|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Logically speaking: God is knowable | |||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: No, it doesn't. You just argue that if you happened to be right than you wouldn't be deluded.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: In the same sense that it is logically possible to be omniscient without being God. Yet another double standard.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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: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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
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: That looks like a plausiblity argument to me.
quote: 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Was that supposed to be a reply to my post ? Because it doesn't address my points in any reasonable way.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024