Sublime

Hume claimed that the traditional arguments for God’s existence (for example, the world is an effect that needs a personal cause) were quite weak. He also said that since we cannot experience God with the five senses, the claim that God exists cannot be taken as an item of knowledge.

Only when one sees from the vantage point of this double extinction—the nothing becoming something that is nothing—does one comprehend the far-reaching monopsychic (as opposed to the conventional monotheistic) meaning of the verse from Deuteronomy proclaiming that apart from God there is no other, that is, appearances notwithstanding, there appears

Those who oppose fideism argue that the biblical text supports the use of reason (Isaiah 1:18; 1 Peter 3:15) with regard to spiritual issues, and that it is not possible to believe in God without first believing that He exists (Hebrews 11:6). The fideist perspective is also viewed as contradictory because reason is used to argue that one should not

In short, no one can purge him- or herself of all faith assumptions and assume an objective, belief-free, pure openness to objective evidence. There is no “view from nowhere.”

The difference between “knowledge” and “belief” is simply one of degree of certainty—more or less—but knowledge is never completely and indisputably certain beyond all doubt and interpretation.

It does not follow that there is no simple Self; it only follows that we cannot know whether there is or not, and that the Self, except as a bundle of perceptions, cannot enter into any part of our knowledge. This conclusion is important in metaphysics, as getting rid of the last surviving use of “substance.” It is important in theology, as abolish

upended traditional metaphysics, concerned with the existence and nature of God, in favor of an analysis of the human subject and how he or she knows the world.

I am not sure I do accept God, or how God has been traditionally defined or understood.