Visiting "God" Again

A little over a year ago I posted my ponderings over the validity of a metaphysically existent god, ie. in this plane/universe/realm/dimension. I wanted to know the answer to the question, "does god exist?" I concluded that to exist one must literally be in existence, that is, the modern notion of god as an infinite-unknowable-ethereal-being is ludicrous. But I was stumped by the claim that god is in existence, is knowable, and does have a definite identity all of which we simply don't yet have conclusive evidence.

What confused me about such an argument is that I knew arguing for either the proof or disproof of god on no evidence are both impossible and silly to attempt, but I didn't yet grasp the implications of that impossibility. I didn't understand where to go from there and I was stopped at the false dichotomy without a proper understanding of the correct third option. I guessed it had something to do with how one goes about gaining knowledge [epistemology], but no clear idea of what that meant.

Now, a year later, I've learned a lot with the help of excellent conversation with my friends Nick, Coire, and Peter. Now that it seems so clear I kind of wonder, rereading John Stark's comments, why it wasn't so obvious then. So, I'm going to explain my new understanding, though I don't think I'm saying anything new to those of you who understand the issue already and to those of you who don't, I don't think I can say anything which will make you understand if you haven't yet thought about it. This is purely for my own benefit.

We as humans very literally can't know anything on no evidence; or to put it positively, we know by evidence. We make observations and find the logical implications of those observations by reason. In the absence of observation there are no logical implications to discover, no conclusions to be made, literally nothing to say.

Put it another way: The conversation that helped me to finally glean this insight was one about truth in which Coire asked, if a man is proven guilty and sentenced but is later released on the grounds of new evidence which proves his innocence, is the original verdict true? Assuming the jury made no errors in judgment given the evidence they were provided, it was the introduction of new evidence and not the realization of faulty reasoning which proved the man's innocence.

The answer is yes, it was true within the context of the given evidence. And what about within the context of that same evidence plus that which was discovered later? It is silly to say. It is like asking if there are snow storms in North Dakota to which the proper answer is yes, then asking if there are snow storms in North Dakota in July, and claiming a "no" answer refutes the truth of the previous answer. They are both correct, both true, but only within the context of the evidence given for the conclusion.

Truth is not reality. Reality is as it is with or without our knowledge of it. Truth is what we correctly derive from our observations reality, but our observations are neither infinite nor boundless.

And so, when asked whether or not I think god exists, my answer is no longer a no [I don't think it was ever a yes]. My answer is: there is nothing I can say about god.