Replies

"What other kinds of knowledge are there?"

Logic, mathematics.

"I thought your assertion that there is no way there to know if a God exists was based on the assumption that we do not have the ability to scientifically test for the existence of a deity."

We don't. Math and logic won't help us either. Personal revelation can't be trusted, and certainly is not evidence at all for someone who was not the subject of the revelation. And science is also impotent at this time. Unless you know of a way to know if God exists?

Just to be clear on this, you are saying that because we do not have the ability to scientifically test for the existence of a deity you can assert with certainty that there is no way to know if a God exists. At the outset you restrict the search to the natural world by the qualification that the only way to knowledge of the natural world is by science. Of course if you exclude the supernatural from the outset then it's not likely that evidence would be adduced that would disclose the supernatural. But again, it is one thing to say that we cannot perform an experiment to test if a God exists. It is quite another to make the absolute statement, from a finite point of view, that there is no other way to know if God exists. I maintain that it is impossible for you to know that with certainty because you can't and haven't looked everywhere.

Math and logic won't help us either. Personal revelation can't be trusted, and certainly is not evidence at all for someone who was not the subject of the revelation. And science is also impotent at this time. Unless you know of a way to know if God exists?

How do you know that such non-corporeal things as math, logic, propositions, mental states, etc do not provide some knowledge of God?

How do you know that personal revelation necessarily cannot be trusted? I can understand that personal revelation does not necessarily constitute evidence that can be trusted, but then again on the other hand, why would it necessarily be excluded a priori?

As far a science being impotent, I think that that depends on what you include in your defintion of science. For example, are the historical sciences legitimate?

Unless you know of a way to know if God exists?

You are not going to like this. So I'm just going to go ahead and say I'm sorry in advance, but I believe the evidence is embedded in your very replies, and in your very nature, but that you do not want to see it, and resist its disclosure. But my main point is that since you are finite you therefore cannot logically maintain a position of absolute certainty with respect to whether there is not enough information in the world to know if a God exists.

Cordially,