The concept of God is incoherent

[Dontaskme]

Brain states, as are all mental states.

Thanks...So the universe is a mental construction...mental as in relating to the mind.

Now..where is the mental mind located?

How in the world would you be getting "the universe is a mental construction" from anything I've said?

Because it has been said in the OP that God created the universe.

That knowing can only be known through knowledge.

And because you said knowledge is a mental construct coming from brain states.Then the universe must be a mental construct coming from the person's brain.

Correct me if that's wrong?

[Terrapin Station]

Because it has been said in the OP that God created the universe.

That knowing can only be known through knowledge.

I didn't write the initial post of this thread. Bahman did.

I'm an atheist. I don't believe there are any gods.

And I definitely wouldn't write something like "knowing can only be known through knowledge."

And because you said knowledge is a mental construct

I said that about concepts. Concepts are different than knowledge. But sure, knowledge is a mental phenomenon, too.

It doesn't at all follow from the fact that concepts and knowledge are mental phenomena that the universe is a mental construct. That would only follow if one believed that the only things that exist are concepts and knowledge. But I certainly do not think anything like that. Do you?

[Dontaskme]

I said that about concepts. Concepts are different than knowledge. But sure, knowledge is a mental phenomenon, too.

It doesn't at all follow from the fact that concepts and knowledge are mental phenomena that the universe is a mental construct. That would only follow if one believed that the only things that exist are concepts and knowledge. But I certainly do not think anything like that. Do you?

But surely if things exist..then the only knowing that things exist would be through the knowledge of such things.

If not, how can any thing be known?

[Terrapin Station]

I said that about concepts. Concepts are different than knowledge. But sure, knowledge is a mental phenomenon, too.

It doesn't at all follow from the fact that concepts and knowledge are mental phenomena that the universe is a mental construct. That would only follow if one believed that the only things that exist are concepts and knowledge. But I certainly do not think anything like that. Do you?

But surely if things exist..then the only knowing that things exist would be through the knowledge of such things.

If not, how can any thing be known?

Knowing is knowing and not something else, sure. We don't need to write something ridiculous and convoluted like "knowing can only be known through knowledge" in order to say that.

That's akin to writing, "Swimming can only be swam with swimmingness."

[Dontaskme]

I'm an atheist. I don't believe there are any gods.

You don't believe in God but you believe in atheists that don't believe in a creator God?

Doesn't the belief in an atheist come from the same place as the belief there is no creator God?

[Terrapin Station]

You don't believe in God but you believe in atheists that don't believe in a creator God?

Right.

Doesn't the belief in an atheist come from the same place as the belief there is no creator God?

We could say that all beliefs come from the same place, sure. What of it?

[Dontaskme]

I said that about concepts. Concepts are different than knowledge. But sure, knowledge is a mental phenomenon, too.

It doesn't at all follow from the fact that concepts and knowledge are mental phenomena that the universe is a mental construct. That would only follow if one believed that the only things that exist are concepts and knowledge. But I certainly do not think anything like that. Do you?

But surely if things exist..then the only knowing that things exist would be through the knowledge of such things.

If not, how can any thing be known?

Knowing is knowing and not something else, sure. We don't need to write something ridiculous and convoluted like "knowing can only be known through knowledge" in order to say that.

That's akin to writing, "Swimming can only be swam with swimmingness."

There is no way of knowing anything without the knowledge.

You said knowledge is located in the brain. So therefore knowledge is the only knower....if knowledge is not the knower....who is the knower?

[Terrapin Station]

There is no way of knowing anything without the knowledge.

"Knowledge" and "knowing" are grammatical permutations of the same word. So yeah, if you know something, or if you're in a state of knowing, you have knowledge. That's simply a tautology. There's no need to keep repeating the word in different grammatical permutations.

You said knowledge is located in the brain. So therefore knowledge is the only knower....

No, people are "knowers." Knowledge isn't some sort of independent entity that then knows things.

It's like I'm trying to explain things to an alien.

[Dontaskme]

We could say that all beliefs come from the same place, sure. What of it?

If all beliefs come from the same place, all beliefs must be valid since they are coming from the same source?

So it doesn't matter if there is a God or not...for it's just a belief sourced from/in ....what?

[Terrapin Station]

If all beliefs come from the same place, all beliefs must be valid since they are coming from the same source?

I have no idea how you're using "valid." I reserve "valid" for the (formal) logical concept ("an argument is valid just in case it's impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false," where that "and" functions like an either/or as well as a conjunction). I don't really use the term "valid" aside from that. Colloquial usage of it seems quite varied and vague. So I'm not sure what you'd have in mind by "valid."

Most beliefs have little to do with formal logical validity, by the way.

So it doesn't matter if there is a God or not...for it's just a belief sourced from/in ....what?

Mattering is subjective. It mattters to me whether there's a god in at least some contexts. In other contexts it doesn't matter much to me, although that also hinges for me on just what the properties of the god in question are supposed to be.

[Dontaskme]

There is no way of knowing anything without the knowledge.

"Knowledge" and "knowing" are grammatical permutations of the same word. So yeah, if you know something, or if you're in a state of knowing, you have knowledge. That's simply a tautology. There's no need to keep repeating the word in different grammatical permutations.

You said knowledge is located in the brain. So therefore knowledge is the only knower....

No, people are "knowers." Knowledge isn't some sort of independent entity that then knows things.

It's like I'm trying to explain things to an alien.

No, you are missing an important point.

You say people are knowers....but how do you know you are a person that knows...without the knowledge of person. Knowledge informs, but where is the information constructed?

Can the knower of knowledge know how the knowledge it knows is formulated? ....can the knower be known by the knowledge known?...and if yes...how?

[Terrapin Station]

No, you are missing an important point.

With all due respect, because you're not explaining it very well then.

You say people are knowers....but how do you know you are a person that knows...

Via empirical observation as well as per what I'm referring to with the terms.

. . . without the knowledge of person.

I don't know what you're asking there. "How do you know you are a person that knows without the knowledge of person"??? Maybe try explaining what you're getting at with a bit more verbosity. Flesh it out with more words. (But where hopefully those words don't end up being "Knowing known knowledge knows that either the known or unknown knows knowledge?")

Knowledge informs, but where is the information constructed?

"Information" (and "informs") is another term that is used in a wide variety of often vague ways. So could you define how you're using that term first? I don't normally use it outside of contexts where it's the same as "data set out in some formal way that we can then process through some systematic means." "Knowledge informs" seems needlessly redundant to me again (that is, guessing what you probably have in mind by "informs"), but maybe you have something different in mind with "informs."

Can the knower of knowledge know how the knowledge it knows is formulated?

It's much simpler to just ask, "Can we learn how knowledge is formulated?" And the answer to that is, "Yes, we can."

....can the knower be known by the knowledge known?...and if yes...how?

You keep wanting to go back to these nonsensical grammatical constructions. Anyway, knowledge doesn't know anything. People do. We went over that part already.

[Dontaskme]

I don't know what you're asking there. "How do you know you are a person that knows without the knowledge of person"??? Maybe try explaining what you're getting at with a bit more verbosity. Flesh it out with more words.

Who told you you are a person?

If you were the only person in the whole universe...how would you know you are a person, where would that knowing come from?

Does a baby know it is a baby? ....

[Terrapin Station]

Who told you you are a person?

I'm not saying anything about people telling me that I'm a person. I have a concept of "person" that I've constructed, and I meet the criteria for it (via empirical observation).

That's in general how it's the case that any x is an F. Some person, S, formulates their concept, F, and a given x either meets the criteria for that concept or not. If the x fits, then they bestow the concept-term "F" upon the x.

If you were the only person in the whole universe...how would you know you are a person, where would that knowing come from?

So whether I'm the only person in the universe doesn't make a difference there, although maybe I'd name the concept differently.

Does a baby know it is a baby? ....

Depends on the baby in question, but as far as we can tell, it's unlikely until they've aged a bit and spent more time formulating concepts and so on.

[Dontaskme]

"Information" (and "informs") is another term that is used in a wide variety of often vague ways. So could you define how you're using that term first? I don't normally use it outside of contexts where it's the same as "data set out in some formal way that we can then process through some systematic means." "Knowledge informs" seems needlessly redundant to me again (that is, guessing what you probably have in mind by "informs"), but maybe you have something different in mind with "informs."

The person knows it's a person because knowledge has informed the person it is a person. Information is processed by the brain as knowledge.

The brain doesn't create the information, it processes the information that's passing through it...so where does the information that informs you are a person come from?