Logically speaking: God is knowable

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.

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

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

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.

You and others? You pick the ones that align with you and reject the ones that don't and decide 'implausible'. Hollow that... 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?

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-evaluatedhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROusI6GKEcgLets leave implausibility as an argument huh? 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?

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.

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.

Of course I can share it. But not in an empirical sense. You could share the data with about what you had for breakfast this day a year ago (for some reason you noted it in your diary) but at the end of the day I would have to believe you on it. It warrants a thread "What its like to know God (by people who do".Some other time perhaps (in the sense that you and they share the concept of time)

Funny you should say that. Someone once said of faith - "its the evidence of things not seen".{AbE}I'm not insisting that I must know God. I am insisting that I do. And I am arguing that there is nothing illogical about my claiming a 1 whereas to claim a 7 is illogicalEdited by iano, : No reason given.

Look at the thread title. In one sense you seem to be the first to agree with it. A 7 cannot have the evidence and so cannot logically exist as a position. A 1 can have that evidence and so can be.Knowing something (anything in fact) has nothing at all to do with evidential-less belief (except in so far as it believes the objective reality to be objective). We know things (anything in fact) because the evidence is of a sort that leads to knowingWhat you mean to say is that you do not believe me. That's fine: I wouldn't believe you either - were it that our roles were reversed. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This is the statement of an apparent empiricist. And the position of the empiricist is an unverifiable one. "All we can know must be empirically verifiable" is a posture only. And an assumed one at that.A 7 cannot have the evidence, a 1 can. All it needs for a 1 to exist is for God to exist and for God to show up to that person. You might agree with that. Now, can you insert where it is that evidence of the sub-class you insist on (the stuff you can measure in a test tube as it were) is required for this.A 1 doesn't need to prove it to anyone in order to be

Show me where I claimed that. This has been covered already. Read the link in the OP - knowing something doesn't mean that it actually is the case. A person can be deluded. But we can all be deluded and there is, in fact, no computer screen in front of you now. Knowing presumes the objective reality in which it is based is actually objective. Both the deluded and we do that.You say 1 and 7 are impossible. Could you set about showing so? Actually 1 will do. 7 I agree with you on alreadyEdited by iano, : No reason given.

Click the PEEK button at the lower right hand side to see how I did and

quote:

---

this

---

and If a 1 needs to prove it in order to know then so do we all. Empirical proof that the objective reality we assume is real is an impossibility. If it were a possibility then Descartes wouldn't have had to disappear up his own backside with:"I think therefore I am"{AbE} I suggested that you read the link in post 1. It illustrates the problem with taking this tack - or more properly, it puts the limits on what it is to say "I know"Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Ultimately you would have to believe him. Him showing up doesn't mean that he exists. We could all be characters in an alien kids playstation game and he is the R1 button the kid pressed. I have to believe him so you believing me would mean you believe him too.Do you believe me? Empiricist speak. "Verifiable evidence trumps other sorts". All that verifiable evidence does it permit itself to examination by others. Your lending it superiority is unwarranted. That's an unverified worldview speaking. Thats reasons to believe you (or me). It affects knowing what happened to each of us one morning 5 years ago not one jot