Logically speaking: God is knowable

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: 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 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

This is logic Mark. You don't need any supporting data

Let me put it this way1 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.

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.

Could you elaborate? 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 17 is in the trouble you state it to be in.Thus asymmetric

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. Thats okay. It can work my way - logicallyEdited by iano, : No reason given.

I do. To know God doesn't exist means one must know everything and God is not there. To infer something is not to know it I agree. The link in post 1 discusses this. Exhalt is not the word I would chose however. As Robin is wont to say "It sounds boastful". If you can read 'exhalt' without any sense of it being on account of me being something special over and above others not so (or yet) exhalted then I would be comfortable with that.

Yes. It is not necessary that the data has that quality. We know stuff all the time without the data being convincingly (read: 100% convincingly) transmittable to another. I think data is essential to anyone knowing anything however. The link in post 1 covers this issue of delusion. In short: I am saying that I (let me be the 'person' for short from now on) know God exists. That is not to say he does exist. I could be deluded. My being deluded doesn't mean I do not know God exists. It has nothing to do with it.Edited by iano, : sorry...mouse trouble

Lets assume for a second that you know things. You cannot demonstrate that you are not deluded in your knowing. That delusion tack hits us all and short circuits the discussion. Okay. As per the link. I claim to sit in a reality beyond the bubble you sit in. Logically possible

Good point CS. I'll have a think about it and get back. Its late and I've only got a post or so in me at this point

Not at all. As you can see a (by the worlds standards) deluded person in a bubble whilst yourself residing within a bubble (whose skin thickness is not known to you) so to can I (logically) look at you in a deluded bubble whilst residing in bubble whose skin thickness (God) is not known to me. The bubble I reside in encompasses yours as your does a deluded persons (by the worlds standards)You don't have to be omniscient to see the deluded person residing in a bubble. Nor do I to see you in a bubble.This sounds very me-superior-than-you but I gather you are bigger than that. Its just an illustrationNight by the way. Its been a long week and I'm up early too *sigh*Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

No it can't. Logic is logic and the person who is deluded and says he knows God doesn't exist could not make the case logically. He would still need to know everything there is to know in order to state that - meaning he is GodThis thing about delusion is a bit of a red herring. To know something means it is the case without any possibility that it is not - with a provision: namely, one assumes that the reality one exists in is objectively the reality. And what we condsider to be a deluded person is us stating that their reality is not the objective one - but that ours is. But ours may not be. We can be deluded too and we have no way of saying otherwise.So, if a person knows something it means that that is the case - assuming that their objective reality is actually the objective reality Once a person decides their reality is objective then they can know lots of things. That is all that knowing can mean. So when I say that logically a person can know God exists then they can. This does not mean he does actually exist though.

See the message above to Catholic Scientist and see does that clarify things

You have no method by which to attach degrees of plausibility so you must refrain from doing so. This is solely about logical possibilities. It does not apply to the other side because the other side much deal with logic, deluded or no.

If that was the symmetry drawn the I have no problem with it. But at the outset of this thread I assume Dawkins to be stating things in the logical sense. Indeed the slightly derogative tones implied in Dawkins statement (as paraphrased well I think by SteveN) suggests that Dawkins sees a 1 and a 7 as equally irrational and illogicalDawkins states he is a 6 because he knows that logically he cannot be 7. He says he has met very few 7's (inferring that these folk are for the birds). Then lumps 1 in the same camp in order to make one of his hyperbolic points.They are not symmetrical positions because a 7 cannot exist logically. Whereas a 1 can. There is no point is holding the opposite positions as opposite if one is illogical and the other not. What use such a scale: at one end the sane and at the other the insaneEdited by iano, : No reason given.