|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Logically speaking: God is knowable | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Just out of curiousity...why does what I say annoy you? Is it because I am suggesting a different way to think? Is that not what we all do to each other? (By the way, I did not intend to offend you)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
So the difference you propose between 1 and 7 boils down to little more than "goddidit". Thanks for the admission. In the context of the thread title, logically "God can do it" would be a better way of putting it. That is all the separation needed in order to disrupt the alleged symmetry.
I think you've well illustrated the limitations of your "logic". Can one henceforth say "I know God exists" without: a) that being an illogical thing to say? b) having to prove it to anyone (for we have seen it is possible to know things whilst not being able to prove them)? c) being of necessity considered delusional? If so then the limitations of my logic will do me fine Edited by iano, : add "exists" to "I know God"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
If so then the limitations of my logic will do me fine The limitations of my logic will do me fine as well, so now I am certain that Jesus was a gay con artist who lied to make an easy living, was found out and crucified as a common criminal by the Romans. It's all true because I know it to be so and it satifies my logic. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 4991 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Iano writes: That is all the separation needed in order to disrupt the alleged symmetry. Goddidit is always useful whenever evidence is lacking..
Iano writes: Can one henceforth say "I know God exists" without: a) that being an illogical thing to say? b) having to prove it to anyone (for we have seen it is possible to know things whilst not being able to prove them)? c) being of necessity considered delusional? If so then the limitations of my logic will do me fine You can say it, but given that everything that humans have ever known has been empirically derived, don't expect anyone to believe you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Iano,
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? But a bird flying past your window presents data that was captured by one of your senses & is therefore empirical. Why are you using an empirical example to counter empiricism? The point is that 1/ our senses can be tricked, & 2/ our brains can be tricked into thinking that one of our senses was triggered. For trivial things like "hey, a bird flew past my window" no-one wants extra evidence because the statement is non-controversial. It might of, it might not of, so what? But for more sensational claims a higher standard is required, & that is evidence that can be examined by everyone. This rules out the possibility that self-delusion or an over active subconcious is the culprit. At the end of the day, propositions are supported by empirical, testable evidence because we want to reliably get at the truth. The only way to attain reliability is to reduce the tentativity of a hypothesis, & the only way of doing that is to have evidence that can be examined. We cannot get at the truth of Yahweh's existence because you had a fulfilling dream, we have no way of knowing whether it was a dream, or a revelation. YOU have no way of knowing, & if you can't tell, then it is not evidential in nature. This phenomena is thrown into sharp relief when other religions make similar claims. There is no way of telling which mutually exclusive non-empirical claims are true or false. Ergo, non-empirical claims cannot be considered evidence because they cannot reduce the tentativity of a hypothesis & improve its veracity. Non-empirical "evidence" is non-evidence. Mark Edited by mark24, : No reason given. There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
clpMINI Member (Idle past 5165 days) Posts: 116 From: Richmond, VA, USA Joined: |
1 doesn't rely on me - it relys on God...If he chooses to let me know then I will know. Thats not logic, thats circular reasoning isn't it? That God exists, because God tells me that God exists? I mean, this is America. Everybody loves seeing lesbians go at it, as long as they are both hot and not in a monogamous, legally sanctioned relationship.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
And when that shilling used to appear under my pillow whenever I lost a tooth means that the Tooth Fairy exists!
Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
iano writes: Can one henceforth say "I know God exists" without: a) that being an illogical thing to say? b) having to prove it to anyone (for we have seen it is possible to know things whilst not being able to prove them)? c) being of necessity considered delusional?
Iano,You seem to be skirting round the point and re-defining the topic here. You claim to be 100% certain, to know, that God exists. You consider yourself a '1'. Yet you accept the fact that you could be deluded, you accept that you 'could' be wrong. Your knowledge of God is a subset of your conciousness, your knowledge of existance. your knowledge of God is contained within your 'reality' Therefore if you can express or accept the tiniest piece of doubt on your reality (i.e. accept that you 'might' be deluded), you cannot be 100% certain that you know God exists. for instance. If I were to say "I am 100% certain that this computer screen exists" but follow that with "Of course I could be deluded"that immediately reduces the 100% certainty to less than 100%. The fact that I accept that my reality may be an illusion, means that every thing contained therein may also be an illusion. You position as a 1 is as untenable as a 7. It seems to me that this was the point that Dawkins was trying to make. in point (c) above:being of necessity considered delusional? you are making the condition that if youare not delusional, then what you know is true. i.e. "if I am not mistaken, then I am right"a fairly pointless statement no? the fact is you may well be delusional, and as long as that possibility exists, you cannot be 100% certain of ANYTHING.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5006 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
Brian writes: ...so now I am certain that Jesus was a gay con artist who lied to make an easy living didn't you mean to write 'Paul' instead of 'Jesus'? Edited by Legend, : spelling "In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
RickJB to Iano writes: The awareness of God is one thing I have known that has not been empirically derived. My worldview is not that of an unthinking neocon, nor am I a strict Biblical Literalist. I have heard the scriptures that are used to defend faith: You can say it, but given that everything that humans have ever known has been empirically derived, don't expect anyone to believe you.NIV writes: And to me this is quite logical. Is is illogical to assume that the universe needed no Creator. Heb 11:1-3- Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.Reality Checkpoint Blogs writes: The idea of God has to have validity and meaning to an individual based on that persons own acceptance or rejection of God. Both “scientific materialism” and belief in the “supernatural” are based on the logical fallacy of “Post hoc ergo propter hoc” or “coincidental correlation.” The basic postulate that some cosmological opinions are based on “reason” and others on “faith” results from mislabeling effects as causes. Human beings accept ideas that are accompanied with what behavioral scientists call “positive reinforcement” and reject those that are negatively reinforced - a process entirely unrelated to the validity of the ideas themselves. In other words, people who become atheists because of social pressure from their peers in the academic or political community are behaving no more “rationally” than those who learn a faith-based cosmology from the religious community. When an individual accepts God, is that empirically derived? If Empiricism can be defined as a branch of philosophy which sees all knowledge as being based in experience (and observation) as distinct from theory or logic, you are correct in that there is no way to convince you that God logically exists. The fact that you never responded to my last post shows that you have a general disdain for the very idea. Or am I incorrect? Edited by Phat, : changes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
The awareness of God is one thing I have known that hs not been empirically derived. How can you be aware of something that MAY not exist? Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
I edited my post while you replied, Brian. Sorry... But to answer your question, perhaps my belief in God was empirically inspired. Its funny, really. I even see God in you sometimes!
Go figure, eh? Edited by Phat, : changed title to reflect edit...pertaining to Brians reply
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
I edited my post while you replied, Brian. Sorry No probs bud. Got a fright when the page reloaded
I even see God in you sometimes! Many ladies have said the same thing. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
*bump*
no more reponses?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3598 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
I'm not looking at the 1-7 scale here but I was intrigued by Iano's questions. Here's my take on it.
iano:
Can one henceforth say "I know God exists" without: a) that being an illogical thing to say? You are not talking about knowledge--a conviction, really--that follows mainly from reason. Reason may play a part. If you allow for the existence of other kinds of 'knowing' it becomes possible to say 'God exists' in a valid way. The psychologist Carl Jung developed a useful model for this. He said we 'know' things through four cognitive functions: - reason Logic is the tool of reason. The other functions don't use it. (More accurately: they possess their own logic. There is a kind of 'emotional logic' that works without being rational.) It is perfectly rational to believe in miracles, for example. As soon as one postulates the existence of a being powerful enough to call the universe into existence, it stands to reason that such a being would be powerful enough to suspend the laws of that universe in any number of ways. The conclusion is logical. The catch is when you examine the premise: that the being exists. That is not a belief one reaches (or rejects) mainly through reason.
b) having to prove it to anyone (for we have seen it is possible to know things whilst not being able to prove them)? I don't see why a belief in the supernatural must be logically proven to anybody else in order for one to have it. Two situations exist where rational justifications come into play. 1. You intend to make proselytes. Now you are trying to convince the unconvinced. Most evangelists feel a rationally persuasive case is of more use in this task than a purely subjective testimonial. (I'm not so sure.) 2. You intend to get your belief accepted as science. Now you'd better have a truckload of data and an airtight argument, because the ground rules of science are in effect. Your task is to prove the existence of the supernatural and superrational by purely natural and rational means. An impossible task, probably.
c) being of necessity considered delusional? I don't see how any belief is delusional if it squares with general observation, and if one leaves healthy room for the distance that necessarily exists between reality and one's own idea of it. A belief becomes delusional when a person (or group) has to reject contrary but valid incoming information in order to maintain the belief. Now instead of a realistic relationship to the environment the person is building an illusory one. The person will function less and less well in the real world as more and more reality is denied in order to sustain the belief. Delusions have the effect of isolating a person from the environment. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024