I know that there are no gods.

[corndog36]

Rofl, very good point, that's a circular definition.

I just couldn't resist injecting a bit of levity there. But, on the whole I've enjoyed following your well reasoned arguments though out this thread. I particularly like this bit:

For example, I see a table, I know it exists because I am aware of it and knowledge and awareness are the same thing, the question is whether it's real or not. It either exists and is real or exists but is unreal. I am aware of the table regardless of whether it is illusory or not. I can be aware of (or know) its existence but not its essence.

I think that sums it up nicely.

[ozgoat]

Rofl, very good point, that's a circular definition.

However, my point in this thread was that I define awareness as knowledge, and dictionary.com agrees with me there.

Furthermore, since we know when we are aware of something, we can also be sure when we truly know something. However, the essence of that something is another matter.

For example, I see a table, I know it exists because I am aware of it and knowledge and awareness are the same thing, the question is whether it's real or not. It either exists and is real or exists but is unreal. I am aware of the table regardless of whether it is illusory or not. I can be aware of (or know) its existence but not its essence.

But being aware of something doesn't mean that you necessarily acknowledge it or even want to KNOW it.

You may be aware that the table is there, and know it's there, but you you may not be aware or know that's it's made of wood or laminate, so until you follow up on your awareness that it's there, you don't really know the table until you examine it, or in other words, fully know it. You just remain in a state of awareness that it exists without really knowing it; colour, composition, texture, construction.

So I believe that there is a difference between being aware of something and knowing it .

[Watson]

But in DvF's description once you have examined the table as thoroughly as possible you are aware of it in every sense. The trouble lies within this faulty description, as to know of something and be aware of something are two different things. You may be aware of something, and acknowledge its existence as such or not, but until you accept and act upon this knowledge you are not acting within a state of knowing. You may be aware that China exists, but to act upon that is to act upon the knowledge that China exists by, say, going to China. It requires both the assumption that China exists and that the awareness one has of China is not faulty.

[Edwardo Piet]

The problem lies in your definition of 'knowledge as being not merely awareness but self-awareness, DvF.

I don't define knowledge as self-awareness I define it as awareness. Self-awareness is self-knowledge.

---

But in DvF's description once you have examined the table as thoroughly as possible you are aware of it in every sense.

No, not at all. You are aware that it exists but you don't know if it exists as an imaginary table or a real table.

You may be aware that China exists, but to act upon that is to act upon the knowledge that China exists by, say, going to China. It requires both the assumption that China exists and that the awareness one has of China is not faulty.

If I am aware that China exists then I know that China exists.

China may be an illusion but then I'm still aware of the illusion of China.

The question is, is the China that I am aware of/that I know of, real?

I don't know/I am not aware. Knowing of something and knowing what it is or if it is real is another matter.

Knowing that something is is being aware of its existence whether that's a real or illusory existence. Knowing what something is is being aware of its essence.

I'll now concede something: My argument for knowing that there are no gods only works on omnipresent gods.

My argument goes like this: Omnipresent gods are present in all things.

The things that I am aware of therefore, must have omnipresent gods present in them, if any omnipresent gods exist.

Since omnipresent gods probably don't exist, the things that I am aware of are probably without their presence.

So, I claim "I know that/I am aware there are no[omnipresent] gods" as a statement of opinion which is probably true. I probably am aware of the absence of omnipresent gods rather than any of their omnipresence.

[fr0d0]

I'll now concede something: My argument for knowing that there are no gods only works on omnipresent gods.

My argument goes like this: Omnipresent gods are present in all things.

The things that I am aware of therefore, must have omnipresent gods present in them, if any omnipresent gods exist.

Since omnipresent gods probably don't exist, the things that I am aware of are probably without their presence.

So, I claim "I know that/I am aware there are no[omnipresent] gods" as a statement of opinion which is probably true. I probably am aware of the absence of omnipresent gods rather than any of their omnipresence.

It seems that you have to deny the meaning of omnipresent God to be able to state there isn't one. Maybe you're adictionarist?

[ozgoat]

But in DvF's description once you have examined the table as thoroughly as possible you are aware of it in every sense. The trouble lies within this faulty description, as to know of something and be aware of something are two different things. You may be aware of something, and acknowledge its existence as such or not, but until you accept and act upon this knowledge you are not acting within a state of knowing. You may be aware that China exists, but to act upon that is to act upon the knowledge that China exists by, say, going to China. It requires both the assumption that China exists and that the awareness one has of China is not faulty.

Exactly!

[reverendjeremiah]

It seems that you have to deny the meaning of omnipresent God to be able to state there isn't one. Maybe you're adictionarist?

If a god is omnipresent, then one may merely look at one single thing and judge wether an omnipresent god exists. If God doesnt exist in that one thing, then said god does not exist: Omnipresence = omnipotence = omnisceince.

Is God in a turd?

Does god exist in gay sex?

Also: How can god be sacred or holy and omnipresent at the same time?

sa·cred   /ˈseɪkrɪd/ [sey-krid]
–adjective
1. devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated.
2. entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or divine things; holy.
3. pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to secular or profane): sacred music; sacred books.
4. reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object: a morning hour sacred to study.
5. regarded with reverence: the sacred memory of a dead hero.
6. secured against violation, infringement, etc., as by reverence or sense of right: sacred oaths; sacred rights.
7. properly immune from violence, interference, etc., as a person or office.


So if god is omnipresent, and holy, then raping a child is god and holy.
So if god is omnipresent, and holy, then satan is god and holy
So if god is omnipresent, and holy, then I am god and holy.

This is the inherent problem with infinite absolutes: If God is omnipresent then I am god.

[Edwardo Piet]

It seems that you have to deny the meaning of omnipresent God to be able to state there isn't one.

No. I already gave my argument.

Since omnipresent gods are supposed to be present in all things, and since they probably don't exist, the things that I am aware of are probably without their presence, so I'm probably instead aware of their absence.

[fr0d0]

Yes rev you are God!

~Evie

If you're aware of things, and God is omnipresent, then you are aware of God.

[Zenith]

This is a little experiment to see what happens and to also test the way I understand the definition of 'knowledge' and 'know'.

I know that there are no gods. I expect someone to take me up on this claim.

Well, "I know that there are no gods" actually means "I am convinced that there are no gods", which means that something or some things have convinced you that there are no gods, in such a way that you have no doubt that there are no gods so you can say "it is so!" (and not, I think it is so). It hasn't anything to do with whether there are or not, gods. And it hasn't almost anything to do with knowledge.

"knowledge" is actually what is accepted to be true. The information that people have learnt and understand and remained in their minds, which is considered true, is called knowledge, whether the information is correct (true) or incorrect (false).