Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Logically speaking: God is knowable
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 46 of 187 (353409)
10-01-2006 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by ohnhai
09-29-2006 7:12 PM


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.
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 illogical
Dawkins 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 insane
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ohnhai, posted 09-29-2006 7:12 PM ohnhai has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by ohnhai, posted 10-02-2006 2:44 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 47 of 187 (353410)
10-01-2006 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dr Adequate
09-29-2006 7:24 PM


I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here Dr. Adequate. You mention a fallacy but I don't get what you mean.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-29-2006 7:24 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-01-2006 3:37 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 48 of 187 (353411)
10-01-2006 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by mark24
09-29-2006 7:25 PM


The point is that from an evidential point of view both 1 & 7 are both evidentially vacuous. That the arguments made for both are internally consistent is rendered pointless without evidence.
A 7 cannot be. A 1 can have evidence enabling knowing. It is not necessary for a 1 to have evidence of the type that he can show to another in order to have evidence unto knowing himself. It might be considered unfortunate by the another but it has no bearing on what the 1 knows.
That another cannot know what you know impacts not at all on what you know. This is about you not them

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by mark24, posted 09-29-2006 7:25 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by mark24, posted 10-01-2006 11:16 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 49 of 187 (353412)
10-01-2006 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Woodsy
09-30-2006 10:34 AM


I have read that it has been found possible to evoke religious experiences by electrical and chemical means (I don't have references available just now, but will look for them if required). Given that, I don't see how one could be confident that such experiences, which I suppose include God revealing himself, can be relied on without external confirmation.
I have heard it said that it is possible for a person to experience the objective reality around them as being truly objective simply by assuming that it is. No chemicals required. We all do it in fact

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Woodsy, posted 09-30-2006 10:34 AM Woodsy has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 50 of 187 (353413)
10-01-2006 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Straggler
09-30-2006 10:46 AM


Anyone who claims to be at 1 or 7 has to be deluded because either position requires a certainty about the source of their absolute certanty that it is impossible to have.
I agree. The same could be said of positions 2-6 however. For a person to say "I am fairly convinced that God exists" required that they themselves exist in order to be "fairly convinced". But no one can be certain of even that. They might be characters in a alien kids playstation game and not exist at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Straggler, posted 09-30-2006 10:46 AM Straggler has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 51 of 187 (353415)
10-01-2006 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by iano
10-01-2006 8:52 AM


quote:
You have no method by which to attach degrees of plausibility so you must refrain from doing so
Sure I do. I can compare a statement with what is known of human experience - my own and the reports of others. If somethign seems completely out of sync with that I can say that it's implausible.
quote:
This is solely about logical possibilities.
Then you have to accept that it is LOGICALLY possible to know everything without being God. As I stated right back at the start you need to use the same criteria for each position. So long as you rely on begging the question with the use of double standards you only undermine your own credibility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by iano, posted 10-01-2006 8:52 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by iano, posted 10-01-2006 9:38 AM PaulK has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 52 of 187 (353416)
10-01-2006 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by PaulK
10-01-2006 9:31 AM


Sure I do. I can compare a statement with what is known of human experience - my own and the reports of others. If somethign seems completely out of sync with that I can say that it's implausible.
You and others? You pick the ones that align with you and reject the ones that don't and decide 'implausible'. Hollow that...
Then you have to accept that it is LOGICALLY possible to know everything without being God.
I don't know how you can say that. If I know everything there is to know then I can do everything there is to do. What problem cannot be overcome by a person who knows everything?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by PaulK, posted 10-01-2006 9:31 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 10-01-2006 9:48 AM iano has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 53 of 187 (353418)
10-01-2006 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by iano
10-01-2006 9:38 AM


quote:
You and others? You pick the ones that align with you and reject the ones that don't and decide 'implausible'. Hollow that...
Of course, I didn't say that. If you actually have a case that I'm doing that you can make it. But if all you have is innuendo - well, it's clear whose position is really hollow.
quote:
I don't know how you can say that. If I know everything there is to know then I can do everything there is to do. What problem cannot be overcome by a person who knows everything?
Anything that is beyond their capabilities of course. Knowing how to do something in principle doesn't mean being able to do it. Omniscience is not the equivalent of omnipotence. That's why God is generally credited with both (of course an omnipotent being couldd make him or herself omniscient but that's the wrong way round for you).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by iano, posted 10-01-2006 9:38 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by iano, posted 10-01-2006 10:10 AM PaulK has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 54 of 187 (353424)
10-01-2006 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by PaulK
10-01-2006 9:48 AM


You said implausible which means nothing very much at all. All sorts of things are implausible until they are done. Implausibility is always open to being re-evaluated
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROusI6GKEcg
Lets leave implausibility as an argument huh?
Anything that is beyond their capabilities of course. Knowing how to do something in principle doesn't mean being able to do it. Omniscience is not the equivalent of omnipotence.
I can't see how if I know everything there is to know that I can't do everything there is to be done. What could stop me?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 10-01-2006 9:48 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by PaulK, posted 10-01-2006 10:21 AM iano has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 55 of 187 (353429)
10-01-2006 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by iano
10-01-2006 10:10 AM


OK, so your attack on me was unjustified. And if you want to leave plausilbility out of it I think you'll fund that it hurts you as much as it helps.
quote:
I can't see how if I know everything there is to know that I can't do everything there is to be done.
That looks like a plausiblity argument to me.
quote:
What could stop me?
Your own limitations. As I said knowing how something could be done, doesn't give you the capabilities to do it. To try a hypothetical example. if you were omniscient but your body was completely paralysed, what would you do about it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by iano, posted 10-01-2006 10:10 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by iano, posted 10-01-2006 10:28 AM PaulK has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 56 of 187 (353431)
10-01-2006 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by PaulK
10-01-2006 10:21 AM


I can't remember an attack on you as such. Lets leave implausibility though.
I am paralysed. That means a break in my spinal cord.. say. But I know how it can be repaired - just join the dots and all will be well. No surgeon available to do the work for want of the equipment to do it? No problem. I know what the equipment should look like and I also know how to design it. And if the manufacturing techniques to make such equipment are not known?. No problem - I know that too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by PaulK, posted 10-01-2006 10:21 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by PaulK, posted 10-01-2006 10:52 AM iano has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 57 of 187 (353435)
10-01-2006 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by iano
10-01-2006 10:28 AM


quote:
I am paralysed. That means a break in my spinal cord.. say. But I know how it can be repaired - just join the dots and all will be well. No surgeon available to do the work for want of the equipment to do it? No problem. I know what the equipment should look like and I also know how to design it. And if the manufacturing techniques to make such equipment are not known?. No problem - I know that too.
OK, so you imagine the equipment that could help you. And that's it ? Just imagining yourself fixed solves the problem ? Because you can't build or operate the machine yourself. And you can't tell anyone else how to do it - you can't even blink, let alone talk. So it seems to me that you haven't touched on the real problems, yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by iano, posted 10-01-2006 10:28 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by iano, posted 10-01-2006 11:01 AM PaulK has replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 58 of 187 (353436)
10-01-2006 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by iano
09-29-2006 4:34 PM


iano writes:
In other words IF God exists AND he gave me the data required to know he exists THEN I know he exist.
What is this data? Surely you are able to share it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by iano, posted 09-29-2006 4:34 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by iano, posted 10-01-2006 2:36 PM RickJB has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 59 of 187 (353437)
10-01-2006 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by PaulK
10-01-2006 10:52 AM


Empiricist-speak and predictable at that. "5 senses is the only knowledge that is possible". Showing 5 of the senses is not the same as saying "there are only 5 senses".
What is shown is shown. What is not is possible but not yet shown.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by PaulK, posted 10-01-2006 10:52 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by PaulK, posted 10-01-2006 11:05 AM iano has not replied
 Message 61 by RickJB, posted 10-01-2006 11:12 AM iano has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 60 of 187 (353438)
10-01-2006 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by iano
10-01-2006 11:01 AM


quote:
Empiricist-speak and predictable at that. "5 senses is the only knowledge that is possible". Showing 5 of the senses is not the same as saying "there are only 5 senses".
What is shown is shown. What is not is possible but not yet shown.
Was that supposed to be a reply to my post ? Because it doesn't address my points in any reasonable way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by iano, posted 10-01-2006 11:01 AM iano has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024