Logically speaking: God is knowable

We've had this argument before over Foxes! You could share data about your "knowledge" of God but at the end of the day I would have to believe YOU on it.But even without any concrete evidence there is one important difference - both of us have experienced what it is to eat breakfast. The action/concept itself is objectively verifiable, therefore this lends some credence to your claim.In other words, we have objective evidence that "breakfasts" exist. We have no such evidence for God.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

It's very simple.If someone claims that everything is pink, then I don't have to look everywhere to falsify his claim. It's enough for me to find one thing that isn't pink.In the same way, if someone claims that everything is subject to the will of a benevolent being, then I don't have to look everywhere to falsify his claim. It's enough for me to find one thing that is not subject to the will of a benevolent being.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

As far as I'm concerned 1 and 7 are interchangable if no evidence exists.Evidence is the key. Ok, so describe God to me. What does he look like?Give me some evidence so I can verify your claim.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Yes that is true. That is why absolute certainty is impossible. that is why a 1 or a 7 is impossible except on evidenceles faith.Anyone who claims absolute certainty (i.e. a 1 or a 7 on this scale) must also have absolute certainty in their knoweldge. Absolute certainty in their knowledge is emperical. Absolute certainty in empirical knowledge is impossible.You may think therefore you are but what you think is not necessarily true and there is no way you can prove to yourelf it is.What about deranged lunatics who have equal conviction in what they "know"? All your arguments could be aplied to them?Edited by Straggler, : missed quote

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

Impossible? You seem certain of this. And if not so (because your statement says as much) then there is the possibility for absolute certainty. Are you a deranged lunatic? There is no way (according to yourself) to be certain that you are not. How would you tell? By listening to others (who can be equally deranged) telling you you are not?Knowing anything has limits. It relies on the assumption that ones reality is objectively the case. If it is then what you know is actually the case. If not, then is may or may not be the case. That it all "I know" can say. For you and me.

Let me give you a scenario.You are a 1 in relation to God
For arguments sake I am a 1 regards a different god that contradicts yours in some way
For arguments sake lets both accept that one of us is actually correct
We both have absolute and equal knowledge, conviction and "evidence" (in your terms) in our knowledge.
We cannot both be correct
Therefore one of us is derangedHow can we find out who is right and who is deranged?
If it is impossible to differentiate between the two then all your arguments so far are contradictory as they apply equally to the truth of either position.

Iano, This is the statement of a reliosist, who thinks it is possible to know things without empirical evidence. Is this a farcical attempt to allow intuition, or dreams in as evidence? Because if it is, you have to accept that Allah exists, so does Vishnu, Shiva & all the other spirits & gods that mankind has dreamt up. All of which contradict your religion. The "evidence" is in!Clearly it is all delusional, a triumph of wishful thinking over reason, literally. Funny how Yahweh never visits muslims & Allah never visits Christians.Tell me, would you accept the following evidence? A murder occurs in your neighbourhood, a self-professed spiritualist goes to the police & tells them your best friend did it, Yahweh came to her in a dream & told her that he as guilty. He has no alibi, & there is no other evidence either way. He is then convicted & executed on the strength of this evidence.It's a rhetorical question, really, designed to expose the double-standard of religous acceptance of what constitutes evidence in support of, & in contradiction of any given religion.MarkEdited by mark24, : No reason given.Edited by mark24, : No reason given.

---

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

We cannot. But that makes no difference. Knowing that God exists (or knowing anything else for that matter) doesn't mean it actually is the case. Only the person whose assumption regarding what constitutes objective reality is correct, is the one whose knowing is the case.One of the reasons I started this thread was because I got tired of people saying I can't know God exists (even Dickie Dawkins is at it). They were presuming their assumption of objective reality trumped my own - but they never got around to telling me how it was they arrived at that conclusion (other than some tripe which had to do with "empirical evidence uber alles")

The equal conviction in the unprovable existence of different Gods is exactly what I was getting at with my scenario above.If we non believers need empirical evidence (which of course we do!) that all those of faith are equally deluded it is provided by the fact that all the opposing faiths are equally convinced they are absolutely correct.

Straggler,Exactly, if the religious accept non-empirical evidence, then they are forced to admit that there is evidence of other gods.Doh!Of course, consistency never was a strong suit, other gods are held to a higher evidential standard, naturally.Mark

---

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

My point exactly. How can you be a 1 if you also assert that what is "known" is not necessarily true.
That automatically puts doubt on what you "know" and therefore a lack of certainty which is what a score of 1 precludes.
A 1 on the scale in question is impossible except through faith alone!! You have demonstrated it for me.Edited by AdminJar, : fix quote box

Given that neither side can prove their position to be the correct one the statement in the title stands. If the neutral observer is weighing things up then he might do well to note that the empiricist cannot even know that his position is the correct one. The reliosist of course can

Iano,You have failed to engage in any way in your own thread.You have failed to demonstrate that non-empirical evidence in any way is a force for increasing the veracity of a proposition. You ignored the point that allowing non-empirical "evidence" as being admissible, would actually admit evidence that contradicts your own religion far more than just sticking to empirical evidence. Something I don't think you really thought through. But there you have it, we now have bona fida evidence that Yahweh is a false god, according to Iano's standards. Hindu gods "appear" to Hindu's, disproving christianity once and for all.In short, you have not shown that position 1 is better evidentially supported than position 7. The only way of reliably inferring anything is via empirical evidence. Anything else is literally wishful thinking.Mark

---

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

Yes, we do realise that, Iano. No need to keep telling us... Exactly, and you feel this is a problem because......? On what grounds? No.