Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,812 Year: 3,069/9,624 Month: 914/1,588 Week: 97/223 Day: 8/17 Hour: 4/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Logically speaking: God is knowable
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 151 of 187 (353709)
10-02-2006 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by New Cat's Eye
10-02-2006 5:10 PM


) Knowing everything does not make you God.
What does make you God then?
How easy it is to kick a ball into touch at EvC. Only kidding. See you tomorrow

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-02-2006 5:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-02-2006 5:51 PM iano has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 187 (353714)
10-02-2006 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by iano
10-02-2006 5:28 PM


What does make you God then?
I don't know.
[smartass]
You're the one who knows him, why don't you ask him.
[/smartass]
How easy it is to kick a ball into touch at EvC.
I don't get it. Is that a soccer reference?
Only kidding. See you tomorrow
/nod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by iano, posted 10-02-2006 5:28 PM iano has not replied

  
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5161 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 153 of 187 (353720)
10-02-2006 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by iano
10-02-2006 11:25 AM


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.
But we have all seen birds. We have countless data on the 'fact' that birds exist. many of us have even seen these 'birds' fly past windows. It is no hardship to believe you when you claim to have seen one fly past your window.
Had you claimed you had just seen a dragon fly past your window... That would be a different matter entirely.
I'm not attempting to prove God exists. I am rebutting the suggestion in the OP that 1 and 7 are symmetrical statements
But it is you who ringed the supposed asymmetry of the ”inferred illogic’ of the two stand points. Not surprising when you clearly don’t want to admit the illogic of your own belief as a 1. Which is strange as you obviously accept religion IS faith and belief
I have no proof of an empirical nature that God exists.
And so you have to Believe to be able to claim a 1. This is the same position of the 7s, each of these stances goes beyond the evidence available and so the proponents of each have to take a leap of faith to get there.
You have no proof of an empirical nature that empiricism is true
Sure. Because if I did I would have to have evidence that proved the non-existence of”supernatural’ senses. Again, like the search for god, you are asking to prove the non-existence of something.
Anyway I wasn’t claiming empiricism. I was asking for empirical data on your god. A subtle but important difference, as your reply above points out.
The point being you have just admitted that you have no hard data regarding the existence of god and while you don’t believe this poses a problem in being a 1 you use the lack of hard data in the other direction as a proof of the illogic of being a 7. You then claim 1 and 7s are not on equal footing.
Based on the available data then 1 and 7 are equivalent. Neither has hard evidence to support it, thus neither is a tenable position with out belief. They are equivalent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by iano, posted 10-02-2006 11:25 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by iano, posted 10-03-2006 6:03 AM ohnhai has not replied

  
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5161 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 154 of 187 (353722)
10-02-2006 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Brian
10-02-2006 1:29 PM


You don't see Trekkies going around slagging people off.
you obviously have not been to a si-fi convention in a Babalon 5 uniform........

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Brian, posted 10-02-2006 1:29 PM Brian has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 155 of 187 (353727)
10-02-2006 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by iano
10-02-2006 4:22 PM


I don't follow you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by iano, posted 10-02-2006 4:22 PM iano has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 156 of 187 (353795)
10-03-2006 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by iano
10-02-2006 12:58 PM


[dupe post - deleted]
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by iano, posted 10-02-2006 12:58 PM iano has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 157 of 187 (353796)
10-03-2006 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by iano
10-02-2006 12:58 PM


Iano writes:
Does it actually exist at all? You can't know that. Empiricism sails in the same circular boat that I do.
Ah, but this is your old trick Iano. Whenever you are challenged for evidence you bring out the Berkeleyan "reality is a illusion" card.
This is a dead end. If reality is an illusion then said illusion IS reality. Reality is reality.
Iano writes:
Empiricism sails in the same circular boat that I do.
I'm really keen to learn about the extra (somehow non-empirical) sense(s) you claim to have.
We'll call it Iano's Super Sense (ISS). By your own defintion it does not rely on Empirical means.
Now, if you can use ISS to "know" with 100% certainty that God exists, could you not also "know" that God does not exist? It seems that in case 7 the limitations of empiricism apply, whereas in case 1 you use your ISS "knowledge" to move the goalposts in your favour.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by iano, posted 10-02-2006 12:58 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by iano, posted 10-03-2006 5:46 AM RickJB has replied
 Message 164 by Phat, posted 10-03-2006 7:06 AM RickJB has replied

  
SteveN
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 187 (353802)
10-03-2006 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by iano
09-29-2006 3:24 PM


As the SteveN referred to in the OP, I would just like to point out two things:
1) As I went on to explain in the original thread, it is clear that Dawkins was referring in his book to symmetry with regard to the list itself (i.e. 100% theist to 100% atheist) - he was not implying some kind of symmetry with regard to the credibility of the two stances. Iano knows this but nevertheless started this thread to object to the latter (strawman) argument.
2) Although from a scientific sense, it is usual to accept that the non-existence of something cannot be disproven and one could therefore argue, as Iano does, that a '1' is logically more defensible than a '7 (albeit with little success it seems), given the evidence, a '6' is orders of magnitude more credible than a '1', '2'', '3' '4' or '5' IMHO.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iano, posted 09-29-2006 3:24 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by iano, posted 10-03-2006 5:26 AM SteveN has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 159 of 187 (353815)
10-03-2006 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by SteveN
10-03-2006 2:51 AM


There have been a myriad of objections to me saying "I know God exists". The reference to Dawkins quote was used as an intro to look at the logical position of that. Apologies for any sense of having misrepresented your position.
Although from a scientific sense, it is usual to accept that the non-existence of something cannot be disproven and one could therefore argue, as Iano does, that a '1' is logically more defensible than a '7 (albeit with little success it seems), given the evidence, a '6' is orders of magnitude more credible than a '1', '2'', '3' '4' or '5' IMHO.
1 is a logical position, 7 is not, I argue. My apparent lack of success is due in no small part to having to deal with arguments involving such things as the credibility and plausibility of the position - which have of course, nothing to do with the OP at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by SteveN, posted 10-03-2006 2:51 AM SteveN has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 160 of 187 (353820)
10-03-2006 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by RickJB
10-03-2006 1:56 AM


Ah, but this is your old trick Iano. Whenever you are challenged for evidence you bring out the Berkeleyan "reality is a illusion" card.
Wrapping it up as you do doesn't add to your argument. If I suggest I can be looking at you in a bubble of delusion you suggest back that it is the other way around. That may seem to kick the ball into touch but I am as entitled to suggest you are deluded as you are to suggest I am. Which leaves the logic given in the OP unchallenged. I will point these facts out to you next time you object to my saying I know God exist - for I am likely to state it again
Now, if you can use ISS to "know" with 100% certainty that God exists, could you not also "know" that God does not exist? It seems that in case 7 the limitations of empiricism apply, whereas in case 1 you use your ISS "knowledge" to move the goalposts in your favour.
The supersense you refer to is not something inherent in a 1. He is of no different makeup that anyone else. If God exists and reveals himself to a person then the person becomes a 1. They had no need of a supersense - they were subject to an action by God. The limitations of the empiricist are his problem.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by RickJB, posted 10-03-2006 1:56 AM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Phat, posted 10-03-2006 7:01 AM iano has not replied
 Message 163 by RickJB, posted 10-03-2006 7:03 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 161 of 187 (353822)
10-03-2006 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by ohnhai
10-02-2006 6:35 PM


iano writes:
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.
ohnhai writes:
But we have all seen birds. We have countless data on the 'fact' that birds exist. many of us have even seen these 'birds' fly past windows. It is no hardship to believe you when you claim to have seen one fly past your window.
This is not a question of belief. For sure people may well believe you. You cannot produce that occasion in such a way that anyone else can know it did however - you have no empirical proof to present to them. You had no camera, no one was there with you. Does the fact that there is no proof and that you are the sole witness in any way demolish the fact that you know that a bird flew by your window at that time?
And if it was a little dragon that flew by your window then you would know that too. I don't mean in a flash - but one who swooped around, landed on your window sill knocked and waved to you. You might rub your eyes and look again. There he is. Now you sure feel normal enough - but put it down to temporary delusion. But the next day he comes again. Now your in trouble. "I must be mad" you say to yourself.
But then you meet lots of other people who say the same thing. They describe the dragon and its the same one as you saw. Would you still think your deluded?
Not surprising when you clearly don’t want to admit the illogic of your own belief as a 1. Which is strange as you obviously accept religion IS faith and belief
Seeing as we may have cleared up the idea that it is necessary to have 'hard' (of the demonstrable kind) evidence of something in order to know it, what then is this illogic?
The point being you have just admitted that you have no hard data regarding the existence of god and while you don’t believe this poses a problem in being a 1 you use the lack of hard data in the other direction as a proof of the illogic of being a 7. You then claim 1 and 7s are not on equal footing
I have hard data. But it is like your flying bird data. Personal to you - not available to anyone else. Logically I can have it (and lets not loose sight of the fact that the OP only looks at it from a logical perspective). A 7 cannot, logically, have hard data, personal or otherwise. Thus asymmetry of position, logically
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by ohnhai, posted 10-02-2006 6:35 PM ohnhai has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by mark24, posted 10-03-2006 10:07 AM iano has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 162 of 187 (353825)
10-03-2006 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by iano
10-03-2006 5:46 AM


In Communion with 1
Iano writes:
If God exists and reveals himself to a person then the person becomes a 1. They had no need of a supersense - they were subject to an action by God. The limitations of the empiricist are his problem.
Well put. At least I understand it quite perfectly!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by iano, posted 10-03-2006 5:46 AM iano has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 163 of 187 (353826)
10-03-2006 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by iano
10-03-2006 5:46 AM


Iano writes:
The supersense you refer to is not something inherent in a 1. He is of no different makeup that anyone else. If God exists and reveals himself to a person then the person becomes a 1. They had no need of a supersense - they were subject to an action by God. The limitations of the empiricist are his problem.
So the difference you propose between 1 and 7 boils down to little more than "goddidit". Thanks for the admission.
I think you've well illustrated the limitations of your "logic".
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by iano, posted 10-03-2006 5:46 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by iano, posted 10-03-2006 7:59 AM RickJB has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 164 of 187 (353827)
10-03-2006 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by RickJB
10-03-2006 1:56 AM


Common Union
RickJB writes:
I'm really keen to learn about the extra (somehow non-empirical) sense(s) you claim to have.
We'll call it Iano's Super Sense (ISS). By your own defintion it does not rely on Empirical means.
Now, if you can use ISS to "know" with 100% certainty that God exists, could you not also "know" that God does not exist?
Unless the ISS is the Holy Spirit.
Also....I am not sure if we use the ISS so much as He uses us!
I would be open minded, Rick....but I would even go a step farther and suggest that the Spirit has gotten your attention and that my adding anything to that would only muck up the magnetism!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by RickJB, posted 10-03-2006 1:56 AM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by RickJB, posted 10-03-2006 7:10 AM Phat has replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 165 of 187 (353828)
10-03-2006 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Phat
10-03-2006 7:06 AM


Re: Common Union
Phat writes:
I would even go a step farther and suggest that the Spirit has gotten your attention
Please don't diguise your preaching with banter. I find it offensive.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Phat, posted 10-03-2006 7:06 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Phat, posted 10-03-2006 7:14 AM RickJB has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024