|
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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
In the context of the scale then 1 & 7 ARE equivalent. 1 being absolute belief in the existence of God and 7 being the absolute belief of the lack of existence for the god/s. Logic, reason and data have NO baring on it what-so-ever. If that was the symmetry drawn the I have no problem with it. But at the outset of this thread I assume Dawkins to be stating things in the logical sense. Indeed the slightly derogative tones implied in Dawkins statement (as paraphrased well I think by SteveN) suggests that Dawkins sees a 1 and a 7 as equally irrational and illogical Dawkins states he is a 6 because he knows that logically he cannot be 7. He says he has met very few 7's (inferring that these folk are for the birds). Then lumps 1 in the same camp in order to make one of his hyperbolic points. They are not symmetrical positions because a 7 cannot exist logically. Whereas a 1 can. There is no point is holding the opposite positions as opposite if one is illogical and the other not. What use such a scale: at one end the sane and at the other the insane Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here Dr. Adequate. You mention a fallacy but I don't get what you mean.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
The point is that from an evidential point of view both 1 & 7 are both evidentially vacuous. That the arguments made for both are internally consistent is rendered pointless without evidence. A 7 cannot be. A 1 can have evidence enabling knowing. It is not necessary for a 1 to have evidence of the type that he can show to another in order to have evidence unto knowing himself. It might be considered unfortunate by the another but it has no bearing on what the 1 knows. That another cannot know what you know impacts not at all on what you know. This is about you not them
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
I have read that it has been found possible to evoke religious experiences by electrical and chemical means (I don't have references available just now, but will look for them if required). Given that, I don't see how one could be confident that such experiences, which I suppose include God revealing himself, can be relied on without external confirmation. I have heard it said that it is possible for a person to experience the objective reality around them as being truly objective simply by assuming that it is. No chemicals required. We all do it in fact
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Anyone who claims to be at 1 or 7 has to be deluded because either position requires a certainty about the source of their absolute certanty that it is impossible to have. I agree. The same could be said of positions 2-6 however. For a person to say "I am fairly convinced that God exists" required that they themselves exist in order to be "fairly convinced". But no one can be certain of even that. They might be characters in a alien kids playstation game and not exist at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
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. You and others? You pick the ones that align with you and reject the ones that don't and decide 'implausible'. Hollow that...
Then you have to accept that it is LOGICALLY possible to know everything without being God. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
You said implausible which means nothing very much at all. All sorts of things are implausible until they are done. Implausibility is always open to being re-evaluated
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROusI6GKEcg Lets leave implausibility as an argument huh?
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. I can't see how if I know everything there is to know that I can't do everything there is to be done. What could stop me?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
I can't remember an attack on you as such. Lets leave implausibility though.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5021 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
iano writes: In other words IF God exists AND he gave me the data required to know he exists THEN I know he exist. What is this data? Surely you are able to share it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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