Logically speaking: God is knowable

This is rather a trivial fallacy. Since God is claimed to be omnipotent and omnipresent, the claim that there is a God is a universal, not a particular claim; and it can therefore be falsified by the observation of a single place where he is not or thing over which he has no power.YOu speak of him as though he might have got lost under the sofa cushions or something. But when we talk of "God", that's not the sort of thing we mean. If he is anywhere, he is everywhere.

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.

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.

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

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.

So take the case of a God who is omnipotent and "hates wickedness", and pours out his wrath on "all the ungodliness and wickedness of man ". An exception to this claim disproves the existence of such a God. Yes, but the Bible also agrees with me. You pays your money and you takes your choice. So would you claim that it's possible to know God but not to know what he's like? Surely at least we can specify that he prefers good to evil.

If you admit that God is supposedly benevolent, then my original point still stands.

The difference, Faith, is that whereas knowledge implies belief that one knows, the converse is not the case.

Yes, but we don't need to totally define him; we just need to know some of his attributes. If God is required to be omnipotent, then if we add, as in my example, the attribute that he wishes everything to be pink, we could disprove this pink-god by means of these two attributes (plus the observation of one non-pink thing) without having a complete knowledge of the pink-god. These facts alone would suffice.There is, you will note, no way to for the pink-god apologist to get out of this by saying: "Yes, grass is green, but maybe the pink-god also wants some things to be green"; because that gives us a pink-god who is a logical contradiction. No attributes added to the specification of the pink-god can remove his desire that all things be pink; they can only contradict it, rendering him a logical impossibility.

That's not the converse.The converse would be "belief that one knows implies knowledge".You really shouldn't start threads with the words "logically speaking" in the title if you don't know the vocabulary of logic.

I don't follow you.