Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Logically speaking: God is knowable
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 1 of 187 (353166)
09-29-2006 3:24 PM


The issue of being able to know that God exists in terms of it being a logical possibility has drawn a couple of threads off topic. Might as well do it here as there. We can look at other facets of knowing too.
The latest entry point was SteveN's comment about something Dawkins said. He paraphrased it like this:
Maybe surprisingly for those who consider him a rabid atheist, on a scale of 1 to 7 (1 being 'Strong theist; 100% probability of God' and 7 being 'Strong atheist, knows there is no God') he classes himself as a 6 (very low probability, but short of zero) tending towards 7.
The implication (and it is assumed for the sake of discussion) is that the illogical position of a person adopting a score of 7 is symmetrical with the position taken by a person adopting a score of 1. That is: 1 is an illogical position too.
The rebuttal of this was given by me in this way
A 7 score is an athiest who says he knows God doesn't exist. This is not a question of whether he is able to prove it or not. He cannot actually know God doesn't exist either. To know that he would have to know everything there is to be known (for if he didn't know everything then God could be in the place he doesn't know about). If he does know everything there is to know then he himself is God (meaning he couldn't know God doesn't exist anymore)
On the other hand a person can know God exists. All that has to happen is a) for God to exist (possible) b) for God to reveal himself to a person (also possible)
1 and 7 are not symmetrical positions thus.
A post which may offset side tracks into the possibility of my being deluded (which has nothing at all to do with the logic presented) can be found here:
http://EvC Forum: Would you want to know? -->EvC Forum: Would you want to know?
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : Correct link

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by mark24, posted 09-29-2006 3:44 PM iano has replied
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2006 3:53 PM iano has replied
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-29-2006 7:24 PM iano has replied
 Message 33 by Woodsy, posted 09-30-2006 10:34 AM iano has replied
 Message 40 by Modulous, posted 10-01-2006 3:17 AM iano has not replied
 Message 41 by Phat, posted 10-01-2006 5:26 AM iano has not replied
 Message 158 by SteveN, posted 10-03-2006 2:51 AM iano has replied

  
AdminFaith
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 187 (353173)
09-29-2006 3:37 PM


Thread moved here from the Coffee House forum.
Sorry, mistake, meant to go to Faith an Belief. Don't know how I did that. Well, try again.
Edited by AdminFaith, : No reason given.

  
AdminFaith
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 187 (353178)
09-29-2006 3:39 PM


Thread moved here from the Comparative Religions forum.

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 4 of 187 (353183)
09-29-2006 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by iano
09-29-2006 3:24 PM


Iano,
Positions 1 & 7 have equal veracity, ie. Zero.
Neither is supported by data that can be examined, & as such, are as bad as each other.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iano, posted 09-29-2006 3:24 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 09-29-2006 3:45 PM mark24 has replied
 Message 8 by iano, posted 09-29-2006 4:07 PM mark24 has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 5 of 187 (353184)
09-29-2006 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by mark24
09-29-2006 3:44 PM


I thought faith and belief don't need data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by mark24, posted 09-29-2006 3:44 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by mark24, posted 09-29-2006 3:47 PM Taz has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 6 of 187 (353185)
09-29-2006 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Taz
09-29-2006 3:45 PM


gasby,
I thought faith and belief don't need data.
They don't, which is why 1 & 7 are as bad as each other.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 09-29-2006 3:45 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by ohnhai, posted 09-29-2006 6:56 PM mark24 has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 7 of 187 (353186)
09-29-2006 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by iano
09-29-2006 3:24 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iano, posted 09-29-2006 3:24 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by iano, posted 09-29-2006 4:13 PM PaulK has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 8 of 187 (353193)
09-29-2006 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by mark24
09-29-2006 3:44 PM


This is logic Mark. You don't need any supporting data

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by mark24, posted 09-29-2006 3:44 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2006 4:11 PM iano has replied
 Message 32 by mark24, posted 09-29-2006 7:25 PM iano has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 9 of 187 (353194)
09-29-2006 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by iano
09-29-2006 4:07 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by iano, posted 09-29-2006 4:07 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by iano, posted 09-29-2006 4:19 PM PaulK has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 10 of 187 (353195)
09-29-2006 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by PaulK
09-29-2006 3:53 PM


Let me put it this way
1 and 7 are claimed to be symmetrical. I gave a rebuttal to that. Your options are either to show 1 and 7 are symmetrical (that they are was asserted) or show the rebuttal to be incorrect.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2006 3:53 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2006 4:20 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 11 of 187 (353196)
09-29-2006 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by PaulK
09-29-2006 4:11 PM


I am not looking at logically proving God. I am saying it is logical that I can know God. God would have to exist for that to happen but there is no logical impediement to that being the case. Anything is possible except that which is logically not.
IF a cow had powerful enough leg muscles AND he was so inclinded THEN a cow can jump over the moon. We are aware of what evolution has managed to make happen so let us not, logically, stand in its way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2006 4:11 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2006 4:27 PM iano has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 12 of 187 (353197)
09-29-2006 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by iano
09-29-2006 4:13 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by iano, posted 09-29-2006 4:13 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by iano, posted 09-29-2006 4:27 PM PaulK has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 13 of 187 (353201)
09-29-2006 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by PaulK
09-29-2006 4:20 PM


In your argument against '7' you argue that it is not enough to take things at face value.
Could you elaborate?
In your argument for '1' you assume that you can take a supposed revelation at face value.
1 doesn't rely on me - it relys on God. The notion of God is the usual one knocking around here. All powerful means being able to pierce through any and all failings in us: disbelief, delusion, error etc. If he choses to let me know the I will know. This answers your later objections for 1
7 is in the trouble you state it to be in.
Thus asymmetric

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2006 4:20 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2006 4:35 PM iano has replied
 Message 30 by ohnhai, posted 09-29-2006 7:12 PM iano has replied
 Message 171 by clpMINI, posted 10-03-2006 10:18 AM iano has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 14 of 187 (353202)
09-29-2006 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by iano
09-29-2006 4:19 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by iano, posted 09-29-2006 4:19 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by iano, posted 09-29-2006 4:34 PM PaulK has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 15 of 187 (353204)
09-29-2006 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by PaulK
09-29-2006 4:27 PM


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.
I don't need data in the sense of supplying it to you. 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.
You don't believe me. Well that is not important in the context of the discussion. That is about you not believing me not me not being able to have it. Logically I can have it. In other words IF God exists AND he gave me the data required to know he exists THEN I know he exist.
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.
Thats okay. It can work my way - logically
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2006 4:27 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2006 4:41 PM iano has replied
 Message 58 by RickJB, posted 10-01-2006 10:59 AM iano has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024