Logically speaking: God is knowable

Indeed. iano neatly stepped round this point in the other thread when I pointed out that with all available evidence then the only way to reach either 1 or 7 is through belief. You have to believe. Belief is not something that actually requires hard data either way.Just because 7 can never be empirically proved, doesn’t mean it is invalid to hold that belief. After all, in the 5000years (ish) of recorded human history, there has not been a single piece of evidence for the existence of the god/s (any of them), and that was not through want of trying either. The true irony is that both 1s and 7s use this same 5000 year dry spell of proof to justify their belief. The 7s because continued lack of evidence for the god/s lends credence to their stance and the 1s because their holy books state that God refuses to give evidence of his existence and thus the lack of evidence IS evidence for the existence of God.IF it is lunacy to believe 7 then it is also lunacy to believe 1.Edited by ohnhai, : tided the gramar

Do you truly disagree that being 100%Theisitc is diametrically opposed to being 100% Atheistic? Because that is what this 1-7 scale is about . It doesn’t address the logic, data or reason of these positions, but simply creates a linear gradient from one to the other.In the context of the scale then 1 & 7 ARE equivalent. 1 being absolute belief in the existence of God and 7 being the absolute belief of the lack of existence for the god/s. Logic, reason and data have NO baring on it what-so-ever. Edited by ohnhai, : typo fixEdited by ohnhai, : No reason given.

Not, the case. You CAN be a 7 and yet still admit you could be wrong.Sure it’s a inconsistency but that’s never stopped the 1s has it?I am a 7.I believe that nothing of the divine, or supernatural exists. This encompasses God, The Morning Star, Demons, Angels and all the things that people convince themselves go bump in the night. None of it exists.I believe this with all of my heart, I AM certain of it.I do however realise that, although the evidence (or utter lack there of) does lean towards this conclusion it does not categorically prove it. It can’t. That leaves me in the position of KNOWING the statement above is true, while at the same time I know I don’t have the evidence to back that claim up.In the light of this I do have to caveat my belief with “but I could be wrong”. I’m not though. It’s just intellectual honesty forces me to add that caveat. It doesn’t change the fact I am a solid 7.

However in regard to existence of ”whatever’, then after a 5000year search that yields NO conclusive evidence for its existence (for example) then is it not more logical to conclude that this thing doesn’t exist, rather than stubbornly insist it does?If you claimed pink spotted dwarf unicorns existed and in the entirety of recorded human history not one had ever been found then how logical would it be to persist in your belief?IF, in regard to God (your god), 1 was a logical stand point you would not need faith.You would not need to believe. It wouldn’t be something that required faith or belief to accept. Odds on we would have solid evidence by now. We don’t (and are unlikely to. Ever). What we DO have is a 5000 year lack of anything that proves god either way. As I have said in the light of that, then 7 IS the more logical conclusion, despite having to be held as a belief as much as 1. I ask you again, how ”sane’ is it to stubbornly believe in the existence of something when the whole of recorded human history has not yielded any evidence that proves its existence?

Yes, and you COULD provide proof to others of that monitor beyond simply stating your case that you have evidence. I have Two monitors in front of me even as I type so I have no reason to disbelieve you on that score. However had you claimed being in the presence of the aforementioned height-challenged coloured unicorn then I would WANT to see your proof.Can you show me the proof of god's existence? Real solid proof beyond asserting that simply believing in his existence makes it so? ("faith itself is the evidence")The answer to this is NO. You cant. Because you have none. And because you have none, you seek to undermine the concepts of empirical evidence, claiming it to be non-inclusive and not regarding the type of 'evidence' you are claiming (Ie the kind of 'evidence' that can’t be proved or verified). Ok you have found evidence for god. Be a sport and share it with us. You have the evidence you MUST be able to show us, right? If you are in the possession of the actual evidence that will prove God's existence then you are about to make the most important post of human history. We are not talking about metaphysical constructs or philosophical arguments; we are talking about proof for the actual existence of some ”thing’ (god). If we are talking about asserting something’s existence then that indeed is capable of being proved. A photo would be good. Signed with today’s paper in shot would be better.We are waiting.

But we have all seen birds. We have countless data on the 'fact' that birds exist. many of us have even seen these 'birds' fly past windows. It is no hardship to believe you when you claim to have seen one fly past your window.Had you claimed you had just seen a dragon fly past your window... That would be a different matter entirely. But it is you who ringed the supposed asymmetry of the ”inferred illogic’ of the two stand points. Not surprising when you clearly don’t want to admit the illogic of your own belief as a 1. Which is strange as you obviously accept religion IS faith and belief And so you have to Believe to be able to claim a 1. This is the same position of the 7s, each of these stances goes beyond the evidence available and so the proponents of each have to take a leap of faith to get there. Sure. Because if I did I would have to have evidence that proved the non-existence of”supernatural’ senses. Again, like the search for god, you are asking to prove the non-existence of something.
Anyway I wasn’t claiming empiricism. I was asking for empirical data on your god. A subtle but important difference, as your reply above points out.The point being you have just admitted that you have no hard data regarding the existence of god and while you don’t believe this poses a problem in being a 1 you use the lack of hard data in the other direction as a proof of the illogic of being a 7. You then claim 1 and 7s are not on equal footing.Based on the available data then 1 and 7 are equivalent. Neither has hard evidence to support it, thus neither is a tenable position with out belief. They are equivalent.

you obviously have not been to a si-fi convention in a Babalon 5 uniform........