Arguments for the Existence of God

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

Yes; it's possible to know all things that are knowable. But that's not what you originally said. We can't be sure it's possible to know all things because we don't know that all things are knowable.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I hope you're seeing the problem here.

Yes; sadly, you seem unable or unwilling to grasp simple logical points. You'll struggle to progress with philosophy unless you can rectify this.

 

[Chriliman]

Yes; it's possible to know all things that are knowable. But that's not what you originally said. We can't be sure it's possible to know all things because we don't know that all things are knowable.

When I say "it's possible to know all things", I'm referring to things that exist, not things that don't exist.

It is possible to know all things(things being things that exist) because it's impossible to know if a thing does not exist.

You continue to falsely represent what I'm saying and then conclude that I don't know simple logic, when I'm clearly showing you that I am being perfectly logical.

I'll make the logical statements as clear as I possibly can:

If all things that exist are knowable, then it is possible to know all things that exist.

If some things exist that are unknowable, then it is impossible to know that they exist.

If it's impossible to know a thing exists, then it's existence is irrelevant to the knowledge of all things that do exist.

Please don't conclude that I've been wrong this entire time just because I didn't use the word "knowable" in my original statement when I said "It's possible to know all things". When I made that statement I assumed you knew it was axiomatic that the word "things" refers to things that exist.

 

[Chriliman]

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.

A true Christian will claim to know God and know that He exists. However, they didn't come to know God before they believed and had faith in His existence and His son Jesus Christ who makes it possible to know God.

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

Sure, but the point I'm making is this: if God exists then it is possible to know Him.

Now you could say that if God does not exist then it is impossible to know Him, but that's not the point I'm making.

If God does not exist then there wouldn't be so much talk about Him. Yes God is talked about more than unicorns or fairies.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

When I say "it's possible to know all things", I'm referring to things that exist, not things that don't exist.

It is possible to know all things(things being things that exist) because it's impossible to know if a thing does not exist.

For the unpteenth time, you have not shown that it's possible to know all things that exist. If there's an inherently unknowable thing that exists, then your statement is incorrect. You haven't shown that this is not the case.

You continue to falsely represent what I'm saying and then conclude that I don't know simple logic, when I'm clearly showing you that I am being perfectly logical.

And everyone is correct in telling you that you're not being logical.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

A true Christian will claim to know God and know that He exists. However, they didn't come to know God before they believed and had faith in His existence and His son Jesus Christ who makes it possible to know God.

I know one Christian in particular who was an atheist before he claims he spoke to God. So, in her case she knew God before she had faith. Is she not a "real Christian"?

Sure, but the point I'm making is this: if God exists then it is possible to know Him.

An assertion that you've yet to demonstrate is true.

Now you could say that if God does not exist then it is impossible to know Him, but that's not the point I'm making.

I'm pretty sure no one is bringing this up.

If God does not exist then there wouldn't be so much talk about Him. Yes God is talked about more than unicorns or fairies.

Non sequitur. It doesn't follow that a god has to exist just because people "talk about him". That's illogical.

 

[Chriliman]

If there's an inherently unknowable thing that exists, then your statement is incorrect. You haven't shown that this is not the case.

Because I can't possibly show that an inherently unknowable thing exists. If I could then it would be known. How do you continue to not understand?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Because I can't possibly show that an inherently unknowable thing exists. If I could then it would be known. How do you continue to not understand?

I'm not the one that everyone else is saying is illogical, now am I?

Yes, I realize you can't show that an unknowable thing exists. Which means that you can never show that the statement "All things have the possibility to be known" is actually true. This has already been pointed out to you, but you keep trying to argue that.

So you should stop using that statement, because it's something you can't show to be true.

 

[Chriliman]

I'm not the one that everyone else is saying is illogical, now am I?

When it's 3 or 4 atheists against one Christian, the atheist doesn't think to scrutinize what his brother is saying to the level that he's scrutinizing what the Christian is saying.

It's just the nature of humanity, if you think someone has similar views as you, then you're less likely to scrutinize them as closely as you would someone who has differing views, but we must strive to be as objective as possible in order to understand what's actually true.

Yes, I realize you can't show that an unknowable thing exists. Which means that you can never show that the statement "All things have the possibility to be known" is actually true.

It is possible because were talking about knowing things that exist. It's possible to know all things that exist. It's impossible to know things that do not exist. We shouldn't even use the word "thing" to describe non-existence. We should use it for things that do exist. This is very clear!

This has already been pointed out to you, but you keep trying to argue that.

You think your pointing something out, but you're not because you still don't understand what I'm saying. If you'd rather not understand because you're afraid of being wrong then that's fine, but you'll eventually have to deal with that fear.

So you should stop using that statement, because it's something you can't show to be true.

Why would I stop saying something that is accurate?

Just because I can't demonstrate all things(that exist) being known, does not mean it's impossible to demonstrate all things(that exist) being known.

It's still a fact that it's possible, whether you accept that or not.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

When it's 3 or 4 atheists against one Christian, the atheist doesn't think to scrutinize what his brother is saying to the level that he's scrutinizing what the Christian is saying.

It's just the nature of humanity, if you think someone has similar views as you, then you're less likely to scrutinize them as closely as you would someone who has differing views, but we must strive to be as objective as possible in order to understand what's actually true.

Or... you're just wrong. Which is the case here. As has been pointed out several times.

It is possible because were talking about knowing things that exist. It's possible to know all things that exist. It's impossible to know things that do not exist. We shouldn't even use the word "thing" to describe non-existence. We should use it for things that do exist. This is very clear!

You can't show that it's true that "it's possible to know all things that exist", as has been pointed out several times. You even know why, because it's been explained over and over.

Tell you what, if you can show that "it's possible to know all things that exist" is true, I'll send you $500. Seriously.

All you have to do is provide evidence that it's impossible for there to be an unknowable thing.

You think your pointing something out, but you're not because you still don't understand what I'm saying. If you'd rather not understand because you're afraid of being wrong then that's fine, but you'll eventually have to deal with that fear.

Have you ever heard of the term "projection". Because that's what you're doing.

Why would I stop saying something that is accurate?

You know, throughout this and every other thread you participate in, you're constantly being called out by non-theists (and as I recall theists as well) as having fallacious logic. Do you honestly think we're all incorrect and you're correct?

Just because I can't demonstrate all things(that exist) being known, does not mean it's impossible to demonstrate all things(that exist) being known.

So do it. Show that your assertion "it's possible to know all things that exist" is true. Prove us all wrong.

 

[Chriliman]

Or... you're just wrong. Which is the case here. As has been pointed out several times.



You can't show that it's true that "it's possible to know all things that exist", as has been pointed out several times. You even know why, because it's been explained over and over.

Tell you what, if you can show that "it's possible to know all things that exist" is true, I'll send you $500. Seriously.

All you have to do is provide evidence that it's impossible for there to be an unknowable thing.



Have you ever heard of the term "projection". Because that's what you're doing.



You know, throughout this and every other thread you participate in, you're constantly being called out by non-theists (and as I recall theists as well) as having fallacious logic. Do you honestly think we're all incorrect and you're correct?



So do it. Show that your assertion "it's possible to know all things that exist" is true. Prove us all wrong.

Lets say I am wrong and I admit that it is not possible to know all things that exist. How could I possibly know that it's not possible? Where's my proof that it's not possible? I have no proof, what would the proof even consist of? Did I personally experience the impossibility of knowing all things exist? How is that even coherent? Why would you consider what I'm saying to be true?

You see, it doesn't even make sense for me to claim to be wrong in this case.

For the sake of argument, can you run though what it would look like if you admitted you were wrong? Just hypothetically, you don't actually have to admit you are wrong.

 

[Chriliman]

I'll add that is is true that it's currently impossible for me to know all things, but that does not mean it's impossible in general for any being in existence.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Lets say I am wrong and I admit that it is not possible to know all things that exist. How could I possibly know that it's not possible? Where's my proof that it's not possible? I have no proof, what would the proof even consist of? Did I personally experience the impossibility of knowing all things exist? How is that even coherent? Why would you consider what I'm saying to be true?

The point is that the statement "It is possible to know all things" is a statement that can't be proven right. That's not to say that the statement is wrong, but it's the case that no one can know if it's right. So asserting that it's right when you can't logically do so is fallacious.

You see, it doesn't even make sense for me to claim to be wrong in this case.

The "wrongness" is in the asserting that the statement is true.

For the sake of argument, can you run though what it would look like if you admitted you were wrong? Just hypothetically, you don't actually have to admit you are wrong.

Fine, I can play along. It's possible to know everything. Let's say it's possible for me to know everything.

All of my moral statements are still subjective, because they're based on a moral framework that is, by nature, subjective.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I'll add that is is true that it's currently impossible for me to know all things, but that does not mean it's impossible in general for any being in existence.

Oh for Pete's sake...

The statement "It's possible to know all things" is equally unverifiable no matter who it applies to.

 

[Chriliman]

Fine, I can play along. It's possible to know everything. Let's say it's possible for me to know everything.

It may not be possible for you to know all things right now, but is it possible that any existing being at any time could know all things?

If you think it's not possible, then why do you think that?

All of my moral statements are still subjective, because they're based on a moral framework that is, by nature, subjective.

I'm not disputing that.

 

[Dave Ellis]

A true Christian will claim to know God and know that He exists. However, they didn't come to know God before they believed and had faith in His existence and His son Jesus Christ who makes it possible to know God.

So they believed he exists, then after they started believing they found reasons to believe he exists?

That sounds like confirmation bias to me

Sure, but the point I'm making is this: if God exists then it is possible to know Him.

Not necessarily. He may be unknowable.

Now you could say that if God does not exist then it is impossible to know Him, but that's not the point I'm making.

If God does not exist then there wouldn't be so much talk about Him. Yes God is talked about more than unicorns or fairies.

That's fallacious reasoning. Plenty of people talk about Santa Claus, especially in December.

The number of people that believe a thing, does not serve as evidence that thing is true. That's the argument from popularity fallacy.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I'll add that is is true that it's currently impossible for me to know all things, but that does not mean it's impossible in general for any being in existence.

It doesn't mean it's possible either.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

It may not be possible for you to know all things right now, but is it possible that any existing being at any time could know all things?

If you think it's not possible, then why do you think that?

As I've explained, the question is unresolvable. There's no way to know if there are unknowable things. If there are unknowable things, then there can be no being that can know all things.

I'm not disputing that.

Then what on earth is all this leading to?

 

[Chriliman]

So they believed he exists, then after they started believing they found reasons to believe he exists?

One cannot form a belief unless they have something to accept as true, either a truth claim or other evidence.

Yes, truth claims are evidence because they exist in reality and can be objectively analyzed by anyone, just like any other physical evidence.

 

[Dave Ellis]

One cannot form a belief unless they have something to accept as true, either a truth claim or other evidence.

Yes, truth claims are evidence because they exist in reality and can be objectively analyzed by anyone, just like any other physical evidence.

A belief is something you have accepted as true. However, for that belief to be justified you need evidence in order to accept the belief as a valid one.