Logically speaking: God is knowable

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.

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

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

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

What took you? You telling me you got something better to do?

Converse:Belief implies knowledge that one believes. Sounds fine to me

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.

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 disprovenThere 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.)

I assume the person stating so has something other than belief to support this view. What would that be?

A few points to make:1) Knowing everything does not make you God.
2) When you describe 'knowing' as this:

quote:

---

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?

---

then you wouldn't have to know everything to claim that station of knowledge. So I still don't see how they are different. And it still seems like you are using diferent definitions of 'know' for knowing god exists versus knowing he doesn't.3) With an accepted defnition of knowing something, you wouldn't have to know everything to 'know', by your defintion, that god doesn't exist.Does knowing that god doesn't exist require you to know the 145 digit in the number pi, or what I had for lunch yesterday, or what Homer Simpson's last line in episode 92 was? Why would you have to know these things to 'know' that god doesn't exist?

There's no difference, but that isn't what Ian is saying.Brian.

quote:

---

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)

---

So, do you suggest that "strong belief", rather than empirical evidence should be given the same weight in, say, medical science?

You have asked the very best questions of them all in this thread in my opinion CS. The least fluff, the most bang per buck. Hats off. I'm heading off - its late and I'm tired.

Awe, shucks I'll be looking for your reply tomarrow, to points 1 2 AND 3