|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Logically speaking: God is knowable | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
The issue of being able to know that God exists in terms of it being a logical possibility has drawn a couple of threads off topic. Might as well do it here as there. We can look at other facets of knowing too.
The latest entry point was SteveN's comment about something Dawkins said. He paraphrased it like this:
Maybe surprisingly for those who consider him a rabid atheist, on a scale of 1 to 7 (1 being 'Strong theist; 100% probability of God' and 7 being 'Strong atheist, knows there is no God') he classes himself as a 6 (very low probability, but short of zero) tending towards 7. The implication (and it is assumed for the sake of discussion) is that the illogical position of a person adopting a score of 7 is symmetrical with the position taken by a person adopting a score of 1. That is: 1 is an illogical position too. The rebuttal of this was given by me in this way
A 7 score is an athiest who says he knows God doesn't exist. This is not a question of whether he is able to prove it or not. He cannot actually know God doesn't exist either. To know that he would have to know everything there is to be known (for if he didn't know everything then God could be in the place he doesn't know about). If he does know everything there is to know then he himself is God (meaning he couldn't know God doesn't exist anymore) On the other hand a person can know God exists. All that has to happen is a) for God to exist (possible) b) for God to reveal himself to a person (also possible) 1 and 7 are not symmetrical positions thus. A post which may offset side tracks into the possibility of my being deluded (which has nothing at all to do with the logic presented) can be found here: http://EvC Forum: Would you want to know? -->EvC Forum: Would you want to know? Edited by iano, : No reason given. Edited by iano, : Correct link
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminFaith Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Coffee House forum.
Sorry, mistake, meant to go to Faith an Belief. Don't know how I did that. Well, try again. Edited by AdminFaith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminFaith Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Comparative Religions forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Iano,
Positions 1 & 7 have equal veracity, ie. Zero. Neither is supported by data that can be examined, & as such, are as bad as each other. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
I thought faith and belief don't need data.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
gasby,
I thought faith and belief don't need data. They don't, which is why 1 & 7 are as bad as each other. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
To show that it is the positions that are asymmetrical you would need to use equivalent criteria to assess each.
If you require certain knowledge rather than inferences then it has to be asked how you could know that God exists. If you define God as omniscient then how can you test that without knowing everything yourself ? And God is typically defined as being infinitely powerful - but how could infinite power be demonstrated. Without an answer to that you are required to infer infinity from finite demonstrations - an inference that cannot be reliable. And if you cannot reliably infer infinite power you cannot know that the entity in question is God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
This is logic Mark. You don't need any supporting data
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Unless you are claiming to have a logical proof of God you must be relying on data to determine God's existence. So far as I am aware the claim to have a logical proof of God - although sometimes (but rarely) made - is even worse than the claims to have logical disproofs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Let me put it this way
1 and 7 are claimed to be symmetrical. I gave a rebuttal to that. Your options are either to show 1 and 7 are symmetrical (that they are was asserted) or show the rebuttal to be incorrect. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
I am not looking at logically proving God. I am saying it is logical that I can know God. God would have to exist for that to happen but there is no logical impediement to that being the case. Anything is possible except that which is logically not.
IF a cow had powerful enough leg muscles AND he was so inclinded THEN a cow can jump over the moon. We are aware of what evolution has managed to make happen so let us not, logically, stand in its way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
No, you haven't provided a real rebuttal.
In your argument against '7' you argue that it is not enough to take things at face value. In your argument for '1' you assume that you can take a supposed revelation at face value. The asymmetry is in the criteria you use for "knowing". In reality while personal experiences might provide adequate reasons for beleiving in God they cannot provide certainty - because those experiences could be misinterpreted or deceptive. Equally while there are strong arguments against the existence of God they, too cannot provide certainty. Although that is largely because God is too slippery a concept to be thoroughly disproven.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
In your argument against '7' you argue that it is not enough to take things at face value. Could you elaborate?
In your argument for '1' you assume that you can take a supposed revelation at face value. 1 doesn't rely on me - it relys on God. The notion of God is the usual one knocking around here. All powerful means being able to pierce through any and all failings in us: disbelief, delusion, error etc. If he choses to let me know the I will know. This answers your later objections for 1 7 is in the trouble you state it to be in. Thus asymmetric
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Then - as Mark said - you DO need data adequate to support certainty. The question is whether it is possible to have such data. If not then you are wrong.
Is it possible to distinguish infinite power from an arbitrarily large but finite power ? Maybe it is logically possible, but it is also logically possible to be omniscient without being God. Simply appealing to extreme logical possibilities works both ways. As I said the asymmetry has to be shown to be genuine - not rely on setting asymmetric conditions that favour one side over the other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Then - as Mark said - you DO need data adequate to support certainty. The question is whether it is possible to have such data. If not then you are wrong. I don't need data in the sense of supplying it to you. The issue is whether a person can know God exists. For that the person themselves needs data. Let me be that person. I have it. God supplied it and logically (for that is what this is about) there is no impediment to him in supplying it. You don't believe me. Well that is not important in the context of the discussion. That is about you not believing me not me not being able to have it. Logically I can have it. In other words IF God exists AND he gave me the data required to know he exists THEN I know he exist.
Is it possible to distinguish infinite power from an arbitrarily large but finite power ? Maybe it is logically possible, but it is also logically possible to be omniscient without being God. Simply appealing to extreme logical possibilities works both ways. Thats okay. It can work my way - logically Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024