Logically speaking: God is knowable

So how did you get this "knowledge"?Rail as you might against empiricism you must nevertheless accept that you are bound by the same five senses as every other human being.

"Rail as you might against empiricism, empiricism is true" is the more succint way of stating this. Empiricism is an philosophy based on an assumption (or "faith" - in the sense you often take it to mean) and not one I am not at all bound to accept.If it could be proven then that would be another thing altogther

Except that of course you do accept empiricism when it comes to important matters, or you'd be dead. You try crossing the road sometime without regards to knowledge empirically obtained, and see how you get on. It's only when it comes to your religion that you are forced to abandon reason; and indeed, it's only when it comes to such matters that you can afford to.

You didn't answer the question, Iano.How did you get your "knowledge" of God?Also, do you accept you have five senses like every other human being?Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

However in regard to existence of ”whatever’, then after a 5000year search that yields NO conclusive evidence for its existence (for example) then is it not more logical to conclude that this thing doesn’t exist, rather than stubbornly insist it does?If you claimed pink spotted dwarf unicorns existed and in the entirety of recorded human history not one had ever been found then how logical would it be to persist in your belief?IF, in regard to God (your god), 1 was a logical stand point you would not need faith.You would not need to believe. It wouldn’t be something that required faith or belief to accept. Odds on we would have solid evidence by now. We don’t (and are unlikely to. Ever). What we DO have is a 5000 year lack of anything that proves god either way. As I have said in the light of that, then 7 IS the more logical conclusion, despite having to be held as a belief as much as 1. I ask you again, how ”sane’ is it to stubbornly believe in the existence of something when the whole of recorded human history has not yielded any evidence that proves its existence?

Have a look at the thread title and discuss that. Questions such as this and ...aren't really addressing the issue. I've fallen behind in responses so can't take the time to digress where you would have me. Weave them into an argument adressing the OP and I'll answer them then if necessary

Your not dealing with the OP here DA.

Sorry Iano, but this strikes me as a little too convenient for you at this point.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

For "conclusive". I read empirical. There is no means to verify empiricism so it shouldn't be inserted as an argument against the OP which is narrow in its focus and dealing with a logical comparison which I argue isn't actually.There is also the issue of what knowing is and there are all kinds of stuff we know which we can only assert - for which there is no demonstrable evidence. But I have found. You just insist that I can't have had on the the baseless assumption of empiricism. This is the last comment I'll make regarding your coming from an empiricist angle. Your assumption defines the scope of what you find to be evidence. Any evidence that is available outside of empiricism is rendered 'invisible' to you by you.You say faith is not required. You seem to be taking faith and belief as some kind of blind assent. This is a common misconception.However the Bible says that faith itself is the evidence. "Faith...is the evidence of things not seen (read: not sensed by the 5 senses)" If faith is the actual evidence and someone is give faith (by God) then they will believe in the same way that anyone else believes anything else. I believe there is a computer screen on front of me because I have the evidence that it is. See comments on halting discussion on the unverifiable philosophy of empiricism.

quote:

---

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".

---

But what if you told me that you had "Dorkamifluffink" for breakfast a year ago?I asked you to make me some, or give me a list of ingredients to get a t the grocery store, or provide a recipe so I could have a taste, but of course you couldn't do that.You told me that it's something that you and only you can make, alone, inside your own kitchen and you had no way of sharing it with anyone else. In fact, you say that "Dorkamifluffink" is actually invisible and can't actually be tasted, smelt, felt, heard, or seen.You can only tell people how eating this undetectable stuff makes you feel about life, and at the end of the day, I would have to take your word for it that "Dorkamifluffink" actually exists, and that you had some for breakfast a year ago.See the difference between "Dorkamifluffink" and, say, porridge in regards to it's believeability and plausibility?

---

"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

You are not dealing with the OP and its difficult enough to keep track of the folk that do to worry about the folk that don't. Last word on that I'm afraid

Read the OP Schraf and get back to me if you like. This is not about plausibility or believability. Its about 1 and 7 not being symmetrical in the sense explained in the OP.

Perhaps. But I'm not claiming that. Gods wrath doesn't exactly sound benevolent to me

quote:

---

Ok, so describe God to me. What does he look like?

​

Give me some evidence so I can verify your claim.

---

Iano likes to play the game of "knowledge and belief are the same thing".However, when asked if he thinks, say, medical scientists should be allowed to include their own personal beliefs and convicions about their research findings in place of the usual statistical analysis and empirical evidence, he becomes rather quiet. Edited by schrafinator, : added the word "same" in my first sentence regarding knowledge and belief above.

---

"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

A 1 is a person who knows that God exists. Knowing something doesn't mean it actually is the case. Therefore someone can know something that is not actually the case. Meaning they can be a 1. Two statements to consider:A 1 doesn't say God actually exists*versus...A 1 says they know God exists.The second statement isn't an absolute one because nobody can make an absolute statement like: God exists in an absolute sense. They cannot know that the objective reality around them isn't a bubble beyond which there is something else. Saying you know God exists is not an absolute statement - it may be the nearest one can get to an absolute statement but absolute it is not.* a person may in ordinary conversation say that God exists but they mean belief or know or think or hope or something else.Edited by iano, : No reason given.