|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Logically speaking: God is knowable | |||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
) Knowing everything does not make you God. What does make you God then? How easy it is to kick a ball into touch at EvC. Only kidding. See you tomorrow
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What does make you God then? I don't know. [smartass]You're the one who knows him, why don't you ask him. [/smartass] How easy it is to kick a ball into touch at EvC. I don't get it. Is that a soccer reference?
Only kidding. See you tomorrow /nod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ohnhai Member (Idle past 5189 days) Posts: 649 From: Melbourne, Australia Joined: |
If you see a bird flying by your window now and there is nobody else around to see it then you know it flew by yet have no proof it did. But we have all seen birds. We have countless data on the 'fact' that birds exist. many of us have even seen these 'birds' fly past windows. It is no hardship to believe you when you claim to have seen one fly past your window. Had you claimed you had just seen a dragon fly past your window... That would be a different matter entirely.
I'm not attempting to prove God exists. I am rebutting the suggestion in the OP that 1 and 7 are symmetrical statements But it is you who ringed the supposed asymmetry of the ”inferred illogic’ of the two stand points. Not surprising when you clearly don’t want to admit the illogic of your own belief as a 1. Which is strange as you obviously accept religion IS faith and belief
I have no proof of an empirical nature that God exists. And so you have to Believe to be able to claim a 1. This is the same position of the 7s, each of these stances goes beyond the evidence available and so the proponents of each have to take a leap of faith to get there.
You have no proof of an empirical nature that empiricism is true
Sure. Because if I did I would have to have evidence that proved the non-existence of”supernatural’ senses. Again, like the search for god, you are asking to prove the non-existence of something.Anyway I wasn’t claiming empiricism. I was asking for empirical data on your god. A subtle but important difference, as your reply above points out. The point being you have just admitted that you have no hard data regarding the existence of god and while you don’t believe this poses a problem in being a 1 you use the lack of hard data in the other direction as a proof of the illogic of being a 7. You then claim 1 and 7s are not on equal footing. Based on the available data then 1 and 7 are equivalent. Neither has hard evidence to support it, thus neither is a tenable position with out belief. They are equivalent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ohnhai Member (Idle past 5189 days) Posts: 649 From: Melbourne, Australia Joined: |
You don't see Trekkies going around slagging people off. you obviously have not been to a si-fi convention in a Babalon 5 uniform........
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I don't follow you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5018 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
[dupe post - deleted]
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5018 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Iano writes: Does it actually exist at all? You can't know that. Empiricism sails in the same circular boat that I do. Ah, but this is your old trick Iano. Whenever you are challenged for evidence you bring out the Berkeleyan "reality is a illusion" card. This is a dead end. If reality is an illusion then said illusion IS reality. Reality is reality.
Iano writes: Empiricism sails in the same circular boat that I do. I'm really keen to learn about the extra (somehow non-empirical) sense(s) you claim to have. We'll call it Iano's Super Sense (ISS). By your own defintion it does not rely on Empirical means. Now, if you can use ISS to "know" with 100% certainty that God exists, could you not also "know" that God does not exist? It seems that in case 7 the limitations of empiricism apply, whereas in case 1 you use your ISS "knowledge" to move the goalposts in your favour. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SteveN Inactive Member |
As the SteveN referred to in the OP, I would just like to point out two things:
1) As I went on to explain in the original thread, it is clear that Dawkins was referring in his book to symmetry with regard to the list itself (i.e. 100% theist to 100% atheist) - he was not implying some kind of symmetry with regard to the credibility of the two stances. Iano knows this but nevertheless started this thread to object to the latter (strawman) argument. 2) Although from a scientific sense, it is usual to accept that the non-existence of something cannot be disproven and one could therefore argue, as Iano does, that a '1' is logically more defensible than a '7 (albeit with little success it seems), given the evidence, a '6' is orders of magnitude more credible than a '1', '2'', '3' '4' or '5' IMHO.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
There have been a myriad of objections to me saying "I know God exists". The reference to Dawkins quote was used as an intro to look at the logical position of that. Apologies for any sense of having misrepresented your position.
Although from a scientific sense, it is usual to accept that the non-existence of something cannot be disproven and one could therefore argue, as Iano does, that a '1' is logically more defensible than a '7 (albeit with little success it seems), given the evidence, a '6' is orders of magnitude more credible than a '1', '2'', '3' '4' or '5' IMHO. 1 is a logical position, 7 is not, I argue. My apparent lack of success is due in no small part to having to deal with arguments involving such things as the credibility and plausibility of the position - which have of course, nothing to do with the OP at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Ah, but this is your old trick Iano. Whenever you are challenged for evidence you bring out the Berkeleyan "reality is a illusion" card. Wrapping it up as you do doesn't add to your argument. If I suggest I can be looking at you in a bubble of delusion you suggest back that it is the other way around. That may seem to kick the ball into touch but I am as entitled to suggest you are deluded as you are to suggest I am. Which leaves the logic given in the OP unchallenged. I will point these facts out to you next time you object to my saying I know God exist - for I am likely to state it again
Now, if you can use ISS to "know" with 100% certainty that God exists, could you not also "know" that God does not exist? It seems that in case 7 the limitations of empiricism apply, whereas in case 1 you use your ISS "knowledge" to move the goalposts in your favour. The supersense you refer to is not something inherent in a 1. He is of no different makeup that anyone else. If God exists and reveals himself to a person then the person becomes a 1. They had no need of a supersense - they were subject to an action by God. The limitations of the empiricist are his problem. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
iano writes: If you see a bird flying by your window now and there is nobody else around to see it then you know it flew by yet have no proof it did.
ohnhai writes: But we have all seen birds. We have countless data on the 'fact' that birds exist. many of us have even seen these 'birds' fly past windows. It is no hardship to believe you when you claim to have seen one fly past your window. This is not a question of belief. For sure people may well believe you. You cannot produce that occasion in such a way that anyone else can know it did however - you have no empirical proof to present to them. You had no camera, no one was there with you. Does the fact that there is no proof and that you are the sole witness in any way demolish the fact that you know that a bird flew by your window at that time? And if it was a little dragon that flew by your window then you would know that too. I don't mean in a flash - but one who swooped around, landed on your window sill knocked and waved to you. You might rub your eyes and look again. There he is. Now you sure feel normal enough - but put it down to temporary delusion. But the next day he comes again. Now your in trouble. "I must be mad" you say to yourself. But then you meet lots of other people who say the same thing. They describe the dragon and its the same one as you saw. Would you still think your deluded?
Not surprising when you clearly don’t want to admit the illogic of your own belief as a 1. Which is strange as you obviously accept religion IS faith and belief Seeing as we may have cleared up the idea that it is necessary to have 'hard' (of the demonstrable kind) evidence of something in order to know it, what then is this illogic?
The point being you have just admitted that you have no hard data regarding the existence of god and while you don’t believe this poses a problem in being a 1 you use the lack of hard data in the other direction as a proof of the illogic of being a 7. You then claim 1 and 7s are not on equal footing I have hard data. But it is like your flying bird data. Personal to you - not available to anyone else. Logically I can have it (and lets not loose sight of the fact that the OP only looks at it from a logical perspective). A 7 cannot, logically, have hard data, personal or otherwise. Thus asymmetry of position, logically Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18343 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Iano writes: Well put. At least I understand it quite perfectly!
If God exists and reveals himself to a person then the person becomes a 1. They had no need of a supersense - they were subject to an action by God. The limitations of the empiricist are his problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5018 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Iano writes: The supersense you refer to is not something inherent in a 1. He is of no different makeup that anyone else. If God exists and reveals himself to a person then the person becomes a 1. They had no need of a supersense - they were subject to an action by God. The limitations of the empiricist are his problem. So the difference you propose between 1 and 7 boils down to little more than "goddidit". Thanks for the admission. I think you've well illustrated the limitations of your "logic". Edited by RickJB, : No reason given. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18343 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
RickJB writes: Unless the ISS is the Holy Spirit. I'm really keen to learn about the extra (somehow non-empirical) sense(s) you claim to have. We'll call it Iano's Super Sense (ISS). By your own defintion it does not rely on Empirical means. Now, if you can use ISS to "know" with 100% certainty that God exists, could you not also "know" that God does not exist? Also....I am not sure if we use the ISS so much as He uses us! I would be open minded, Rick....but I would even go a step farther and suggest that the Spirit has gotten your attention and that my adding anything to that would only muck up the magnetism!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5018 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Phat writes: I would even go a step farther and suggest that the Spirit has gotten your attention Please don't diguise your preaching with banter. I find it offensive. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024