Humans have no more ability to identify "god" than 18th century scientists had to identify special relativity or quantum mechanics.
There is a slight difference between these two examples about things we can and can not understand. One of the things in your sentence has to do with magic the other the natural world.
When we talk about God and Gods abilities, we are not basing our opinions on anything that is verifiable. But with things like special relativity and quantum mechanics, and anything and everything else in the real world, we make the statement that they exist and we try to prove their existence by doing experiments to test their verifiability. For example: Special relativity tries to explain how light travels. Quantum mechanics tries to explain the connection between matter and energy. These examples are explainable and verifiable because we are talking about something that exists or we assume exists.
As for God, we have been explaining and identifying him for a long time. And every explanation about God and what God has done can be proven to be wrong. Or, it's not that we don't have the ability to identify God, we do have this ability, it's just that when we do identify him, the identity we give him is proven to be impossible.
I am saying that Michael is delving into an area which is outside the parameters of epistemology. The epistemological extension into the area of ultimate cause is a form of arrogance I liken to the medieval theologian's "we are the center of the universe". In other words the human pyramid of knowledge is insufficient as a basis of denial where ultimate cause is concerned.
Sorry, but I can't agree. Basically what you are saying is: Things that are out side the realm of existence exist. Knowledge out side the realm of knowledge exists. For me, saying things like this is just playing with words.
you are correct in regards to our collective knowledge being insufficient to understand where the universe came from. But again, we can see the universe. We know it exists. We can prove it exists. We can make up theories about it and do experiments on it to prove and disprove those theories.
It is not that he has or has not integrated some concept, it is that he fails to recognize the limits of epistemology. Epistemology is what we have to build on but it is not necessarily applicable to the mystery of ultimate cause
Ok, so let's get back to your main point in this debate. Your main point is something along the lines of: Regardless of whether or not knowledge has a limit, we can never know everything in the universe. Although we have a lot of collective knowledge, there is still knowledge out side this collective knowledge that we don't know and will never know. Is this right?
You seek to understand my position-the better to undermine it. No objection there.
I put god in quotes to signify my departure from any theological notion. I am getting at creation or lack (an incredible mystery tantamount to absurdity). Also a loose concept relating to nature of universe and or inner workings of universe. The epistemological denial of theological god is fine with me. I dont want to include anything supernatural as being beyond the analysis of the big E.
I am not saying that things outside the realm of existence exist. What I am saying to use the allegory of the cave is that humans are only seeing shadows. We lack the divining rod, the analytical tools to judge of "god". There is something, I can not recall title, by Twain where the characters are reduced to such small size that the bacteria they lived in was the ocean. They had no way to judge of what they were observing, which to them appeared to be a stormy and perilous sea.
I honestly do not want to undermine you. I'm just looking at your point of view from every angle that I can. I'm forcing the both of us to make our points very clear to one another. Some people hate this type of debating, because it may seem personal, but when I look at your answer, rather than taking it personally, you give a great example of what you are expressing. Your bacteria example is a great example, because it really sums up what you are trying to express. And I thank you for that example.
I unfortunately have a problem with what you are saying about "god". Firstly, I am one of a growing number of people who don't have the intrinsic idea of God in them. I was never indoctrinated from a young age about God, so his concept is not a part of my subliminal thinking. So when you mix the word "god" up with 'initial cause' or 'epistemology', I get a little confused about what you really mean. For me God or god only means a man who looks like us and lives in heaven and made the universe. That's it! Straight out of the bible God. Any non-biblical interpretation of God is wrong. So rather than mentioning "god", which is so ambiguous, could you just write down what you actually mean. Then we can go from there.
The cave example I can not understand at all. Are you saying we don't have the tools to understand what knowledge is?
But your bacteria parable is great. And when I compare it to the universe, it fits in well. I love thinking about the vastness of the universe. And how small we are compared to it. All the millions of people that have existed before us, but none of whom are known to us. All those that exist today, I hardly know any of them, and hardly any of them know me. And all the billions of people in the future who will never know who we were.
But just because we are so small when compared to the whole universe doesn't mean we can't know everything in the universe. Gaining knowledge is a step by step process. little by little we are learning so much collectively. Hopefully the universe is infinite, that way we can learn for ever. It would be pretty boring for those in the future if they find out the universe has a limit to it. What would they do next?
Always like reading your posts.
Knowledge must always be limited and particular.
Well, I did say 'Hopefully'.
But I do think/believe existence must have a limit. But that would take us off topic in regards to this thread. There must be a thread here somewhere that delves into the limited nature of existence.
Just to confirm what you are saying:
When you use the word knowledge here, do you mean knowledge in general, or knowledge about each particular thing that can be talked about.
Not only do we not require perfection of our knowledge or omniscience,
but they are precluded by the limited nature of knowledge to begin with.
Ok, why is total knowledge impossible about a particular thing if the knowledge about that particular thing has a limit to it.
why is total knowledge impossible if knowledge has a limit to it.
do I have it all wrong?
Understanding the entire universe or knowing what is beyond its limits is not rational. An individual consciousness (redundant), which is the only thing that can have knowledge, can only know a part of the whole. We can describe and make theories about more and more of the world that we perceive, but there is most certainly limits to what we can perceive, and hence have knowledge about. The quantum world is one limit to our perception. The very large cosmic scale universe is another. The past. The future. We are simply localized self-aware organizations of universe that can perceive, make knowledge about through reason, predict and manipulate other aspects of the universe, which is simply an abstract concept representing all of existence, all things that did, do and will exist. We can say that we have knowledge about what is going on between the ultra-micro and the ultra-macro. This reality operates by constant laws, even if they vary in different places in the universe due to some other quantum, relativity, dark matter or whatever. In the universe, books slide when pushed and balls roll, I'm sure of it. Our knowledge, which is formed directly, from causal interactions of matter from perception to concept formation to integration, comparison and contrasting by reason and logic is valid and true.
I think we can validly call something knowledge, when it is a concrete concept that integrates into a knowledge base without logical contradiction. If a contextually non-contradictory concept can be reduced to perceptual evidence by deduction, it is valid. I think knowledge can be described in different ways, but the kind I am referring to is the explicit kind, and I hold the above statements in this paragraph to be the essentials. Implicit knowledge is that which we accept and use without conscious decision, like the axioms of thought or riding a bicycle. Explicit knowledge is, say, that Springfield is the capital of Illinois or, say that in order to properly conceptualize something, you need to retain only the essential characteristics and omit the arbitrary differences or measurements or that all bachelors are unmarried.
I did not mean to suggest that total knowledge about a particular thing is impossible, although I find the two words total and knowledge right next to each other disconcerting. However, I think total knowledge about a very simple particular thing might be possible, well,............ consider 2+2. Simple concept, right? Is 4 the only thing we can know about this?
That being said, total knowledge in general is definitely impossible because a singular mind cannot be everywhere at once or measure everything everywhere always. Something with total knowledge would be god and as we all know, this is one very invalid and impossible idea. Something that could perceive the entire universe all at once would have to be outside it, which, again fails. A consciousness entails matter being spread over distinct areas that interact with each other. They are needed to be separate to function and cannot possibly do anything more than their share; they are limited. They must be some things and not others. Identity precludes omniscience.
I think the concept of perfection cannot be found to exist. The ideal may be manifest, but not the perfect.
I am mostly in agreement with what you write about epistemology. In fact you are the arch villain in the world of religion and occult and its spinoffs. That part is great. It is just that you come across doctrinaire and intransigent. To steal a line you see all things in the most convenient terms and simplest definitions.
No god indoctrination here either. So it probably seems incongruous for me to use the word god. However, there was an explanation given and I in no way meant to convey anything supernatural. I am an atheist and an anti-theist.
The cave is a way of illustrating the ever popular literary theme of appearance reality. But in the case of Plato he meant it in a deeper way than what we have so often seen in literature. I am not saying we do not have the tools to know what knowledge is. I am saying that the breadth of our penetration is limited. I am very skeptical of our ability to really understand things. I suspect that even the word reality is a construct not actually found in nature. Reality if there be such has levels. So no, I do not think we will ever get to the bottom of things.
And as you say maybe that is preferable to have the dog to continue to chase its tail.
"I suspect that even the word reality is a construct not actually found in nature."
-My god, Glen. WTF? Reality is all of nature. And you say that the word we use to hold in place and communicate the concept of everything doesn't actually exist within everything? Bonkers. Then wtf are we perceiving, if not reality? A nebulous Platonic inaccurate representation of the real unknowable world? Our brains are pattern recognition machines evolved precisely to have knowledge about this world we have successfully evolved through over the millennia. Our ability to form knowledge through reason is easily apparent. It is laughable that you are typing your thoughts onto the keyboard in front of you, posting them on this electronic social network and almost instantly sharing these thoughts with people from all over the world, and yet you simultaneously claim that our ability to really understand things is doubtful. Incorrigible.
I read the play.
Parables and Fables are an easy way to express an opinion. The problem with parables and fables is that they are not meant to be taken literally and they are open to interpretation.
One thing I often hear people say is that if we took a video camera back to the middle ages, everybody would consider it witchcraft. But I disagree. Some people may consider it to be witchcraft while others would consider it a machine built by man. I also think that when Galileo build his telescopes, people of his time probably said; if this was taken back to Roman times the Romans would have thought it witchcraft. But again, I don't think so. If technology is explained properly, we humans will understand it.
If UFO's are true, I don't believe them to be true though, but if they are true, I wouldn't think they ran by witchcraft. And if the 4th dimension is true, I don't think it is true though, but if it is, I would not think travelling via the 4th dimension to be witch craft, especially if it was explained to me.
I understand the point Plato is making. But his point is a self-fulling prophecy. If is say I know what is real, and what isn't real, Plato will answer me by saying my reality is a shadow on the wall. For me his story is just a play on words.
Science is not a self-fulling prophecy. It can be proven to be wrong. It is not a story that appeals only to our abstract abilities, science is not a play on words.
I am essentially in agreement with you except where it comes to understanding the universe's inner workings. I dont think we have the capacity to understand. That in no way is meant to detract from epistemology.
When I refer to no reality I am asserting that there is no whole concrete integrated explanation. Matter seems to regress endlessly. Without fundamental particles it seems to me that there will be no way for us to make sense of things. Neither creation nor permanence makes sense. And our brains are indeed pattern recognition tools which are ill equipped to decipher the endless scientific puzzles of the micro and macro world. Cant prove it, strongly suspect it is so.
The doctrinaire comment is not about any particular doctrine. It is your tendency to utterly embrace a way of thinking. That can leave you vulnerable when there is any chink in the school of thought. Historically, doctrinaire thinking is a disaster. You do it with epistemology and libertarianism.