We can never really know anything

Topic's posts
Posts in total: 102
We rely on axioms to do anything.

We presuppose we are rational.
We presuppose our senses are not deceiving us.
We presuppose we can view the external world.

Under these presuppositions we can lets say speculate on the world but that doesn't mean we know things. It just means under specific axioms we can speculate on the external world. If we did know something we wouldn't be using axioms instead we use it because it is the only way to observe what is around but that doesn't mean we know. 

This is mainly used for people to counter what I said or give examples of when we have known something. 

Hopefully you understand what I am trying to say.




Sounds like epistemological nihilism.


You can know with 100% certainty that there is some form of existence. Your experience proves that. Even if this is illusion, still the fact there is some form of existence can be known with 100% certainty.

If there is some form of existence, there must be a reality as it truly is.

Reality in the truest sense is The Ultimate Reality. That is God.

So you can be 100% certain that God exists. Not much else. Everything else you can only be so sure.


See, I don't suppose that I am rational. I do not suppose my senses aren't deceiving me. I don't even suppose an external world.


But what I just said is obviously true, and cuts through all delusion.
--> @Mopac, @TheRealNihilist
What is knowledge?

In simple terms and as far as we know, knowledge is uniquely a human thing. (Ok. Other Earth species may also possess the ability to store and utilise data)

Therefore human knowledge is human knowledge and consequently what we know is what we know.

What actually is there to judge the credibility of our knowledge?

As current knowledge stands and no matter how much some people might protest to the contrary; Gods and Aliens and Ultimate Realities are just assumptions and cannot actually be known and therefore remain incredible.



--> @Mopac
I don't suppose that I am rational. I do not suppose my senses aren't deceiving me. I don't even suppose an external world.
Prove to me you are rational.
Prove to me your senses are correct.
Prove to me you know anything about the external world. 
You can know with 100% certainty that there is some form of existence. Your experience proves that. Even if this is illusion, still the fact there is some form of existence can be known with 100% certainty.
Did I say there was no existence? I made clear that you can exist but you don't know it.
If there is some form of existence, there must be a reality as it truly is.

Reality in the truest sense is The Ultimate Reality. That is God.

So you can be 100% certain that God exists. Not much else. Everything else you can only be so sure.
Who would have thought someone so irrational would use logic even though it is flawed? 
--> @zedvictor4
In simple terms and as far as we know, knowledge is uniquely a human thing. (Ok. Other Earth species may also possess the ability to store and utilise data)
What can we know?
It is best to show the furthest we can go so that we can have something to discuss.
Therefore human knowledge is human knowledge and consequently what we know is what we know. 
Circular logic?
What actually is there to judge the credibility of our knowledge?
Do tell.
As current knowledge stands and no matter how much some people might protest to the contrary; Gods and Aliens and Ultimate Realities are just assumptions and cannot actually be known and therefore remain incredible.
Okay? I wanted you to see to answer the question you posed instead of state this. 

--> @TheRealNihilist
One popular version of this supposes our reality is a computer simulation running on a megacomputer belonging to some higher civilisation.   In that case we are isloated from the reality the programmers live in;  our truth and reality are the rules they programmed into our simulation.

Thus our science, philisophy an theology explore (and uncover) the rules of the simulation.  When we investigate 'is there a god' we are not asking if the programmers have gods or if the programmers are gods - we are asking if the programmers put a god in the simulation.   And either they did or they didn't!  If they program in enough clues required to determine that then we can 'know' there is or is not a god in our simulated reality.
  
--> @keithprosser
Anything that takes a stance to my side or against? 
--> @TheRealNihilist
When you said


Hopefully you understand what I am trying to say.

I'm not sure I did... or I'm sure I didn't!

--> @TheRealNihilist
Epistemological nihilism is a blackhole not worth getting sucked into. Been there, done that.

As I demonstrated, there is a knowledge that is undeniable.

--> @Mopac
Desartes use a similar argumrent to prove it was his self that was the one sure thing.

--> @keithprosser
Desartes use a similar argumrent to prove it was his self that was the one sure thing.
In what way?
I think therefore I am? 
--> @Mopac
Epistemological nihilism is a blackhole not worth getting sucked into. Been there, done that.

As I demonstrated, there is a knowledge that is undeniable.
Do tell.
--> @TheRealNihilist
That there is some form of existence, and that if there is some form of existence there must be Ultimate Reality, that is, existence as it is in totality and actuality.


--> @keithprosser
See, when I went into the epistemological black hole, I didn't stop at myself, so this is where the void led me.
--> @Mopac
That there is some form of existence, and that if there is some form of existence there must be Ultimate Reality, that is, existence as it is in totality and actuality.
How did you get some form of existence?
Reality exists. God doesn't. 

--> @TheRealNihilist
Because the fact that you experience anything at all is undeniable proof that there is some form of existence. If this wasn't the case, you couldn't experience anything.

You say God doesn't exist. Is that because you KNOW better?





--> @TheRealNihilist
Desartes use a similar argumrent to prove it was his self that was the one sure thing.
In what way?
I think therefore I am? 
Yeah.  Mopac and Descartes both rely on the principle even the appeance of reality requires there must be something rather than nothing.
--> @keithprosser
Even illusions have some reality to them. The thing that defines illusion, delusion, etc is that aspect of it that does not exist. However, as a perception, they exist.


Perception in itself is some form of existence.


And that is where The Ultimate Reality comes in. The Ultimate Reality is that which is real independent of observation. Observation on the other hand, is dependent on there being Ultimate Reality.
Even illusions have some reality to them. The thing that defines illusion, delusion, etc is that aspect of it that does not exist. However, as a perception, they exist.
In other words, illusions are like paperback novels, or movies. Books and films are real things, but what they depict is (often) not  real.

--> @Mopac
But what I just said is obviously true, and cuts through all delusion.
And says virtually nothing beyond "reality exists." Yet you keep repeating it like it's some momentous insight.

--> @Stronn
You are still an atheist right?

As long as people like you continue to be superstitious about the identity of God, I will not stop declaring that The Ultimate Reality is God. I will not stop declaring that atheism is an abominable superstition that serves no other purpose than to stir up discord and confusion that is conducive to furthering the goals of anarchists.

It looks like my work isn't ending any time soon. 

Somebody has to teach kindergarten!





--> @keithprosser
In other words, illusions are like paperback novels, or movies. Books and films are real things, but what they depict is (often) not  real

Books and films, even they are created. They are contingent existences. They, like all contingent phenomena are real in some sense and unreal in another sense.

There is some form of existence.


The Ultimate Reality, by contrast is real in the most total sense. Recognizing this is simply a matter of accepting that "The Ultimate Reality" is what it says it is. If you don't, then you are stuck fumbling around in vanity.

It is essential that this link be established between the created and the uncreated by accepting that He is who He says He is. That is the meaning of our Trinity. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. That The Ultimate Reality is seen through The Most Perfect Image and only with The Spirit of Truth that proceeds from The Uncreated, through creation, and with our cooperation activates and enlivens the Image so that we can be a witness to God in creation. Father, Son, Holy Spirit.



--> @Mopac
Superstitious: having excessive credulous belief in and reverence for supernatural beings.

You would have to go out of your way to find an adjective that fits atheists less well than "superstitious". Sometimes the mental contortions that theists go through are baffling.
--> @Stronn
Christians were using the word long before atheists.

Here is a better definition of superstition.


Full Definition
1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

So as you can see, atheists have an abject attitude of mind towards God due to ignorance, and will often maintain this notion despite evidence to the contrary.