Logically speaking: God is knowable

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.

Okay so let's recap.My position is that 1 and 7 are interchangeable.In case 1 we have no data.
In case 7 we can never get all the data.Now, case 1 WOULD be logical if there was data. If you do "know" God then you must have some kind of data. What is it?Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Iano,When you say that one can know that god exists but one cannot know that god does not exist, I think you are using two different definitions for the word 'know'.All,As far as the 1 to 7 scale. Lets apply it to something other than god for a second. One cannot say that they know something does not exist, so being an absolute 7 is impossible. One can, however, know that something does exist. Being an absolute 1 is possible. Now, when we apply this scale to something like god, and absolute 1 is no longer possible and the 1 and 7 positions become the same. But, I'd still say there is a difference between the 1 and the 7 position, because if applied to something ungodly, you can be more certain of something existing than of something not existing.

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

Yes, and you COULD provide proof to others of that monitor beyond simply stating your case that you have evidence. I have Two monitors in front of me even as I type so I have no reason to disbelieve you on that score. However had you claimed being in the presence of the aforementioned height-challenged coloured unicorn then I would WANT to see your proof.Can you show me the proof of god's existence? Real solid proof beyond asserting that simply believing in his existence makes it so? ("faith itself is the evidence")The answer to this is NO. You cant. Because you have none. And because you have none, you seek to undermine the concepts of empirical evidence, claiming it to be non-inclusive and not regarding the type of 'evidence' you are claiming (Ie the kind of 'evidence' that can’t be proved or verified). Ok you have found evidence for god. Be a sport and share it with us. You have the evidence you MUST be able to show us, right? If you are in the possession of the actual evidence that will prove God's existence then you are about to make the most important post of human history. We are not talking about metaphysical constructs or philosophical arguments; we are talking about proof for the actual existence of some ”thing’ (god). If we are talking about asserting something’s existence then that indeed is capable of being proved. A photo would be good. Signed with today’s paper in shot would be better.We are waiting.

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

I am, however, replying to your post; so this is only off topic if your post is off topic.

I have no idea what god's capabilities are. IMHO, he is capable of anything, so yes, I believe god is capable of supplying evidence unto knowing. However, I maintain that an absolute 1 is not possible WRT the existence of god. It is something that has no proof and requires faith and belief, no facts or data. You cannot 'know' in the true sense of the word, in the absolute 1 sense of the word. It isn't really knowing, its thinking you know.

If he does not desire the good, on what basis should we call him God?The Bible claims God to be benevolent. "God is love", we are told, and: "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs."However, you may attribute what motives you choose to God, and the same critique applies: let God be defined by whatever properties you choose plus omnipotence: then if we can find one thing over which no divine power is exercised, then there is no God.For example, if someone were to claim that God is omnipotent and wants everything to be pink, then the existence of one non-pink thing demonstrates the non-existence of God thus defined.

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?

This is meaningless babble. Go on then. Wait, so now it's not describable after ANY fashion? That's your order of things, not anyone elses.

Romans 1:18 "Gods wrath is poured out on all the ungodliness and wickedness of man who supress the truth in their wickedness"I think you have a rather one dimensional view of God. God is who he is - not who we would find him acceptable to be. Personally speaking a God who hates wickedness strikes me as a better God that one who doesn't. That the Bible happens to agree with me on this (or maybe its the other way around Or the definition of God is lacking. Man defining God - now there's an arrogance in the man who claims to have a complete one

If you hadn't had one do you think in retrospect that I could do justice to what an orgasm is like by explaining it to you? 1 Cor 2:14 springs to mind. Not that I blame you. It is the way it is.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I was rejecting empiricism as a rebuttal on the basis that empiricism is an unverifiable philosophy. It may be the case it may not. It impacts not at all on the logic arguing the OP position I argue.If you want to insist that the only knowledge we can have must be empirically based then provide a proof of it. Empiricism demands that you do. It seems to me that empiricism refutes itself. It says that all the knowledge we can have must derive from empirical evidence yet there is no empirical evidence that this statement is true. Fairly convincing perhaps. A 6 perhaps. But not a 7.And if you cannot know it is true then it may well be false. So stop claiming a 7 will ya?

Iano, Why? If you can't show that non-empiricism affects the veracity of a proposition, then you have no business using it. This is your contradiction, not mine. This is contradictory & superbly shows up the fallacy in your reasoning.If a Hindu "knows" his pantheon exists, & you "know" your christian god exists, then non-empirical methodology must be rejected as it allows for mutually exclusive propositions to co-exist.There are three possibilities, The Hindu pantheon exists, the Christian religion is reality, or neither are true. Since the first two are mutually exclusive & cannot coexist, then either the Hindu or you, or both of you are wrong. Since there is no way of increasing the veracity of either proposition without empirical evidence, non-empiricism as a means of arriving at the truth must be rejected.How can I tell whether you or the Hindu or both of you are wrong?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