Logically speaking: God is knowable

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.

What does make you God then?How easy it is to kick a ball into touch at EvC. Only kidding. See you tomorrow

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. 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.

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 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 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? 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? 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.

In the context of the thread title, logically "God can do it" would be a better way of putting it. That is all the separation needed in order to disrupt the alleged symmetry. Can one henceforth say "I know God exists" without:a) that being an illogical thing to say?b) having to prove it to anyone (for we have seen it is possible to know things whilst not being able to prove them)?c) being of necessity considered delusional?If so then the limitations of my logic will do me fineEdited by iano, : add "exists" to "I know God"

I'll get back to this Archer. Its been a long (fri)day and I'm off for a quick pint or two.