Logically speaking: God is knowable

To show that it is the positions that are asymmetrical you would need to use equivalent criteria to assess each.If you require certain knowledge rather than inferences then it has to be asked how you could know that God exists. If you define God as omniscient then how can you test that without knowing everything yourself ? And God is typically defined as being infinitely powerful - but how could infinite power be demonstrated. Without an answer to that you are required to infer infinity from finite demonstrations - an inference that cannot be reliable. And if you cannot reliably infer infinite power you cannot know that the entity in question is God.

Unless you are claiming to have a logical proof of God you must be relying on data to determine God's existence. So far as I am aware the claim to have a logical proof of God - although sometimes (but rarely) made - is even worse than the claims to have logical disproofs.

No, you haven't provided a real rebuttal.In your argument against '7' you argue that it is not enough to take things at face value.In your argument for '1' you assume that you can take a supposed revelation at face value.The asymmetry is in the criteria you use for "knowing".In reality while personal experiences might provide adequate reasons for beleiving in God they cannot provide certainty - because those experiences could be misinterpreted or deceptive.Equally while there are strong arguments against the existence of God they, too cannot provide certainty. Although that is largely because God is too slippery a concept to be thoroughly disproven.

Then - as Mark said - you DO need data adequate to support certainty. The question is whether it is possible to have such data. If not then you are wrong.Is it possible to distinguish infinite power from an arbitrarily large but finite power ? Maybe it is logically possible, but it is also logically possible to be omniscient without being God. Simply appealing to extreme logical possibilities works both ways.As I said the asymmetry has to be shown to be genuine - not rely on setting asymmetric conditions that favour one side over the other.

In your argument agaisnt '7' you insist on knowledge of everything. You explicitly rule out, for instance, observing that the universe is not as it should be if God existed and inferring God's non-existence from that.

quote:

---

1 doesn't rely on me - it relys on God

---

YOUR knowledge necessarily relies on you. Remember this is about you KNOWING that God exists. It IS logically possible for God to both give you extra-human capabilities while you remain merely human. So unless you are claiming that God has exalted you to superhuman status that would let you overcome your human limits your problem remains.

quote:

---

I don't need data in the sense of supplying it to you

---

i.e. when you said that you didn't need data, you meant that you DID need data, but it wasn't in a form that could be convincingly transmitted to someone else.

quote:

---

The issue is whether a person can know God exists. For that the person themselves needs data. Let me be that person. I have it. God supplied it and logically (for that is what this is about) there is no impediment to him in supplying it.

---

So all you have to do is to explain how you can be sure that your jump from this data to the conclusion that God exists is reliable. Just assuming that it is reliable on the basis that IF God existed and DID want to let you know it the experience would be reliable is no good. It begs the question.

quote:

---

In other words IF God exists AND he gave me the data required to know he exists THEN I know he exist.

---

And if God didn't exist and the data came from another source you would still "know" that God exists. To truly KNOW that God exists by your criterion of certainty you must eliminate that possiblity.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I agree. The link in post 1 discusses this.

---

No, it doesn't. You just argue that if you happened to be right than you wouldn't be deluded.

quote:

---

Exhalt is not the word I would chose however. As Robin is wont to say "It sounds boastful". If you can read 'exhalt' without any sense of it being on account of me being something special over and above others not so (or yet) exhalted then I would be comfortable with that.

---

You can't have it both ways. Either you are claiming to have been given superhuman capabilites or you are not. Of course if you really believe that then you ought to very seriously consider the possibility that you are, in fact, deluded.

quote:

---

My being deluded doesn't mean I do not know God exists. It has nothing to do with it.

---

Then you mean "know" simply in the sense of being absolutely convinced. Thus we are back again to your argument relying on a double standard.

quote:

---

I claim to sit in a reality beyond the bubble you sit in. Logically possible

---

In the same sense that it is logically possible to be omniscient without being God. Yet another double standard.

quote:

---

Not at all. As you can see a (by the worlds standards) deluded person in a bubble whilst yourself residing within a bubble (whose skin thickness is not known to you) so to can I (logically) look at you in a bubble whilst residing in bubble whose skin thickness (God) is not known to me.

---

What do you mean "not at all" ? You can say all that but it's hardly plausible that it is literally true. All sorts of things are logically possible but incredibly unlikely. That sort of logical possibility doesn't help your case because it equally applies to the other side.

quote:

---

You have no method by which to attach degrees of plausibility so you must refrain from doing so

---

Sure I do. I can compare a statement with what is known of human experience - my own and the reports of others. If somethign seems completely out of sync with that I can say that it's implausible.

quote:

---

This is solely about logical possibilities.

---

Then you have to accept that it is LOGICALLY possible to know everything without being God. As I stated right back at the start you need to use the same criteria for each position. So long as you rely on begging the question with the use of double standards you only undermine your own credibility.

quote:

---

You and others? You pick the ones that align with you and reject the ones that don't and decide 'implausible'. Hollow that...

---

Of course, I didn't say that. If you actually have a case that I'm doing that you can make it. But if all you have is innuendo - well, it's clear whose position is really hollow.

quote:

---

I don't know how you can say that. If I know everything there is to know then I can do everything there is to do. What problem cannot be overcome by a person who knows everything?

---

Anything that is beyond their capabilities of course. Knowing how to do something in principle doesn't mean being able to do it. Omniscience is not the equivalent of omnipotence. That's why God is generally credited with both (of course an omnipotent being couldd make him or herself omniscient but that's the wrong way round for you).

OK, so your attack on me was unjustified. And if you want to leave plausilbility out of it I think you'll fund that it hurts you as much as it helps.

quote:

---

I can't see how if I know everything there is to know that I can't do everything there is to be done.

---

That looks like a plausiblity argument to me.

quote:

---

What could stop me?

---

Your own limitations. As I said knowing how something could be done, doesn't give you the capabilities to do it. To try a hypothetical example. if you were omniscient but your body was completely paralysed, what would you do about it ?

quote:

---

I am paralysed. That means a break in my spinal cord.. say. But I know how it can be repaired - just join the dots and all will be well. No surgeon available to do the work for want of the equipment to do it? No problem. I know what the equipment should look like and I also know how to design it. And if the manufacturing techniques to make such equipment are not known?. No problem - I know that too.

---

OK, so you imagine the equipment that could help you. And that's it ? Just imagining yourself fixed solves the problem ? Because you can't build or operate the machine yourself. And you can't tell anyone else how to do it - you can't even blink, let alone talk. So it seems to me that you haven't touched on the real problems, yet.

quote:

---

Empiricist-speak and predictable at that. "5 senses is the only knowledge that is possible". Showing 5 of the senses is not the same as saying "there are only 5 senses".
What is shown is shown. What is not is possible but not yet shown.

---

Was that supposed to be a reply to my post ? Because it doesn't address my points in any reasonable way.