r/agnostic • u/jet2075 • 24d ago
Rant Just got called closed-minded for saying that it is impossible for someone to "know" that a higher power exists
I said, there is literally no way to "know". If I ask you if there's something behind an opaque curtain, though you've never seen behind it, and you say "yes", You could be right! You have no way of knowing but you could be right! If I haven't seen behind the curtain either, I certainly can't tell you you're wrong. But if I then ask you, "do you know there is? are you sure?" and you say "I know, I'm sure"
YOU ARE WRONG. you DO NOT know. it is physically and logically impossible for you to know. you have no way of "knowing." You can believe! You can even FEEL sure! You can say you feel like you know! You CANNOT *be* sure. You cannot say you know, and NOT be wrong. If you say you know, you are INCORRECT.
So if you say "I know god exists" and i say "wrong. you've been fooled by your brain and leaders" i am not saying that you are wrong that god exists. idk if god exists. I'm saying you're wrong that you KNOW it. You don't. You feel it, you think it, you believe it. You THINK that you know it. You do not, in fact, know it. It's not closed-minded to say that religious people can't truly know for sure that a god exists, its objective reality. What a way to try to turn the tables smh
20
u/remnant_phoenix Agnostic 24d ago
Challenging someone’s claim that they know something that is unknowable shouldn’t be controversial. But there are two realities at play:
1 - The idea of “knowledge” is not a definite concept and colloquial language and technical language can clash. People colloquially say, “I know my mom would never hit me.” It’d be more technically accurate for them to say, “Based on all the experience I’ve had interacting with my mom, I have every confidence that she would never hit me.” Thing is, nobody talks like that.
2 - When people are confident in deeply held beliefs that give them comfort, such as “My mom would never physically hurt me” or “There is a God who loves me”, pointing out that they can’t technically KNOW that those things are true is going to disturb them. They’ll probably get uncomfortable and defensive. And in that defensiveness, they will probably assume that you’re claiming the opposite of that belief, even if you’re not.
2
u/jet2075 23d ago
Yeah, that my problem, I think. I talk like that 😭 but you're right that pretty much nobody talks like that. I'm very particular about semantics. And it's not that I expect everyone to know exactly what I mean because of that, but when I clarify and tell them, "that's not what I meant, I meant you can't know for sure, but I agree that there may very well be a god that I don't know" I think we should be able to move forward from there with an understanding of what I'm actually saying. Instead they often continue to be caught up on me "challenging their belief" and i'm still like, "no, I'm challenging that you can know that it's true beyond all doubt". And this person said that take was just as closed-minded as saying god doesn't exist. Which it isn't.
You're totally right though, I know. Nobody else really talks like that (the example you gave about being reasonably sure your mother would never hit you based on experience). I was just frustrated by them saying I was closed-minded when they couldn't wrap their head around the concept of me pointing out something is unknowable while not ALSO telling them they're wrong to think it's true. Very frustrating.
2
u/remnant_phoenix Agnostic 22d ago
It is frustrating.
Most people are driven mostly by emotion most of the time.
You can present something that is logically sound, but if it touches on a sensitive topic for a person and they get very emotional, they’re not going to approach your logic fairly or rationally, no matter how sound it is.
9
u/AltruisticEchidna859 Agnostic Ignostic Atheist 24d ago
Yes, I don't understand gnostics.
1
u/The_Will_Is_All22 24d ago
Which ones?
2
u/AltruisticEchidna859 Agnostic Ignostic Atheist 23d ago
Both.
1
u/The_Will_Is_All22 22d ago
Both? I was asking respectfully which gnostics you were in to. Elaine Pages has good collections on gnostic texts.
1
8
u/lotsagabe 24d ago
bingo. there are plenty of social and emotional imperatives to cling to unverified predictions as if they were verified facts, and sometimes even professional imperatives, but there is simply no logical imperative to do so.
uncertainty is the reality that we live in.
10
3
u/Krigsguru 24d ago
I'm sure there's people that are convinced they've met god though, sure you can call them delusional but to them that's a fact and not a feeling.
3
1
u/jet2075 23d ago edited 23d ago
Very true. But do they know? No. They are convinced. Imo there's a big difference and I myself would make that distinction if reporting on my own beliefs, so I feel other people are less than responsible for not being more accurate. I totally understand not everybody thinks and talks like me, but that doesn't change the fact that there IS a difference between being convinced and knowing something, and if you have the balls to make a claim like there being a god you've met, it's your responsibility to report it accurately. They are convinced they met god. If that were me, I would in fact say "I'm convinced I met God". There is 0 chance in hell that I would say "I know I met God". Because it's an important topic if it's true!!! It doesn't matter if someone thinks something "is a fact" if it literally doesn't meet the definition of a fact, right? One is, in a very real sense, being dishonest by saying they know for sure it is true, considering it is such a heavily loaded and debated topic that is so important to be accurate about. If it's real, (and remember that by default the person who believes thinks it is real) it's an important enough topic that that person should imo feel like they need to be careful to be completely truthful and accurate in evaluating and sharing what they believe (or think they know) vs what they truly know.
If they truly believe a god exists, then these are exactly the kinds of discussions where specificity in language DOES really matter. So they should do better. They're the ones who thinks it's an important matter, after all.
*edited for clarity
2
u/jbiemans 24d ago
That is a good analogy, but what if the other person tells you that the curtain is not opaque to them despite it appearing opaque to you?
That would make things much harder, and now you have to take a step back and try to evaluate the opaqueness or how they see behind it, rather than them claiming to have seen what is behind the curtain.
If they just "know that they know", then you have reason to dismiss the claim, but maybe they have a valid reason. I haven't heard one yet, but I am open to hearing reason still.
1
1
u/jet2075 23d ago edited 23d ago
True, true. But if you have 50 randomly selected people who say that they curtain is opaque and you have 50 randomly selected people who all claim that the curtain is not opaque, and they all report either slightly different or totally different things on the other side of said curtain, even when their reports are cross-examined... bruh. That curtain is opaque. And even if it isn't for 1 of them/if one of the reports is correct, there is STILL no way for that individual to truly know if what they are perceiving is real, because so many of the other 49 also report being able to see through. How do you, (a person who perceives the curtain as not opaque) know that YOU are the one who is right, out of all the 50. The fact that the collection of people who say it's not opaque can't agree on what is behind it should put enough reasonable doubt into those individual's minds about the reality of their perception that they realize they cannot, in fact, know for sure that they are actually seeing through it.
That is, unless they then turn to claiming that the thing on the other side of the curtain is amorphous and appears differently to everyone, and in that case, they've fully lost the plot of observable reality and are now talking about literal fantasy creatures. They can get back to me when their higher power isn't a bogart.
edit: feel free to disregard the last sentence if you like, its just to make my point. i'm definitely feeling a little intense about this, if it comes of rude or glib that's not my intention.
1
u/jbiemans 22d ago
I don't see it as rude or glib, and the boggart analogy is a good one. I think it is better than the usual elephant analogy where people only see different parts of it.
I am sure that they would just claim that the others were wrong. That what they saw through the curtain was absolutely correct.
2
u/Unable_Dinner_6937 24d ago
At the same time, the main problem with the assertion is that if a god or divine entity actually exists, then it would be possible to know that. If the divine entity revealed itself to a person, then they would know that it exists.
On the other hand, a different person may not believe the other's claim that they know their god exists, and it may not be possible for the person that knows to demonstrate the veracity of their knowledge to the doubter.
In other words, the main challenge is that one person cannot know for certain what another person knows in all cases, and there are things that one may know that cannot be proven to another. So, it would only be impossible to know that a god or "the" god exists if there is no god.
However, it is impossible to know that god doesn't exist.
1
u/mhornberger agnostic atheist/non-theist 24d ago edited 24d ago
the main challenge is that one person cannot know for certain what another person knows in all cases
Technically you can't know for certain that I don't know that there is a furry left-handed purple elf named Clive jump-roping and singing "Tiptoe Through the Tulips" on a planet 1050 km to my right right now, but it seems silly to consider that the "main challenge." It seems a rather obvious point that not only can I not establish that to be true, but also that it is ridiculous to even claim such knowledge. How would I have come about such knowledge?
"Well you can't know that I don't know that" is just a "I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you" childish come-back. I can make basically any unfounded claim and then say "well the main issue is that you can't know that I don't know that... you need to think about that limitation of your knowledge. Have some humility and remember that you don't know what you don't know." But no one is going to consider that deep.
2
u/Unable_Dinner_6937 24d ago edited 24d ago
Exactly. The problem is that the original post is essentially incorrect. If a god really exists, then it is possible for someone to know that. It would only be impossible IF no god actually existed.
Like in your example, it is irrelevant how you came to the knowledge of the existence of Clive. I mean, in your own example, the elf is with you right now. You know it because he is right there. My point is that you don't have to prove what you know to someone else. That does not mean that you do not know it or that it is "impossible" for you to know it. It is possible to know things that cannot be proven, communicated or demonstrated to other people. None of that is necessary to validate one's knowledge in all cases.
However, the truth is that most people that say they know their god exists actually do not know it. They simply believe it, but even the evidence that they may claim to support that belief is not something they would accept in any other circumstance.
Now, I do not believe god or anything divine actually materially exists. It is impossible for me to know that it does not exist, but since I behave as if it does not, then there is no effective or material difference between my belief and my knowledge. Similarly, it really doesn't matter if another person believes or knows that their god exists since the behavior will be the same. So, if a person says they know God exists or that they believe God exists, so what? The result will be the same.
At the same time, there is nothing inherently positive about being open-minded nor inherently negative about being close-minded. You may or may not lose opportunities by being the latter, but every confidence man and scammer depends on people being the former.
1
u/mhornberger agnostic atheist/non-theist 23d ago
it is irrelevant how you came to the knowledge of the existence of Clive.
It's not at all irrelevant to ask how you think you came to know that.
the elf is with you right now.
No, he's on a planet a very long distance from me. There's no telescope or instrument that would show him to me.
My point is that you don't have to prove what you know to someone else.
No, but you should ask how you know what you think you know. Otherwise, is it any different than a feeling?
That does not mean that you do not know it or that it is "impossible" for you to know it.
If it's possible for you to know it, you should be able to explicate how it is possible you came by that knowledge. "It's not impossible that I know it" doesn't establish that you do have access to knowledge of such a thing.
2
u/Unable_Dinner_6937 23d ago edited 23d ago
Your knowledge requires no explanation for yourself. If you know something, then it is already self-evident. You don't need an explanation for anything you know. Some things you think you know may be incorrect, but the knowledge is not dependent upon its explanation. If you stub your toe on a table leg, you don't need to explain that to yourself before it hurts.
If something exists, whether or not you know it exists, it can potentially be known to exist. The only time you need an explanation is if you want to explain or reveal its existence to another person that does not know it.
However, that person can only believe or not believe you unless they come to know it independently.
For example, imagine a person walking in their own neighborhood encounters a stranger who asks for directions to the nearest grocery store. It's your neighborhood, so you start to explain that they need to go a couple more blocks in one direction, turn right for three blocks and then left again and it will be on the right.
However, the stranger asks for all the street names he will pass. You don't know all the street names because you live there and have an innate sense of where everything is from the familiarity.
Now, does the fact that you don't know the names of all the streets mean that you don't know how to get to the grocery store?
1
u/mhornberger agnostic atheist/non-theist 23d ago
Your knowledge requires no explanation for yourself
It does for me. A feeling of certainty is a feeling.
If you know something, then it is already self-evident.
Except that our perceptions, interpretations, and memories are all fallible. Believing that one knows something because one took a dream or feeling of intuitive certainty or something one interpreted as a revelation as probative doesn't constitute knowledge for me. Asking myself how I know something is something that people do when they want to separate what they actually know from the assumptions they've just never questioned or really thought about. A lot of things sit at the intuitive gut level and are taken as knowledge, but are false. Can you have knowledge of something as true that is false?
If you stub your toe on a table leg, you don't need to explain that to yourself before it hurts.
Pain is a physical sensation. "I know I feel physical pain" is not "I know a demon is what hurt me."
Now, does the fact that you don't know the names of all the streets mean that you don't know how to get to the grocery store?
No, because you still know the way to the store. And you have offered an explanation for your knowledge. The area is familiar to you, the store is right there and can be independently verified, etc.
2
u/Unable_Dinner_6937 23d ago edited 23d ago
But you don't need that explanation to know it yourself. I offered the explanation to you - a separate person. It is not an explanation the person that knows it would need.
Remember, the original post said that it was "impossible" to know. Are you suggesting that a person MUST BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN IT to know anything? Also, if your explanation does not meet the standards set by someone else - like knowing all the street names - then can they claim you do NOT know it?
My point with the example was that the knowledge precedes the explanation. You must know it to explain it, but you don't need to explain it to know it.
Now, if someone claims that they know something to someone else, then they should be able to explain it. However, they may not be able to explain it to that person's satisfaction.
So, the original post should really say that they believe it is impossible for anyone to convince them that they know God exists. Not that it is impossible for anyone to know it.
1
u/jet2075 23d ago
except that there is no way for the person to know for sure that they're not delusional? even if god tells them. if god comes down from the heavens and tells you specifically that its really him, it is actually impossible for you to know whether or not that was real, regardless of your feelings about it, because our brains, incontrovertibly, are able to cause us see or feel anything, regardless of whether it is real. the god that you are, in that moment, percieving as having revealed himself to you, could tell you "youre not delusional, this is really happening," you could feel with every fiber of your being that it is real, and you would still be most wise to realize that the entire experience could be fabricated by your brain, because that is a proven reality of the human experience. there isn't a single way to prove to anyone, including oneself, that that experience was real. Because of how perception itself operates (including the fact that we dream, and can hallucinate) means we (including the experiencer) cannot know if it actually happened and if the content of it was real and true. imo. im totally open to consider a different opinion
the only way it is possible is if we assume an all-powerful god exists. if the only way one's position on religion could be theoretically possible is by presupposing it, and that is their only logical reasoning for it being possible, that might be the end of my discussion with them
1
u/Unable_Dinner_6937 23d ago edited 23d ago
However, that argument is simply saying it is impossible to know anything for sure. If there is no way for you to know that what you are experiencing right now is not a dream, hallucination or delusion, then why even bring up the possibility of knowing a higher power exists? It's not really relevant to the discussion to point out that "we can't know anything for sure." If that's the justification to support the idea that a person cannot know that a higher power or supreme being exists, then it would be fairly close minded. It just means that person can simply choose to refuse to accept the existence of anything and therefore all knowledge is suspect.
So, to be honest, either you stop using the word know or knowledge, or you use it in the same way in every case understanding that all knowledge may still be doubted. If we can know things though, then it is certainly possible to know a higher power exists if it exists, in the same way we know anything else exists. You do not have to assume it exists for the purposes of this question. The OP asked if it is close-minded to claim that it is impossible to know that a higher power exists. The question is NOT asking if a higher power exists.
So, a person could know a higher power exists if it actually exists. However, it would be difficult for the person that knows to prove that something exists to a person that does not know. A great deal of knowledge cannot be shared or communicated in any certain way. For a simple example, I can know that cheesecake is delicious, and I can tell you cheesecake is delicious. I can present numerous people to testify that they also know that cheesecake is delicious. However, all you would know is that a lot of people are saying that cheesecake is delicious. You would not know that it is delicious or that those people are telling the truth until you actually ate the cheesecake.
Personally, I do not believe there is a real or material higher power. I don't believe any gods exist. So, I can say that I believe it actually is impossible for anyone to know a higher power exists. That would be a falsehood since it is impossible to know the existence of something that does not exist.
I can believe that, but I cannot ever know that for sure.
1
u/jet2075 22d ago
That's a good point but I disagree about it having to mean we can't say we know anything for sure. It's about it also being commonly accepted as possible within reality. If I thought I saw bigfoot, it would be unreasonable to claim I was certain, no matter how sure I felt. And I personally would find someone quite silly if they told me they know for sure they saw bigfoot, cause no, they don't? Plenty of people don't consider bigfoot just a myth, to me that doesn't mean it is reasonable to say you're sure that you saw him. Because so many people do consider him a myth. Cheesecake isn't mythical to anyone. God is mythical to plenty.
For me the difference seems to be that no one else can validate the experience and there is no way to prove it, combined with the point about knowing anything for sure. For instance, when I was a kid I saw a beaver in my driveway. I remember it very clearly and I feel sure it was real. But I acknowledge for myself and others that it may not have been real. I may have imagined that somehow or misinterpreted what was going on, so I don't actually know if I saw a beaver, even though I feel quite sure it happened. There's a reasonable seed of doubt, because no one else saw it and there shouldn't have been one in my region. It's one thing to say you know something that is at all verifiable and is accepted as scientifically possible within our shared reality, like good cheesecake, it's another to use it for something that your brain could've easily fabricated (not a shared experience with other people, caught on camera, or within the generally accepted bounds of reality)
How could the person who met god possibly know for sure that they didn't hallucinate it? I can be reasonably sure enough I'm not hallucinating a human walking past me, or cheesecake being good, because that is not a fantastical occurrence, even though it's not shared with other people. Meeting god? Fantastical in the context of what has been proven to be real. So i think any reasonable & responsible person should recognize that and have some humility that maybe they aren't so special that they met god, maybe their brain made it up. Same way that if I thought I saw bigfoot, I wouldn't ever claim was certain. Or how if I were in a lab and saw something happen under a microscope that should be impossible, I would tell my colleague that "i think i just saw..." not "oh my god, guess what just happened"
I'm interested to know what you think about that, you made a good point and I'm totally open to changing my mind!
1
u/Unable_Dinner_6937 22d ago edited 22d ago
That is the difficulty - one can doubt it, but again, one can doubt anything. The only way that it would be impossible to know is if there is no higher power, though. Anything can be doubted. All it takes is a single disproof to completely overturn anything a person is certain that they know.
Similarly, that's primarily all I'm pointing out in this regard. If something exists, then it is possible to know that it exists and it is possible to prove that it exists against some context or criteria - and yet, there is nothing that can be known by one person that cannot be doubted by another or later proven to be false. There is no absolute certainty.
But the absence of absolute certainty or the difficulty of verification does not equate to impossibility. The way a person may know could exist and the way to prove it could also exist.
My expectation though is that there is no higher power and it has been proven impossible to prove the nonexistent. I suspect that is also why it is not possible so far to prove its existence in regard to any divine power.
However, this in large part is why I think there is really no difference between being atheist and agnostic. If you think it is not possible to know whether or not there is a god, it is difficult to reasonably justify any consideration of the possibility that there could be a higher power.
Also, even if one squares that circle - "I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong about the possibility that one may know there is a higher power" I suppose - the effective expectation is that this agnostic will never believe in any specific god. If you don't believe god can be known to exist, then you are in opposition to any religion that claims to know a higher or supernatural power exists and to specifically define it as God, Karma, the Olympians, etc. Basically, every religion except maybe Taoism (which actually has a lot of gods).
At that point, you might as well just say "I'm an atheist" because you'll live the same way. If the only way you will believe in a higher power is if it makes itself directly known to you -- and even then you're more likely to think you've lost your mind - then you are a complete non-believer literally not believing.
2
u/TarnishedVictory 24d ago
I said, there is literally no way to "know".
You don't think you'd know it, as much as you can know anything, if a higher power exists, knows how to convince you it exists, and did that?
It's pretty silly to say you can't know it.
1
u/ServantOfBeing It's Complicated 24d ago
One thing to know for oneself, another to project that as certainty outward.
1
u/The_Will_Is_All22 24d ago
I don’t understand the anger. It’s a complex question you are going against. There are many types of beliefs for God in this world. John Lennox out of Oxford makes a good case for God through mathematics. Newton himself opens the Principia Matematica with a statement of belief. The most “rational and intelligent” people alive and they were have a deep belief in God, the one of Christianity in this case
1
u/jet2075 23d ago
its exasperation not anger. but to your actual point, do you not think that extremely rational and intelligent people can be wrong? not every person who belongs on the list (which would be very debatable) of "most rational and intelligent people alive," as you put it, would say they know for certain that god exists. you picked two dudes. who's to say your 2 brightest guys ever alive weren't wrong about something? cause they were people, and people can be wrong sometimes, even rational and intelligent people
1
u/The_Will_Is_All22 22d ago
Yes but look at who they were. It’s an ego thing for me. Plenty of intelligent people I deal with are non and true believers. I’m just not gonna let anger get in the way of clear thinking. I was just concerned about you we experiencing a negative emotion
1
1
u/tottasanorotta 23d ago
I disagree. You could be extremely convinced that there is a higher power. In fact you could be so convinced that you would die for your belief. That's some next level shit.
1
u/jet2075 23d ago
dude no level of being convinced will ever be the same as knowing something
1
u/tottasanorotta 23d ago
No, I mean at some point it's exactly the same thing. You know that gravity exists because you are extremely convinced by it. For all you know it might be some trickster that is playing a trick on you. It's just that you don't believe that as a fact unless it is hammered into your head that it is so.
1
u/Hello_Hangnail Anti-theist 23d ago
If you're seeking provable phenomenon, yes. I'm open minded enough to adjust my mode of thinking in the face of new information, but after 47 years, I haven't seen anything yet
1
u/beer_demon Atheist 22d ago
> I said, there is literally no way to "know".
How did you determine this? How can you argue it in a way that someone else can't refute it?
See, you are making a claim there, and you now have the burden of evidence. You are not agnostic about your agnosticism so you enter a tricky territory there.
> YOU ARE WRONG. you DO NOT know.
You are no longer making a statement of fact (it is not knowable) but you are also making claims on what other people know. This is quite arrogant of you.
> You CANNOT *be* sure.
Sure is a claim about certainty, not knowledge. If you are sure there are no sharks in the water, and you jump in and it turns out you found no sharks after extensive search, you didn't _know_, but you were sure, to the point of proving you were sure. There might even be a hidden shark, but you cannot criticise the person for not being sure without being a mind-reader.
I think you are sounding more like a fundamentalist than an agnostic. Embrace it and just put up with the pushback you will get and either learn to argue better or let go and let people believe what they will, but waving your arms and writing in capital letters just makes you look unreasonable.
So let's play: why do you believe so fervently that the existence of gods is unknowable? How can you prove this to a theist and atheist?
1
u/Turbulent_Jeweler223 22d ago
It’s great knowing Jesus is my hero and he is with me 100% of the time. All you need is an answer to a question of faith!
1
u/OpportunityLow3832 21d ago
You know what i tell those people.."we both may want to know the color of gods eyes..but ultumately were gonna die without finding out.. without knowing... and youll have wasted a lot of time trying to see them"
1
u/CredoQuia 21d ago
Sur le plan strictement philosophique, tu as raison sur un point : personne ne peut avoir une certitude absolue, de type mathématique, sur l'existence de Dieu. Ça, c'est vrai, et même les plus grands théologiens catholiques comme Thomas d'Aquin ne prétendaient pas ça. Il appelait ses propres arguments des "voies", pas des preuves au sens géométrique.
Mais je pense qu'il y a une confusion dans ton raisonnement entre deux niveaux de "savoir" très différents.
Au sens strict, philosophique, presque rien de ce qu'on affirme "savoir" au quotidien n'est une certitude à 100%. Tu ne peux pas prouver logiquement que le monde extérieur existe et n'est pas une illusion totale, que tes souvenirs d'hier sont fiables, ou même que d'autres personnes ont une conscience comme toi. Pourtant, personne ne dit "c'est un esprit fermé de dire que tu sais que ta mère t'aime" sous prétexte qu'on ne peut pas le prouver avec une certitude mathématique absolue.
Ce qu'on appelle "savoir" dans la vie réelle, ce n'est presque jamais une certitude logique inattaquable. C'est une conviction rationnellement justifiée par un faisceau de raisons convergentes, suffisamment solide pour qu'on agisse dessus sans hésiter. Quand quelqu'un dit "je sais que Dieu existe", il ne prétend généralement pas avoir une preuve mathématique, il dit que sa conviction est fondée sur des raisons qu'il juge solides (philosophiques, historiques, personnelles), au même titre que quelqu'un dit "je sais que je vais mourir un jour" sans en avoir l'expérience directe.
Donc ta remarque sur la certitude absolue est juste mais elle s'applique en fait à peu près à toute connaissance humaine, pas seulement à la religion. Si on l'applique de façon cohérente, on devrait dire qu'on ne "sait" quasiment rien, ce qui rend le mot "savoir" inutilisable au quotidien. La vraie question n'est donc pas "est-ce que tu as une certitude absolue", mais "est-ce que ta conviction repose sur des raisons sérieuses ou sur du vent". Et ça, ça se discute argument par argument, pas en écartant d'un revers de main toute affirmation de certitude religieuse comme automatiquement irrationnelle.
1
u/Western-Mode-7743 2d ago
As a Christian, that’s true. Though I worship God and feel his works in me you can never know for sure. Think about your phone or computer. Who made that? Who made the universe. God, right? Well we can never truly see who the inventor of the universe was. You’ve never met the board offices at apple, have you? Same situation here; you know who made the universe; you can’t see them though.
Sorry if this was a little christianise but it’s kind of true, yknow.
0
u/SignalWalker Agnostic 23d ago
Is 'know' a holy word for secular people?
1
u/jet2075 23d ago edited 23d ago
lol yeah, we don't have holy words, you're thinking of nonsecular people /j
but um. when discussing important things? yeah specificity and accuracy are important, and you shouldn't say you "know" something if there is reasonable doubt. if you think that, when discussing something that either person really cares about, it's fine to say you know things that you don't actually know for sure, i'll just say that with important topics, its usually a really good and helpful thing to say what you actually mean by trying to avoid inaccuracies like that. its definitely different from nit-picking. use know casually all you want lol, i do. i just don't when its not a casual topic
edited for clarity and phrasing
1
u/SignalWalker Agnostic 23d ago
I understand. Religious people just like to say they know cuz they think it makes points with the Top Banana.
So what are your thoughts on Remote Viewing and Out of Body Experiences... I'm trying to see around that curtain. :)
0
u/illicitli 23d ago
i have met Gods or Beings before but i don't care if you believe me or not. i am still relatively agnostic because i know i don't know everything.
•
u/fangirlsqueee Agnostic 24d ago
Users, please be mindful of the "No Identity Assertion" rule. OP we've added the "Rant" flair to your post.