Logically speaking: God is knowable

Iano,Why the continued insistance that you must "know" God?Is your faith so lacking?

Iano, For the third time, a one has no evidence in order to know, & so is equal to a seven in this regard.It matters not a jot that loads of evidence could in principle be discovered in support of god, the fact is that there is NONE. A 1 is therefore as bad as a 7 because both require 100% belief sans evidence - This is the point.Potential evidence is a red-herring.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

The difference between the positions of absolute faith (i.e. the 1s and the 7s) and the rest is that the 1s and 7s are immune to evidence.If you absolutely know 100% something to be true then any evidence to the contrary MUST be wrong/false as your "knowledge" is unshakable.That is why in my opinion no atheist can be a full 7. As an atheist I believe that evidence based inverstigation is the only method of making conclusions about the real world. If all the evidence did point towards God, Genesis and all the rest of it then I would be be a 2-. The reason I am a 6+ is that all the evidence points to the contrary. If you base your beliefs on evidence rather than faith alone you cannot logically be a 1 or a 7 on this scale.

On the lower right of each and every message is a LGRB (Little Green Reply Button). If you use that button it links your message to the one you are replying to, and, if the other poster has reply notification turned on, sends an email showing you replied.

---

just a small quibble - it's blue isn't it?

Nope. It is actually a little bright green icon highlighting the blue buttons.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.

Iano, Oh for christ's sake...NEITHER PROPOSITION HAS ANY EVIDENCE!!! Position 1 & 7 have equal veracity because of this. That one proposition can potentially have evidence is irrelevant to the fact that neither do.What part of that don't you understand?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

You are claiming that your "knowledge" that God exists is the evidence on which that "knowledge" is based. that is a circular argument!!To be a 1 on this scale you have to "know" that God exists and you have to also have 100% certainty that your "kowledge" is not the result of any (non God) outside influence.There are lunatics that "know" Jesus told them to kill people. I hope both of us would agree that what they "know" to be true is actually not true. Nevertheless they genuinely believe it to be so.My question is how can you know the reliability of your knowledge? How can you know that what you "know" to be true really is?How can you be absolutely sure that your knowledge of Gods existence is not due to hypnotic suggestion (for example)Either a 1 or a 7 is impossible if you factor in any evidence no matter how spiritual you claim that evidence to be.

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.

I am new to this forum how do you add the quote boxes?"A 1 doesn't need to prove it to anyone in order to be"A 1 needs to prove with 100% certainty to themselves that they are free from brain washing, insanity, hypnosis and any other external influence which could affect that which they "know" to be true. Any such proof has to be empirical and therefore has to be impossible according to your own view of empericism as unverifiable.

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.