|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,423 Year: 3,680/9,624 Month: 551/974 Week: 164/276 Day: 4/34 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Logically speaking: God is knowable | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
If he does not desire the good, on what basis should we call him God? 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
then if we can find one thing over which no divine power is exercised, then there is no God. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Wait, so now it's not describable after ANY fashion? 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?
This is meaningless babble 1 Cor 2:14 springs to mind. Not that I blame you. It is the way it is. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
I am, however, replying to your post; so this is only off topic if your post is off topic. 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 Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
You "know" that God exists You have personal evidence to convince you of this The personal evidence is the "knowledge" that God exists Is it not the evidence of a computer screen on front of you that lets you know there is a computer screen in front of you? You know it because it is there in front of you. Whats the difference? And before you cry 'empiricism'... Does it actually exist at all? You can't know that. You assume it does because you assume objective reality to be objective. Not even wheeling a bunch of other people in to confirm it exists helps - you don't even know whether they exist so using that which you don't know to exist (them) to confirm the existance of something else you don't know exists (the computer screen) is circular. Empiricism sails in the same circular boat that I do. That is why I say knowing something (whether empirically or otherwise) says nothing at all about it actually being the case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Oh, and let me guess. If I believe then I WILL see the "truth", is that it? You are not expected to believe something for which you have no reason to. That would be irrational. He will attempt to give you that reason and you can refuse it. If you do not then those reasons will come and then you will believe (no choice implied) and when you do then you will see the truth. But I digress...
Round and round the circle goes... See the post above to Straggler to see your own current position. People in glass houses...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
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. God is wrathful, loving (benevolent) and just (as well as other things). No matter. Point being, there is no point looking for exception to the rule unless your definition is complete. Now how a person would go about doing that I cannot tell. How would they know they had arrived at it?
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. Only good. Find an exception and I'll renounce my faith or eat my hat - whichever you prefer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
CK is dead long live CK
{AbE} btw, the OP is an apologetic not evangelism. Guess that makes me an apologist too. If it is possible for a person to know God exists then it might dilute the notion floating around in peoples heads that God cannot be known Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
If you know God exists, as in the Christian God, then it means that Allah doesn't exist. You obviously haven't been paying attention at the back Brian. Knowing something does not mean that actually is the case. Not my knowing God exists, nor a Muslim knowing Allah exists, nor you knowing there is a computer screen on front of you. Knowing is the best anyone can say regarding their own certainty. The highest court in anyones land. But that doesn't mean a thing if the objective reality one resides in is not in fact objective. Which of us is deluded, you, the muslim, me. There is no way to tell for any of us (unless of course God exists - then we are not reliant on our assumptions about reality. He can overcome them - being God) Lets not put knowing above its station huh? Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
When I say "I know God exists" folk won't all pile on and say I can't know such a thing. And when they are tempted to suppose I am deluded that they see 3 fingers pointing back at themselves.
You do know that sowing doubt in ones disbelief is the tool of an evangelist I trust. You do know that sowing possibility is the tool of the apologist I trust.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Your point seemed to be about finding one instance of God not doing what he is defined to do. And mine, in rebuttal was posing the impossibility of totally defining God making such a search moot.
More I cannot remember at this point. Its been a long week
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
nor knowing that god doesn't exist. How is that different? None of the other claims of knowing: knowing God exist, knowing Allah exists or knowing the computer screen exists claim it is necessary to know everything in order to stand up logically. The person who says God doesn't exist must, logically, know everything meaning they are God. Remember the title of the thread is "logically.." A person can say that can know everything whilst ignoring logic. That is quite a different matter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
What took you? You telling me you got something better to do?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
The difference, Faith, is that whereas knowledge implies belief that one knows, the converse is not the case. Converse: Belief implies knowledge that one believes. Sounds fine to me
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
That's a fair point. You probably made it earlier but I didn't get it until now. Okay..say one of Gods many attributes is wrath against sin. If you can find one example where God is not wrathful against sin the a God who is wrathful is disproven
There is an expression in Irish which invokes a sense of wishing good fortune on someone embarking on a journey which (curiously enough) states "May the road rise before you" I would have thought wishing an uphill climb to be other than wishing good fortune but I suspect it may be appropriate in this case (as in sheer cliff) (Prophecy: you may want to open a thread here. I suspect the appropriate forum for it would be Bible Study.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
The converse would be "belief that one knows implies knowledge". I assume the person stating so has something other than belief to support this view. What would that be?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024