Logically speaking: God is knowable

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.

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")

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

"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

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.

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.

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

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.

I would have thought that the words demonstrate and non-empirical shouldn't be used in the same sentence. I haven't ignored it - I've had to spend some time dealing with folk who insist on ignoring the OP and inserting faith and belief and empirical evidence argument into the pot. If a hindu knows one of his myriad of gods exists then that is what he knows. If I know God exists then that is what I know. All one needs to know is evidence that permits that - it doesn't have to be empirical in nature - just evidence. It doesn't have to be demonstrable to any other person in order for me to know.I have dealt with this issue already by stating that knowing something to be the case doesn't mean it is the case - we cannot know anything absolutely for want of knowing that our objective reality is in fact objective.One day I will find out whether God exists in fact or not. Or if the materialist are correct then I won't find out anything at all. This affects knowing what I know now not in the least.Simple 1 vs 7 Mark - that's all this is.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

If we are going to recap then lets do it properly.The OP says that logically, a person can know God exists. For this they would need evidence (not data as such). Now it is logically possible that God exists. It is logically possible that God provide evidence leading them to know he exists.Thus 1 and 7 are not symmetrical positions from a logical perspective. You can say of 7 what you cannot say of 1. There is an unknown in 1 which doesn't exist in 7. The thread title says it in summary: a person can know God exists. Whether they do or not is not the main point. This is a different thing. 1 can be logical but is it? Evidence is required of course. The evidence is a thing called faith. Faith is not as so often supposed: some blind assent based on no evidence. No. Faith is general term denoting substance. The substance being the evidence. Whilst not empirical in nature it is describable after a fashion. But not in the sense that could provide another person who has not this evidence the same certainty that empirical evidence might provide to them. In other words I cannot show you God exists. God shows me that he exists. That is the order of things.There is little point in discussing what the evidence looks like. I am not so much trying to show 1 is a logical position - more trying to show it can be and so rebut the alleged symmetry between 1 and 7A different thread would suit examing what the evidence is like "What evidence allowed you to know God exists" or some such thing

I'm not sure that I am. Why not? Is God not capable of supplying evidence unto knowing?

There are millions of things which you know for which you cannot now provide any evidence proving whatever it is to be the case. If you see a bird flying by your window now and there is nobody else around to see it then you know it flew by yet have no proof it did. This proof gig is a non-starter.I'm not attempting to prove God exists. I am rebutting the suggestion in the OP that 1 and 7 are symetrical statements I have no proof of an empirical nature that God exists. You have no proof of an empirical nature that empiricism is true. You claim empiricism, I claim God exists. It's a free world (well it isn't really but I won't go there) Do you see how deeply tinted the empiricist spectacles you wear are? And the quicksand ground you stand upon in assuming as you do?