into the clear water, when it finally settles.
- If a brick, such as a loud noise, should be tossed into the pool then the whole body absorbs the energy so that when the brick hits the silt of thoughts at the bottom, they will be stirred only minimally and for a brief moment, then quickly the water clears again as the silty thoughts settle down.

- Keep in mind this is just a comparison of meditation to something tangible for you to experience now, should you actually need to understand more, and not endorsement of any particular method.

- If you think you're interested in meditation and are under care for the noggin and put your trust in the care-giver, then consult them on the topic before fooling around.

[Immanuel Can]

So from the sounds of it you all believe (or perhaps I should use the word "know") that God exists.

It's not about what we know, Gary...it's about what you claim we CANNOT know, and how you know that.

You all must be truly blessed. I have no idea how one confirms something like that. I would love to know if God exists or not, however, when I look around I don't see any conclusive evidence of it.

That's fair enough. But does it entail that others cannot? That's the problem.

I'm also interested in your adjective "conclusive." What would "conclusive" evidence for you look like?

Do I therefore conclude that God does not exist. No. I don't conclude that either. I have no idea what to think about such things. Fortunately, few here seem to possess the same confusion as I do. I had thought that most people who studied philosophy would see such matters as being ones of faith and not knowledge. Apparently I am misinformed.

Well that might be right, Gary. And no unkindness intended if you are: a lot of people may well be, at least on that point. I have often seen, even on this site, people starkly contrast "faith" and "reason," as if the one necessarily excludes the other (usually they quote some peripheral cleric on the subject, to confirm their own view). However, a great many of we Theists don't understand "faith" that way, and don't see Biblical warrant for such a suggestion.

So let me suggest that there are ways of thinking in which "faith" is a rational participant with "knowledge," and depending on how one insists on defining "faith," one can find integration between the two as natural as good science. (Philosopher of science Michael Polanyi is quite relevant on this point.)

But back to your own premises -- one can't "know" what others can or cannot know, unless one has a good reason for thinking one has such knowledge. One can only say, "I don't know," not "You cannot know because I don't."

Thus we have no reason to take your premise -- namely that the idea of knowing about God or "dimensions" necessarily renders one epoché.

[roydop]

Gary, if tou truly wish for an answer about God, you MUST investigate the space between thought. Delve as deeply as you can into it.

Thought is not spacial. You can't investigate "space" "between" thoughts. This is dishonest gibberish made to sound deep and thought provoking when it makes absolutely no coherent sense at all.

So you can't be thought fee and therefore it's gibberish? Actually sit in a chair and try to stop your thoughts and witness what happens. Is this not scientific in basis?

How do I know you can't stop your mind from chruning out thoughts? How can you not see how important this is? Objectivity.

Just witness thought. Then you will be SEEing it instead of thinking about it.

[Gary Childress]

Gary, if tou truly wish for an answer about God, you MUST investigate the space between thought. Delve as deeply as you can into it.

Thought is not spacial. You can't investigate "space" "between" thoughts. This is dishonest gibberish made to sound deep and thought provoking when it makes absolutely no coherent sense at all.

So you can't be thought fee and therefore it's gibberish? Actually sit in a chair and try to stop your thoughts and witness what happens. Is this not scientific in basis?

How do I know you can't stop your mind from chruning out thoughts? How can you not see how important this is? Objectivity.

Just witness thought. Then you will be SEEing it instead of thinking about it.

I give up. No idea what all this nonsense about being "thought free", "stopping thoughts" or "investigating space between thoughts" means (or how answers about God's existence or otherwise can be deduced from the alleged practice). As far as I'm aware, no one is "thought free" unless they're sitting in the morgue waiting to be either buried or cremated.

[Gary Childress]

One can only say, "I don't know," not "You cannot know because I don't."

I'm not saying you cannot know because I don't. I'm saying you cannot know because there is no way to conceivably know. What difficulty are you having with that? OR why don't you explain how you would even verify whether there is a God or not? by what magical otherworldly means would you even conceivably be able to do that? Go ahead, let's drop everything else and "cut to the chase." Explain to me how you would know that there is a God or not. What evidence would qualify one to say, "God exists" or "God does not exist"? Give one example.