|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Logically speaking: God is knowable | |||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1972 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 1972 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 1972 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 1972 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1972 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1972 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1972 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1972 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
What is this data? Surely you are able to share it? Of course I can share it. But not in an empirical sense. You could share the data with about what you had for breakfast this day a year ago (for some reason you noted it in your diary) but at the end of the day I would have to believe you on it. It warrants a thread "What its like to know God (by people who do". Some other time perhaps (in the sense that you and they share the concept of time)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Why the continued insistance that you must "know" God? Is your faith so lacking? Funny you should say that. Someone once said of faith - "its the evidence of things not seen". {AbE}I'm not insisting that I must know God. I am insisting that I do. And I am arguing that there is nothing illogical about my claiming a 1 whereas to claim a 7 is illogical Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
It matters not a jot that loads of evidence could in principle be discovered in support of god, the fact is that there is NONE. A 1 is therefore as bad as a 7 because both require 100% belief sans evidence - This is the point. Look at the thread title. In one sense you seem to be the first to agree with it. A 7 cannot have the evidence and so cannot logically exist as a position. A 1 can have that evidence and so can be. Knowing something (anything in fact) has nothing at all to do with evidential-less belief (except in so far as it believes the objective reality to be objective). We know things (anything in fact) because the evidence is of a sort that leads to knowing What you mean to say is that you do not believe me. That's fine: I wouldn't believe you either - were it that our roles were reversed. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
NEITHER PROPOSITION HAS ANY EVIDENCE!!! Position 1 & 7 have equal veracity because of this. That one proposition can potentially have evidence is irrelevant to the fact that neither do. What part of that don't you understand? This is the statement of an apparent empiricist. And the position of the empiricist is an unverifiable one. "All we can know must be empirically verifiable" is a posture only. And an assumed one at that. A 7 cannot have the evidence, a 1 can. All it needs for a 1 to exist is for God to exist and for God to show up to that person. You might agree with that. Now, can you insert where it is that evidence of the sub-class you insist on (the stuff you can measure in a test tube as it were) is required for this. A 1 doesn't need to prove it to anyone in order to be
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
You are claiming that your "knowledge" that God exists is the evidence on which that "knowledge" is based. that is a circular argument!! Show me where I claimed that.
To be a 1 on this scale you have to "know" that God exists and you have to also have 100% certainty that your "kowledge" is not the result of any (non God) outside influence. This has been covered already. Read the link in the OP - knowing something doesn't mean that it actually is the case. A person can be deluded. But we can all be deluded and there is, in fact, no computer screen in front of you now. Knowing presumes the objective reality in which it is based is actually objective. Both the deluded and we do that. You say 1 and 7 are impossible. Could you set about showing so? Actually 1 will do. 7 I agree with you on already Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Click the PEEK button at the lower right hand side to see how I did
this and
quote: and
straggler writes: A 1 needs to prove with 100% certainty to themselves that they are free from brain washing, insanity, hypnosis and any other external influence which could affect that which they "know" to be true. Any such proof has to be empirical and therefore has to be impossible according to your own view of empericism as unverifiable.
If a 1 needs to prove it in order to know then so do we all. Empirical proof that the objective reality we assume is real is an impossibility. If it were a possibility then Descartes wouldn't have had to disappear up his own backside with: "I think therefore I am" {AbE} I suggested that you read the link in post 1. It illustrates the problem with taking this tack - or more properly, it puts the limits on what it is to say "I know" Edited by iano, : No reason given. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
You could share data about your "knowledge" of God but at the end of the day I would have to believe YOU on it. Ultimately you would have to believe him. Him showing up doesn't mean that he exists. We could all be characters in an alien kids playstation game and he is the R1 button the kid pressed. I have to believe him so you believing me would mean you believe him too. Do you believe me?
But even without any concrete evidence there is one important difference - both of us have experienced what it is to eat breakfast. The action/concept itself is objectively verifiable, therefore this lends some credence to your claim. Empiricist speak. "Verifiable evidence trumps other sorts". All that verifiable evidence does it permit itself to examination by others. Your lending it superiority is unwarranted. That's an unverified worldview speaking.
In other words, we have objective evidence that "breakfasts" exist. We have no such evidence for God. Thats reasons to believe you (or me). It affects knowing what happened to each of us one morning 5 years ago not one jot
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024