Arguments for the Existence of God

[Chriliman]

You would need to demonstrate how many things there are to know, and how it would be possible.

There would be no point in saying it's possible if I could demonstrate it.

If I could demonstrate it then it would be factual.

What your asking of me is no different than saying the multiverse is not possible since science can't demonstrate that it's factual.

Possibilities do not need to be demonstrated in order to be possible. If they are demonstrated then they become facts.

 

[HitchSlap]

There would be no point in saying it's possible if I could demonstrate it.

If I could demonstrate it then it would be factual.

What your asking of me is no different than saying the multiverse is not possible since science can't demonstrate that it's factual.

Possibilities do not need to be demonstrated in order to be possible. If they are demonstrated then they become facts.

I'm sorry, I seem to be confused by what you mean by the word "objective."

I tend to forget that there are definitions, and there are definitions you use.

 

[Chriliman]

It's rather contradictory non-sequitur. You'd need to show that all things that are not known are the sort of things that can be known. To do that, you'd have to know something about them, so they wouldn't be things that are not known.

Right, which shows it's possible to know all things. I am not saying that I can demonstrate this, I am saying that it's possible.

If I could demonstrate it, then it would be factual, but I'm not God so I can't demonstrate that I know all things, only God can do that and that takes time to demonstrate, thus existence as we currently know it.

Thanks guys, I'm done for now

 

[Dave Ellis]

Define in your own words what it means to be objective.

To me, it means to do what's right all the time because being objective allows one to see clearly what is true.

The relevant dictionary definition for this topic is "not dependent on the mind for existence, actual", alternatively complete impartiality could also be seen to be objective.

Doing what's right all the time in the way you have described (i.e. morally) is necessarily subjective, because the very act of judging it as "right" is a subjective judgment.

 

[Dave Ellis]

It is possible for a being to know all things and therefore that being would have the highest capacity of objectivity.

Knowing all things is completely irrelevant to objectivity.

 

[Chriliman]

The relevant dictionary definition for this topic is "not dependent on the mind for existence, actual", alternatively complete impartiality could also be seen to be objective.

Doing what's right all the time in the way you have described (i.e. morally) is necessarily subjective, because the very act of judging it as "right" is a subjective judgment.

That's good, thanks.

Without a mind, no one can know existence or be objective.

Still we must ask why do our minds exist? Is there a purpose for how and why we can understand existence? I believe there is.

 

[Dave Ellis]

That's good, thanks.

Without a mind, no one can know existence or be objective.

Still we must ask why do our minds exist? Is there a purpose for how and why we can understand existence? I believe there is.

I don't see how that's relevant to the topic at hand... But go on.

Why?

 

[HitchSlap]

That's good, thanks.

Without a mind, no one can know existence or be objective.

Still we must ask why do our minds exist? Is there a purpose for how and why we can understand existence? I believe there is.

Of course. I only told you about 58 times.

1. Reality exists.
2. We can learn some things about reality.
3. Falsifiable models with predictive capabilities work better than those without.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

If some things can be known then it's possible that all things can be known.

Hasty Generalization fallacy. Just because some or even most members of a set have a property does not mean that all members of the set have that property.

How is the above not an objective statement?

It is. It's just not a substantiated objective statement. It can't be considered true until you show that it's true.

 

[Chriliman]

Apex fallacy. Just because some or even most members of a set have a property does not mean that all members of the set have that property.

You seem to not understand what the word "possible" means. I'm not saying since some things can be known then all things are known, I'm saying since some things can be known then it's possible for all things to be known.

I can say this true statement without demonstrating that all things are known because in the statement I'm not saying that all things are known, I'm saying it's possible for all things to be known.

It is. It's just not a substantiated objective statement. It can't be considered true until you show that it's true.

The statement "It's possible for all things to be known" is a true statement and I don't have to demonstrate all things being known in order for it to be considered true.

It's similar to saying "It's possible that an infinite multiverse exists". I don't have to demonstrate the infinite multiverse in order for this statement to be true.

Seriously, this is my last post on this thread for awhile, until I find a way to explain what Im saying in a more understandable way.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You seem to not understand what the word "possible" means. I'm not saying since some things can be known then all things are known, I'm saying since some things can be known then it's possible for all things to be known.

I can say this true statement without demonstrating that all things are known because in the statement I'm not saying that all things are known, I'm saying it's possible for all things to be known.

Yeah... I'm the one that's not getting it...

The word "possible" doesn't affect my argument. Because the set of "things" includes members that have the property "possible to be known" does not mean that all the members of the set of "things" has the property "possible to be known". You have to actually give evidence that all the members of the set have that property. Which you haven't done.

The statement "It's possible for all things to be known" is a true statement and I don't have to demonstrate all things being known in order for it to be considered true.

OF COURSE you have to demonstrate that it's a true statement before anyone accepts it as true. That's how logic works for pete's sake...

It's similar to saying "It's possible that an infinite multiverse exists". I don't have to demonstrate the infinite multiverse in order for this statement to be true.

You don't have to show an "infinite multiverse", but you do have to show that the possibility of one actually does exist.

Seriously, this is my last post on this thread for awhile, until I find a way to explain what Im saying in a more understandable way.

Good luck.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Right, which shows it's possible to know all things.

No; no it doesn't. Some things may be unknowable. To show that it's possible to know all things, you have to know that all things are knowable, and you can't do that without knowing all things, which is the possibility that you're trying to establish... So it's not possible to know whether it's possible to know all things unless you know all things. See?

I am not saying that I can demonstrate this, I am saying that it's possible.

I heard what you said, but saying it doesn't make it right.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I can say this true statement without demonstrating that all things are known because in the statement I'm not saying that all things are known, I'm saying it's possible for all things to be known.

There may be unknowable things. You have a problem either with language or with logic (or both). Perhaps you mean, "It's possible that all things are knowable" ?

The statement "It's possible for all things to be known" is a true statement and I don't have to demonstrate all things being known in order for it to be considered true.

It's an unprovable statement. It's true if and only if all things are knowable, which is unknowable.

It's similar to saying "It's possible that an infinite multiverse exists". I don't have to demonstrate the infinite multiverse in order for this statement to be true.

Because that's an ontological statement (about what can exist), not an epistemological statement (about what can be known).

Seriously, this is my last post on this thread for awhile, until I find a way to explain what Im saying in a more understandable way.

What you said is understandable but wrong. You might consider saying something different - such as what I suggested above: "It's possible that all things are knowable"

 

[Chriliman]

There may be unknowable things. You have a problem either with language or with logic (or both). Perhaps you mean, "It's possible that all things are knowable" ?
It's an unprovable statement.
Because that's an ontological statement (about what can exist), not an epistemological statement (about what can be known).
What you said is understandable but wrong. You might consider saying something different - such as what I suggested above: "It's possible that all things are knowable"

How is the statement "It's possible for all things to be known" different from the statement "It's possible that all things are knowable"?

If all things are knowable then it's possible for all things to be known.

Are you just trying to find fault where there is none?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

If all things are knowable then it's possible for all things to be known.

While this statement is true, it imparts no information. It's a tautology.

If you're really wanting to say "It's possible that all things are knowable", you'll have to demonstrate that it's true.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How is the statement "It's possible for all things to be known" different from the statement "It's possible that all things are knowable"?

Knowing something is different from knowing that you can know it.

If all things are knowable then it's possible for all things to be known.

That's what I said, 'if and only if'. Donald Rumsfeld put it memorably - there are known unknowns - things we know that we don't know; and there are unknown unknowns - things we don't know that we don't know. We might conceivably discover that it's possible to know all the known unknowns, but while there are unknown unknowns, we can't be sure that all things are knowable, so we can't say it's possible for all things to be known; some things may simply be unknowable.

Are you just trying to find fault where there is none?

No, I'm trying to correct a misunderstanding.

 

[Chriliman]

Knowing something is different from knowing that you can know it.
That's what I said, 'if and only if'. Donald Rumsfeld put it memorably - there are known unknowns - things we know that we don't know; and there are unknown unknowns - things we don't know that we don't know. We might conceivably discover that it's possible to know all the known unknowns, but while there are unknown unknowns, we can't be sure that all things are knowable, so we can't say it's possible for all things to be known; some things may simply be unknowable.
No, I'm trying to correct a misunderstanding.

If some things are unknowable then they're irrelevant to the possibility of knowing all there is to know.

We can't possibly know if an unknowable thing exists, therefore irrelevant to the point I'm making.

However, if you can show me an unknowable thing then you will have proven me wrong.

It's impossible to know if an unknowable thing exists, therefore it's possible to know all things knowable.

 

[Chriliman]

Knowing something is different from knowing that you can know it.
That's what I said, 'if and only if'. Donald Rumsfeld put it memorably - there are known unknowns - things we know that we don't know; and there are unknown unknowns - things we don't know that we don't know. We might conceivably discover that it's possible to know all the known unknowns, but while there are unknown unknowns, we can't be sure that all things are knowable, so we can't say it's possible for all things to be known; some things may simply be unknowable.
No, I'm trying to correct a misunderstanding.

To keep it simple, explain how an unknowable thing has any relevance to all other things that are knowable.

Then explain how you know anything about that which is unknowable.

I hope you're seeing the problem here.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

To keep it simple, explain how an unknowable thing has any relevance to all other things that are knowable.

An unknowable thing invalidates both of the statements "All things are knowable." and "it is possible that all things are knowable."

Which was your contention.

Then explain how you know anything about that which is unknowable.

The only thing necessary to know about that which is unknowable is that it invalidates the above two assertions.

I hope you're seeing the problem here.

I think we all see the problem here.

 

[Dave Ellis]

To keep it simple, explain how an unknowable thing has any relevance to all other things that are knowable.

Then explain how you know anything about that which is unknowable.

I hope you're seeing the problem here.

The main problem I see is the impact that has on Christian theology.

If we can't understand god or his ways, and never will be able to, and there is no direct evidence for him (we must believe on faith), then god is essentially unknowable.

I agree it's not possible to know if an unknowable thing exists, but that has some serious implications that come with it