To know God is to not know God.... your thoughts on that statement?

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You're saying that in order to know God... you can't know things about Him?

It kinda follows the more you know the more you (know) you don't know. In my understanding, the more you study about God, the more you realize that He is incredibly complex. When I was a young believer things were this way or that way. Now, after decades of studying the word and having a relationship with God, I've come to realize that no matter how much or long I study for, God is so different, so huge tha I will never understand Him. That's when faith takes on a whole new meaning!

To know God is to not know God...I think that's right on the money. and for Blackacre, no, assumptions aren't necessarily required...

Let's try this without any assumptions...

The term "God" could be interpreted as the biblical "God"...and doing so certainly makes an assumption. However, the capitalization could also indicate any god that claims superiority and ultimate authority over human beings...any god that claims to be the creator of human beings.

With that perspective, anyone that claims to "know God" (meaning anyone that thinks they understand what he thinks) is revealing their ignorance of God. Think about it...no matter which god you consider, all, by definition, possesses any number of attributes that are beyond human comprehension...not the least of which would be the ability to reveal himself to humans OR conceal himself from some or even all of us. Thus, knowing God depends on his cooperation and there's no way to know if you have that cooperation. Thus, anyone that claims to "know God" doesn't understand that even if they DO have a few God-inspired glimpses of the truth, it is minuscule compared to what they don't know about him

From a purely logical point of view, the only correct answer to any question about God is "I don't know"...though there is some value in sharing experiences that suggest an answer to general questions, I think it is important to remember that our experiences aren't evidence for anyone except us.

with out explanation the statement is prone to being reinterpreted to fit the opinion of the hearer... see above answers for proof of that.

The statement with the explanation you have given it seems illogical.

It seems agnostic as well, or even gnostic, which in my opinion seem to end up with the same consclusion "you can't know God" - which is illogical, to rule out the possibility of knowing God when, to do so, you would have to have some very specific knowledge about God and rely on that knowledge to draw conclusions about Him.

The strange premise to the statement you asked about is "you can have knowledge of a thing until you have evidence for it, then your knowledge ceases because it has been proven."

It's so silly that only a philosopher could believe it.

p.s. - "knowing God" - never, in a rational sense, implied knowing every single thing about Him intimately and completely. That is silly too. Please apply this common sense to the comment two people below mine.

Knowing implies relationship, this is the sense that we are using the word in this discussion. The knowability of God depends upon our capacity for relationship (which we have) and His ability to reveal Himself (which He has).

To think that a knowable God means a little God is philisophical slight of hand.

Meister Eckhart - 13th century Mystic has said that God is unknowable or could only be known through negation (or as in the case of the early Church fathers by an apophatic means).

Not to be trite, but I used to know a PhD. in Philosophy who was assistant manager at a record store. This statement may reveal why.

Additionally, it makes assumptions about the subject it attempts to define.

Re: additional details - now you're making assumptions about the definition of "knowing" God.

From an atheist's viewpoint, it makes perfect sense. Many atheists, including myself, have spent part of their lives looking for "God". It was that quest which led us to the conclusion that "God" is a myth, and nothing more. Those who have accepted "God" as truth have done so blindly, and without the slightest amount of objectivity. They have accepted someone else's truth at face value as their own. That is a huge disservice to one's self.

Interesting statement, but from my point of view, it makes sense.

There is the Cataphatic and Apophatic approach to Theology. Both are needed. But that way of stating it is a little 'cutesy'.

When it comes to religious belief, people have different tastes and there are different religions to cater to different tastes. Some people just have to -know- things, so some religions have elaborate doctrines that purport to explain everything. Other people are happier wondering about mysteries so some religions preserve and cherish the mysteries and encourage alternate perspectives and admit that there are things nobody really knows.

My feeling is that there are things we will never really know, we -can't- know. I was raised in one of those religions that celebrated mystery and alternate views. I was shocked when I got a Fundamentalist girlfriend, attended her Bible Study and was told, essentially, that every single phrase in the Bible has one single unambiguous meaning with which nobody could disagree. "There is truth and we can know that truth."

My feeling about these people is that they have a strong psychological need to KNOW, even stuff that I don't think can be known. So they feel they know God, but to me God is a God of mystery, and I don't feel they know him. I don't claim to know God better, but by not pretending to know him, I think people know him better.

You can't even prove that God exists--or for that matter, that he doesn't. You may believe either way, and nobody can prove you wrong. If God exists, then it seems obvious that he set it up this way on purpose! He wants us to use our curiosity, our intellectual capacity, to learn about our environment, the world, nature and the universe. I think he would rather we accept some mystery than jump to conclusions. I think he wants people to have the courage to answer a question "I don't know" when they really don't know.

If there is a God who created the universe, who created us for some special purpose, and who desperately wanted to tell us about it, don't you think he could do better than to provide us with a collection of disparate writings, written over several thousand years, full of ambiguities, inconsistencies and downright contradictions, and of which the best and most authentic copies we have are translations of translations? I think he could do better than that! Those writings are valuable, they are some of the greatest literature even written, but they are not the answer to every single question, the sum total of all knowledge, etc. Instead God gave us brains and wanted us to use them, to wonder, to hypothesize,and even to gather information and grow smarter and more knowledgeable generation by generation. We are the only of his creatures who have that ability!

People who -know- God know a much smaller and simpler God, one more realizable, easier to grasp, easier to approach. I'm not saying they're wrong (because I don't know!) but for me I would rather have a God of infinite wonder and majesty and mystery! 8^)

It sounds like typical philosophical word-mongering to try and make the shallow appear deep.

Philosophy can be very useful in some places. This is not one of them.

Listen carefully.

You can hear the sound of my one-handed clapping.

there's logic in them hills.

those who claim the loudest to know any god tend to be the least appreciative of any different point of view, thus they have disconnect themselves from the natural diversity of both thought and the world - the two most evident manifestations of any spiritual reality.

part of wisdom and true spirituality is admitting to yourself how little one does know and understand.